Loading...
Economic Development Packet 2022 06-07-22 - cancelled AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, June 7, 2022 6:00 p.m. City Hall Conference Room 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, IL This meeting has been cancelled. United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 www.yorkville.il.us AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, June 7, 2022 6:00 p.m. City Hall Conference Room 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, IL Citizen Comments: Minutes for Correction/Approval: May 3, 2022 New Business: 1. EDC 2022-30 Building Permit Report for April 2022 2. EDC 2022-31 Building Inspection Report for April 2022 3. EDC 2022-32 Property Maintenance Report for April 2022 4. EDC 2022-33 Economic Development Report for May 2022 5. EDC 2022-34 Graham C Stores (Rezoning, Special Use, Sign Variance, Final Plat) – 107 E. Stagecoach Trl. – Proposed New Fuel Station & Convenience Store 6. EDC 2022-35 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Bricolage Wellness/Windmill Farms) 7. EDC 2022-36 Bristol Bay Units 10 & 12 Proposed Final Plat Approval for Multi-Family Townhome Units Old Business: 1. EDC 2020-32 Urban Chickens 2. EDC 2021-44 Lisa Pickering Loop – Proposed Virtual Bike Path & Monument 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, June 7, 2022 6:00 PM CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITIZEN COMMENTS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MINUTES FOR CORRECTION/APPROVAL: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. May 3, 2022 □ Approved __________ □ As presented □ With corrections --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. EDC 2022-30 Building Permit Report for April 2022 □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. EDC 2022-31 Building Inspection Report for April 2022 □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. EDC 2022-32 Property Maintenance Report for April 2022 □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. EDC 2022-33 Economic Development Report for May 2022 □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. EDC 2022-34 Graham C Stores (Rezoning, Special Use, Sign Variance, Final Plat) – 107 E. Stagecoach Trl. – Proposed New Fuel Station & Convenience Store □ Moved forward to CC __________ □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. EDC 2022-35 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Bricolage Wellness/Windmill Farms) □ Moved forward to CC __________ □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. EDC 2022-36 Bristol Bay Units 10 & 12 Proposed Final Plat Approval for Multi-Family Townhome Units □ 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 ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. EDC 2021-44 Lisa Pickering Loop – Proposed Virtual Bike Path and Monument □ 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 – May 3, 2022 Economic Development Committee – June 7, 2022 Majority Committee Approval Minute Taker Name Department DRAFT Page 1 of 3 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, May 3, 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 Absent: Alderman Joe Plocher Other City Officials City Administrator Bart Olson/in-person Assistant City Administrator Erin Willrett/in-person Community Development Director Krysti Barksdale-Noble/electronic attendance Senior Planner Jason Engberg/electronic attendance Code Official Pete Ratos/in-person Other Guests City Consultant Lynn Dubajic Kellogg/in-person Mark Foster, Kendall County Record/in-person The meeting was called to order at 6:00pm by Chairman Jason Peterson. Citizen Comments None Minutes for Correction/Approval April 5, 2022 The minutes were approved as presented. New Business 1. EDC 2022-24 Building Permit Report for March 2022 Mr. Ratos reported 151 permits issued including 28 single-family permits and 15 commercial. This represents $9 million in construction value. He said many of the permits were issued for Raintree Village. 2. EDC 2022-25 Building Inspection Report for March 2022 There were 767 inspections in March with 201 outsourced and 566 done in-house. Mr. Ratos said he did several inspections for Kendall County. Page 2 of 3 3. EDC 2022-26 Property Maintenance Report for March 2022 There was one case heard in March which involved motor vehicles on property and it was dismissed since the cars were removed. Other cases were responded to, however, only one citation was necessary. 4. EDC 2022-27 Economic Development Report for April 2022 Ms. Dubajic Kellogg reported that Noodles, Gerber Collision and Glass, Chipotle, Belle Tire and Iconic Coffee will be coming to Yorkville and Pet Supplies Plus will be remodeled. The Williams Group has their space 100% leased. Second Chance Cardio has moved and the We Grow Kids has sold their building to the school district. Dakotas will be moving into the Butcher Block space. 5. EDC 2022-28 Microbrewery/Brewpub/Microwinery Zoning Code Text Amendment Mr. Engberg said this is a staff text amendment. The liquor license code was earlier amended and placed several breweries in the same class for liquor code licenses. Staff proposed changes to better align with the zoning ordinance and the liquor license code. Mr. Engberg discussed the primary changes and said they include a limit of 50,000 gallons of wine per year which matches the state statute. The changes also remove any requirements that the facility must be ancillary to a restaurant. He said this matter will go to Public Hearing at the Planning and Zoning Commission next week. Alderman Funkhouser asked if there is a definition for “hand-capped” and said he interpreted it as a manual sealing of bottles. It was decided that the word “sealed” should be used instead. Chairman Peterson asked what the state statute said and if this amendment will make it easier for businesses to start. There is no quantity limit for licenses for the 3 categories and the process will be monitored by the state. It was stated that mead is a type of wine, rather than beer. 6. EDC 2022-29 Future Land Use Change – South Eldamain Corridor Properties Mr. Engberg said last year the city had discussions with the county about changing future land uses on Eldamain and Highpoint Rd. Much of the city uses were for residential while the county uses were mixed use business. The east side of Eldamain is within the city limits and Plano has the west side. In the Comp Plan, the city focused on the unfinished subdivisions and the county reached out to property owners of some of the farm land. One owner preferred mixed use business, while others preferred to wait to state a preference. Kendall County took this information to their Planning Board and ZBA. Mr. Engberg is seeking comments from the committee and staff will continue to look at the area trends. This item will proceed to PZC in June. Chairman Peterson asked for further landowner feedback from the county. Staff will also re-evaluate potential uses when the city updates the Comp Plan. Old Business: 1. EDC 2020-32 Urban Chickens This was discussed last year and was placed on the agenda at Alderman Funkhouser's request since a handful of residents have continued interest. No action was taken when it was last discussed and he hopes it can move forward. Chairman Peterson said that most subdivision HOA's do not allow chickens. Alderman Funkhouser noted that a survey of 28 HOA's, showed a split on allowing vs. not allowing. Alderman Koch noted that he is Page 3 of 3 aware of 2 subdivisions that would put restrictions in place if chickens were allowed by ordinance. Possible problems include dogs chasing chickens, smell, noise, and others. Chairman Peterson shared some of the comments he has received from residents. The committee talked about some of the restrictions that would be put in place if chickens were to be allowed such as solid fencing, limit on number of chickens, lot size, setbacks, etc. Alderman Funkhouser said he wishes to re-address the lot size and setbacks and also does not want chickens on multi-tenant building lots. Staff was asked to look at size lots – 8,000 to 10,000 sq. ft., maximum number of chickens, language about fencing/other enclosure and other restrictions. Alderman Funkhouser asked for a map of lot sizes which staff will compile for next month. Additional Business: None There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 6:46pm. 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 2022-30 Building Permit Report for April 2022 Economic Development Committee – June 7, 2022 Informational None All permits issued in April 2022. D. Weinert Community Development Name Department C:\Users\jbehland\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\7I2NVKCF\Apr 2022.doc Prepared by: D Weinert UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE BUILDING PERMIT REPORT April 2022 TYPES OF PERMITS Number of Permits Issued SFD Single Family Detached SFA Single Family Attached Multi- Family Apartments Condominiums Commercial Includes all Permits Issued for Commercial Use Industrial Misc. Construction Cost Permit Fees April 2022 133 12 4 0 5 0 112 3,850,576.00 127,363.13 Calendar Year 2022 401 59 12 0 33 0 297 18,759,555.00 493,882.15 Fiscal Year 2022 1519 209 148 0 108 0 1054 70,278,932.00 2,425,315.04 April 2021 253 32 2 0 23 0 196 8,588,651.00 272,385.41 Calendar Year 2021 536 99 24 0 50 0 363 24,710,660.00 890,237.69 Fiscal Year 2021 1975 272 118 0 101 0 1484 73,332,344.00 3,185,398.02 April 2020 184 13 2 0 12 0 157 3,467,956.00 131,472.16 Calendar Year 2020 386 46 4 0 39 0 297 11,738,512.00 466,252.02 Fiscal Year 2020 2247 141 34 0 113 0 1959 53,402,962.00 1,724,672.01 April 2019 131 7 5 0 6 0 113 4,318,097.00 132,864.78 Calendar Year 2019 281 48 5 0 43 0 185 17,469,980.00 606,829.72 Fiscal Year 2019 980 217 5 0 118 0 640 56,778,613.00 2,066,352.00 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 2022-31 Building Inspection Report for April 2022 Economic Development Committee – June 7, 2022 Informational None All inspections scheduled in April 2022. D. Weinert Community Development Name Department DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 1DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 1TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20180142 1933 PRAIRIE ROSE LN 99 04/12/2022 Comments1: BASEMENT FINISH MARK 630-391-3316 -- SEE Comments2: INSPECTION REPORTBC _____ 004-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/12/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION TICKETBC _____ AM 005-REI REINSPECTION 04/27/2022 Comments1: MARK DILDAY 630-691-3316GH _____ 019-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20190886 2061 WREN RD 29 04/12/2022 Comments1: STEVE 630-546-1085 -- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTGH _____ 020-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/12/2022GH _____ 021-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 04/12/2022PR _____ 022-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/12/2022 Comments1: STEVE 630-546-1085BF _____ AM 019-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201307 928 GILLESPIE LN 141 04/20/2022 Comments1: ABBY 630-365-7229 RE BUILDINGBF _____ AM 012-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201310 924 GILLESPIE LN 139 04/20/2022 Comments1: ABBY 630-365-7229BF _____ AM 013-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/20/2022BF _____ AM 014-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 04/20/2022PBF _____ AM 015-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/20/2022 Comments1: KENDALL MARKETPLACE -- ABBY 630-365-7229GH _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20210149 3732 BAILEY RD 135 04/14/2022 Comments1: ZACH --224-340-5860GH _____ 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/14/2022GH _____ 018-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 04/14/2022PBF _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/14/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- ZACH 224-340-5860EEI _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 04/18/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONSGH _____ AM 021-WK SERVICE WALK 04/28/2022 Comments1: 630-232-2255 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 2DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 2TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 022-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 04/28/2022 Comments1: PARTIAL - NEED TO INSTALL ACROSS DRIVEWA Comments2: Y AND SQUARE NORTH OF DRIVEWAYGH _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20210150 3734 BAILEY RD 1354 04/01/2022 Comments1: ZACH 224-340-5860GH _____ 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/01/2022GH _____ 018-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 04/01/2022PBF _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/01/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- ZACH 224-340-5860GH _____ AM 020-WK SERVICE WALK 04/28/2022 Comments1: WEST SUB 630-232-2255GH _____ AM 021-WK SERVICE WALK 20210151 3736 BAILEY RD 1351 04/28/2022 Comments1: WEST SUB 630-232-2255GH _____ AM 021-WK SERVICE WALK 20210152 3738 BAILEY RD 1352 04/28/2022 Comments1: WEST SUB 630-232-2255GH _____ AM 020-WK SERVICE WALK 20210153 3740 BAILEY RD 1351 04/28/2022 Comments1: WEST SUB -- 630-232-2255GH _____ 022-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20210154 3722 BAILEY RD 1361 04/28/2022 Comments1: PARTIALGH _____ 021-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20210155 3724 BAILEY RD 1362 04/28/2022GH _____ 020-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20210156 3726 BAILEY RD 1363 04/28/2022GH _____ 019-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20210157 3728 BAILEY RD 1364 04/28/2022GH _____ 019-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20210158 3730 BAILEY RD 1365 04/28/2022BC _____ 019-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20210416 2072 WHITEKIRK LN 97 04/05/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175BC _____ AM 020-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 04/12/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175BC _____ AM 020-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20210421 2078 WHITEKIRK LN 98 04/05/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175BC _____ AM 021-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 04/12/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 3DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 3TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ AM 021-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20210422 2066 DUNBAR CT 95 04/05/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN -- 815-839-8175BC _____ AM 020-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20210530 2068 WHITEKIRK LN 96 04/05/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175BC _____ 021-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 04/12/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ 016-STP STOOP 20210558 1232 HAWK HOLLOW DR 273 04/08/2022 Comments1: UPLAND 630-465-1159 -- FRONTGH _____ 017-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 04/26/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ 018-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/28/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ 014-STP STOOP 20210559 1234 HAWK HOLLOW DR 273 04/08/2022 Comments1: UPLAND 630-465-1159--FRONTGH _____ 015-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 04/26/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 016-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/28/2022 Comments1: JOSE -- 630-465-1159EEI _____ AM 028-REI REINSPECTION 20210577 3965 SHOEGER DR 34 04/25/2022 Comments1: UNABLE TO KEY B-BOXEEI _____ 027-REI REINSPECTION 20210578 3963 SHOEGER DR 34 04/25/2022GH _____ AM 017-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20210793 3126 JUSTICE DR 616 04/19/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159GH _____ 018-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 04/25/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159 ((((CANCELLED)) Comments2: ))GH _____ AM 018-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20210794 3129 JUSTICE DR 687 04/19/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159GH _____ 019-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 04/25/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20210809 3161 JUSTICE DR 697 04/06/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 4DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 4TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 04/13/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/13/2022GH _____ 008-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 04/28/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 014-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20210892 1272 HAWK HOLLOW DR 2691 04/05/2022 Comments1: GEORGE -- 630-549-9538GH _____ 015-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/05/2022GH _____ 016-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 04/05/2022PBF _____ 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/05/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE -- GEORGE 630-549-9538EEI _____ 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 04/04/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPGH _____ 014-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20210893 1274 HAWK HOLLOW DR 2691 04/04/2022 Comments1: GEORGE 630-549-9538GH _____ 015-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/04/2022GH _____ 016-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 04/04/2022PR _____ 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/04/2022 Comments1: GEORGE -- 630-549-9538EEI _____ 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 04/04/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPGH _____ 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20210894 1244 HAWK HOLLOW DR 2722 04/05/2022 Comments1: GEORGE 630-549-9538 -- SEE INSPECTION RE Comments2: PORTGH _____ 010-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/05/2022GH _____ 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/05/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION TICKETPR _____ 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/05/2022 Comments1: GEORGE 630-549-9538GH _____ 013-INS INSULATION 04/07/2022 Comments1: GEORGE 630-549-9538 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 5DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 5TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ 014-SUM SUMP 04/08/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE -- CATHY 630-387-2001GH _____ 015-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/08/2022 Comments1: UPLAND 630-465-1159 GAR STPGH _____ 016-REI REINSPECTION 04/07/2022 Comments1: ROUGH FRAMINGGH _____ 017-REI REINSPECTION 04/07/2022 Comments1: ROUGH MECHANICALGH _____ 018-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 04/26/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 019-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/28/2022 Comments1: PATIO -- JOSE -- 630-465-1159GH _____ 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20210895 1242 HAWK HOLLOW DR 2722 04/06/2022 Comments1: GEORGE 630-549-9538 SEE INSPECTION REPOR Comments2: TGH _____ 010-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/06/2022GH _____ 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/06/2022PBF _____ 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/06/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE -- GEORGE 630-549-9538GH _____ 013-INS INSULATION 04/08/2022 Comments1: GEORGE 630-549-9538PR _____ PM 014-SUM SUMP 04/08/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE - CATHY 630-387-2001GH _____ 015-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/08/2022 Comments1: UPLAND 630-465-1159 GAR STPGH _____ 016-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 04/26/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 017-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/28/2022 Comments1: PATIO -- JOSE -- 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 022-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20210942 2954 OLD GLORY DR 265 04/12/2022 Comments1: CLEAN EDGE 630-364-0224GH _____ AM 023-WK SERVICE WALK 04/12/2022 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 6DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 6TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ AM 019-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20210949 3121 JUSTICE DR 685 04/19/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159GH _____ 020-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 04/25/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 019-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20210950 3125 JUSTICE DR 686 04/19/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159GH _____ 020-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 04/25/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159BC _____ 007-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 20210951 1264 HAWK HOLLOW DR 270-1 04/19/2022 Comments1: JEFF-- 847-456-8082GH _____ 008-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 04/26/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 009-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/28/2022 Comments1: PATIO -- JOSE -- 630-465-1159BC _____ 008-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 20210952 1262 HAWK HOLLOW DR 270-2 04/19/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082GH _____ 009-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 04/26/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 010-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/28/2022 Comments1: PATIO -- JOSE -- 630-465-1159PR _____ PM 008-SUM SUMP 20210953 1254 HAWK HOLLOW DR 271-1 04/08/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE - CATHY 630-387-2001GH _____ 009-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 04/26/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 010-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/28/2022 Comments1: PATIO -- JOSE -- 630-465-1159PR _____ PM 008-SUM SUMP 20210954 1252 HAWK HOLLOW DR 271-2 04/08/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE - CATHY 630-387-2001GH _____ 009-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 04/26/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 010-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/28/2022 Comments1: PATIO -- JOSE -- 630-465-1159 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 7DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 7TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 021-WK SERVICE WALK 20210974 2721 POTTER CT 142 04/27/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ 021-WK SERVICE WALK 20210975 2725 POTTER CT 143 04/27/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 018-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211002 2463 JUSTICE CT 618 04/19/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159GH _____ 019-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 04/25/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159 (((((((CANCE Comments2: LLED))))GH _____ AM 019-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211003 2461 JUSTICE CT 617 04/19/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159GH _____ 020-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 04/25/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159 (((((CANCELLED) Comments2: ))))GH _____ AM 018-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211004 3109 JUSTICE DR 684 04/19/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159GH _____ 019-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 04/25/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159 -- ADD REBARGH _____ AM 018-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211036 3105 JUSTICE DR 683 04/19/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159GH _____ 019-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 04/25/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159 -- ADD REBARGH _____ AM 019-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211040 2161 COUNTRY HILLS DR 445 04/21/2022 Comments1: PARTIAL, NOT ACROSS ENTIRE DRIVEWAY AREA Comments2: (FOR H/O ACCESS)GH _____ AM 020-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 04/21/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 019-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211041 2141 COUNTRY HILLS DR 446 04/21/2022 Comments1: PARTIAL, NOT ACROSS ENTIRE DRIVEWAY AREA Comments2: (FOR H/O ACCESS)GH _____ AM 020-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 04/21/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 020-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211042 2121 COUNTRY HILLS DR 447 04/20/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 8DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 8TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ AM 021-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 04/20/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 014-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211043 2091 COUNTRY HILLS DR 449 04/20/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 015-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 04/20/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066GH _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 04/25/2022 Comments1: JEFF LENNAR 847-456-8082GH _____ 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/25/2022 Comments1: JEFF LENNAR 847-456-8082GH _____ 018-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 04/25/2022 Comments1: JEFF LENNAR 847-456-8082PBF _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/25/2022 Comments1: JEFF LENNAR 847-456-8082EEI _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 04/22/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS JEFF LENNAR 847-456-80 Comments2: 82GH _____ 012-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211044 2101 COUNTRY HILLS DR 448 04/14/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082GH _____ 013-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/14/2022GH _____ 014-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 04/14/2022PBF _____ 015-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/14/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE -- JEFF - 847-456-8082EEI _____ 016-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 04/14/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPGH _____ AM 017-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 04/20/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 018-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 04/20/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066EEI _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211073 2058 SQUIRE CIR 188 04/14/2022 Comments1: FINAL SITEBF _____ PM 019-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211074 2851 ALDEN AVE 288 04/06/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 9DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 9TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ AM 022-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211098 2078 ABERDEEN CT 103 04/05/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175 -- NOT READY FOR Comments2: INSPECTIONGH _____ AM 023-REI REINSPECTION 04/06/2022 Comments1: PUBLIC WALKS -- MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 024-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 04/27/2022 Comments1: MDW 815-839-8175 -- NEEDS REBARGH _____ AM 019-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211099 2102 WHITEKIRK LN 104 04/27/2022 Comments1: MDW 815-839-8175 -- NEEDS REBARBC _____ AM 023-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211100 2068 ABERDEEN CT 102 04/05/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175 -- NOT READY FOR Comments2: INSPECTIONGH _____ AM 024-REI REINSPECTION 04/06/2022 Comments1: PUBLIC WALKS -- MIDWEST 815-839-8175BC _____ AM 025-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 04/12/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175BC _____ AM 020-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211101 2077 ABERDEEN CT 100 04/05/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175BC _____ AM 021-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 04/12/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211105 1142 HAWK HOLLOW DR 302-1 04/12/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTGH _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/12/2022GH _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/12/2022PBF _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/12/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ PM 012-INS INSULATION 04/14/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082GH _____ 013-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 04/13/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 014-STP STOOP 04/27/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 10DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 10TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211106 1138 HAWK HOLLOW DR 302-2 04/14/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082BF _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/14/2022BF _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/14/2022PBF _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/14/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE -- JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 012-INS INSULATION 04/20/2022GH _____ 013-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 04/14/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 014-STP STOOP 04/27/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159BF _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211107 1136 HAWK HOLLOW DR 302-3 04/20/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082BF _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/20/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082BF _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/20/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082PBF _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/20/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 012-INS INSULATION 04/25/2022BF _____ 013-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 04/20/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 014-STP STOOP 04/27/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159GH _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211108 1134 HAWK HOLLOW DR 302-4 04/25/2022GH _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/25/2022GH _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/25/2022PBF _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/25/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 012-INS INSULATION 04/28/2022 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 11DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 11TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 013-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 04/25/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 014-STP STOOP 04/27/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159BF _____ 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211113 1143 HAWK HOLLOW DR 307-1 04/26/2022 Comments1: JEFF LENNAR 847-456-8082BF _____ 016-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/26/2022 Comments1: JEFF LENNAR 847-456-8082BF _____ 017-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 04/26/2022 Comments1: JEFF LENNAR 847-456-8082EEI _____ 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 04/29/2022 Comments1: JEFF LENNAR 847-456-8082 WINTER CONDITIO Comments2: NS, OK TO TEMPPBF _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/26/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082EEI _____ 015-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211114 1145 HAWK HOLLOW DR 307-2 04/29/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS,EEI _____ 015-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211115 1147 HAWK HOLLOW DR 307-3 04/29/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPEEI _____ 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211116 1149 HAWK HOLLOW DR 307-4 04/29/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPGH _____ AM 020-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211121 2466 JUSTICE CT 621 04/19/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159** CANCELLED **GH _____ AM 018-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211122 2471 JUSTICE CT 620 04/19/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159GH _____ 019-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 04/25/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159 -- ((((CANCELLE Comments2: D))))GH _____ AM 020-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211123 2465 JUSTICE CT 619 04/19/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159GH _____ 021-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 04/25/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159 (((((CANCELLED) Comments2: ))) DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 12DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 12TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ AM 013-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 20211141 966 S CARLY CIR 104 04/14/2022 Comments1: JOE 630-816-6908BC _____ AM 014-STP STOOP 04/14/2022 Comments1: JOE 630-816-6908EEI _____ AM 015-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 04/19/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONSPR _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 04/18/2022PR _____ 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/18/2022PR _____ 018-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 04/18/2022PR _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/18/2022BC _____ PM 020-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/26/2022 Comments1: JOE 630-816-6908BF _____ PM 017-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211152 4062 SHOEGER CT 29 04/06/2022 Comments1: ABBY 630-365-7229BF _____ PM 018-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/06/2022BF _____ PM 019-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 04/06/2022PBF _____ PM 020-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/08/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE ABBY 630-365-7229EEI _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 04/11/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPBF _____ PM 017-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211153 4064 SHOEGER CT 29 04/06/2022 Comments1: ABBY 630-365-7229BF _____ PM 018-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/06/2022BF _____ PM 019-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 04/06/2022PBF _____ PM 020-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/06/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- ABBY 630-365-7229EEI _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 04/11/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPBC _____ 001-BND POOL BONDING 20211154 2011 RAINTREE RD 64 04/28/2022 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 13DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 13TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ AM 020-WK SERVICE WALK 20211161 2710 NICKERSON CT 167 04/08/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175EEI _____ 022-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211162 2056 SQUIRE CIR 189 04/14/2022 Comments1: FINAL SITEGH _____ 014-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211182 1157 HAWK HOLLOW DR 306 04/01/2022 Comments1: JEFF--847-456-8082GH _____ 015-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/01/2022 Comments1: JEFF--847-456-8082GH _____ 016-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 04/01/2022PBF _____ 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/01/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE -- JEFF 847-456-8082PR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211199 1124 HAWK HOLLOW DR 301-4 04/01/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082BC _____ 006-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/06/2022 Comments1: STOOPS -SLABS AND GARAGE JOSE 630-465-11 Comments2: 59PR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211200 1126 HAWK HOLLOW DR 301-3 04/01/2022BC _____ PM 006-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/06/2022 Comments1: GARAGE, STOOPS, SLABPR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211201 1128 HAWK HOLLOW DR 301-2 04/01/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082BC _____ PM 006-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/06/2022 Comments1: SLAB. GARAGE AND STOOPSPR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211202 1132 HAWK HOLLOW DR 301-1 04/01/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082BC _____ PM 006-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/06/2022 Comments1: SLAB, STOOPS AND GARAGEBF _____ 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211211 2201 COUNTRY HILLS DR 470 04/25/2022 Comments1: JEFF LENNAR 847-456-8082BF _____ 016-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/25/2022 Comments1: JEFF LENNAR 847-456-8082BF _____ 017-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 04/25/2022 Comments1: JEFF LENNAR 847-456-8082 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 14DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 14TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PBF _____ 018-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/27/2022 Comments1: JEFF LENNAR 847-456-8082EEI _____ 019-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 04/22/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS JEFF LENNAR 847-456-80 Comments2: 82GH _____ AM 020-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 04/21/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 021-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 04/21/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066EEI _____ AM 022-ADA ADA ACCESSIBLE WALK WAY 04/21/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066GH _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211212 2221 COUNTRY HILLS DR 469 04/14/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082GH _____ 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/14/2022GH _____ 018-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 04/14/2022PBF _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/14/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082EEI _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 04/14/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPGH _____ AM 021-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 04/21/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 022-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 04/21/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066BF _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211229 3848 BAILEY RD 1191 04/05/2022 Comments1: CHRIS -- 224-358-1606 -- SEE INSPECTION Comments2: REPORTBF _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/05/2022BF _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/05/2022PBF _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/05/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE-- CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 012-INS INSULATION 04/07/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORT DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 15DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 15TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211230 3846 BAILEY RD 1192 04/07/2022GH _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/07/2022GH _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/07/2022PBF _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/07/2022GH _____ 012-INS INSULATION 04/11/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606BF _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211231 3844 BAILEY RD 1193 04/20/2022 Comments1: CHRIS DR HORTON 224-358-1606BF _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/20/2022 Comments1: CHRIS DR HORTON 224-358-1606BF _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/20/2022 Comments1: CHRIS DR HORTON 224-358-1606PBF _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/20/2022 Comments1: CHRIS DR HORTON 224-358-1606GH _____ 012-REI REINSPECTION 04/22/2022 Comments1: RE-ROUGH MECHANICAL ZACH 224-340-5860GH _____ 013-INS INSULATION 04/27/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606BF _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211232 3842 BAILEY RD 1194 04/25/2022 Comments1: ZACH/HORTON 224-340-5860BF _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/25/2022 Comments1: ZACH/HORTON 224-340-5860BF _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/25/2022 Comments1: ZACH/HORTON 224-340-5860PBF _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/25/2022 Comments1: ZACH/HORTON 224-340-5860GH _____ 012-INS INSULATION 04/27/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 020-WK SERVICE WALK 20211243 2719 POTTER CT 141 04/27/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175BF _____ PM 020-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211244 2902 ALDEN AVE 323 04/06/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 16DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 16TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ PM 019-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211245 2898 ROOD ST 303 04/07/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175 -- SEE INSPECTION R Comments2: EPORTBF _____ 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211246 621 ASHWORTH LN 513 04/07/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTBF _____ 010-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/07/2022BF _____ 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/07/2022PBF _____ 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/07/2022 Comments1: JEFF -847-456-8082GH _____ 013-INS INSULATION 04/12/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082BC _____ 019-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211258 2067 ABERDEEN CT 101 04/05/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175BC _____ AM 020-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 04/12/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ 022-WK SERVICE WALK 20211272 4822 W MILLBROOK CIR 11 04/27/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175PR _____ 018-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20211282 2861 CRYDER WAY 475 04/20/2022PR _____ 019-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 04/20/2022PR _____ 020-EDA ENGINEERING - DRIVEWAY AP 04/20/2022GH _____ 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211290 2464 JUSTICE CT 622 04/11/2022 Comments1: ZACH 224-340-5860GH _____ 016-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/11/2022GH _____ 017-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 04/11/2022PR _____ 018-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/11/2022 Comments1: ZACH 224-340-5860EEI _____ 019-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 04/11/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPBC _____ 013-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211291 2462 JUSTICE CT 623 04/20/2022 Comments1: ZACH 224-340-5860 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 17DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 17TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 014-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/20/2022BC _____ 015-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 04/20/2022PBF _____ 016-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/20/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE--ZACH 224-350-5860EEI _____ 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 04/20/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONSBC _____ 020-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211308 2082 WHITEKIRK LN 99 04/05/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175BC _____ AM 021-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 04/12/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175PR _____ PM 015-SUM SUMP 20211309 2274 RICHMOND AVE 473 04/08/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE - CATHY 630-387-2001BF _____ AM 019-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211310 2875 ROOD ST 319 04/14/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175BF _____ PM 019-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211311 2898 ALDEN AVE 324 04/06/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 017-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20211312 2282 RICHMOND AVE 474 04/04/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066PR _____ PM 018-SUM SUMP 04/08/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE - CATHY 630-387-2001GH _____ 012-INS INSULATION 20211318 2288 RICHMOND AVE 475 04/05/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ AM 013-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/04/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066PR _____ PM 014-SUM SUMP 04/08/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE -- CATHY 630-387-2001BC _____ AM 015-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 04/20/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 009-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20211319 581 ASHWORTH LN 515 04/04/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 010-STP STOOP 04/11/2022 Comments1: FRONT AND REAR OSCAR 847-551-9066 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 18DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 18TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 011-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 04/18/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 012-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/18/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 013-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/18/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082PBF _____ 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/15/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 015-INS INSULATION 04/20/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082BF _____ AM 020-WK SERVICE WALK 20211329 4838 W MILLBROOK CIR 9 04/28/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175PBF _____ AM 007-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211332 4028 BRADY ST 6 04/26/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE ----ABBY 630-365-7229PBF _____ AM 008-REI REINSPECTION 04/28/2022 Comments1: UNDERGROUND PLUMBING -- ABBY 630-365-722 Comments2: 9PBF _____ AM 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211333 4026 BRADY ST 6 04/26/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- ABBY 630-365-7229PBF _____ AM 007-REI REINSPECTION 04/28/2022 Comments1: UNDERGROUND PLUMBING -- ABBY 630-365-722 Comments2: 9PR _____ PM 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211375 807 ALEXANDRA LN 11 04/04/2022 Comments1: MARKER 630-977-1868PR _____ PM 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/04/2022 Comments1: MARKER 630-977-1868PR _____ PM 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/04/2022 Comments1: MARKER 630-977-1868PR _____ PM 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/04/2022 Comments1: MARKER 630-977-1868BF _____ 012-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/06/2022 Comments1: GAR & STOOPS, GARY/MARKER 630-877-1868GH _____ 013-INS INSULATION 04/07/2022 Comments1: MARKER 630-877-1868 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 19DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 19TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 003-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211385 2525 EMERALD LN 123 04/21/2022 Comments1: MICHAEL 224-629-0248PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211396 3159 JUSTICE DR 696 04/06/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 006-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 04/07/2022 Comments1: CHRIS -- 224-358-1606GH _____ 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 04/13/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/13/2022BC _____ 009-STP STOOP 04/19/2022 Comments1: VIRTUALPBF _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211397 3155 JUSTICE DR 695 04/06/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 04/13/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/13/2022GH _____ 009-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 04/28/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211398 3151 JUSTICE DR 694 04/06/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 04/13/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/13/2022GH _____ 008-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 04/28/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 005-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 20211399 3149 JUSTICE DR 693 04/05/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606PBF _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 04/06/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211400 3361 SEELEY ST 805 04/07/2022 Comments1: ZACH 224-340-5860 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 20DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 20TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 016-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/07/2022GH _____ 017-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 04/07/2022PR _____ 018-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/06/2022 Comments1: ZACH 224-340-5860EEI _____ 019-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 04/04/2022 Comments1: ZACH 224-340-5860, WINTER CONDITIONS. OK Comments2: TO TEMPBF _____ 012-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211401 3365 SEELEY ST 806 04/28/2022 Comments1: ZACH 224-340-5860BF _____ 013-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/28/2022BF _____ 014-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 04/28/2022PBF _____ 015-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/28/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- ZACH 224-340-5860EEI _____ 016-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 04/28/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONSBC _____ 017-REI REINSPECTION 04/28/2022 Comments1: FINAL PLUMBING --GH _____ 007-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211403 3364 SEELEY ST 724 04/01/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606 -- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTGH _____ 008-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/01/2022GH _____ 009-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/01/2022PR _____ 010-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/01/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 011-REI REINSPECTION 04/01/2022 Comments1: ROUGH FRAMING -- CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 012-INS INSULATION 04/05/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606PBF _____ AM 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211411 4006 BRADY ST 7 04/26/2022 Comments1: ABBY 630-365-7229PBF _____ AM 007-REI REINSPECTION 04/28/2022 Comments1: UNDERGROUND PLUMBING -- ABBY 630-365-722 Comments2: 9 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 21DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 21TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PBF _____ AM 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211412 4008 BRADY ST 7 04/26/2022 Comments1: ABBY 630-365-7229PBF _____ AM 007-REI REINSPECTION 04/28/2022 Comments1: UNDERGROUND PLUMBING -- ABBY 630-365-722 Comments2: 9GH _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20211421 521 OMAHA DR 4 04/08/2022 Comments1: JOHN 630-862-8053BF _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20211434 2196 FAIRFAX WAY 509 04/06/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066BF _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 04/12/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066BF _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 04/18/2022 Comments1: OSCAR 847-551-9066PBF _____ PM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 04/20/2022 Comments1: 630-387-2001 VERUNAGH _____ AM 008-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20211435 2182 FAIRFAX WAY 510 04/07/2022 Comments1: JUAN CARLOS 847-551-9066GH _____ 009-STP STOOP 04/11/2022 Comments1: FRONT & REARBF _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 04/28/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082BF _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/28/2022BF _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/28/2022PBF _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/28/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE -- JEFF 847-456-8082BF _____ PM 012-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20211438 1965 MEADOWLARK LN 125 04/20/2022 Comments1: RICH 630-273-5932 GARAGE, STOOPBF _____ 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211454 3102 JUSTICE DR 627 04/25/2022 Comments1: ZACH/HORTON 224-340-5860BF _____ 010-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/25/2022 Comments1: ZACH/HORTON 224-340-5860BF _____ 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/25/2022 Comments1: ZACH/HORTON 224-340-5860 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 22DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 22TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PBF _____ 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/25/2022 Comments1: ZACH/HORTON 224-340-5860GH _____ 013-INS INSULATION 04/28/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211456 3104 JUSTICE DR 626 04/12/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 010-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/12/2022GH _____ 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/12/2022PBF _____ 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/12/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 013-INS INSULATION 04/18/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORT CHRIS 224-358-1606BF _____ 007-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211457 3360 SEELEY ST 725 04/14/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606BF _____ 008-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/14/2022BF _____ 009-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/14/2022PBF _____ 010-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/14/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 011-INS INSULATION 04/18/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORT -- CHRIS 224-358-1 Comments2: 606BF _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211458 3356 SEELEY ST 726 04/28/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606BF _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/28/2022BF _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/28/2022PBF _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/28/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- CHRIS 224-358-1606PR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211464 3828 BAILEY RD 123-1 04/21/2022 Comments1: CHRIS/DR HORTON 224-358-1606GH _____ AM 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/29/2022 Comments1: WEST SUB 630-232-2255 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 23DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 23TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ AM 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 04/29/2022 Comments1: WEST SUB 630-232-2255 VAPOR BARRIER SHOR Comments2: T IN BASEMENT, FAR WESTPR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211465 3826 BAILEY RD 123-2 04/21/2022 Comments1: CHRIS/DR HORTON 224-358-1606GH _____ AM 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/29/2022 Comments1: WEST SUB 630-232-2255GH _____ AM 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 04/29/2022 Comments1: WEST SUB 630-232-2255PR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211466 3824 BAILEY RD 123-3 04/21/2022 Comments1: CHRIS/DR HORTON 224-358-1606GH _____ AM 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/29/2022 Comments1: WEST SUB 630-232-2255GH _____ AM 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 04/29/2022 Comments1: WEST SUB 630-232-2255PR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211467 3822 BAILEY RD 123-4 04/21/2022 Comments1: CHRIS/DR HORTON 224-358-1606GH _____ AM 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/29/2022 Comments1: WEST SUB 630-232-2255GH _____ AM 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 04/29/2022 Comments1: WEST SUB 630-232-2255BF _____ PM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20211468 3739 BISSEL DR 124-1 04/04/2022 Comments1: WEST SUBURBAN 630-232-2255GH _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 04/08/2022 Comments1: WEST SUB. 630-232-2255PR _____ PM 004-WAT WATER 04/19/2022 Comments1: TERRI 847-526-3788BF _____ PM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20211469 3741 BISSEL DR 124-2 04/04/2022 Comments1: WEST SUBURBAN 630-232-2255GH _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 04/08/2022 Comments1: WEST SUB. 630-232-2255PR _____ PM 004-WAT WATER 04/18/2022 Comments1: TERRI 847-526-3788 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 24DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 24TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ PM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20211470 3743 BISSEL DR 124-3 04/04/2022 Comments1: WEST SUB 630-232-2255GH _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 04/08/2022 Comments1: WEST SUB -- 630-232-2255PR _____ PM 004-WAT WATER 04/18/2022 Comments1: TERRI -847-526-3788BF _____ PM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20211471 3745 BISSEL DR 124-4 04/04/2022 Comments1: WEST SUB 630-232-2255GH _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 04/08/2022 Comments1: WEST SUB 630-232-2255PR _____ PM 004-WAT WATER 04/18/2022 Comments1: TERRI 847-526-3788BF _____ PM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20211472 3747 BISSEL DR 124-5 04/04/2022 Comments1: WEST SUB -- 630-232-2255GH _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 04/08/2022 Comments1: WEST SUB 630-232-2255PR _____ PM 004-WAT WATER 04/18/2022 Comments1: TERRI 847-526-3788BF _____ PM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20211473 3749 BISSEL DR 124-6 04/04/2022 Comments1: WEST SUB 630-232-2255GH _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 04/08/2022 Comments1: WEST SUB 630-232-2255PR _____ PM 004-WAT WATER 04/18/2022 Comments1: TERRI 847-526-3788GH _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211480 4814 W MILLBROOK CIR 12 04/06/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342GH _____ 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/06/2022GH _____ 018-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 04/06/2022PR _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/06/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342EEI _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 04/06/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMP DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 25DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 25TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 021-WK SERVICE WALK 04/27/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20211483 641 ASHWORTH LN 512 04/11/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066GH _____ 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/11/2022GH _____ AM 010-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20211484 2276 FAIRFAX WAY 503 04/04/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066BF _____ 011-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 04/08/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082BF _____ 012-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/08/2022BF _____ 013-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/08/2022PBF _____ 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/08/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE JEFF-847-456-8082GH _____ 015-INS INSULATION 04/12/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082BF _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20211485 2204 FAIRFAX WAY 508 04/06/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066BF _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 04/08/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066PBF _____ PM 003-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 04/21/2022 Comments1: 630-387-2001 VERUNABF _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20211486 661 ASHWORTH LN 511 04/07/2022 Comments1: JUAN -- 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 04/12/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066PBF _____ PM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 04/14/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211487 2282 FAIRFAX WAY 502 04/05/2022 Comments1: JEFF- 847-456-8082BF _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20211488 2222 FAIRFAX WAY 507 04/05/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 26DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 26TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 04/08/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066PBF _____ PM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 04/14/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001PR _____ PM 002-FTG FOOTING 20211517 1133 TAUS CIR 108 04/05/2022 Comments1: JOHN/SOPRIS 630-546-8057PR 09:00 003-FOU FOUNDATION 04/08/2022 Comments1: SOPRIS 630-546-8087BC _____ 004-BKF BACKFILL 04/14/2022 Comments1: SOPRIS 630-546-8057GH _____ 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211528 2142 WHITEKIRK LN 107 04/05/2022 Comments1: STEVE 630-546-1085GH _____ 016-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/05/2022GH _____ 017-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 04/05/2022PBF _____ 018-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/05/2022 Comments1: PRESTWICK -- STEVE 630-546-1085EEI _____ 019-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 04/06/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPGH _____ AM 020-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 04/27/2022 Comments1: MDW 815-839-8175 -- NEED REBAR AND SLEEV Comments2: ESBF _____ 019-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211529 2162 WHITEKIRK LN 108 04/14/2022 Comments1: STEVE 630-546-1085 -- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTBF _____ 020-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/14/2022 Comments1: STEVE 630-546-1085BF _____ 021-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 04/14/2022PBF _____ 022-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/14/2022 Comments1: PRESTWICK -- 630-546-1085EEI _____ 023-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 04/14/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPGH _____ AM 024-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 04/27/2022 Comments1: MDW 815-839-8175 - NEED REBAR AND SLEEVE Comments2: S DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 27DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 27TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ AM 021-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211530 2112 WHITEKIRK LN 105 04/27/2022 Comments1: MDW 815-839-8175 -- NEED REBAR AND SLEEV Comments2: ESGH _____ AM 022-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211531 2122 WHITEKIRK LN 106 04/27/2022 Comments1: MDW 815-839-8175 -- NEED REBAR AND SLEEV Comments2: ESBC _____ AM 014-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20211540 722 OMAHA DR 46 04/13/2022 Comments1: KATHY 630-904-2288BC _____ AM 015-STP STOOP 04/13/2022 Comments1: KATHY 630-904-2288GH _____ AM 016-STP STOOP 04/18/2022 Comments1: NORWOOD 630-904-2288GH _____ AM 001-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20211548 2684 PATRIOT CT 221 04/08/2022 Comments1: BACK YARD -- JOHN 630-862-8053PBF _____ AM 004-WAT WATER 20211572 2702 NICKERSON CT 171 04/01/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- AL'S 630-492-7635BF _____ AM 005-BKF BACKFILL 04/04/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342PBF _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 04/13/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- ANDREW 331-431-7342BF _____ 007-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/18/2022 Comments1: SLAB AND GARAGE -- MIDWEST 815-839-8175BC _____ AM 020-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211573 2881 ALDEN AVE 293 04/11/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 021-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 04/19/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175 ADD REBAR AT B-BOXPR _____ 004-ABC ABOVE CEILING 20211599 945 ERICA LN 04/05/2022 Comments1: FRANK/SEPHORA KOHLS 630-329-3435BC _____ PM 005-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/07/2022 Comments1: FRANK/SEPHORA 630-329-3435PR _____ 006-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 04/07/2022 Comments1: FINAL OCCUPANCYGH _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211605 2056 DUNBAR CT 94 04/18/2022 Comments1: STEVE 630-546-1085 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 28DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 28TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/18/2022GH _____ 018-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 04/18/2022PBF _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/15/2022 Comments1: PRESTWICK STEVE 630-546-1085EEI _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 04/18/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPGH _____ AM 021-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 04/27/2022 Comments1: MDW 815-839-8175BF _____ AM 022-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 04/28/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211606 2716 POTTER CT 148 04/04/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- ANDREW 331-431-7342GH _____ AM 006-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/07/2022GH _____ AM 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/07/2022GH _____ AM 008-STP STOOP 04/07/2022 Comments1: FRONT AND REARGH _____ 017-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211607 3002 MCLELLAN BLVD 526 04/04/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615GH _____ 018-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/04/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615GH _____ 019-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 04/04/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615PBF _____ 020-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/04/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615BF _____ PM 021-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 04/06/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175BC _____ 004-REI REINSPECTION 20211627 1162 TAUS CIR 126 04/13/2022 Comments1: DECK FINAL ANDY 630-514-9062BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211635 402 OAKWOOD ST 04/11/2022 Comments1: 603-521-0444 WINDOWSGH _____ AM 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20211660 2362 RICHMOND AVE 480 04/04/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 29DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 29TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ PM 008-SUM SUMP 04/08/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE - CATHY 630-387-2001GH _____ AM 009-STP STOOP 04/11/2022 Comments1: FRONT AND REAR -- OSCAR 847-551-9066PR _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 04/19/2022 Comments1: JEFF -847-456-8082PR _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/19/2022PR _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/19/2022PR _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/19/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082GH _____ 014-INS INSULATION 04/22/2022 Comments1: JEFF - 847-456-8082GH _____ AM 015-WK SERVICE WALK 20211676 2722 POTTER CT 145 04/08/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 04/29/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342 ANCHOR LAUNDRY TUBGH _____ 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/29/2022GH _____ 018-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 04/29/2022PBF _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/29/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- ANDREW 331-431-7342BC 10:00 001-FTG FOOTING 20211679 1735 MARKETVIEW DR 04/26/2022 Comments1: BELLE TIRE DON 630-878-9312BC 10:00 002-FTG FOOTING 04/27/2022 Comments1: BELLE TIRE -- DON 630-878-9312BC 11:00 003-FTG FOOTING 04/28/2022 Comments1: DON -- 630-878-9312BC _____ 017-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 20211683 2892 ROOD ST 304 04/07/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175EEI _____ 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 04/14/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS -- JIM 331-223-6615BF _____ 019-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 04/29/2022 Comments1: JIM/RYAN 331-223-6615 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 30DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 30TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ 020-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/29/2022 Comments1: JIM/RYAN 331-223-6615BF _____ 021-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 04/29/2022 Comments1: JIM/RYAN 331-223-6615PBF _____ 022-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/29/2022 Comments1: JIM/RYAN 331-223-6615BF _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211684 2717 POTTER CT 140 04/22/2022 Comments1: ANDREW/RYAN 331-431-7342BF _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/22/2022 Comments1: ANDREW/RYAN 331-431-7342BF _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/22/2022 Comments1: ANDREW/RYAN 331-431-7342PBF _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/22/2022 Comments1: ANDREW/RYAN 331-431-7342GH _____ 012-INS INSULATION 04/26/2022 Comments1: ANDREW/RYAN 331-431-7342 -- SEE INSPECTI Comments2: ON REPORTGH _____ 013-WK SERVICE WALK 04/27/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175EEI _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211685 3063 GRANDE TR 556 04/14/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615 WINTER CONDITIONS, OK T Comments2: O TEMPGH _____ AM 022-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 04/12/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175BF _____ 023-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 04/29/2022 Comments1: JIM/RYAN 331-223-6615BF _____ 024-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/29/2022 Comments1: JIM/RYAN 331-223-6615BF _____ 025-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 04/29/2022 Comments1: JIM/RYAN 331-223-6615PBF _____ 026-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/29/2022 Comments1: JIM/RYAN 331-223-6615GH _____ 018-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211686 3053 GRANDE TR 558 04/13/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 31DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 31TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 019-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/13/2022GH _____ 020-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 04/13/2022PBF _____ 021-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/13/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- JEFF -- 331-223-6615BC _____ PM 022-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 04/07/2022BC _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211699 462 SUNFLOWER CT 2 04/26/2022 Comments1: PHIL 630-631-7403GH _____ AM 017-WK SERVICE WALK 20211710 2712 NICKERSON CT 166 04/08/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ 018-STP STOOP 04/27/2022 Comments1: REAR STOOP ONLY MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 018-WK SERVICE WALK 20211711 3020 MCLELLAN BLVD 528 04/18/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 019-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 04/18/2022BF _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211716 1932 WESTON AVE 51 04/20/2022 Comments1: SOLAR PHIL 518-859-6282BF _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/20/2022 Comments1: SOLAR PHIL 518-859-6282BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211723 1865 WILD INDIGO LN 3 04/11/2022 Comments1: WINDOWS 630-531-0139BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211724 1004 STATE ST 04/08/2022 Comments1: WINDOWS, CARL 630-209-7117GH _____ 016-INS INSULATION 20211725 3012 MCLELLAN BLVD 527 04/04/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615BC _____ PM 017-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 04/07/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175BF _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211726 2885 ROOD ST 320 04/18/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615BF _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/18/2022BF _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/18/2022 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 32DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 32TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PBF _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/15/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE JIM 331-223-6615GH _____ 014-INS INSULATION 04/20/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615GH _____ 015-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 04/27/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175 -- PARTIALGH _____ 016-WK SERVICE WALK 04/27/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175PR _____ 006-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211732 841 GREENFIELD TURN 48 04/14/2022 Comments1: DAVE 630-878-5792PR _____ 007-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/14/2022PR _____ 008-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/14/2022PR _____ 009-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/14/2022 Comments1: COUNTRY HILLS - DAVE 630-878-5792GH _____ 010-INS INSULATION 04/21/2022 Comments1: DAVE MCCUE 630-878-5792PR _____ PM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 20211748 521 ASHWORTH LN 518 04/04/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001PR _____ PM 003-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 20211749 501 ASHWORTH LN 519 04/04/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001GH _____ AM 004-BKF BACKFILL 04/05/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20211750 2493 FAIRFIELD AVE 485 04/07/2022 Comments1: JUAN CARLOS 847-551-9066PR _____ PM 008-SUM SUMP 04/08/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE - CATHY 630-387-2001GH _____ AM 009-STP STOOP 04/11/2022 Comments1: FRONT ONLY -- OSCAR 847-551-9066BF _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 04/26/2022 Comments1: JEFF LENNAR 847 456 8082BF _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/26/2022 Comments1: JEFF LENNAR 847 456 8082 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 33DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 33TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/26/2022 Comments1: JEFF LENNAR 847 456 8082PBF _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 04/26/2022 Comments1: JEFF LENNAR 847 456 8082GH _____ 014-INS INSULATION 04/28/2022 Comments1: JEFF LENNAR 847 456 8082BC _____ AM 015-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 04/20/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066PR _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211751 2001 PRAIRIE GRASS LN 45 04/14/2022 Comments1: PRAIRIE MEADOWS REMY 630-973-6699GH _____ AM 007-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/19/2022 Comments1: REAR STOOPGH _____ AM 008-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 04/19/2022 Comments1: NEED TO TAPE SEAMS & PENETRATIONSGH _____ AM 009-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/19/2022BC 09:00 010-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 04/20/2022 Comments1: 630-973-6699 RMT REMYBC _____ AM 006-REI REINSPECTION 20211752 936 HAYDEN DR 44 04/12/2022 Comments1: ELEC SEVICE RMT/REMY 630-973-9610BC 09:30 007-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 04/12/2022 Comments1: RMT/REMY 630-973-9610PR _____ 008-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 04/13/2022 Comments1: REMY 630-379-9610GH _____ AM 009-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/19/2022 Comments1: REMY- 630-973-6699GH _____ AM 010-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 04/19/2022 Comments1: NO VAPOR BARRIER, PLUMBERS WORKING IN BA Comments2: SEMENTGH _____ AM 011-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/19/2022 Comments1: PATIOBF _____ AM 012-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 04/20/2022 Comments1: REMY 630-973-6699 GARAGE & STOOPS (ADDED Comments2: & APPROVED) DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 34DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 34TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ AM 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20220002 2333 FAIRFIELD AVE 498 04/11/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066GH _____ 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/11/2022GH _____ 009-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 04/12/2022PBF _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220003 2327 FAIRFIELD AVE 499 04/05/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220004 2305 FAIRFIELD AVE 500 04/05/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE JEFF- 847-456-8082PR _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 04/19/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082GH _____ AM 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 04/19/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/19/2022BC _____ 008-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 20220006 2248 FAIRFAX WAY 505 04/28/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220007 2236 FAIRFAX WAY 506 04/05/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082BF _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220017 2711 NICKERSON CT 162 04/18/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175BF _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 04/19/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175PBF _____ PM 003-WAT WATER 04/21/2022 Comments1: AL'S 630-492-7635BC _____ AM 004-BKF BACKFILL 04/21/2022 Comments1: 815.839.8175 MIDWESTPR _____ AM 005-ABC ABOVE CEILING 20220024 608 E VETERANS PKWY 04/05/2022 Comments1: GREG MARKER 630-977-1869BF _____ 006-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 04/28/2022 Comments1: MARKER 630-977 1869 CROSSROADS FINAL FOR Comments2: OCCUPANCYPBF _____ 007-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 04/28/2022 Comments1: MARKER 630-977 1869 CROSSROADS FINAL FOR Comments2: OCCUPANCY DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 35DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 35TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ AM 008-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20220031 2288 FAIRFAX WAY 501 04/19/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066GH _____ 006-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 20220032 2401 FAIRFIELD AVE 493 04/07/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ AM 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 04/11/2022 Comments1: OSCAR 847-551-9066GH _____ 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/11/2022PBF _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220033 508 BRAEMORE LN 535 04/07/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE -- JEFF 847-456-8082BC _____ 007-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 04/20/2022 Comments1: JEFF LENNAR 847 456 8082BF _____ AM 008-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/20/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066 BSM, CRAWL GARBC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20220034 362 BENJAMIN ST 36 04/12/2022 Comments1: TOM - 708-417-4841BC _____ PM 003-BKF BACKFILL 04/20/2022 Comments1: JASON--630-632-7433 LACK OF GRAVEL OVR D Comments2: RAIN TILE & FOOTINGBC _____ AM 004-BKF BACKFILL 04/26/2022 Comments1: RE INSPECTION -GRAVEL OVER DRAIN TILE & Comments2: FOOTING JASON 630-632-7433PBF _____ AM 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 04/27/2022 Comments1: JASON 630-632-7433BC _____ AM 006-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 04/28/2022 Comments1: JASON 630-632-7433PBF _____ AM 007-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 04/27/2022 Comments1: WINNINGER 630-364-8785BC _____ AM 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220035 4830 W MILLBROOK CIR 10 04/05/2022 Comments1: CHRIS-UPPER DECK 630-330-8038BC _____ AM 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 04/19/2022 Comments1: DECK -- CHRIS 630-330-8038 LATERAL LOAD Comments2: RESTRAINTSBC _____ AM 004-REI REINSPECTION 04/21/2022 Comments1: DECK FINAL CHRIS UPPERDECK 630-330-8038 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 36DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 36TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220038 2706 NICKERSON CT 169 04/08/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175BF _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 04/12/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175PBF _____ PM 003-WAT WATER 04/14/2022 Comments1: AL'S 630-492-7635BF _____ AM 004-BKF BACKFILL 04/14/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175PBF _____ AM 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 04/21/2022 Comments1: ANDREW/RYAN 331-431-7342BF _____ PM 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 04/25/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/27/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175 -- FIBER MESHGH _____ 008-STP STOOP 04/27/2022 Comments1: FRONT AND REAR MIDWEST 815-839-8175 -- Comments2: PIN TO FOUNDATIONBF _____ 006-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 20220049 3073 GRANDE TR 554 04/04/2022 Comments1: ANDREW/RYAN 331-431-7342GH _____ 007-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 04/05/2022 Comments1: JIM/ RYAN 331-223-6615GH _____ AM 008-STP STOOP 04/06/2022 Comments1: STOOPS -- MIDWEST 815-839-8175BC _____ PM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220057 1565 SYCAMORE RD 2 04/28/2022 Comments1: MARY 331-551-6332 -- DOOR OPENING ONLYBF _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220067 2727 ELLORY CT 127 04/22/2022 Comments1: 815.839.8175midwesternconcrete.comBF _____ PM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 04/25/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175PBF _____ PM 003-WAT WATER 04/27/2022 Comments1: AL'S 630-492-7635BF _____ AM 004-BKF BACKFILL 04/28/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 37DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 37TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220073 1125 HAWK HOLLOW DR 309-1 04/19/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 005-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/27/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/28/2022 Comments1: JOSE -- 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 007-STP STOOP 04/28/2022 Comments1: JOSE -- 630-465-1159PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220074 1127 HAWK HOLLOW DR 309-2 04/19/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 005-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/27/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/28/2022 Comments1: JOSE -- 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 007-STP STOOP 04/28/2022 Comments1: JOSE -- 630-465-1159PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220075 1129 HAWK HOLLOW DR 309-3 04/19/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082GH _____ 005-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/27/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/28/2022 Comments1: JOSE -- 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 007-STP STOOP 04/28/2022 Comments1: JOSE -- 630-465-1159PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220076 1131 HAWK HOLLOW DR 309-4 04/19/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082GH _____ 005-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/27/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/28/2022 Comments1: JOSE -- 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 007-STP STOOP 04/28/2022 Comments1: JOSE -- 630-465-1159 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 38DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 38TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PBF _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220077 1122 HAWK HOLLOW DR 300-1 04/12/2022 Comments1: LENNAR 847-456-8082GH _____ 005-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/26/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/26/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 007-STP STOOP 04/29/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159PBF _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220078 1120 HAWK HOLLOW DR 300-2 04/12/2022 Comments1: LENNAR 847-456-8082GH _____ 005-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/26/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/26/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 007-STP STOOP 04/29/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159PBF _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220079 1112 HAWK HOLLOW DR 300-3 04/12/2022 Comments1: LENNAR 847-456-8082GH _____ 005-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/26/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/26/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 007-STP STOOP 04/29/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159PBF _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220080 1110 HAWK HOLLOW DR 300-4 04/12/2022 Comments1: LENNAR 847-456-8082GH _____ 005-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/26/2022 Comments1: JOSE - 630-465-1159GH _____ 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 04/26/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 007-STP STOOP 04/29/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 39DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 39TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220082 217 ELIZABETH ST 04/26/2022 Comments1: WINDOWS BILL 217-741-6848GH _____ AM 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220084 2484 ELLSWORTH CT 355 04/08/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 630-688-0331GH _____ AM 004-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/08/2022BF _____ PM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220087 3069 GRANDE TR 555 04/05/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175 (((CANCELLED)))GH _____ AM 002-FTG FOOTING 04/06/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815839-8175BF _____ PM 003-FOU FOUNDATION 04/07/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175BF _____ AM 004-BKF BACKFILL 04/13/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175PBF _____ PM 005-WAT WATER 04/14/2022 Comments1: AL'S 630-492-7635PR _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 04/19/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- JIM - 331-223-6615BF _____ AM 007-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 04/20/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 008-STP STOOP 04/26/2022 Comments1: FRONT -- MIDWEST 815-839-8175BC _____ AM 009-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 04/28/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615BF _____ PM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220088 2868 OLD GLORY DR 275 04/13/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175BF _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 04/14/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175BF _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 04/19/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST0815-839-8175PBF _____ PM 004-WAT WATER 04/21/2022 Comments1: AL'S 630-492-7635PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 04/27/2022 Comments1: JIM/RYAN 331-231-6615 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 40DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 40TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ AM 006-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 04/28/2022 Comments1: BASEMENT, GARAGE, AND FRONT STOOP-- MIDW Comments2: EST 815-839-8175PBF _____ PM 004-WAT WATER 20220089 2863 ROOD ST 318 04/01/2022 Comments1: AL'S 630-492-7635PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 04/06/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615BF _____ PM 006-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 04/07/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 007-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 04/14/2022GH _____ AM 008-STP STOOP 04/18/2022 Comments1: FRONT AND REAR -- MIDWEST 815-839-8175BF _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20220090 3022 GRANDE TR 535 04/27/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175 -- SEE INSPECTION R Comments2: EPORTBF _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 04/28/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175BF _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220091 356 TWINLEAF TR 66 04/11/2022 Comments1: SOLAR EDDY 801-837-4586BF _____ 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/11/2022 Comments1: SOLAR EDDY 801-837-4586GH _____ 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220098 906 GILLESPIE LN 134 04/18/2022 Comments1: WILL SEND PICTURES OF POSTHOLES (HOLIDAY Comments2: ) RECEIVED PICTURES 4/18/22PR _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20220112 8710 RT 71 04/18/2022 Comments1: TOM 630-702-9576 -- SEE INSPECTION TICKE Comments2: TPR _____ AM 002-FTG FOOTING 04/20/2022 Comments1: DAN WILSON 630-392-3007PR 10:00 003-FOU FOUNDATION 04/21/2022 Comments1: DAN WILSON RESTORE CHURCH 630-392-3007BC _____ AM 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220117 1789 MARKETVIEW DR 8 04/14/2022 Comments1: DREW 630-849-5766 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 41DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 41TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20220118 1835 COLUMBINE DR 69 04/29/2022 Comments1: VIRTUAL CHRIS 630-921-0869BC _____ PM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220119 3129 JUSTICE DR 687 04/28/2022 Comments1: PATIO ---- CHEUY -- 630-330-7580GH _____ PM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220120 2076 SQUIRE CIR 183 04/29/2022 Comments1: EMAILED PICTURESBC _____ AM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220131 3977 SHOEGER DR 37 04/04/2022 Comments1: YARENY 815-981-0472BC _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 04/07/2022 Comments1: FENCE MIKE 630-888-8915BF _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20220133 3341 SEELEY ST 800 04/01/2022 Comments1: UPLAND 630-453-9281BF _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 04/07/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606PBF _____ PM 003-WSS WATER & STORM SEWER 04/13/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- JOE 708-278-3109BF _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20220134 2809 BERRYWOOD LN 799 04/01/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606BF _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 04/06/2022 Comments1: CHRIS -- 224-358-1606PBF _____ PM 003-WSS WATER & STORM SEWER 04/13/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE --JOE 708-278-3109BC _____ AM 001-TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, 20220135 181 CLAREMONT CT 22 04/06/2022 Comments1: ERIC 630-335-6776GH _____ AM 005-INS INSULATION 20220137 1102 GRACE DR 98 04/05/2022 Comments1: MATT 630-995-5513BC 13:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220141 2289 FAIRFAX WAY 372 04/04/2022 Comments1: CEDAR CARLA 815-460-3449BF _____ PM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220143 2347 EMERALD LN 105 04/12/2022 Comments1: SOLAR JOSH 512-619-5854BF _____ PM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 04/12/2022 Comments1: SOLAR JOSH 512-619-5854 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 42DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 42TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ AM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220144 2912 OLD GLORY DR 271 04/05/2022 Comments1: CLASSIC 630-551-3400BC _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 04/11/2022 Comments1: CARRIE 847-421-6868BC _____ AM 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220149 1052 HOMESTEAD DR 04/04/2022 Comments1: JASON 331-575-7705 --- WOULD LIKE 10:00 Comments2: IF POSSIBLEBC _____ 001-BND POOL BONDING 20220151 2277 NORTHLAND LN 100 04/12/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTBC _____ AM 002-BND POOL BONDING 04/26/2022 Comments1: BRAIN STEELE 630-253-9167PBF _____ AM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 20220153 1956 MEADOWLARK LN 82 04/06/2022 Comments1: COUNTRY HILLS -- BOB 630-918-2348BC _____ PM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220158 2541 ANNA MARIA LN 716 04/19/2022 Comments1: PATIO -- PAT -- 630-747-6068BC _____ AM 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220159 611 WHITE OAK WAY 04/07/2022 Comments1: 630-844-2553BF _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220160 542 ASHWORTH LN 522 04/12/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066BF _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 04/18/2022 Comments1: OSCAR 847-551-9066PBF _____ PM 003-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 04/21/2022 Comments1: 630-387-2001 VERUNAPBF _____ PM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 04/22/2022 Comments1: 630-387-2001 VERUNABF _____ AM 005-BKF BACKFILL 04/27/2022 Comments1: OSCAR 847-551-9066BF _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220163 502 ASHWORTH LN 520 04/28/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE JUAN -- 847-551-9066BF _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220165 572 ASHWORTH LN 523 04/28/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE JUAN -- 847-551-9066BF _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220166 561 ASHWORTH LN 516 04/12/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 43DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 43TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 04/18/2022 Comments1: OSCAR 847-551-9066PBF _____ PM 003-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 04/21/2022 Comments1: 630-387-2001 VERUNAPBF _____ PM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 04/02/2022 Comments1: 630-387-2001 VERUNA -- WORK NOT COMPLETEPBF _____ PM 005-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 04/27/2022 Comments1: HMD 630-387-2004BF _____ AM 006-BKF BACKFILL 04/27/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066BC _____ 001-WK SERVICE WALK 20220172 861 OMAHA DR 21 04/07/2022 Comments1: JEANETTE 708-674-1867BC _____ AM 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220175 2051 RAINTREE RD 69 04/19/2022 Comments1: JAKE 346-212-0994 BASEMENT FINISHBC _____ AM 002-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 04/19/2022 Comments1: JAKE 346-212-0994 BASEMENT FINISHBC _____ AM 003-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 04/19/2022 Comments1: JAKE 346-212-0994 BASEMENT FINISHBC _____ 004-INS INSULATION 04/26/2022 Comments1: JAKE 847-363-4770 BASEMENT FINISHGH _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220177 3188 JUSTICE DR 600 04/05/2022 Comments1: TRAVIS LAFFEY 630-688-4528BC _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220194 398 BERTRAM DR 04/19/2022 Comments1: CEMENTRIX JOHN 630-862-8053GH _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220195 862 HOMESTEAD DR 23 04/22/2022 Comments1: PATIO CEMENTRIX JOHN 630-862-8053BC _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220199 221 W VETERANS PKWY 04/27/2022 Comments1: ROOF -- JOHN 800-303-8392 -- NO ACCESS T Comments2: O ROOF, COULDN'T INSPECTGH _____ 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220203 613 GREENFIELD TURN 74 04/01/2022 Comments1: ROOF -- AUSTIN 815-280-8501BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220204 2243 RICHMOND AVE 442 04/26/2022 Comments1: PAVERS -- JIM 630-251-0346 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 44DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 44TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC 09:00 AM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220205 2581 ANNA MARIA LN 720 04/07/2022 Comments1: NETWORK 630-554-0385BC _____ PM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220207 367 PENSECOLA ST 1148 04/12/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 630-677-4848GH _____ PM 003-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220208 577 MANCHESTER LN 398 04/22/2022 Comments1: DAVE 6302-664-3283 NEED TO FIRE SEAL VER Comments2: TICALLY EVERY 10FT, NEED TO FIRE SEAL AL Comments3: L PENETRATIONS AT TOP PLATEBC 10:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220214 873 N CARLY CIR 23 04/05/2022 Comments1: CHERI 815-836-8731BC _____ 001-TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, 20220215 2112 HARTFIELD AVE 348 04/13/2022 Comments1: FOR FIRE PIT, AMANDA 815-252-8777BC _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 04/27/2022 Comments1: PAVERS, GATE ON LEFT OPEN, AMANDA 815-25 Comments2: 2-8777PR _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220216 2227 FAIRFAX WAY 379 04/25/2022 Comments1: GLEN 630-774-0333GH _____ 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220217 1732 CALLANDER TR 58 04/01/2022 Comments1: JULIE 630-802-1317 -- NOT READYGH _____ 002-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 04/04/2022 Comments1: JULIE 630-802-1317BC _____ AM 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220219 639 WHITE OAK WAY 15 04/11/2022 Comments1: RICK 815-272-7574BF _____ AM 001-BND POOL BONDING 20220222 789 KENTSHIRE DR 142 04/18/2022 Comments1: AUSTIN 815-954-9673BF _____ AM 002-TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, 04/18/2022 Comments1: AUSTIN 815-954-9673BC _____ AM 003-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220226 492 BIRCHWOOD DR 160 04/13/2022 Comments1: DECK -- DENISE 630-222-6763 OR 630-222-6 Comments2: 317BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220228 1151 BLACKBERRY SHORE LN 49 04/21/2022 Comments1: PAVERS YORKVILLE HILL LANDSCAPING 630-74 Comments2: 2-0158BC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220229 2001 S BRIDGE ST 04/13/2022 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 45DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 45TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ AM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220235 1702 CALLANDER TR 54 04/06/2022 Comments1: ACOSTA 815-255-2132BC _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 04/11/2022 Comments1: FENCE ACOSTA -- 815-255-2132BC 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220236 1712 CALLANDER TR 55 04/07/2022 Comments1: ACCOSTA/BONNIE 815-255-2132BC _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 04/11/2022 Comments1: FENCE -- ACOSTA 815-255-2132BC 10:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220237 436 SUTTON ST 228 04/04/2022 Comments1: HI-5 630-888-4069GH _____ AM 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220240 2583 OVERLOOK CT 23 04/19/2022 Comments1: 11:00 am Dana 630-664-6793BC _____ AM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220241 115 PALMER CT 37 04/14/2022 Comments1: SHERI -- 815-836-8731BC _____ AM 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220242 2343 SUMAC DR 18 04/20/2022 Comments1: JESS -- 630-383-1907GH _____ 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220246 601 TERI LN 04/29/2022 Comments1: CLASSIC -- 630-551-3400GH _____ 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220254 1782 CALLANDER TR 66 04/08/2022 Comments1: AMERICA'S BACKYARD 331-452-2271 DID POST Comments2: HOLES ON 4/7/22 BUT DID NOT CHANGE DATE Comments3: WITH US, WILL SEND PICTURESBC _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 04/26/2022 Comments1: FENCE -- AMERICA'S BACKYARD 331-452-2271BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20220258 3345 SEELEY ST 801 04/29/2022BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20220259 3349 SEELEY ST 802 04/29/2022BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20220260 3353 SEELEY ST 803 04/29/2022BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20220261 3357 SEELEY ST 804 04/29/2022BC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220265 2561 ANNA MARIA LN 718 04/04/2022 Comments1: PATIO -- DENNIS 773-297-9616BC 10:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220270 2155 HARTFIELD AVE 421 04/11/2022 Comments1: AM BKYD 815-836-8731 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 46DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 46TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220281 2001 WREN RD 23 04/11/2022GH 13:30 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220284 202 SPRUCE CT 19 04/21/2022 Comments1: CARLA 815-460-3449BC _____ PM 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220285 1923 PRAIRIE ROSE LN 100 04/27/2022 Comments1: GARAGE DOOR -- ED 847-878-4089BC _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 04/27/2022BC _____ 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20220286 181 CLAREMONT CT 22 04/14/2022 Comments1: DERRICK 630-878-9539BC _____ AM 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20220289 617 GREENFIELD TURN 72 04/06/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 630-330-8038BC _____ AM 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 04/19/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 630-330-8038 DECKBC _____ 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 04/27/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 630-330-8038BF _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220290 101 S BRIDGE ST 04/29/2022 Comments1: SLAB POUR IN BASEMENT GEORGE 630-327-127 Comments2: 1 JUST SOUTH OF RIVER ON WEST SIDEPR _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220291 1222 CANNONBALL TR 1 04/14/2022 Comments1: RICH 630-273-5932PR _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 04/25/2022 Comments1: RICH 630-273-5932BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220293 2692 MCLELLAN BLVD 51 04/28/2022 Comments1: PAVERS AMY 630-696-7237BC _____ PM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220295 1346 E SPRING ST 175 04/21/2022 Comments1: ELEC CAR CHARGING STATION STEVE 312-206- Comments2: 6285BC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220297 401 HAZELTINE WAY 14 04/27/2022 Comments1: JOSE GNT 331-717-8254GH _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220298 467 PARKSIDE LN 361 04/22/2022 Comments1: JOSE 331-717-8254GH _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220300 2022 INGEMUNSON LN 140 04/21/2022 Comments1: JOSE - 331-717-8254 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 47DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 47TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220303 2828 ALDEN AVE 331 04/21/2022 Comments1: AMERI DREAM FENCE GISELLE 815-726-1127GH 11:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220304 574 REDHORSE 142 04/06/2022 Comments1: TTL/AUSTIN 815-280-8501BC _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220307 10346 GALENA RD 2 04/14/2022 Comments1: PATIO, SIDEWALK AND DRIVE WAY -- CAROLIN Comments2: A 630-201-3276BC _____ 002-REI REINSPECTION 04/26/2022 Comments1: PRE-POURBC _____ AM 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20220309 367 WINDETT RIDGE RD 48 04/13/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 630-330-8038GH 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220312 1571 CORAL DR 165 04/21/2022 Comments1: 630-551-3400 CLASSICPR _____ 001-PH POST HOLES / PILES 20220320 402 E PARK ST 59 04/20/2022 Comments1: DECK AND FENCEGH _____ 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220336 408 WOODWORTH ST 25 04/15/2022 Comments1: WILL SEND PICTURES (HOLIDAY)GH _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 04/21/2022 Comments1: ROOFGH _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220348 3182 MATLOCK DR 664 04/19/2022 Comments1: VIC -- 630-915-7710BF _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220362 662 ANDREA CT 9 04/29/2022 Comments1: PATIO GARY 630-267-8514BC _____ AM 002-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220374 1991 BANBURY AVE 30 04/28/2022 Comments1: PATIO -- SERGIO -- 815-909-5737BC _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220376 1381 CHESTNUT CIR 25 04/21/2022 Comments1: JILL 630-675-7102GH _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220377 1141 KATE DR 38 04/25/2022 Comments1: PATIO KIMBERLEY 618-974-4411BC _____ 001-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20220384 2112 ALAN DALE LN 51 04/27/2022 Comments1: REBECCA 630-820-1624GH _____ PM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220386 2141 COUNTRY HILLS DR 446 04/19/2022 Comments1: JOSE 331-717-8254 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 48DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 48TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH 10:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220387 315 W KENDALL DR 6 04/29/2022 Comments1: RANDY 630-854-7957 PARTIAL - BACK AND SI Comments2: DES ONLYGH 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220413 2772 CRANSTON CIR 106 04/28/2022 Comments1: AMERI DREAM 815-726-1127GH 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220421 557 MANCHESTER LN 396 04/29/2022 Comments1: SHERRIE 815-836-8731BC _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220427 4636 PLYMOUTH AVE 991 04/27/2022 Comments1: PATIO -- JOHN 630-862-8053BC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220431 2581 ANNA MARIA LN 720 04/28/2022 Comments1: SHED SLAB -- JOSHUA 630-641-9087 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 49DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 49TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PERMIT TYPE SUMMARY: ADD ADDITION 3 AGP ABOVE-GROUND POOL 4 BSM BASEMENT REMODEL 11 COM COMMERCIAL BUILDING 5 CRM COMMERCIAL REMODEL 8 DCK DECK 12 DRV DRIVEWAY 2 EVS ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STAT 1 FNC FENCE 25 IGP IN-GROUND POOL 2 MIS MISCELLANEOUS 3 PTO PATIO / PAVERS 26 ROF ROOFING 12 SDW SIDEWALK 2 SFA SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED 224 SFD SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED 441 SHD SHED/ACCESSORY BUILDING 1 SOL SOLAR PANELS 6 SWK PRIVATE SIDEWALK 1 WIN WINDOW REPLACEMENT 4INSPECTION SUMMARY: ABC ABOVE CEILING 2 ADA ADA ACCESSIBLE WALK WAY 1 BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 3 BKF BACKFILL 21 BND POOL BONDING 4 BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 19 EDA ENGINEERING - DRIVEWAY APRON 1 EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPECTION 26 EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 62 ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WATER 13 FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 34 FIN FINAL INSPECTION 58 FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 21 FME FINAL MECHANICAL 7 FOU FOUNDATION 24 FTG FOOTING 27 GAR GARAGE FLOOR 30 GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 19 INS INSULATION 27 PH POST HOLES / PILES 1 PHD POST HOLE - DECK 14 PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20 PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READY 29 PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 25 PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 40 PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 54 DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 50DATE: 05/02/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 50TIME: 14:57:37 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 04/01/2022 TO 04/30/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PWK PRIVATE WALKS 19 REI REINSPECTION 18 REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 26 RFR ROUGH FRAMING 33 RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 26 ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & WATER 11 STP STOOP 28 SUM SUMP 9 TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, ETC) 3 WAT WATER 13 WK SERVICE WALK 19 WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 4 WSS WATER & STORM SEWER 2INSPECTOR SUMMARY: BC BOB CREADEUR 134 BF B&F INSPECTOR CODE SERVICE 142 EEI ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES 29 GH GINA HASTINGS 326 PBF BF PLUMBING INSPECTOR 91 PR PETER RATOS 71STATUS SUMMARY: A GH 1 C BC 40 C BF 8 C EEI 2 C GH 8 C PBF 1 C PR 3 E GH 1 I BC 68 I BF 110 I EEI 9 I GH 213 I PBF 73 I PR 61 T BC 26 T BF 24 T EEI 18 T GH 103 T PBF 17 T PR 7REPORT SUMMARY: 793 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 2022-32 Property Maintenance Report for April 2022 Economic Development Committee – June 7, 2022 Informational None Pete Ratos Community Development Name Department Page | 1 Property Maintenance Report April 2022 There were 3 cases heard in April 2022. 4/4/2022 N 5814 451 Honeysuckle Ln Fencing Standards Liable $1,000 N 5815 451 Honeysuckle Ln Junk, Trash Refuse Liable $1,000 N 5813 613 Greenfield Turn Roofs/ Drainage Dismissed Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Pete Ratos, Code Official CC: Bart Olson, Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Jori Behland Date April 28, 2022 Subject: April Property Maintenance Case # Case Date TYPE OF VIOLATIONSTATUS VIOLATION LETTER SENTFOLLOW UP STATUSCITATION ISSUEDDATE OF HEARING20220076 4/27/2022 Two Residences on LotPENDING20220075 4/26/2022 Electrical Outlets/Trash in YardCLOSED20220074 4/26/2022 Hole in Roof IN VIOLATION 4/26/202220220073 4/26/2022 Vehicles Damaging Parkway/YardCLOSED20220072 4/26/2022 Grass Mowing PENDING20220071 4/26/2022 Vehicles Damaging ParkwayCLOSED20220070 4/25/2022 Working without a PermitPENDING20220069 4/25/2022 Working without a PermitIN VIOLATION20220068 4/22/2022 Trailer Parking IN VIOLATION20220067 4/20/2022 Misc Property MaintenanceIN VIOLATION 4/21/202220220066 4/20/2022 Accessory Structure Too Close to HomeIN VIOLATIONCase Report04/01/2022 - 04/30/2022ADDRESS OF COMPLAINT403 West St451 Honeysuckle Ln307 Illini Dr707 Morgan St1308 Game Farm Rd112 E Fox St302 N Bridge st2008 Raintree Rd2372 Sumac DrReserve at Fox River 2352 Sumac DrPage: 1 of 2 20220065 4/13/2022 Automotive Business Being Run out of HomeTO BE INSPECTED20220064 4/13/2022 GARBAGE DUPLICATE20220062 4/11/2022 Mattresses Dumped on PropertyIN VIOLATION20220061 4/8/2022 Construction DebrisCLOSED COMPLIANT20220060 4/5/2022 Junk, Trash, RefuseIN VIOLATION 4/5/2022 4/22/2022 5/23/202220220059 4/5/2022 Fence installed without permit CLOSED 4/5/2022 COMPLIANT20220058 4/4/2022 Junk, Trash, & RefuseCLOSED COMPLIANT408 Colton StVACANT LOT Parcel 02-28-126-015841 Greenfield Turn451 Honeysuckle 451 Honeysuckle Ln 110 Colonial Pkwy, Unit DTotal Records: 185/2/2022Page: 2 of 2 Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #4 Tracking Number EDC 2022-33 Economic Development Report for May 2022 Economic Development Committee – June 7, 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 June 2022 EDC Meeting of the United City of Yorkville May 2022 Activity New Development: - O’Neil Property Group: This Yorkville business purchased the building at 201 E. Veterans Parkway on May 13, 2022. They have relocated their real estate office into this building, moving from a small office space on Van Emmon Street. The new building also offers office rentals for other businesses. Congratulation to Kaelan O’Neil, another YHS graduate, who has established and is growing his business in Yorkville. - Renew Therapy: Eileen O’Neil (Kaelan’s wife) is opening her business office at 201 E. Veterans Parkway in June 2022. Renew Therapy offers in-person and virtual therapy for all ages, to those struggling with issues such as anxiety, depression, life changes and stress. - Little Fox Clubhouse: Yorkville resident Aizabelle Manuel, will be opening an indoor children’s playground at 2645 N. Bridge Street (River North Center). She will use the 2,400 square foot to create a space for kids to play and also parties to be held. Entrance to “Clubhouse” can be purchased by the day, by purchasing a punch card for multiple play days, and there is also an option for a monthly membership, which offers unlimited pay dates. Aizabelle hopes to be open in August of 2022. - Sound Decision Inc: Mike & Amara Fata are purchasing the building at 123 Hydraulic in downtown Yorkville. They are moving their business Sound Decision Unlimited into the building immediately. This business builds and installs all type of electronics for autos, motorcycles, boats and homes. - 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, Permits issued. Construction beginning. - Yorkville Crossing: A/K/A Menard’s Center: Multi-Tenant building: Pets Supply Plus, Remodeling will begin in the near future. - Gerber Collison & Glass, previously reported. Architect, and civil are working on plans. They are planning to open in 2023. - BP and Graham’s Marketplace. Gasoline service station with convenience store located at 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 end 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 summer 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, in June 2022. - 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 summer 2022, and will serve coffee, teas, expresso, baked goods, and snack bites. - Fox’s Den Meadery: Yorkville resident, Enrico “Rico” Bianchi, is preparing the space at 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 late summer of 2022. - Dakotas – New restaurant located at 227 Heustis Street, opened May 28, 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 the 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. - Attended ICSC RECON Conference in Las Vegas from May 21st to May 25st. 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 memo. 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 2022-34 Graham C Stores & Gas Station (Rezoning, Special Use, Sign Variance, Final Plat) Economic Development Committee – June 7, 2022 Majority Vote Proposed fuel station & convenience store development at the NEC of IL 47 & IL 71. Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble Community Development Name Department 1 SUMMARY: The petitioner, Thomas Williamson, on behalf of Graham C Stores Company, has filed an application requesting rezoning, special use permit and final plat approval pursuant to Section 10-6-0 of the Yorkville City Code for a gasoline service station with accessory convenience store. The property is located at the northeast corner of IL Route 47 (Bridge Street) and IL Route 71 (Stagecoach Trail). The petitioner is also seeking sign variance approval to increase the maximum sign area and height for a monument sign in a business district. The proposed sign area would increase from the maximum 64 square feet to 168 square feet and sign height would be 25 feet, exceeding the maximum 18 feet. The property is currently zoned M-1 Limited Manufacturing and requires rezoning to B-3 General Business District to permit a gas station use. The 5.51-acre property will be resubdivided into two (2) lots consisting the of the fuel station/convenience store and onsite detention, as well as a future buildable lot. PROPERTY INFORMATION: This property is currently improved with various detached metal structures on a gravel foundation utilized for industrial/farming storage and truck related services, as illustrated below. Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Brad Sanderson, City Engineer, EEI Date: June 2, 2022 Subject: PZC 2022-08 Graham C Stores & Gas Station 107 E. Stagecoach Trl. - Proposed New Fuel Station & Convenience Store (Rezoning, Special Use, Sign Variance & Final Plat) 2 The subject property is currently zoned as M-1 Limited Manufacturing District. The following table depicts the current immediate surrounding properties’ zoning and land uses: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Graham C-Stores is a large wholesale gasoline and diesel marketer of various fuel brands operating in Illinois and Indiana. The BP brand is proposed for the 107 E. Stagecoach Trail property offering fuel for automobiles and commercial/industrial trucks. The fuel station and a 4,500 square foot convenience food store will be located on a 4.32-acre parcel (Lot 1), along with a proposed .66-acre detention area. A 1.19- acre parcel (Lot 2) is also proposed as a future commercial outlot. SITE PLAN: The proposed 5.51-acre site plan was reviewed by various City departments and outside agencies to ensure compliance with applicable ordinances, regulations and standards with regard to building setbacks, parking/parking setbacks, circulation/access roads, stormwater management/utilities and signage. Below are the summaries of those reviews. Zoning Land Use North B3- SU (Unincorporated Kendall County) Kendall County Highway Department South B-3 General Business District Silver Dollar Restaurant All Season Motel Transportation Land Use (IL Route 71) East M-1 Limited Manufacturing District Undeveloped Agricultural Land West B-3 Business District Transportation Land Use (IL Route 47) Fountain Village Commercial Development 3 Bulk Regulations The petitioner has depicted the following property’s building setback locations: BUILDING SETBACK REQUIRED MINIMUM PROPOSED SETBACK Interior Side Yard (North) 20 feet +/- 30’ (C Store) Front Yard (West/IL 47) 50 feet +/- 216.5’ (C Store) +/- 50.5’ (Gas Pump Canopy) Corner Side Yard (South/IL 71) 30 feet +/- 91.1’ (C Store) +/- 30’ (Gas Pump Canopy) Rear Yard (East) 20 feet +/- 40’ (Parking Endcap) The maximum building height in the B-3 District is 80 feet. The overall height of the convenience store is approximately 24’-8” at its peak and the gas pump canopies have a maximum height of about 18 feet. The maximum lot coverage for the B-3 General Business District including all impervious surfaces is 80 percent. As stated on the site data table, the proposed impervious lot coverage for the gas station site is 71.4% (134,278 sq. ft.). Therefore, the petitioner meets all bulk regulations according to the submitted materials. Upon future development of the outlot (Lot 2), verification will be made that it meets the maximum lot coverage, as well. Parking and Loading The submitted plans show a total of 34 vehicle parking spaces, including two (2) handicap accessible spaces, and four (4) semi-truck parking stalls. The total minimum required parking spaces needed per the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance is 14 vehicle spaces (Section 10-16-3) which is exceeded by the on-site spaces provided. Additionally, the typical stall and drive aisle dimensions meet the minimum zoning standards. Due to the overall gross floor area of the C-Store, the petitioner is not required to locate a loading berth as designated in Section 10-16-9. The petitioner has indicated most convenience store deliveries will occur via box trucks which can be easily accommodated onsite without interfering with onsite traffic and parking. The petitioner meets the required parking lot setback of 20 feet from arterial roadways (IL Rte. 47 and IL Rte. 71), per Section 10-7-1 of the Zoning Ordinance, as indicated below: Appearance Code The petitioner has submitted elevations and renderings which illustrate that the project will comply with the City’s Appearance Code (Section 8-15-5): Criteria for Appearance of the City Code, new non-residential structures shall have at least fifty percent (50%) of the total building constructed of masonry products or precast concrete incorporated as follows: PARKING LOT SETBACK REQUIRED MINIMUM PROPOSED PARKING LOT SETBACK IL Rte. 47 – West (Arterial) 20’ +/- 20’ IL Rte. 71- South (Arterial) 20’ +/- 68’ 4 i. Front Façade: At least 50% shall incorporate masonry products or precast concrete. ii. Any other facade that abuts a street shall incorporate masonry products or precast concrete. Signage The petitioner has submitted a sign package for the entire project and is requesting a sign variance for the size of the monument sign. Per Section 10-20-9-A of the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance, free standing monument signs on lots three (3) acres or larger with more than one street frontage, one freestanding sign sixty-four (64) square feet or less in area and twelve feet (12’) or less in height per street frontage with an entrance/exit is allowed. The petitioner is requesting a single monument sign on Lot 1 at the intersection of IL Rte. 47 and IL Rte. 71 which is approximately twenty-five (25) feet in height and about 168 square feet in area. The sign height exceeds the City’s standards by 13 feet (or nearly 200%) and the sign area is 104 sq. feet larger than permitted by City Code. Therefore, the petitioner is requesting a sign variance to increase the maximum allowable sign area and overall height. Below is a comparison chart of recently approved gas station signs with the proposed request: Location Sign Height/Area Approval Type Graham C Store NEC IL Rte. 47/IL Rte. 71 25 feet/168 sq. ft. Proposed Variance (Sign Height & Area) Gas N Wash (2019) NEC IL Rte. 47/Waterpark Way 12 feet/107 sq. ft. Variance (Sign Area) Casey’s (2017) SWC IL Rte. 34/McHugh Road 10 feet/47 sq. ft. Variance (Sign Area) Shell/Circle K (1990) SWC IL Rte. 47/IL Rte. 71 20.6 feet/129 sq. ft. Permitted by Ordinance 5 The Casey’s Gas Station on US 34 and McHugh was granted a sign variance for a monument sign of approximately 47 square feet, which exceeded the maximum sign area for parcel less than 3 acres by 15 square feet or 32%. Also, the recently approved Gas N Wash on IL Rte. 47 and Waterpark Way was granted a sign variance for a monument sign of approximately 107 square feet (40% larger than permitted by code) and an overall height of 12 feet. Staff supports the sign variance for increased sign height and area, as it is consistent with previously approved gasoline station sign immediately southwest of the subject property. The previously submitted sign had an overall height of 30 feet, which staff recommended be reduced to 20 feet by either removing a panel insert (e.g. BP Gasoline Invigorate) or removing a tenant panel or digital display. The petitioner revised the plan to remove two (2) tenant panels and the “Invigorate” branding insert, thereby lowering the sign by five (5) feet. Due to the speed and volume of vehicular and truck traffic along both IL Rte. 47 and IL Rte. 71, and the fact the petitioner is requesting only one (1) monument sign, staff is supportive of the request. Driveways Per Section 10-16-3-D of the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance, nonresidential driveways shall be a minimum of two hundred feet (200') when from the driveway edge to the nearest intersecting street right of way line. The proposed driveways/access points meet this standard. However, staff has recommended and the petitioner has provided a “Do Not Block Entrance” sign at the southern driveway entrance (IL Rte. 71) to avoid potential conflicts with vehicles in turning lanes exiting the gas station site, as this appears to be the prime ingress/egress access point for semi-trucks. IDOT has also provided comments regarding 6 driveways in a letter dated March 28, 2022 which the petitioner will need to address in order to obtain the necessary permits for commercial access on IL Rte. 47 and IL Rte. 71. Lighting A photometric plan has been provided of the proposed light standards to be installed within the parking lot area. Maximum illumination at the property line shall not exceed 0.1 foot-candle and no glare shall spill onto adjacent properties or rights of way. Section 10-16-3-D-7 of the Zoning Code requires the average foot candle to be between 2.0 and 2.5. Proposed average for “inside the curb” calculation is 2.59, which is slightly above the code requirement. Staff is not opposed to this deviation but will defer to the City Engineer for further comments. Additionally, the Code requires the maximum to minimum light intensity ratio be no more than 20:1. The petitioner’s submission indicates a 105:1 ratio, greatly exceeding this requirement. The petitioner is aware of the maximum to minimum light intensity ratio requirement and states the requirement is difficult to meet based upon the unique shape of the site and the large truck area. Again, staff will defer to the city engineer and continue to work with the petitioner. Truck Turning Template A truck turning template demonstrating the maneuverability of standard sized semitrucks within the site layout has been provided. It appears that there are a few spots where a truck may breach the curbs. Specifically, the full access point off IL Rte. 47 shows interference on both northbound ingress and egress. The petitioner will need to address this issue by enlarging the lanes or by making the island mountable to avoid damage to the curbs. Sidewalks/Share Paths Currently, no sidewalks are located along IL Rte. 47 and IL Rte. 71. All future sidewalks along IL Rte. 71 will occur as part of future IDOT roadway improvements. Additionally, a future shared path is proposed along IL Rte. 47 as part of IDOT roadway improvements. The petitioner will provide an asphalt path connection to the gas station development (Lot 1). Stormwater Detention Area A backup/dormant Special Service Area will be required per the Stormwater Ordinance to ensure future maintenance of the detention facility. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The 2016 Comprehensive Plan designates this for Destination Commercial (DC). This land use is designated for small to medium scale auto-oriented commercial uses, such as retail centers and restaurants located near residential areas. Additionally, this land use should have landscaping treatments between front parking lots and rights-of-way as well as containing high quality signage which is scaled appropriately. Therefore, the proposed use is consistent with the designated future land use plan. ENGINEERING/LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW: The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and continues to work with the petitioner in updating the plans as comments are given. All requests made will be required as a condition of the special use request. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff is seeking input and comments from the Economic Development Committee. The proposed rezoning, special use, sign variance scheduled for a public hearing on July 13, 2022 before the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC). The final plat will also be reviewed at the July PZC meeting. A recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at the July 26, 2022 regularly scheduled meeting, if all requested materials are submitted and comments from the public and 7 commissions are addressed. Staff will be available to answer any question the Economic Development Committee may have at Tuesday night’s meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Petitioner Applications 2. Email response from Petitioner’s Architect, Rob Costello, dated 06/01/2022 3. Letter from HR Green dated May 31, 2022 4. Preliminary Engineering Plans prepared by HR Green, revised 05/27/2022 (Sheets C-01 to C-05) 5. Photometric Plans prepared by LSI revised 05-27-2022 (Sheet 1 of 1) 6. Final Plat prepared by HR Green Development, LLC, revised 05/31/2022 (Sheets 1-2) 7. Building Elevations prepared by Torch Architecture dated May 31, 2022 8. Landscape Plan prepared by HR Green dated05/27/2022 (Sheets L-01 to L-02) 9. Sign Plans prepared by Image FX, Corp. no date provided 10. Sign Plans prepared by Blair Companies dated 06.16.20 11. Preliminary Stormwater Report prepared by HR Green revised March 27, 2022 12. Truck Turning Exhibit prepared by HR Green dated 05/27/22 13. IDOT letter prepared by Michael Short, Program Development Engineer dated March 28, 2022 14. Plan Council Memo dated May 5, 2022 15. Letter from EEI dated May 9, 2022 APPLICATION FOR REZONING United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us INTENT AND PURPOSERezoning is a type of map amendment which allows for the reclassification of a property’s zoning district. A request for rezoning must not be arbitrary. There are several land use factors which are considered during the review process for a rezoning request including the suitability of surrounding land uses and zoning districts, local development trends, potential traffic impacts, and the overall public health and safety of the community. This packet explains the process to successfully submit and complete an Application for Rezoning. It includes a detailed description of the process, outlines required submittal materials, and contains the application for rezoning. For a complete explanation of what is legally required throughout the Special Use process, please refer to “Title 10, Chapter 4, Section 7: Amendments” of the Yorkville, Illinois City Code. APPLICATION PROCEDURE STEP1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL SUBMIT APPLICATION, FEES, AND PLANS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. The following must be submitted: One (1) original signed and notarized application. Legal description of the proper ty in Microsoft Word. Three (3) copies each of the exhibits, proposed drawings, location map, and site plan. All exhibits and plans must be an appropriate size for all details and descriptions to be legible. Appropriate application and filing fee. Checks may be written to the United City of Yorkville. Signed Applicant Deposit Account/Acknowledgment of Financial Responsibility form. One (1) electronic copy (PDF) of all materials submitted including application and exhibits. Within one (1) week of submittal, the Community Development Department will determine if the application is complete or if additional information is needed. An incomplete submittal could delay the scheduling of the project. The petitioner is responsible for payment of recording fees and public hearing costs, including written transcripts of the public hearing and outside consultant costs (i.e. legal review, land planner, zoning coordinator, environmental, etc.). The petitioner will be required to establish a deposit account with the City to cover these fees. Once a submitted and complete, Community Development staff will provide a tentative schedule of meetings as well as all needed documents for the process. The petitioner must present the proposed request to the Plan Council. The members of the Council include the Community Development Director, City Engineer, the Building Department Official, the Public Works Director, the Director of Parks and Recreation, a Fire Department Representative, and a Police Department Representative. This meeting is held to provide the petitioner with guidance from all City staff departments to ensure the petitioner is aware of all requirements and regulations for their development. Upon recommendation by the Plan Council, the petitioner will move forward to the Economic Development Committee. STEP2 PLAN COUNCIL MEETS ON THE 2ND & 4TH THURSDAY OF THE MONTH APPLICATION FOR REZONING United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us The petitioner must present the proposed plan to the Economic Development Committee. The committee consists of four alderman who will provide feedback to the petitioner regarding their request. This feedback allows the petitioner to gather comments and concerns prior to full City Council considerations. It also allows the City Council members to review the request prior to its arrival at City Council. STEP3 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETS ON THE 1ST TUESDAY OF THE MONTH The petitioner will attend and present their request at a public hearing conducted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing on the request, take public comments, discuss the request, and make a recommendation to City Council. No rezoning request shall be recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission unless it follows the standards set forth in City’s Zoning Ordinance. The petitioner is responsible for sending certified public hearing notices to adjacent property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the subject property no less than fifteen (15) days and no more than thirty (30) days prior to the public hearing date. The public hearing notice will be drafted by the City as well as published in a local newspaper. Additionally, a public hearing notice sign must be placed on the property no less than fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A certified affidavit must be filed by the petitioner with the Community Development Department containing the names, addresses and permanent parcel numbers of all parties that were notified. The Certified Mailing Affidavit form is attached to this document. STEP4 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETS ON THE 2ND WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH The petitioner will attend the City Council meeting where the recommendation of the special use will be considered. City Council will make the final approval of the special use. If approved, City staff will have a drafted ordinance to be signed by the Council and must be recorded with the County Clerk before any further steps may be taken by the petitioner. STEP5 CITY COUNCIL MEETS ON THE 2ND & 4TH TUESDAY OF THE MONTH SUMMARY OF RESPONSIBILITIES Below is a summary breakdown of what will be required by the petitioner and what will be completed by the City: Signed and Notarized Application Required Plans, Exhibits, and Fees Certified Mailing of Public Notice Signed Certified Affidavit of Mailings Attendance at All Meetings Detailed Schedule After Complete Submission Public Hearing Notice Language Posting of the Public Notice in a Local Newspaper Public Hearing Sign Application Draft Ordinance & Signatures for RecordingPETITIONERCITY STAFF APPLICATION FOR REZONING United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us DORMANT APPLICATIONS The Community Development Director shall determine if an application meets or fails to meet the submission requirements. If the Director determines that the application is incomplete it will become dormant under these circumstances: • The applicant has been notified of such deficiencies and has not responded or provided a time line for completing the application within ninety (90) days from the time of notification. • The applicant has not responded in writing to a request for information or documentation from the initial planning and zoning commission review within six (6) months from the date of that request. • The applicant has not responded to a request for legal or engineering deposit replenishment for city incurred costs and fees within ninety (90) days from the date of the request. If the Community Development Director has sent the required notice and the applicant has not withdrawn their application or brought it into compliance, then the director shall terminate the application. After termination, the application shall not be reconsidered except after the filing of a completely new application. Withdrawal or termination of an application shall not affect the applicant’s responsibility for payment of any costs and fees, or any other outstanding debt owed to the city. The balance of any funds deposited with the city that is not needed to pay for costs and fees shall be returned to the applicant. (Ord. 2011-34, 7-26-2011) SAMPLE MEETING SCHEDULE MONTH 1 MONTH 2 MONTH 3 MONTH 4 Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 City CouncilPlanning & Zoning CommissionPublic HearingEconomic Development CommitteePlan Council Meeting This is a sample of what a schedule may look like after submission. The Step 1 Submission must be completed before the Plan Council Meeting can be scheduled. This timeline represents an ideal schedule. Throughout the review process, there may be requests or changes to the submission requested by the committees which may delay the meeting schedule. As illustrated, there is a small amount of time between meeting dates and the deadline for updated materials to be submitted for review. Depending on the complexity and nature of the request, this timeline may be extended to give the petitioner and staff enough time to review requested updates to the submission. Public Notice Mailing WindowMeeting Date Updated Materials Submitted for Meeting APPLICATION FOR REZONING United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us INVOICE & WORKSHEET PETITION APPLICATION CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW Engineering Plan Review deposit $500.00 Total: $ AMENDMENT Annexation Plan Plat P.U.D. $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 Total: $ ANNEXATION $250.00 + $10 per acre for each acre over 5 acres Total: $ ____________ - 5 = ____________ x $10 = ____________ + $250 = $ ____________ # of Acres Acres over 5 Amount for Extra Acres Total Amount REZONING $200.00 + $10 per acre for each acre over 5 acres Total: $ If annexing and rezoning, charge only 1 per acre fee; if rezoning to a PUD, charge PUD Development Fee - not Rezoning Fee ____________ - 5 = ____________ x $10 = ____________ + $200 = $ ____________ # of Acres Acres over 5 Amount for Extra Acres Total Amount SPECIAL USE $250.00 + $10 per acre for each acre over 5 acres Total: $ ____________ - 5 = ____________ x $10 = ____________ + $250 = $ ____________ # of Acres Acres over 5 Amount for Extra Acres Total Amount ZONING VARIANCE $85.00 + $500.00 outside consultants deposit Total: $ PRELIMINARY PLAN FEE $500.00 Total: $ PUD FEE $500.00 Total: $ FINAL PLAT FEE $500.00 Total: $ ENGINEERING PLAN REVIEW DEPOSIT Less than 1 acre Over 1 acre, less than 10 acres Over 10 acres, less than 40 acres Over 40 acres, less than 100 acres Over 100 acres $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 Total: $ OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS DEPOSIT Legal, land planner, zoning coordinator, environmental services Total: $ For Annexation, Subdivision, Rezoning, and Special Use: Less than 2 acres Over 2 acres, less than 10 acres Over 10 acres $1,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: APPLICATION FOR REZONING United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us DATE:PZC NUMBER:DEVELOPMENT NAME: PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: BUSINESS HOME EMAIL:FAX: PROPERTY INFORMATION NAME OF HOLDER OF LEGAL TITLE: IF LEGAL TITLE IS HELD BY A LAND TRUST, LIST THE NAMES OF ALL HOLDERS OF ANY BENEFICIAL INTEREST THEREIN: PROPERTY STREET ADDRESS: DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY’S PHYSICAL LOCATION: CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION:REQUESTED ZONING CLASSIFICATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION:TOTAL ACREAGE: ZONING AND LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES NORTH: EAST: SOUTH: WEST: KENDALL COUNTY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER(S) APPLICATION FOR REZONING United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us ATTORNEY INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: ENGINEER INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: LAND PLANNER/SURVEYOR INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: ATTACHMENTS Petitioner must attach a legal description of the property to this application and title it as “Exhibit A”. Petitioner must list the names and addresses of any adjoining or contiguous landowners within five hundred (500) feet of the property that are entitled notice of application under any applicable City Ordinance or State Statute. Attach a separate list to this application and title it as “Exhibit B”. APPLICATION FOR REZONING United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us REZONING STANDARDS PLEASE STATE THE EXISTING ZONING CLASSIFICATION(S) AND USES OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE GENERAL AREA OF THE PROPOSED REZONED PROPERTY: PLEASE STATE THE TREND OF DEVELOPMENT, IF ANY, IN THE GENERAL AREA OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, INCLUDING CHANGES, IF ANY, WHICH HAVE TAKEN PLACE SINCE THE DAY THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS PLACED IN ITS PRESENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION: PLEASE STATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH PROPERTY VALUES ARE DIMINISHED BY THE PARTICULAR ZONING RESTRICTIONS: PLEASE STATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY VALUES OF PETITIONER PROMOTES THE HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC: APPLICATION FOR REZONING United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us REZONING STANDARDS PLEASE STATE THE LENGTH OF TIME THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN VACANT AS ZONED CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA IN THE VICINITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: PLEASE STATE THE COMMUNITY NEED FOR THE PROPOSED LAND USE: WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, PLEASE STATE THE CARE WITH WHICH THE COMMUNITY HAS UNDERTAKEN TO PLAN ITS LAND USE DEVELOPMENT: PLEASE STATE THE IMPACT THAT SUCH RECLASSIFICATION WILL HAVE UPON TRAFFIC AND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ON SAID ROUTES; THE EFFECT, IF ANY, SUCH RECLASSIFICATION AND/OR ANNEXATION WOULD HAVE UPON EXISTING ACCESSES TO SAID ROUTES; AND THE IMPACT OF ADDITIONAL ACCESSES AS REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER UPON TRAFFIC AND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AND FLOW ON SAID ROUTES (ORD. 1976-43, 11-4-1976): APPLICATION FOR REZONING United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us REZONING STANDARDS PLEASE STATE THE RELATIVE GAIN TO THE PUBLIC AS COMPARED TO THE HARDSHIP IMPOSED UPON THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER: PLEASE STATE THE SUITABILITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR THE ZONED PURPOSES: AGREEMENT I VERIFY THAT ALL THE INFORMATION IN THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT ALL REQUIREMENTS AND FEES AS OUTLINED AS WELL AS ANY INCURRED ADMINISTRATIVE AND PLANNING CONSULTANT FEES WHICH MUST BE CURRENT BEFORE THIS PROJECT CAN PROCEED TO THE NEXT SCHEDULED COMMITTEE MEETING. I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS DOCUMENT AND UNDERSTAND THAT IF AN APPLICATION BECOMES DORMANT IT IS THROUGH MY OWN FAULT AND I MUST THEREFORE FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED ABOVE. PETITIONER SIGNATURE DATE OWNER SIGNATURE DATE OWNER HEREBY AUTHORIZES THE PETITIONER TO PURSUE THE APPROPRIATE ENTITLEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE NOTARIZED PLEASE NOTARIZE HERE: APPLICANT DEPOSIT ACCOUNT/ ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us PRINT NAME SIGNATURE* TITLE DATE PROJECT NUMBER:FUND ACCOUNT NUMBER: PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER DEPOSIT ACCOUNT FUND: It is the policy of the United City of Yorkville to require any petitioner seeking approval on a project or entitlement request to establish a Petitioner Deposit Account Fund to cover all actual expenses occurred as a result of processing such applications and requests. Typical requests requiring the establishment of a Petitioner Deposit Account Fund include, but are not limited to, plan review of development approvals/engineering permits. Deposit account funds may also be used to cover costs for services related to legal fees, engineering and other plan reviews, processing of other governmental applications, recording fees and other outside coordination and consulting fees. Each fund account is established with an initial deposit based upon the estimated cost for services provided in the INVOICE & WORKSHEET PETITION APPLICATION. This initial deposit is drawn against to pay for these services related to the project or request. Periodically throughout the project review/approval process, the Financially Responsible Party will receive an invoice reflecting the charges made against the account. At any time the balance of the fund account fall below ten percent (10%) of the original deposit amount, the Financially Responsible Party will receive an invoice requesting additional funds equal to one-hundred percent (100%) of the initial deposit if subsequent reviews/fees related to the project are required. In the event that a deposit account is not immediately replenished, review by the administrative staff, consultants, boards and commissions may be suspended until the account is fully replenished. If additional funds remain in the deposit account at the completion of the project, the city will refund the balance to the Financially Responsible Party. A written request must be submitted by the Financially Responsible Party to the city by the 15th of the month in order for the refund check to be processed and distributed by the 15th of the following month. All refund checks will be made payable to the Financially Responsible Party and mailed to the address provided when the account was established. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY: I acknowledge and understand that as the Financially Responsible Party, expenses may exceed the estimated initial deposit and, when requested by the United City of Yorkville, I will provide additional funds to maintain the required account balance. Further, the sale or other disposition of the property does not relieve the individual or Company/Corporation of their obligation to maintain a positive balance in the fund account, unless the United City of Yorkville approves a Change of Responsible Party and transfer of funds. Should the account go into deficit, all City work may stop until the requested replenishment deposit is received. *The name of the individual and the person who signs this declaration must be the same. If a corporation is listed, a corporate officer must sign the declaration (President, Vice- President, Chairman, Secretary or Treasurer) INITIAL ENGINEERING/LEGAL DEPOSIT TOTALS ENGINEERING DEPOSITS: Up to one (1) acre Over one (1) acre, but less than ten (10) acres Over ten (10) acres, but less than forty (40) acres Over forty (40) acres, but less than one hundred (100) In excess of one hundred (100.00) acres $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 LEGAL DEPOSITS: Less than two (2) acres Over two (2) acres, but less than ten (10) acres Over ten (10) acres $1,000 $2,500 $5,000 CERTIFIED MAILING AFFIDAVIT STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS COUNTY OF KENDALL ) I/We, ________________________, petitioner, being first duly sworn, do hereby state under oath that to the best of my knowledge the attached list is a true, correct and complete list of all permanent parcel numbers, and names and addresses of owners, of all lots and parts of lots located within 500 feet (exclusively of any public streets and alleys) of the property legally described on the attached application for annexation, rezoning, special use permit, planned unit development, variation, or other zoning amendment. I further state that said list was obtained from the current tax rolls of the Kendall County Treasurer’s Office. I further state that I mailed by U.S. Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, a copy of the Public Notice of Public Hearing before the United City of Yorkville Planning and Zoning Commission for the Public Hearing held on Wednesday, _______________, at the United City of City Council Chambers, Yorkville, Illinois. The notice was mailed to the attached list of all of the permanent parcel numbers and names and addresses of owners at the U.S. Post office on _______________________, 20_____. ________________________________ Signature of Petitioner(s) Subscribed and sworn to before me this ________ day of _______________, 20______ ______________________________________ Notary Public PERMIT NUMBER:DATE/TIME RECEIVED: SITE ADDRESS:PARCEL NUMBER: SUBDIVISION:LOT/UNIT: APPLICANT INFORMATION NAME:TELEPHONE: HOME BUSINESS ADDRESS:E-MAIL: HOME BUSINESS CITY, STATE, ZIP:FAX: SIGN INFORMATION DATE OF PICK UP:NUMBER OF SIGNS: DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING:SIGN RETURN DATE: The undersigned hereby states that they have acquired Public Hearing Signs from the United City of Yorkville’s Community Development Department and agrees to return said sign/s to Yorkville City Hall, 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, Illinois, immediately following the date of the public hearing. Petitioner or Representative agrees to pay to the United City of Yorkville a deposit of $50 for each sign. The deposit will be returned to the petitioner when the public hearing sign/s have been returned to the City. Petitioner or Representative further agrees to pay to the United City of Yorkville the full amount of the purchase price for each sign not returned to the United City of Yorkville within seven (7) days after the date of the public hearing. ___________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________ SIGNATURE/AUTHORIZED AGENT DATE DATE RETURNED: _____________________________________________________ RECEIVED BY: _______________________________________________________PZC# ______________________________ APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING SIGN United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT/REPLAT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us INTENT AND PURPOSEThe purpose of this application is to allow land to be divided and distributed in a way that conforms to the City of Yorkville’s standards. The process for applying for a final plat or replat allows for the review of a proposed layout of divided lots and establishes standard design specification to ensure adequate roadways for safe and efficient traffic circulation is provided; safeguard against flood damage; promotes access and availability of utilities; and requires the provision of other necessary public improvements. This packet explains the process to successfully submit and complete an Application for Final Plat/Replat. It includes a detailed description of the process, outlines required submittal materials, and contains the application. For a complete explanation of what is legally required throughout the process, please refer to “Title 11 Subdivision Control” of the Yorkville, Illinois City Code. APPLICATION PROCEDURE STEP1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL SUBMIT APPLICATION, FEES, AND PLANS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. The following must be submitted: One (1) original signed and notarized application. Legal description of the property in Microsoft Word. Three (3) copies each of the exhibits and proposed drawings. All exhibits and plans must be an appropriate size for all details and descriptions to be legible. Appropriate application and filing fee. Checks may be written to the United City of Yorkville. Signed Applicant Deposit Account/Acknowledgment of Financial Responsibility form. One (1) electronic copy (PDF) of all materials submitted including application and exhibits. Within one (1) week of submittal, the Community Development Department will determine if the application is complete or if additional information is needed. An incomplete submittal could delay the scheduling of the project. The petitioner is responsible for payment of recording fees and outside consultant costs (i.e. legal review, engineering review, etc.). The petitioner will be required to establish a deposit account with the City to cover these fees. Once submitted and complete, Community Development staff will provide a tentative schedule of meetings as well as all the needed documents for the process. The petitioner must present the proposed request to the Plan Council. The members of the Council include the Community Development Director, City Engineer, the Building Department Official, the Public Works Director, the Director of Parks and Recreation, a Fire Department Representative, and a Police Department Representative. This meeting is held to provide the petitioner with guidance from all City staff departments to ensure the petitioner is aware of all requirements and regulations for their development. Upon recommendation by the Plan Council, the petitioner will move forward to the Economic Development Committee. STEP2 PLAN COUNCIL MEETS ON THE 2ND & 4TH THURSDAY OF THE MONTH This step is dependent on the complexity of the request and may be skipped at the discretion of staff. APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT/REPLAT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us The petitioner must present the proposed plat to the Economic Development Committee. The committee consists of four alderman who will provide feedback to the petitioner regarding their request. This feedback allows the petitioner to gather comments and concerns prior to full City Council considerations. It also allows the City Council members to review the request prior to its arrival at City Council. STEP3 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETS ON THE 1ST TUESDAY OF THE MONTH The petitioner will attend and present their plat to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission will discuss the request and make a recommendation to City Council. STEP4 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETS ON THE 2ND WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH The petitioner will attend the City Council meeting where the recommendation of the plat will be considered. City Council will make the final approval of the plat. If approved, City staff will have a drafted ordinance to be signed by the Council and must be recorded with the County Clerk before any further steps may be taken by the petitioner. STEP5 CITY COUNCIL MEETS ON THE 2ND & 4TH TUESDAY OF THE MONTH SAMPLE MEETING SCHEDULE MONTH 1 MONTH 2 MONTH 3 MONTH 4 Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 City CouncilPlanning & Zoning CommissionEconomic Development CommitteePlan Council Meeting This is a sample of what a schedule may look like after submission. The Step 1 Submission must be completed before the Plan Council Meeting can be scheduled. This timeline represents an ideal schedule. Throughout the review process, there may be requests or changes to the submission requested by the committees which may delay the meeting schedule. As illustrated, there is a small amount of time between meeting dates and the deadline for updated materials to be submitted for review. Depending on the complexity and nature of the request, this timeline may be extended to give the petitioner and staff enough time to review requested updates to the submission. Meeting Date Updated Materials Submitted for Meeting APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT/REPLAT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us DORMANT APPLICATIONS The Community Development Director shall determine if an application meets or fails to meet the submission requirements. If the Director determines that the application is incomplete it will become dormant under these circumstances: • The applicant has been notified of such deficiencies and has not responded or provided a time line for completing the application within ninety (90) days from the time of notification. • The applicant has not responded in writing to a request for information or documentation from the initial planning and zoning commission review within six (6) months from the date of that request. • The applicant has not responded to a request for legal or engineering deposit replenishment for city incurred costs and fees within ninety (90) days from the date of the request. If the Community Development Director has sent the required notice and the applicant has not withdrawn their application or brought it into compliance, then the director shall terminate the application. After termination, the application shall not be reconsidered except after the filing of a completely new application. Withdrawal or termination of an application shall not affect the applicant’s responsibility for payment of any costs and fees, or any other outstanding debt owed to the city. The balance of any funds deposited with the city that is not needed to pay for costs and fees shall be returned to the applicant. (Ord. 2011-34, 7-26-2011) APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT/REPLAT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us REQUIRED MATERIALS FOR FINAL PLAT OR SUBDIVISION PLAT The following information must be shown on all final plats and final plats of resubdivision: Legal Description Monuments Exterior Boundary Lines Widths Lot Lines Setback Lines Consecutive Numbering & Lettering Lot Angles Circular Curves Street Names Abutment Dedicated Lands LOT AREAS LOT # 1 2 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 SQ.FT. 164,918± 899,104± 1,800± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,800± 1,800± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,800± 1,800± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,800± 1,800± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± ACRES 3.786± 20.641± 0.041± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.041± 0.041± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.041± 0.041± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.041± 0.041± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± LOT AREAS LOT # 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 SQ.FT. 1,800± 1,800± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,800± 1,800± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,800± 1,800± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,800± 1,800± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,800± ACRES 0.041± 0.041± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.041± 0.041± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.041± 0.041± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.041± 0.041± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.041±Illinois Professional Design Firm # 184-0013222363 Sequoia Drive, Suite 101,Aurora, Illinois 60506t. 630.553.7560 f. 630.553.7646www.hrgreen.com1 OF 4 PINs: 02-19-481-001 02-20-353-010 02-20-353-011 LOT 1(SEE SHEET 2 FOR L O T 1 & L O T 1 0 1 - 1 4 8 D E T A I L S ) LOT 51 KENDALL MARKETPLACE DOC. 200700014779 REC. 05/07/2007BLACKBERRY SH O R E L A N E(66' R.O.W. HERETOF O R E D E D I C A T E D P E R D O C . 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 4 7 7 9 )GILLESPIE LANE(80' R.O.W. HERETOFORE DEDICATED PER DOC. 200700014779) LOT 50 LOT 49 LOT 48 LOT 47 LOT 46 LOT 45 LOT 44 LOT 43 LOT 42 LOT 41 LOT 40 LOT 39 LOT 38 LOT 37 LOT 36 LOT 35 LOT 34 LOT 33 LOT 31 LOT 30 LOT 29 LOT 28 LOT 27 LOT 26 LOT 25 LOT 24 LOT 23 FUTURE BEECHER ROAD KENDALL MARKETPLACE DOC. 200700014779 REC. 05/07/2007 KENDALL MARKETPLACE DOC. 200700014779 REC. 05/07/2007 LOT 16 LOT 17 LOT 19 L O T 5 5 KENDALL MARKETPLACE DOC. 200700014779 REC. 05/07/2007 L O T 5 5 KENDALL MARKETPLACE DOC. 200700014779 REC. 05/07/2007 LOT 57HIGH RIDGELANEU N S U B D I V I D E D L A N D S LOT 2 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 148 147 146 145 144 143 142 141 140 139 138 137 136 135 134 133 132 131 120 119 121 122 123 124 130 129 128 127 126 125LOT 32 TOTAL LAND AREA: 1,141,501± SQ.FT. OR 26.205± ACRES KENDALL MARKETPLACE DOC. 200700014779 REC. 05/07/2007 LOT 52 Watercourses and Drainage Access to Lake or Streams (not shown) Survey Certificates of Approval (not shown) A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P FINAL PLAT OF RESUBDIVISION EXAMPLE A B B C C D D E F F G G H I J JK L M O APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT/REPLAT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us INVOICE & WORKSHEET PETITION APPLICATION CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW Engineering Plan Review deposit $500.00 Total: $ AMENDMENT Annexation Plan Plat P.U.D. $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 Total: $ ANNEXATION $250.00 + $10 per acre for each acre over 5 acres Total: $ ____________ - 5 = ____________ x $10 = ____________ + $250 = $ ____________ # of Acres Acres over 5 Amount for Extra Acres Total Amount REZONING $200.00 + $10 per acre for each acre over 5 acres Total: $ If annexing and rezoning, charge only 1 per acre fee; if rezoning to a PUD, charge PUD Development Fee - not Rezoning Fee ____________ - 5 = ____________ x $10 = ____________ + $200 = $ ____________ # of Acres Acres over 5 Amount for Extra Acres Total Amount SPECIAL USE $250.00 + $10 per acre for each acre over 5 acres Total: $ ____________ - 5 = ____________ x $10 = ____________ + $250 = $ ____________ # of Acres Acres over 5 Amount for Extra Acres Total Amount ZONING VARIANCE $85.00 + $500.00 outside consultants deposit Total: $ PRELIMINARY PLAN FEE $500.00 Total: $ PUD FEE $500.00 Total: $ FINAL PLAT FEE $500.00 Total: $ ENGINEERING PLAN REVIEW DEPOSIT Less than 1 acre Over 1 acre, less than 10 acres Over 10 acres, less than 40 acres Over 40 acres, less than 100 acres Over 100 acres $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 Total: $ OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS DEPOSIT Legal, land planner, zoning coordinator, environmental services Total: $ For Annexation, Subdivision, Rezoning, and Special Use: Less than 2 acres Over 2 acres, less than 10 acres Over 10 acres $1,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT/REPLAT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us DATE:PZC NUMBER:DEVELOPMENT NAME: PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: HOME BUSINESS EMAIL:FAX: PROPERTY INFORMATION NAME OF HOLDER OF LEGAL TITLE: IF LEGAL TITLE IS HELD BY A LAND TRUST, LIST THE NAMES OF ALL HOLDERS OF ANY BENEFICIAL INTEREST THEREIN: PROPERTY STREET ADDRESS: DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY’S PHYSICAL LOCATION: CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION: TOTAL LOT ACREAGE:TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS TO BE CREATED: PROPOSED LOT AREAS AND DIMENSIONS LOT NUMBER LOT DIMENSIONS (W x L, IN FEET)LOT AREA (IN SQUARE FEET) APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT/REPLAT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us ATTORNEY INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: ENGINEER INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: LAND PLANNER/SURVEYOR INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: ATTACHMENTS Petitioner must attach a legal description of the property to this application and title it as “Exhibit A”. AGREEMENT I VERIFY THAT ALL THE INFORMATION IN THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT ALL REQUIREMENTS AND FEES AS OUTLINED AS WELL AS ANY INCURRED ADMINISTRATIVE AND PLANNING CONSULTANT FEES WHICH MUST BE CURRENT BEFORE THIS PROJECT CAN PROCEED TO THE NEXT SCHEDULED COMMITTEE MEETING. I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS DOCUMENT AND UNDERSTAND THAT IF AN APPLICATION BECOMES DORMANT IT IS THROUGH MY OWN FAULT AND I MUST THEREFORE FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED ABOVE. OWNER HEREBY AUTHORIZES THE PETITIONER TO PURSUE THE APPROPRIATE ENTITLEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY. PETITIONER SIGNATURE OWNER SIGNATURE APPLICANT DEPOSIT ACCOUNT/ ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us PRINT NAME SIGNATURE* TITLE DATE PROJECT NAME: FUND ACCOUNT NUMBER: PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER DEPOSIT ACCOUNT FUND: It is the policy of the United City of Yorkville to require any petitioner seeking approval on a project or entitlement request to establish a Petitioner Deposit Account Fund to cover all actual expenses occurred as a result of processing such applications and requests. Typical requests requiring the establishment of a Petitioner Deposit Account Fund include, but are not limited to, plan review of development approvals/engineering permits. Deposit account funds may also be used to cover costs for services related to legal fees, engineering and other plan reviews, processing of other governmental applications, recording fees and other outside coordination and consulting fees. Each fund account is established with an initial deposit based upon the estimated cost for services provided in the INVOICE & WORKSHEET PETITION APPLICATION. This initial deposit is drawn against to pay for these services related to the project or request. Periodically throughout the project review/approval process, the Financially Responsible Party will receive an invoice reflecting the charges made against the account. At any time the balance of the fund account fall below ten percent (10%) of the original deposit amount, the Financially Responsible Party will receive an invoice requesting additional funds equal to one-hundred percent (100%) of the initial deposit if subsequent reviews/fees related to the project are required. In the event that a deposit account is not immediately replenished, review by the administrative staff, consultants, boards and commissions may be suspended until the account is fully replenished. If additional funds remain in the deposit account at the completion of the project, the city will refund the balance to the Financially Responsible Party. A written request must be submitted by the Financially Responsible Party to the city by the 15th of the month in order for the refund check to be processed and distributed by the 15th of the following month. All refund checks will be made payable to the Financially Responsible Party and mailed to the address provided when the account was established. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY: I acknowledge and understand that as the Financially Responsible Party, expenses may exceed the estimated initial deposit and, when requested by the United City of Yorkville, I will provide additional funds to maintain the required account balance. Further, the sale or other disposition of the property does not relieve the individual or Company/Corporation of their obligation to maintain a positive balance in the fund account, unless the United City of Yorkville approves a Change of Responsible Party and transfer of funds. Should the account go into deficit, all City work may stop until the requested replenishment deposit is received. *The name of the individual and the person who signs this declaration must be the same. If a corporation is listed, a corporate officer must sign the declaration (President, Vice- President, Chairman, Secretary or Treasurer) INITIAL ENGINEERING/LEGAL DEPOSIT TOTALS ENGINEERING DEPOSITS: Up to one (1) acre Over one (1) acre, but less than ten (10) acres Over ten (10) acres, but less than forty (40) acres Over forty (40) acres, but less than one hundred (100) In excess of one hundred (100.00) acres $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 LEGAL DEPOSITS: Less than two (2) acres Over two (2) acres, but less than ten (10) acres Over ten (10) acres $1,000 $2,500 $5,000 APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us INTENT AND PURPOSEThe purpose of the zoning code is based upon the authority of the City to divide its land into districts by use, bulk, and structures, in a substantially uniform manner. It is recognized that while some uses are permitted under the zoning code to keep uniformity, a case-by-case analysis must be conducted for certain permitted uses to discover the impact of those uses on neighboring land. In these cases a special use must be granted. This packet explains the process to successfully submit and complete an Application for Special Use. It includes a detailed description of the process, outlines required submittal materials, and contains the application for special use. For a complete explanation of what is legally required throughout the Special Use process, please refer to “Title 10, Chapter 4, Section 9: Special Uses” of the Yorkville, Illinois City Code. APPLICATION PROCEDURE STEP1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL SUBMIT APPLICATION, FEES, AND PLANS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. The following must be submitted: One (1) original signed and notarized application. Legal description of the proper ty in Microsoft Word. Three (3) copies each of the exhibits, proposed drawings, location map, and site plan. All exhibits and plans must be an appropriate size for all details and descriptions to be legible. Appropriate application and filing fee. Checks may be written to the United City of Yorkville. Signed Applicant Deposit Account/Acknowledgment of Financial Responsibility form. One (1) electronic copy (PDF) of all materials submitted including application and exhibits. Within one (1) week of submittal, the Community Development Department will determine if the application is complete or if additional information is needed. An incomplete submittal could delay the scheduling of the project. The petitioner is responsible for payment of recording fees and public hearing costs, including written transcripts of the public hearing and outside consultant costs (i.e. legal review, land planner, zoning coordinator, environmental, etc.). The petitioner will be required to establish a deposit account with the City to cover these fees. Once a submitted and complete, Community Development staff will provide a tentative schedule of meetings as well as all needed documents for the process. The petitioner must present the proposed request to the Plan Council. The members of the Council include the Community Development Director, City Engineer, the Building Department Official, the Public Works Director, the Director of Parks and Recreation, a Fire Department Representative, and a Police Department Representative. This meeting is held to provide the petitioner with guidance from all City staff departments to ensure the petitioner is aware of all requirements and regulations for their development. Upon recommendation by the Plan Council, the petitioner will move forward to the Economic Development Committee. STEP2 PLAN COUNCIL MEETS ON THE 2ND & 4TH THURSDAY OF THE MONTH APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us The petitioner must present the proposed plan to the Economic Development Committee. The committee consists of four alderman who will provide feedback to the petitioner regarding their request. This feedback allows the petitioner to gather comments and concerns prior to full City Council considerations. It also allows the City Council members to review the request prior to its arrival at City Council. STEP3 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETS ON THE 1ST TUESDAY OF THE MONTH The petitioner will attend and present their request at a public hearing conducted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing on the request, take public comments, discuss the request, and make a recommendation to City Council. No special use shall be recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission unless it follows the standards set forth in City’s Zoning Ordinance. The petitioner is responsible for sending certified public hearing notices to adjacent property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the subject property no less than fifteen (15) days and no more than thirty (30) days prior to the public hearing date. The public hearing notice will be drafted by the City as well as published in a local newspaper. Additionally, a public hearing notice sign must be placed on the property no less than fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A certified affidavit must be filed by the petitioner with the Community Development Department containing the names, addresses and permanent parcel numbers of all parties that were notified. The Certified Mailing Affidavit form is attached to this document. STEP4 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETS ON THE 2ND WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH The petitioner will attend the City Council meeting where the recommendation of the special use will be considered. City Council will make the final approval of the special use. If approved, City staff will have a drafted ordinance to be signed by the Council and must be recorded with the County Clerk before any further steps may be taken by the petitioner. STEP5 CITY COUNCIL MEETS ON THE 2ND & 4TH TUESDAY OF THE MONTH SUMMARY OF RESPONSIBILITIES Below is a summary breakdown of what will be required by the petitioner and what will be completed by the City: Signed and Notarized Application Required Plans, Exhibits, and Fees Certified Mailing of Public Notice Signed Certified Affidavit of Mailings Attendance at All Meetings Detailed Schedule After Complete Submission Public Hearing Notice Language Posting of the Public Notice in a Local Newspaper Public Hearing Sign Application Draft Ordinance & Signatures for RecordingPETITIONERCITY STAFF APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us DORMANT APPLICATIONS The Community Development Director shall determine if an application meets or fails to meet the submission requirements. If the Director determines that the application is incomplete it will become dormant under these circumstances: •The applicant has been notified of such deficiencies and has not responded or provided a time line for completing theapplication within ninety (90) days from the time of notification. •The applicant has not responded in writing to a request for information or documentation from the initial planning andzoning commission review within six (6) months from the date of that request. •The applicant has not responded to a request for legal or engineering deposit replenishment for city incurred costs and feeswithin ninety (90) days from the date of the request. If the Community Development Director has sent the required notice and the applicant has not withdrawn their application or brought it into compliance, then the director shall terminate the application. After termination, the application shall not be reconsidered except after the filing of a completely new application. Withdrawal or termination of an application shall not affect the applicant’s responsibility for payment of any costs and fees, or any other outstanding debt owed to the city. The balance of any funds deposited with the city that is not needed to pay for costs and fees shall be returned to the applicant. (Ord. 2011-34, 7-26-2011) SAMPLE MEETING SCHEDULE MONTH 1 MONTH 2 MONTH 3 MONTH 4 Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 City CouncilPlanning & Zoning CommissionPublic HearingEconomic Development CommitteePlan Council Meeting This is a sample of what a schedule may look like after submission. The Step 1 Submission must be completed before the Plan Council Meeting can be scheduled. This timeline represents an ideal schedule. Throughout the review process, there may be requests or changes to the submission requested by the committees which may delay the meeting schedule. As illustrated, there is a small amount of time between meeting dates and the deadline for updated materials to be submitted for review. Depending on the complexity and nature of the request, this timeline may be extended to give the petitioner and staff enough time to review requested updates to the submission. Public Notice Mailing WindowMeeting Date Updated Materials Submitted for Meeting APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us INVOICE & WORKSHEET PETITION APPLICATION CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW Engineering Plan Review deposit $500.00 Total: $ AMENDMENT Annexation Plan Plat P.U.D. $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 Total: $ ANNEXATION $250.00 + $10 per acre for each acre over 5 acres Total: $ ____________ - 5 = ____________ x $10 = ____________ + $250 = $ ____________ # of Acres Acres over 5 Amount for Extra Acres Total Amount REZONING $200.00 + $10 per acre for each acre over 5 acres Total: $ If annexing and rezoning, charge only 1 per acre fee; if rezoning to a PUD, charge PUD Development Fee - not Rezoning Fee ____________ - 5 = ____________ x $10 = ____________ + $200 = $ ____________ # of Acres Acres over 5 Amount for Extra Acres Total Amount SPECIAL USE $250.00 + $10 per acre for each acre over 5 acres Total: $ ____________ - 5 = ____________ x $10 = ____________ + $250 = $ ____________ # of Acres Acres over 5 Amount for Extra Acres Total Amount ZONING VARIANCE $85.00 + $500.00 outside consultants deposit Total: $ PRELIMINARY PLAN FEE $500.00 Total: $ PUD FEE $500.00 Total: $ FINAL PLAT FEE $500.00 Total: $ ENGINEERING PLAN REVIEW DEPOSIT Less than 1 acre Over 1 acre, less than 10 acres Over 10 acres, less than 40 acres Over 40 acres, less than 100 acres Over 100 acres $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 Total: $ OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS DEPOSIT Legal, land planner, zoning coordinator, environmental services Total: $ For Annexation, Subdivision, Rezoning, and Special Use: Less than 2 acres Over 2 acres, less than 10 acres Over 10 acres $1,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us DATE:PZC NUMBER:DEVELOPMENT NAME: PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: BUSINESS HOME EMAIL:FAX: PROPERTY INFORMATION NAME OF HOLDER OF LEGAL TITLE: IF LEGAL TITLE IS HELD BY A LAND TRUST, LIST THE NAMES OF ALL HOLDERS OF ANY BENEFICIAL INTEREST THEREIN: PROPERTY STREET ADDRESS: DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY’S PHYSICAL LOCATION: CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION:COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED SPECIAL USE: ZONING AND LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES NORTH: EAST: SOUTH: WEST: KENDALL COUNTY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER(S) APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us ATTORNEY INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: ENGINEER INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: LAND PLANNER/SURVEYOR INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: ATTACHMENTS Petitioner must attach a legal description of the property to this application and title it as “Exhibit A”. Petitioner must list the names and addresses of any adjoining or contiguous landowners within five hundred (500) feet of the property that are entitled notice of application under any applicable City Ordinance or State Statute. Attach a separate list to this application and title it as “Exhibit B”. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us SPECIAL USE STANDARDS PLEASE STATE HOW THE ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE OR OPERATION OF THE SPECIAL USE WILL NOT BE UNREASONABLY DETRIMENTAL TO OR ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, COMFORT OR GENERAL WELFARE: PLEASE STATE HOW THE SPECIAL USE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF OTHER PROPERTY IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY FOR THE PURPOSE ALREADY PERMITTED, NOR SUBSTANTIALLY DIMINISH AND IMPAIR PROPERTY VALUES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD: PLEASE STATE HOW THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SPECIAL USE WILL NOT IMPEDE THE NORMAL AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY FOR USES PERMITTED IN THE DISTRICT: PLEASE STATE HOW ADEQUATE UTILITIES, ACCESS ROADS, DRAINAGE OR OTHER NECESSARY FACILITIES HAVE BEEN OR ARE BEING PROVIDED: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us SPECIAL USE STANDARDS PLEASE STATE HOW ADEQUATE MEASURES HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE TAKEN TO PROVIDE INGRESS OR EGRESS SO DESIGNED AS TO MINIMIZE TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN THE PUBLIC STREETS: PLEASE STATE HOW THE SPECIAL USE SHALL IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS CONFORM TO THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED, EXCEPT AS SUCH REGULATIONS MAY IN EACH INSTANCE BE MODIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: AGREEMENT I VERIFY THAT ALL THE INFORMATION IN THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT ALL REQUIREMENTS AND FEES AS OUTLINED AS WELL AS ANY INCURRED ADMINISTRATIVE AND PLANNING CONSULTANT FEES WHICH MUST BE CURRENT BEFORE THIS PROJECT CAN PROCEED TO THE NEXT SCHEDULED COMMITTEE MEETING. I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS DOCUMENT AND UNDERSTAND THAT IF AN APPLICATION BECOMES DORMANT IT IS THROUGH MY OWN FAULT AND I MUST THEREFORE FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED ABOVE. PETITIONER SIGNATURE DATE OWNER SIGNATURE DATE OWNER HEREBY AUTHORIZES THE PETITIONER TO PURSUE THE APPROPRIATE ENTITLEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE NOTARIZED PLEASE NOTARIZE HERE: APPLICANT DEPOSIT ACCOUNT/ ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us PRINT NAME SIGNATURE* TITLE DATE PROJECT NUMBER:FUND ACCOUNT NUMBER: PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER DEPOSIT ACCOUNT FUND: It is the policy of the United City of Yorkville to require any petitioner seeking approval on a project or entitlement request to establish a Petitioner Deposit Account Fund to cover all actual expenses occurred as a result of processing such applications and requests. Typical requests requiring the establishment of a Petitioner Deposit Account Fund include, but are not limited to, plan review of development approvals/engineering permits. Deposit account funds may also be used to cover costs for services related to legal fees, engineering and other plan reviews, processing of other governmental applications, recording fees and other outside coordination and consulting fees. Each fund account is established with an initial deposit based upon the estimated cost for services provided in the INVOICE & WORKSHEET PETITION APPLICATION. This initial deposit is drawn against to pay for these services related to the project or request. Periodically throughout the project review/approval process, the Financially Responsible Party will receive an invoice reflecting the charges made against the account. At any time the balance of the fund account fall below ten percent (10%) of the original deposit amount, the Financially Responsible Party will receive an invoice requesting additional funds equal to one-hundred percent (100%) of the initial deposit if subsequent reviews/fees related to the project are required. In the event that a deposit account is not immediately replenished, review by the administrative staff, consultants, boards and commissions may be suspended until the account is fully replenished. If additional funds remain in the deposit account at the completion of the project, the city will refund the balance to the Financially Responsible Party. A written request must be submitted by the Financially Responsible Party to the city by the 15th of the month in order for the refund check to be processed and distributed by the 15th of the following month. All refund checks will be made payable to the Financially Responsible Party and mailed to the address provided when the account was established. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY: I acknowledge and understand that as the Financially Responsible Party, expenses may exceed the estimated initial deposit and, when requested by the United City of Yorkville, I will provide additional funds to maintain the required account balance. Further, the sale or other disposition of the property does not relieve the individual or Company/Corporation of their obligation to maintain a positive balance in the fund account, unless the United City of Yorkville approves a Change of Responsible Party and transfer of funds. Should the account go into deficit, all City work may stop until the requested replenishment deposit is received. *The name of the individual and the person who signs this declaration must be the same. If a corporation is listed, a corporate officer must sign the declaration (President, Vice- President, Chairman, Secretary or Treasurer) INITIAL ENGINEERING/LEGAL DEPOSIT TOTALS ENGINEERING DEPOSITS: Up to one (1) acre Over one (1) acre, but less than ten (10) acres Over ten (10) acres, but less than forty (40) acres Over forty (40) acres, but less than one hundred (100) In excess of one hundred (100.00) acres $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 LEGAL DEPOSITS: Less than two (2) acres Over two (2) acres, but less than ten (10) acres Over ten (10) acres $1,000 $2,500 $5,000 CERTIFIED MAILING AFFIDAVIT STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS COUNTY OF KENDALL ) I/We, ________________________, petitioner, being first duly sworn, do hereby state under oath that to the best of my knowledge the attached list is a true, correct and complete list of all permanent parcel numbers, and names and addresses of owners, of all lots and parts of lots located within 500 feet (exclusively of any public streets and alleys) of the property legally described on the attached application for annexation, rezoning, special use permit, planned unit development, variation, or other zoning amendment. I further state that said list was obtained from the current tax rolls of the Kendall County Treasurer’s Office. I further state that I mailed by U.S. Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, a copy of the Public Notice of Public Hearing before the United City of Yorkville Planning and Zoning Commission for the Public Hearing held on Wednesday, _______________, at the United City of City Council Chambers, Yorkville, Illinois. The notice was mailed to the attached list of all of the permanent parcel numbers and names and addresses of owners at the U.S. Post office on _______________________, 20_____. ________________________________ Signature of Petitioner(s) Subscribed and sworn to before me this ________ day of _______________, 20______ ______________________________________ Notary Public PERMIT NUMBER:DATE/TIME RECEIVED: SITE ADDRESS:PARCEL NUMBER: SUBDIVISION:LOT/UNIT: APPLICANT INFORMATION NAME:TELEPHONE: HOME BUSINESS ADDRESS:E-MAIL: HOME BUSINESS CITY, STATE, ZIP:FAX: SIGN INFORMATION DATE OF PICK UP:NUMBER OF SIGNS: DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING:SIGN RETURN DATE: The undersigned hereby states that they have acquired Public Hearing Signs from the United City of Yorkville’s Community Development Department and agrees to return said sign/s to Yorkville City Hall, 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, Illinois, immediately following the date of the public hearing. Petitioner or Representative agrees to pay to the United City of Yorkville a deposit of $50 for each sign. The deposit will be returned to the petitioner when the public hearing sign/s have been returned to the City. Petitioner or Representative further agrees to pay to the United City of Yorkville the full amount of the purchase price for each sign not returned to the United City of Yorkville within seven (7) days after the date of the public hearing. ___________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________ SIGNATURE/AUTHORIZED AGENT DATE DATE RETURNED: _____________________________________________________ RECEIVED BY: _______________________________________________________PZC# ______________________________ APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING SIGN United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us THAT PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4 AND PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 36 NORTH, RANGE 7 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5, THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 5 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, 655.52 FEET TO THE TANGENT CENTER LINE OF ILLINOIS STATE ROUTE NO. 47 EXTENDED FROM THE SOUTH; THENCE SOUTH 1 DEGREE 44 MINUTES 7 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID TANGENT CENTER LINE AND SAID TANGENT CENTER LINE EXTENDED, 3511.16 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 29' 40" EAST, 548.60 FEET (THIS POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO POINT "A"); THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 29 MINUTES 40SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE LAST DESCRIBED COURSE, 548.60 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF ILLINOIS STATE ROUTE NO. 47 AFORESAID; THENCE SOUTH 1 DEGREE 44 MINUTES 7 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID CENTER LINE, 920.01 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID CENTER LINE, 4431.17 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 5, AS MEASURED ALONG SAID TANGENT CENTER LINE AND SAID TANGENT CENTER LINE EXTENDED, FOR THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 87 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 7 EAST, 593.08 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN SOUTH 4 DEGREES 21 DEGRES 7 SECONDS EAST FROM SAID POINT "A"; THENCE SOUTH 4 DEGREES 21 MINUTES 7 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID LINE, 482.85 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF ILLINOIS STATE ROUTE NO. 71; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, 589.32 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ILLINOIS STATE ROUTE NO. 47; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ROUTE 47, 596.73 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, IN THE TOWNSHIP OF KENDALL, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE LAND CONVEYED TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BY WARRANTY DEED, RECORDED MARCH 17, 2011 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 20110004835. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM LAND CONVEYED TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BY WARRANTY DEED, RECORDED JUNE 15, 2017 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 201700009111. APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us INTENT AND PURPOSEThe purpose of a variance is to provide relief from certain regulations of the zoning ordinance to permit the use of land in a way that is not otherwise permitted under the ordinance. A variance is granted when the terms of the zoning ordinance, if literally applied, would create an unreasonable hardship on the landowner, making the property virtually useless. This packet explains the process to successfully submit and complete an Application for a Sign Variance Request. It includes a detailed description of the process, outlines required submittal materials, and contains the application for variance. For a complete explanation of what is legally required throughout the Variance Request process, please refer to “Title 10, Chapter 4, Section 7 Variations” of the Yorkville, Illinois City Code. APPLICATION PROCEDURE STEP1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL SUBMIT APPLICATION, FEES, AND PLANS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. The following must be submitted: One (1) original signed and notarized application. Legal description of the proper ty in Microsoft Word. Three (3) copies each of exhibits, proposed drawings, location map, and site plan. All exhibits and plans must be an appropriate size for all details and descriptions to be legible. Appropriate application and filing fee. Checks may be written to the United City of Yorkville. Signed Applicant Deposit Account/Acknowledgment of Financial Responsibility form. One (1) electronic copy (PDF) of all materials submitted including application and exhibits. Within one (1) week of submittal, the Community Development Department will determine if the application is complete or if additional information is needed. An incomplete submittal could delay the scheduling of the project. The petitioner is responsible for payment of recording fees and public hearing costs, including written transcripts of the public hearing and outside consultant costs (i.e. legal review, land planner, zoning coordinator, environmental, etc.). The petitioner will be required to establish a deposit account with the City to cover these fees. Once a submitted and complete, Community Development staff will provide a tentative schedule of meetings as well as all needed documents for the process. The petitioner must present the proposed request to the Plan Council. The members of the Council include the Community Development Director, City Engineer, the Building Department Official, the Public Works Director, the Director of Parks and Recreation, a Fire Department Representative, and a Police Department Representative. This meeting is held to provide the petitioner with guidance from all City staff departments to ensure the petitioner is aware of all requirements and regulations for their development. Upon recommendation by the Plan Council, the petitioner will move forward to the Economic Development Committee. STEP2 PLAN COUNCIL MEETS ON THE 2ND & 4TH THURSDAY OF THE MONTH This step is dependent on the complexity of the request and may be skipped at the discretion of staff. APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us The petitioner must present the proposed request to the Economic Development Committee. The committee consists of four alderman who will provide feedback to the petitioner regarding their request. This feedback allows the petitioner to gather comments and concerns prior to full City Council considerations. It also allows the City Council members to review the request prior to its arrival at City Council. STEP3 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETS ON THE 1ST TUESDAY OF THE MONTH The petitioner will attend and present their request at a public hearing conducted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing on the request, take public comments, discuss the request, and make a recommendation to City Council. The petitioner is responsible for sending certified public hearing notices to adjacent property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the subject property no less than fifteen (15) days and no more than thirty (30) days prior to the public hearing date. The public hearing notice will be drafted by the City as well as published in a local newspaper. Additionally, a public hearing notice sign must be placed on the property no less than fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A certified affidavit must be filed by the petitioner with the Community Development Department containing the names, addresses and permanent parcel numbers of all parties that were notified. The Certified Mailing Affidavit form is attached to this document. STEP4 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETS ON THE 2ND WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH The petitioner will attend the City Council meeting where the recommendation of the variance will be considered. City Council will make the final approval of the variance. If approved, City staff will have a drafted ordinance to be signed by the Council and must be recorded with the County Clerk before any further steps may be taken by the petitioner. STEP5 CITY COUNCIL MEETS ON THE 2ND & 4TH TUESDAY OF THE MONTH SUMMARY OF RESPONSIBILITIES Below is a summary breakdown of what will be required by the petitioner and what will be completed by the City: Signed and Notarized Application Required Plans, Exhibits, and Fees Certified Mailing of Public Notice Signed Certified Affidavit of Mailings Attendance at All Meetings Detailed Schedule After Complete Submission Public Hearing Notice Language Posting of the Public Notice in a Local Newspaper Public Hearing Sign Application Draft Ordinance & Signatures for RecordingPETITIONERCITY STAFF APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us DORMANT APPLICATIONS The Community Development Director shall determine if an application meets or fails to meet the submission requirements. If the Director determines that the application is incomplete it will become dormant under these circumstances: • The applicant has been notified of such deficiencies and has not responded or provided a time line for completing the application within ninety (90) days from the time of notification. • The applicant has not responded in writing to a request for information or documentation from the initial planning and zoning commission review within six (6) months from the date of that request. • The applicant has not responded to a request for legal or engineering deposit replenishment for city incurred costs and fees within ninety (90) days from the date of the request. If the Community Development Director has sent the required notice and the applicant has not withdrawn their application or brought it into compliance, then the director shall terminate the application. After termination, the application shall not be reconsidered except after the filing of a completely new application. Withdrawal or termination of an application shall not affect the applicant’s responsibility for payment of any costs and fees, or any other outstanding debt owed to the city. The balance of any funds deposited with the city that is not needed to pay for costs and fees shall be returned to the applicant. (Ord. 2011-34, 7-26-2011) SAMPLE MEETING SCHEDULE MONTH 1 MONTH 2 MONTH 3 MONTH 4 Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 City CouncilPlanning & Zoning CommissionPublic HearingEconomic Development CommitteePlan Council Meeting This is a sample of what a schedule may look like after submission. The Step 1 Submission must be completed before the Plan Council Meeting can be scheduled. This timeline represents an ideal schedule. Throughout the review process, there may be requests or changes to the submission requested by the committees which may delay the meeting schedule. As illustrated, there is a small amount of time between meeting dates and the deadline for updated materials to be submitted for review. Depending on the complexity and nature of the request, this timeline may be extended to give the petitioner and staff enough time to review requested updates to the submission. Public Notice Mailing WindowMeeting Date Updated Materials Submitted for Meeting APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us INVOICE & WORKSHEET PETITION APPLICATION CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW Engineering Plan Review deposit $500.00 Total: $ AMENDMENT Annexation Plan Plat P.U.D. $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 Total: $ ANNEXATION $250.00 + $10 per acre for each acre over 5 acres Total: $ ____________ - 5 = ____________ x $10 = ____________ + $250 = $ ____________ # of Acres Acres over 5 Amount for Extra Acres Total Amount REZONING $200.00 + $10 per acre for each acre over 5 acres Total: $ If annexing and rezoning, charge only 1 per acre fee; if rezoning to a PUD, charge PUD Development Fee - not Rezoning Fee ____________ - 5 = ____________ x $10 = ____________ + $200 = $ ____________ # of Acres Acres over 5 Amount for Extra Acres Total Amount SPECIAL USE $250.00 + $10 per acre for each acre over 5 acres Total: $ ____________ - 5 = ____________ x $10 = ____________ + $250 = $ ____________ # of Acres Acres over 5 Amount for Extra Acres Total Amount ZONING VARIANCE $85.00 + $500.00 outside consultants deposit Total: $ PRELIMINARY PLAN FEE $500.00 Total: $ PUD FEE $500.00 Total: $ FINAL PLAT FEE $500.00 Total: $ ENGINEERING PLAN REVIEW DEPOSIT Less than 1 acre Over 1 acre, less than 10 acres Over 10 acres, less than 40 acres Over 40 acres, less than 100 acres Over 100 acres $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 Total: $ OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS DEPOSIT Legal, land planner, zoning coordinator, environmental services Total: $ For Annexation, Subdivision, Rezoning, and Special Use: Less than 2 acres Over 2 acres, less than 10 acres Over 10 acres $1,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us DATE:PZC NUMBER:DEVELOPMENT NAME: PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: BUSINESS HOME EMAIL:FAX: PROPERTY INFORMATION NAME OF HOLDER OF LEGAL TITLE: IF LEGAL TITLE IS HELD BY A LAND TRUST, LIST THE NAMES OF ALL HOLDERS OF ANY BENEFICIAL INTEREST THEREIN: PROPERTY STREET ADDRESS: DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY’S PHYSICAL LOCATION: CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION: ZONING AND LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES NORTH: EAST: SOUTH: WEST: KENDALL COUNTY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER(S) APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us ATTORNEY INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: ENGINEER INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: LAND PLANNER/SURVEYOR INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: ATTACHMENTS PETITIONER MUST ATTACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY TO THIS APPLICATION AND TITLE IT AS “EXHIBIT A”. PETITIONER MUST LIST THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ANY ADJOINING OR CONTIGUOUS LANDOWNERS WITHIN FIVE HUNDRED (500) FEET OF THE PROPERTY THAT ARE ENTITLED NOTICE OF APPLICATION UNDER ANY APPLICABLE CITY ORDINANCE OR STATE STATUTE. ATTACH A SEPARATE LIST TO THIS APPLICATION AND TITLE IT AS “EXHIBIT B”. APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us SIGN VARIANCE STANDARDS WAS THE SIGN ERECTED LEGALLY WITH A SIGN PERMIT? ARE THERE LIMITED AVAILABLE LOCATIONS FOR SIGNAGE ON THE PROPERTY? DOES THE SIGN FACE A STREET WITH A FORTY (40) MILE PER HOUR OR HIGHER SPEED LIMIT? IS THE SIGN ON A STREET WITH TWENTY THOUSAND (20,000) OR HIGHER VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY? IS THE SIGN ON A WALL FACING A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHOUT A PUBLIC ENTRANCE? WOULD THE SIGN BE BLOCKED BY EXISTING OR REQUIRED LANDSCAPING? PLEASE STATE THE VARIANCE REQUESTED AND THE CITY ORDINANCE INCLUDING THE SECTION NUMBERS TO BE VARIED: PLEASE STATE HOW THE PROPOSED VARIATION WILL NOT IMPAIR AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF LIGHT AND AIR TO ADJACENT PROPERTY, OR SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE CONGESTION IN THE PUBLIC STREETS, OR INCREASE THE DANGER TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY, OR SUBSTANTIALLY DIMINISH OR IMPAIR PROPERTY VALUES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD: PLEASE CONFIRM THE PROPOSED VARIATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OFFICIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND POLICIES OF THE CITY. YES NO YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO NO APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us SIGN VARIANCE STANDARDS PLEASE DESCRIBE THE COST TO THE PETITIONER OF COMPLYING WITH THE SIGN ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS: IF THERE ARE ANY UNIQUE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPERTY, PLEASE DESCRIBE THEM BELOW: PLEASE STATE HOW THE GRANTING OF THE VARIATION WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO OTHER PROPERTY OR IM- PROVEMENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED: PLEASE STATE HOW THE PARTICULAR SURROUNDINGS, SHAPE OR TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS OF THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY INVOLVED, A PARTICULAR HARDSHIP TO THE OWNER WOULD RESULT, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A MERE INCONVENIENCE, IF THE STRICT LETTER OF REGULATIONS WAS CARRIED OUT: APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us SIGN VARIANCE STANDARDS PLEASE STATE HOW THE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH THE APPLICATION FOR A VARIATION IS BASED ARE UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIATION IS SOUGHT AND ARE NOT APPLICABLE, GENERALLY, TO OTHER PROPERTY WITHIN THE SAME ZONING CLASSIFICATION: PLEASE STATE HOW THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY OR HARDSHIP IS CAUSED BY THIS TITLE AND HAS NOT BEEN CREATED BY ANY PERSON PRESENTLY HAVING AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY: AGREEMENT I VERIFY THAT ALL THE INFORMATION IN THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT ALL REQUIREMENTS AND FEES AS OUTLINED AS WELL AS ANY INCURRED ADMINISTRATIVE AND PLANNING CONSULTANT FEES WHICH MUST BE CURRENT BEFORE THIS PROJECT CAN PROCEED TO THE NEXT SCHEDULED COMMITTEE MEETING. I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS DOCUMENT AND UNDERSTAND THAT IF AN APPLICATION BECOMES DORMANT IT IS THROUGH MY OWN FAULT AND I MUST THEREFORE FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED ABOVE. PETITIONER SIGNATURE DATE OWNER SIGNATURE DATE OWNER HEREBY AUTHORIZES THE PETITIONER TO PURSUE THE APPROPRIATE ENTITLEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE NOTARIZED PLEASE NOTARIZE HERE: APPLICANT DEPOSIT ACCOUNT/ ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us PRINT NAME SIGNATURE* TITLE DATE PROJECT NAME: FUND ACCOUNT NUMBER: PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER DEPOSIT ACCOUNT FUND: It is the policy of the United City of Yorkville to require any petitioner seeking approval on a project or entitlement request to establish a Petitioner Deposit Account Fund to cover all actual expenses occurred as a result of processing such applications and requests. Typical requests requiring the establishment of a Petitioner Deposit Account Fund include, but are not limited to, plan review of development approvals/engineering permits. Deposit account funds may also be used to cover costs for services related to legal fees, engineering and other plan reviews, processing of other governmental applications, recording fees and other outside coordination and consulting fees. Each fund account is established with an initial deposit based upon the estimated cost for services provided in the INVOICE & WORKSHEET PETITION APPLICATION. This initial deposit is drawn against to pay for these services related to the project or request. Periodically throughout the project review/approval process, the Financially Responsible Party will receive an invoice reflecting the charges made against the account. At any time the balance of the fund account fall below ten percent (10%) of the original deposit amount, the Financially Responsible Party will receive an invoice requesting additional funds equal to one-hundred percent (100%) of the initial deposit if subsequent reviews/fees related to the project are required. In the event that a deposit account is not immediately replenished, review by the administrative staff, consultants, boards and commissions may be suspended until the account is fully replenished. If additional funds remain in the deposit account at the completion of the project, the city will refund the balance to the Financially Responsible Party. A written request must be submitted by the Financially Responsible Party to the city by the 15th of the month in order for the refund check to be processed and distributed by the 15th of the following month. All refund checks will be made payable to the Financially Responsible Party and mailed to the address provided when the account was established. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY: I acknowledge and understand that as the Financially Responsible Party, expenses may exceed the estimated initial deposit and, when requested by the United City of Yorkville, I will provide additional funds to maintain the required account balance. Further, the sale or other disposition of the property does not relieve the individual or Company/Corporation of their obligation to maintain a positive balance in the fund account, unless the United City of Yorkville approves a Change of Responsible Party and transfer of funds. Should the account go into deficit, all City work may stop until the requested replenishment deposit is received. *The name of the individual and the person who signs this declaration must be the same. If a corporation is listed, a corporate officer must sign the declaration (President, Vice- President, Chairman, Secretary or Treasurer) INITIAL ENGINEERING/LEGAL DEPOSIT TOTALS ENGINEERING DEPOSITS: Up to one (1) acre Over one (1) acre, but less than ten (10) acres Over ten (10) acres, but less than forty (40) acres Over forty (40) acres, but less than one hundred (100) In excess of one hundred (100.00) acres $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 LEGAL DEPOSITS: Less than two (2) acres Over two (2) acres, but less than ten (10) acres Over ten (10) acres $1,000 $2,500 $5,000 CERTIFIED MAILING AFFIDAVIT STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS COUNTY OF KENDALL ) I/We, ________________________, petitioner, being first duly sworn, do hereby state under oath that to the best of my knowledge the attached list is a true, correct and complete list of all permanent parcel numbers, and names and addresses of owners, of all lots and parts of lots located within 500 feet (exclusively of any public streets and alleys) of the property legally described on the attached application for annexation, rezoning, special use permit, planned unit development, variation, or other zoning amendment. I further state that said list was obtained from the current tax rolls of the Kendall County Treasurer’s Office. I further state that I mailed by U.S. Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, a copy of the Public Notice of Public Hearing before the United City of Yorkville Planning and Zoning Commission for the Public Hearing held on Wednesday, _______________, at the United City of City Council Chambers, Yorkville, Illinois. The notice was mailed to the attached list of all of the permanent parcel numbers and names and addresses of owners at the U.S. Post office on _______________________, 20_____. ________________________________ Signature of Petitioner(s) Subscribed and sworn to before me this ________ day of _______________, 20______ ______________________________________ Notary Public PERMIT NUMBER:DATE/TIME RECEIVED: SITE ADDRESS:PARCEL NUMBER: SUBDIVISION:LOT/UNIT: APPLICANT INFORMATION NAME:TELEPHONE: HOME BUSINESS ADDRESS:E-MAIL: HOME BUSINESS CITY, STATE, ZIP:FAX: SIGN INFORMATION DATE OF PICK UP:NUMBER OF SIGNS: DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING:SIGN RETURN DATE: The undersigned hereby states that they have acquired Public Hearing Signs from the United City of Yorkville’s Community Development Department and agrees to return said sign/s to Yorkville City Hall, 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, Illinois, immediately following the date of the public hearing. Petitioner or Representative agrees to pay to the United City of Yorkville a deposit of $50 for each sign. The deposit will be returned to the petitioner when the public hearing sign/s have been returned to the City. Petitioner or Representative further agrees to pay to the United City of Yorkville the full amount of the purchase price for each sign not returned to the United City of Yorkville within seven (7) days after the date of the public hearing. ___________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________ SIGNATURE/AUTHORIZED AGENT DATE DATE RETURNED: _____________________________________________________ RECEIVED BY: _______________________________________________________PZC# ______________________________ APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING SIGN United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us From:Rob Costello To:Krysti Barksdale-Noble Subject:Graham C Store Development - Monument Sigh and Photometrics Date:Wednesday, June 1, 2022 2:02:45 PM Attachments:image001.png 2022-0531 Monument Sign Revised.pdf Krysti, I wanted to follow up on the monument sign and photometrics. Please let me know if you have any questions on our resubmittal. Monument Sign The Grahams would like to request a variance for the attached monument sign. This is sign is 25’ tall and matches height to their other Yorkville BP station. The sign was revised to eliminate the (2) tenant panels and the “Invigorate” branding. Photometrics We provided a revised photometric plan. The revised plan has the fixture shown with circle around them to make it easier to read. We have eliminated two fixture and reduced the lumens provided in the other lights to address your review comments.. 1. Review comment – Lighting fixtures should be full cutoff and the use of wall packs on buildings should be minimized. a. Response: A light fixture south of the detention was eliminated to allow for full cut off at the east property line 2. Review comment – Zoning code requires the average foot candle to be between 2.0 and 2.5. proposed average is 1.82 a. Response: The Calculation summary includes and “All Calc Points” label and a “Inside Curb” label. The inside curb label was included by the light designer to provide a more realistic calculation by omitting the other areas on the property like the detention area and undeveloped lot. The previous submittal had an inside the curb average of 4.49. The revised average is 2.59 inside curb. The lighting removed one fixture in the island west of the diesel and one south of the detention. The canopy fixtures were reduced in lumen output to lower the average. 3. Review Comment – The maximum to minimum light intensity ratio should be no more than 20:1. Please confirm the minimum to maximum light intensity ratio is in conformance. a. Response – The lighting designer was not able to reduce the max to min intensity ratio. In the revised plan the value increased slightly. The designer has indicated it would be difficult to have this value meet the ratio required with the shape of the site and the large truck area. We have an alternate plan that includes the (2) removed light fixtures. This allows us to reduce the max to min ratio to 105 but the average is increased significantly. We would be happy to share this alternate plan and get your feedback. Please contact me if you would like to review. Rob Costello Principal _ 27 W Jefferson Avenue | Suite 200 Naperville, Illinois 60540 P 630.420.1900 | M 847.508.7477 torcharchitecture.com | facebook.com | linkedin.com 2363 Sequoia Drive | Suite 101 Aurora, IL 60506 Main 630.553.7560 + Fax 713.965.0044 HRGREEN.COM May 31, 2022 United City of Yorkville Ms. Krysti Barksdale-Noble Community Development Director 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 RE: Graham C-Stores Company – 107 East Stagecoach Road Engineering Plan Review Comments HR Green Project No.: 211588 Dear Ms. Barksdale-Noble: Please see below our responses to review comment letter dated May 9, 2022. Responses to each comment are shown in bold following the comment. General Comments: 1. The following items will need to be provide with the final engineering plans: a. An engineer’s estimate needs to be provided and must include all public improvements within the ROW including utility connections and all soil erosion and sediment control items. This cost estimate will be used to determine the construction guarantee amount. In addition, a cost estimate needs to be provided for all site improvements which will be used to calculate the building permit fees. b. IEPA permits as well as YBSD sign-off. c. Landscape Plan. RESPONSE: Noted and to be provided at final engineering submittal. 2. A truck turning movement diagram shall be submitted to confirm appropriate movements for service, delivery, and emergency vehicles. RESPONSE: Truck movement exhibit included with this letter. Preliminary Engineering Plans 3. Improvements to Illinois Route 71 and Illinois Route 47 as directed by IDOT for the proposed site shall be shown. The engineer or developer should provide all correspondence with IDOT as it relates to the proposed road connections. RESPONSE: Attached please find the initial IDOT correspondence as requested. Nothing further has been resubmitted or returned. 4. The parking counts do not match what is shown. Truck parking should be included. RESPONSE: The parking count on Sheet C-03 has been updated to include the truck parking. 5. Plans show that wheel stops will be placed in front of stalls along store fronts. This will require longer parking stalls than that shown as the wheel stops reduce the length of the stall. RESPONSE: Plans have been revised to use bollards instead per Owner request.  United City of Yorkville Graham C-Stores Company Engineering Review HR Green Project No.: 211588 May 31, 2022 Page 2 of 2  6. The water main should be extended to the eastern property line for future extension. RESPONSE: Water main extended to the eastern property line. Preliminary Storm Water Management Report 7. A high-level review was performed and it was noted that the rainfall intensity appears to be incorrect. RESPONSE: The rainfall intensities have been updated to reflect Illinois Bulletin 75. Final Plat 8. Lot numbers need to be added to the plat. RESPONSE: Lot numbers and areas have been corrected to display correctly. 9. The second paragraph in the ownership certificate should be replaced with the following: THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY DEDICATES FOR PUBLIC USE THE LANDS INDICATED ON THIS PLAT AS THOROUGHFARES, STREETS, ALLEYS AND PUBLIC SERVICES; AND HEREBY ALSO RESERVES FOR ANY ELECTRIC, GAS, TELEPHONE, CABLE TV OR OTHER TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY UNDER FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, THEIR SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, THE EASEMENT PROVISIONS WHICH ARE STATED HEREON. RESPONSE: Revised as requested. 10. Cross access easement provisions should be added. RESPONSE: Noted: Cross access provision to be coordinated with the Owner/Developer. 11. The monument sign is in the 10’ PU&E and needs to be moved. RESPONSE: Location of monument sign revised within Engineering Site Plan 12. An IDOT certificate is needs to be added. RESPONSE: IDOT certificate added as requested. 13. A landscape setback line is noted on the engineering plans and should be addressed RESPONSE: It is the surveyor’s opinion that current zoning regulations should dictate the landscape setback/buffer requirements and they should not be shown on the face of the recorded Final Plat. Sincerely, HR GREEN INC. David Schultz, P.E., LEED AP Project Manager DS/dmw J:\2021\211588\Corr\ltr-052722-CommentResponseEngineeringReview-ds.docx L O C A T I O N M A PC E R T I F I C A T I O NLOCATION OF SECTION INDICATED THUS: -···CLIENT CONTACT: MR. THOMAS WILLIAMSONKENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOISCITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS107 E STAGECOACH TRAILGRAHAM C STORES & GAS STATIONPRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PLANS FOR:···RDial 811 or 1-800-892-0123Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig.JULIE DESIGN TICKET NUMBER:# A2080376-00AEXP: 11/30/20232363 SEQUOIA DRIVE, SUITE 101 | AURORA, IL 60506Phone: 630.553.7560 | Toll Free: 800.728.7805 | Fax: 630.553.7646 | HRGreen.comPROJECTLOCATIONCIVIL/SITEWORK SHEET INDEX E. STAGECOA C H T R A I L (ILLINOIS RO U T E 7 1 )S. BRIDGE STREET(ILLINOIS ROUTE 47)30150 JWK-HRG JWK-HRG · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· ·· ·· · ·· ·· ·· · ·· ·· ·· · · ·· ·· ·· · ·· ·· · ·· E. STAGECOAC H T R A I L (ILLINOIS ROU T E 7 1 )S. BRIDGE STREET(ILLINOIS ROUTE 47)30150 JWK-HRG JWK-HRG E. STAGECOAC H T R A I L (ILLINOIS ROU T E 7 1 )S. BRIDGE STREET(ILLINOIS ROUTE 47)30150 JWK-HRG JWK-HRG ILLINOIS ROUTE 71(STAGECOACH TRAIL)ILLINOIS ROUTE 47(BRIDGE STREET)KENDALL COUNTYZONING: R-3UNS U B D I V I D E D L A N D S UNIT E D C I T Y O F Y O R K V I L L E Z O N I N G : M - 1WALNUTDRIVEUNITED CITY OF YORKVILLEZONING: B-3UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLEZONING: B-3 UNSUBDIVIDED LANDSKENDALL COUNTY ZONING: B-3 (SPECIAL USE)LOT 1188,022± SQ.FT.4.316± AC.LOT 251,913± SQ.FT.1.192± AC.Illinois Professional Design Firm # 184-001322 2363 Sequoia Drive, Suite 101 Aurora, Illinois 60506 t. 630.553.7560 f. 630.553.7646 www.hrgreen.com1 OF 2PINs: 05-04-300-03105-05-400-050 Illinois Professional Design Firm # 184-001322 2363 Sequoia Drive, Suite 101 Aurora, Illinois 60506 t. 630.553.7560 f. 630.553.7646 www.hrgreen.com2 OF 2PINs: 05-04-300-03105-05-400-050 SCHEMATIC ELEVATION SCHEMATIC TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATION GRAHAM C STORES NEW "STAGECOACH" STOREIL ROUTE 47 & IL ROUTE 71YORKVILLE, IL 60560 PROJECT NUMBER | 921076 MAY 31, 2022 E. STAGECOAC H T R A I L (ILLINOIS ROU T E 7 1 )S. BRIDGE STREET(ILLINOIS ROUTE 47)P 30150 JWK-HRG JWK-HRG · · · CUT ROOTS CLEANLY AT 80°. IF TEARING OCCURS, CUT JUST BEYOND BEGINNING OF TEAR. BACKFILL ALL CUT ROOTS IMMEDIATELY. E. STAGECOAC H T R A I L (ILLINOIS ROU T E 7 1 )S. BRIDGE STREET(ILLINOIS ROUTE 47)CONCEPDECIDUOUS TREE 20 - ORNAMENTAL TREE 2 - REPLACEMENT TREE (2.5 CAL.) 53 - REPLACEMENT TREE 24 - LARGE SHRUB 6 - SMALL SHRUB 62 - GRASS 145 - EVERGREEN SHRUB 79 - SCREENING SHRUB 13 - PERENNIAL 178 - CONCEPT PLANT SCHEDULE 30150 JWK-HRG JWK-HRG · · · · · BP 54213 07.10.15 JC BPL 54213_15 Altoona, PA 9 a. 06.28.16 (RD); Add Led Details b. c. d. e. category: Page 8 of BP BRIGHT GREEN BEACON, 3'-8" HELIOS BUTTON 1. Silk Screen- BP Dk. Green PMS 355C 2. Silk Screen- BP Lt. Green PMS 368C 3. Silk Screen- BP Yellow PMS 109C SPECIFICATION: A. SILK SCREEN COLOR SCHEDULE: NIGHT TIME VIEW FACE VIEW SCALE: 1"=1'-0" SCREENED GRAPHIC UL LABEL LOCATION 3'-8" 1” RETURN .063” ALUMINUM 3MM ACM WHITE POWER SUPPY, MEANWELL 120V *LPV-60-12 4 1/2” ENLARGED SECTION VIEW 1/2” 45º 3'-8" PMS 355c GREEN PMS 368c GREEN PMS 108c YELLOW PMS WHITE NOTE: SEE LED DETAILS ON THE NEXT PAGE BP 54213 07.10.15 JC BPL 54213_15 Altoona, PA 9 a. 06.28.16 (RD); Add Led Details b. c. d. e. category: BP BRIGHT GREEN BEACON, 3'-8" LED DETAILS LED DETAILS SCALE: 1"=1'-0" POWER SUPPLY LED MODULES LETTERSWATTS QUANTITYPART #COLORPOWER SUPPLY #PART # QUANTITY LED MODULES PER OUTPUT SERVICE DRAW (AMPS)CIRCUITS 70 1.2 (1) 120 VAC 20 AMP SERVICEHELIOS607025-60-18 (LPV-60-12)WHITE MEANWELL POWER SUPPLY BREAK DOWN & RISHANG LED QUANTITIES 3’-8” Page 9 of 107 E Stagecoach Trail, Yorkville, IL 60560 88 77 88 7788778877 88 7788778877 diesel Please see provided canopy material and installation instructions for material, color, electrical and installation information. BP 39105 N HWY 41, WADSWORTH, IL 60083 | | Blair # : 90171 BPL 9129339_20 Order #: 17149 Date: 06.16.20 Approved Approved as Noted Not Approved Resubmit with Changes Print Name Signature Title Date APPROVAL REV #: 90171-17149-DEXAMPLE 2017 REVISION PROJECT INFORMATION Drawing will expire 90 days after date on cover. If production request is sent in after 90 days, 24 hours is required to review approval. 39105 N HWY 41, WADSWORTH, IL 60083 06.16.20 90171 FD BPL 9129339-17149_20 18 5107 Kissell Ave. Altoona, PA 16601 P: 814.949.8287 F: 814.949.8293 www.blairimage.com d. 07.10.20;FD: Revised to 4 line EMC d. 07.30.20;FD: Revised diesel pricer to DH Page 2 of 1. NEW 81” BP GOAL POST MID ON NEW FOUNDATION @ 30’ OAH 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. SILK SCREENED GRAPHIC DIGITALLY PRINTED CUSTOM GRAPHICS PMS PROCESS BLUE INVIGORATE LIGHT BLUE BP WHITE PMS 109 C BP YELLOW (HELIOS) PMS 368 C BP LIGHT GREEN (HELIOS) PMS 348 C BP RETAIL GREEN (PRICER) PMS 661 C INVIGORATE BLUE PMS 355 C BP RETAIL GREEN (HELIOS) 2/22/19 X 2017 REVISION PROJECT INFORMATION Drawing will expire 90 days after date on cover. If production request is sent in after 90 days, 24 hours is required to review approval. 39105 N HWY 41, WADSWORTH, IL 60083 06.16.20 90171 FD BPL 9129339-17149_20 18 5107 Kissell Ave. Altoona, PA 16601 P: 814.949.8287 F: 814.949.8293 www.blairimage.com d. 07.10.20;FD: Revised to 4 line EMC d. 07.30.20;FD: Revised diesel pricer to DH 1. PROPOSED - BP MID 81” GOAL POST ON NEW FOUNDATION - 30’ OAH Page 3 of SCALE : 1:44 30'-0" OAH 6'-8 1/2" GREEN LIGHT BAR 7’-6 15/16” BOTTOM CLEARANCE CUSTOM MOLD WILL BE REQUIRED FOR CUSTOM 3 PANEL TALL EMC FACE 2017 REVISION PROJECT INFORMATION Drawing will expire 90 days after date on cover. If production request is sent in after 90 days, 24 hours is required to review approval. 39105 N HWY 41, WADSWORTH, IL 60083 06.16.20 90171 FD BPL 9129339-17149_20 18 5107 Kissell Ave. Altoona, PA 16601 P: 814.949.8287 F: 814.949.8293 www.blairimage.com d. 07.10.20;FD: Revised to 4 line EMC d. 07.30.20;FD: Revised diesel pricer to DH S-1 DETAIL - BP HELIOS FACE Page 4 of 6’-4 1/8”6’-8 3/4” 6'-10 3/8" 6'-3 7/8"5’-4 9/16” 7 7/16” 11 9/16” 6 1/8” 1’-1 1/4”8 1/2” 5’-4 5/8” 6’-8 9/16” 4’-3 3/8” 6’-6 1/2” 6’-8 1/4” 6’-8 9/16” 1 7/16” 1”45° R10’-8 5/8” 2 3/8" 1/2” Embossment FRONT VIEW SCALE: 1:20 SIDE VIEW TOP VIEW Flat Embossment PANTONE White NIGHT TIME VIEW INTERNAL ILLUMINATION 2017 REVISION PROJECT INFORMATION Drawing will expire 90 days after date on cover. If production request is sent in after 90 days, 24 hours is required to review approval. 39105 N HWY 41, WADSWORTH, IL 60083 06.16.20 90171 FD BPL 9129339-17149_20 18 5107 Kissell Ave. Altoona, PA 16601 P: 814.949.8287 F: 814.949.8293 www.blairimage.com d. 07.10.20;FD: Revised to 4 line EMC d. 07.30.20;FD: Revised diesel pricer to DH S-2 DETAIL - GRAHAM’S PANEL Page 5 of ILLUMINATION VIEW FRONT VIEW SCALE: 1"=1'-0" 1 1/2" 15/16" 45º 6'-8 1/2" TOP VIEW SIDE VIEW 6'-8 1/2" 1'-6 5/8" 2 3/8" 2017 REVISION PROJECT INFORMATION Drawing will expire 90 days after date on cover. If production request is sent in after 90 days, 24 hours is required to review approval. 39105 N HWY 41, WADSWORTH, IL 60083 06.16.20 90171 FD BPL 9129339-17149_20 18 5107 Kissell Ave. Altoona, PA 16601 P: 814.949.8287 F: 814.949.8293 www.blairimage.com d. 07.10.20;FD: Revised to 4 line EMC d. 07.30.20;FD: Revised diesel pricer to DH S-2 Page 6 of DETAIL - INTERNAL ILLUMINATION 6'-8 1/2" 1'-6 5/8" 2017 REVISION PROJECT INFORMATION Drawing will expire 90 days after date on cover. If production request is sent in after 90 days, 24 hours is required to review approval. 39105 N HWY 41, WADSWORTH, IL 60083 06.16.20 90171 FD BPL 9129339-17149_20 18 5107 Kissell Ave. Altoona, PA 16601 P: 814.949.8287 F: 814.949.8293 www.blairimage.com d. 07.10.20;FD: Revised to 4 line EMC d. 07.30.20;FD: Revised diesel pricer to DH S-3 DETAIL - REGULAR W/ ULTIMATE WASH PRICER Page 7 of FRONT VIEW SCALE: 1"=1'-0" 1 1/2" 15/16" 45º 6'-8 1/2" TOP VIEW SIDE VIEW 6'-8 1/2" 3'-2 3/4" 2 3/8" ILLUMINATION VIEW 5'-4 1/2" 2'-4 9/16" 24" EPCU 3.0 DIGITS WORDPLATE 66” 8” 2017 REVISION PROJECT INFORMATION Drawing will expire 90 days after date on cover. If production request is sent in after 90 days, 24 hours is required to review approval. 39105 N HWY 41, WADSWORTH, IL 60083 06.16.20 90171 FD BPL 9129339-17149_20 18 5107 Kissell Ave. Altoona, PA 16601 P: 814.949.8287 F: 814.949.8293 www.blairimage.com d. 07.10.20;FD: Revised to 4 line EMC d. 07.30.20;FD: Revised diesel pricer to DH S-3 DETAIL - INTERNAL ILLUMINATION Page 8 of 6'-8 1/2" 3'-2 3/4" 2017 REVISION PROJECT INFORMATION Drawing will expire 90 days after date on cover. If production request is sent in after 90 days, 24 hours is required to review approval. 39105 N HWY 41, WADSWORTH, IL 60083 06.16.20 90171 FD BPL 9129339-17149_20 18 5107 Kissell Ave. Altoona, PA 16601 P: 814.949.8287 F: 814.949.8293 www.blairimage.com d. 07.10.20;FD: Revised to 4 line EMC d. 07.30.20;FD: Revised diesel pricer to DH S-4 DETAIL - BP REGULAR PRICER Page 9 of 2'-11 7/16" 1'-3 1/4" 12" EPCU 3.0 DIGITS ILLUMINATION VIEW FRONT VIEW SCALE: 1"=1'-0" 1 1/2" 15/16" 45º 6'-8 1/2" TOP VIEW SIDE VIEW 6'-8 1/2" 1'-6 5/8" 2 3/8" WORDPLATE (Changeable Grade) 2’-4 1/2” 1’-3 1/8” 2017 REVISION PROJECT INFORMATION Drawing will expire 90 days after date on cover. If production request is sent in after 90 days, 24 hours is required to review approval. 39105 N HWY 41, WADSWORTH, IL 60083 06.16.20 90171 FD BPL 9129339-17149_20 18 5107 Kissell Ave. Altoona, PA 16601 P: 814.949.8287 F: 814.949.8293 www.blairimage.com d. 07.10.20;FD: Revised to 4 line EMC d. 07.30.20;FD: Revised diesel pricer to DH S-4 DETAIL - INTERNAL ILLUMINATION Page 10 of 6'-8 1/2" 1'-6 5/8" 2017 REVISION PROJECT INFORMATION Drawing will expire 90 days after date on cover. If production request is sent in after 90 days, 24 hours is required to review approval. 39105 N HWY 41, WADSWORTH, IL 60083 06.16.20 90171 FD BPL 9129339-17149_20 18 5107 Kissell Ave. Altoona, PA 16601 P: 814.949.8287 F: 814.949.8293 www.blairimage.com d. 07.10.20;FD: Revised to 4 line EMC d. 07.30.20;FD: Revised diesel pricer to DH S-5 DETAIL - DIESEL PRICER Page 11 of FRONT VIEW SCALE: 1"=1'-0" 1 1/2" 15/16" 45º 6'-8 1/2" TOP VIEW SIDE VIEW 6'-8 1/2" 3'-2 3/4" 2 3/8" ILLUMINATION VIEW 5'-4 1/2" 2'-4 9/16" 24" EPCU 3.0 DIGITS WORDPLATE 66” 8” 2017 REVISION PROJECT INFORMATION Drawing will expire 90 days after date on cover. If production request is sent in after 90 days, 24 hours is required to review approval. 39105 N HWY 41, WADSWORTH, IL 60083 06.16.20 90171 FD BPL 9129339-17149_20 18 5107 Kissell Ave. Altoona, PA 16601 P: 814.949.8287 F: 814.949.8293 www.blairimage.com d. 07.10.20;FD: Revised to 4 line EMC d. 07.30.20;FD: Revised diesel pricer to DH S-5 DETAIL - INTERNAL ILLUMINATION Page 12 of 6'-8 1/2" 3'-2 3/4" Preliminary Storm Water Management Date: March 11, 2022 Revised: May 27, 2022 GRAHAM C STORES & GAS STATION 107 E STAGECOACH TRAIL YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS Prepared for: Graham C Stores Company Thomas Williamson 39109 N US Highway 41 Wadsworth, IL 60083 Ph: (847) 826-0660 HRG Job: 211588 Prepared by: Erik Negri Staff Engineer David W. Schultz, P.E., LEED AP Project Manager INDEX PROJECT DESIGN NOTES AND MAPS TAB 1 • Project Location Map • Existing Conditions • Proposed Conditions DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS AND RESULTS TAB 2 Storm Water Management Sizing: • Bulletin 75 - ISWS Rainfall Intensities (Yorkville) • 100 YR Detention Pond Volume – Basin Required – 100 YR • Proposed SWM Pond – Proposed Project Basin (Dry/Wetland Bottom) TAB 1 PROJECT DESIGN NOTES E. STAGECOA C H T R A I L (ILLINOIS RO U T E 7 1 )S. BRIDGE STREET(ILLINOIS ROUTE 47)30150 JWK-HRG JWK-HRG · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· ·· ·· · ·· ·· ·· · ·· ·· ·· · · ·· ·· ·· · ·· ·· · ·· DESIGN NOTES EXISTING CONDITIONS: • The subject property, consisting of 5.508 acres is located at the northeast corner of intersection of IL Route 71 (Stagecoach Trail) and IL Route 47 (S. Bridge Street). The property in question has been previously zoned for Manufacturing use and is currently occupied by several warehouses. The property is currently Zoned M-1 (Limited Manufacturing District) and is proposed to be rezoned to B-3 (General Business District). • The vegetation on site is grass and mowed with various scrub trees that have grown on the site along the property line and in various locations. • Two existing property parcels o PIN# 05-05-400-050 & 05-04-300-031 PROPOSED CONDITIONS: • The proposed improvement plan includes two lots with paved surface areas for access and delivery, parking stalls, private and public utilities, a planned storm water management area (Dry/Wetland Bottom Detention), various landscaping areas, and vegetated restoration of disturbed areas. The first lot, Lot 1, will be fully developed with a gas station, fueling pumps, and all required utilities. The second lot, Lot 2, is planned to be developed in the future and is proposed to be constructed as an unpaved grassed area with driveway and utility stubs to the lot. The Strom water management area is sized to account for the increased impervious area in the proposed condition and also includes the ultimate build out of the entire Lot for this development. Note that the storm water management system has been designed with the assumption that the future Lot 2 development will result in 80% impervious area coverage on the lot. • Since the project is located in the United City of Yorkville, the proposed improvements are subject to meeting the requirements of the Kendall County Stormwater Ordinance along with various City of Yorkville Ordinances including Subdivision Control Ordinance and Park Development Standards. The following design criteria were utilized for the proposed storm water management and drainage system within the design: • Storm Water Management Notes: o The storm water management and storage system has been designed utilizing a Modified Rational Method o Rainfall – Based on data found in the Illinois State Water Survey’s Bulletin 75 – Rainfall Depths Averaged for Northeastern Illinois – as amended for the City of Yorkville Area. o Storage Release Rate – Per the City ordinance a stormwater basin serving a given property is allowed the following maximum release rates: o 2 Year Storm: 0.04 cfs/acre o 100 Year Storm: 0.15 cfs/acre o Overflow curtain wall is set at six inches above the calculated 100-YR elevation o Summary of tables below show the required and calculated volumes for 100-YR storm events based on allowable release rates for the project site. See Table 1. BASIN VOLUME SUMMARY – Table 1 Required Volume Actual Volume Calc. Elev. (Ac.Ft) (Ac.Ft) (HWL) 100 YR 2.271 2.831 729.00 100 YR @ Curtain Wall - 3.204 729.50 TAB 2 DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS AND RESULTS Bulletin 75 - ISWS Rainfall Intensities (Yorkville) Duration 2 yr 10 yr 25 yr 50 yr 100 yr (min)Rainfall Avg. I Rainfall Avg. I Rainfall Avg. I Rainfall Avg. I Rainfall Avg. I 5 0.40 4.81 0.62 7.42 0.77 9.29 0.90 10.80 1.03 12.34 6 0.46 4.61 0.71 7.11 0.89 8.90 1.04 10.35 1.18 11.83 7 0.52 4.47 0.80 6.89 1.01 8.62 1.17 10.03 1.34 11.46 8 0.58 4.36 0.90 6.72 1.12 8.42 1.31 9.79 1.49 11.18 9 0.64 4.28 0.99 6.59 1.24 8.26 1.44 9.60 1.65 10.97 10 0.70 4.21 1.08 6.49 1.35 8.13 1.58 9.45 1.80 10.80 11 0.74 4.04 1.14 6.24 1.43 7.81 1.67 9.08 1.90 10.38 12 0.78 3.91 1.21 6.03 1.51 7.55 1.76 8.78 2.01 10.03 13 0.82 3.79 1.27 5.85 1.59 7.32 1.85 8.52 2.11 9.73 14 0.86 3.69 1.33 5.69 1.66 7.13 1.94 8.29 2.21 9.48 15 0.90 3.61 1.39 5.56 1.74 6.97 2.03 8.10 2.31 9.26 16 0.92 3.47 1.42 5.34 1.78 6.69 2.08 7.78 2.37 8.89 17 0.95 3.34 1.46 5.15 1.83 6.45 2.13 7.50 2.43 8.57 18 0.97 3.23 1.49 4.98 1.87 6.24 2.18 7.25 2.49 8.28 19 0.99 3.13 1.53 4.82 1.91 6.04 2.23 7.03 2.54 8.03 20 1.01 3.04 1.56 4.69 1.96 5.87 2.28 6.83 2.60 7.80 21 1.04 2.96 1.60 4.56 2.00 5.71 2.33 6.64 2.66 7.59 22 1.06 2.88 1.63 4.45 2.04 5.57 2.38 6.48 2.71 7.40 23 1.08 2.82 1.67 4.34 2.09 5.44 2.43 6.33 2.77 7.23 24 1.10 2.76 1.70 4.25 2.13 5.32 2.48 6.19 2.83 7.07 25 1.12 2.70 1.73 4.16 2.17 5.21 2.53 6.06 2.89 6.92 26 1.15 2.65 1.77 4.08 2.21 5.11 2.58 5.94 2.94 6.79 27 1.17 2.60 1.80 4.01 2.26 5.02 2.63 5.83 3.00 6.67 28 1.19 2.55 1.84 3.94 2.30 4.93 2.68 5.73 3.06 6.55 29 1.21 2.51 1.87 3.87 2.34 4.85 2.73 5.64 3.11 6.44 30 1.24 2.47 1.91 3.81 2.39 4.77 2.78 5.55 3.17 6.34 31 1.25 2.42 1.93 3.73 2.41 4.67 2.81 5.43 3.21 6.20 32 1.26 2.37 1.95 3.65 2.44 4.57 2.84 5.32 3.24 6.07 33 1.28 2.32 1.97 3.58 2.46 4.48 2.87 5.21 3.27 5.95 34 1.29 2.28 1.99 3.51 2.49 4.39 2.90 5.11 3.31 5.84 35 1.30 2.23 2.01 3.44 2.52 4.31 2.93 5.01 3.34 5.73 36 1.32 2.19 2.03 3.38 2.54 4.24 2.96 4.93 3.38 5.63 37 1.33 2.16 2.05 3.32 2.57 4.16 2.99 4.84 3.41 5.53 38 1.34 2.12 2.07 3.27 2.59 4.09 3.02 4.76 3.45 5.44 39 1.36 2.09 2.09 3.22 2.62 4.03 3.05 4.68 3.48 5.35 40 1.37 2.05 2.11 3.17 2.64 3.97 3.08 4.61 3.51 5.27 41 1.38 2.02 2.13 3.12 2.67 3.91 3.11 4.54 3.55 5.19 42 1.40 1.99 2.15 3.08 2.70 3.85 3.14 4.48 3.58 5.12 43 1.41 1.97 2.17 3.03 2.72 3.80 3.17 4.42 3.62 5.05 44 1.42 1.94 2.19 2.99 2.75 3.75 3.20 4.36 3.65 4.98 45 1.44 1.91 2.21 2.95 2.77 3.70 3.23 4.30 3.69 4.91 50 1.50 1.80 2.32 2.78 2.90 3.48 3.38 4.05 3.86 4.63 60 1.57 1.57 2.42 2.42 3.03 3.03 3.53 3.53 4.03 4.03 (hours) 1 1.57 1.57 2.42 2.42 3.03 3.03 3.53 3.53 4.03 4.03 2 1.94 0.97 2.99 1.49 3.74 1.87 4.35 2.18 4.97 2.49 3 2.14 0.71 3.30 1.10 4.13 1.38 4.80 1.60 5.48 1.83 6 2.51 0.42 3.86 0.64 4.84 0.81 5.63 0.94 6.43 1.07 12 2.91 0.24 4.48 0.37 5.61 0.47 6.53 0.54 7.46 0.62 18 3.14 0.17 4.84 0.27 6.06 0.34 7.05 0.39 8.06 0.45 24 3.34 0.14 5.15 0.21 6.45 0.27 7.5 0.31 8.57 0.36 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Intensity (in/hr)Duration (minutes) ISWS -Bulletin 75 -YORKVILLE Intensity vs. Duration 100 Year Detention Pond Volume - 100 YR Release Proposed Project Number: 211588 Project Name: Graham C Store Date: 5/27/22 Basin Required - 100 YR Duration Intensity Runoff Storage Rate Required Volume (hour) (In/Hr) (cfs) (cfs)(acre-feet) 0.25 9.26 43.566 42.739 0.883 0.5 6.34 29.828 29.002 1.198 1 4.03 18.960 18.134 1.498 2 2.49 11.715 10.888 1.799 3 1.83 8.610 7.783 1.929 4 1.58 7.433 6.607 2.183 5 1.32 6.210 5.384 2.224 6 1.07 5.034 4.208 2.085 8 0.90 4.234 3.408 2.252 10 0.76 3.576 2.749 2.271 12 0.62 2.917 2.091 2.072 15 0.53 2.493 1.667 2.066 18 0.45 2.117 1.291 1.919 21 0.41 1.929 1.103 1.913 24 0.36 1.694 0.867 1.720 48 0.20 0.941 0.115 0.455 60 0.17 0.800 -0.026 -0.131 Ground Cover Area C C X A Open Space 1.47 0.50 0.74 Impervious 3.37 0.98 3.30 Dry/Wet Detention 0.53 1.00 0.53 Roof/Future 0.14 1.00 0.14 Total 5.51 4.704700643 C=0.8541 Allowable Discharge (100 YR) = 0.826 0.15 cfs/Ac. JOB:Graham C, Yorkville, IL, 211588 BY:ERN Date:3/11/22 Elevation (ft) Area (sq feet) Area (acres) Volume (ac- ft) Cumulative Volume 724.50 23061 0.529 0 0 NWL 725.00 23990 0.551 0.270 0.270 726.00 25891 0.594 0.572 0.842 727.00 27849 0.639 0.617 1.459 728.00 29863 0.686 0.662 2.121 729.00 31934 0.733 0.709 2.831 HWL 729.50 33039 0.758 0.373 3.204 TOP OF CURTAINWALL Required Volume @ HWL 2.352 ACRE-FT Volume @ HWL 2.831 ACRE-FT Proposed Greater than Required? Y Y/N Prop Detention Basin Basin Volume Steering Angle Lock to Lock Time Articulating Angle WB-67 Trailer Track Tractor Track Trailer Width Tractor Width 19.504.00 feet 8.50 8.50: 8.00 8.00 : : : 0.00 3.00 45.50 15.00 53.00 : : : 6.0 28.4 75.0 30150 JWK-HRGJWK-HRG I have reviewed the applications for Special Use, Rezoning, Sign Variance and Final Plat approval received March 11, 2022 as submitted by David Schultz, Engineer, HR Green Development, LLC, on behalf of Graham C Stores Company, Petitioner, as well as the following documents/plans: 1. Preliminary Engineering Plans prepared by HR Green, dated 03-11-2022 (Sheets C-01 to C- 05); 2. Photometric Plans prepared by LSI dated 03-10-2022 (Sheet 1 of 1); 3. Final Plat prepared by HR Green Development, LLC, dated 03-11-2022 (Sheets 1-2); 4. Building Elevations prepared by Torch Architecture dated March 11, 2022; 5. Sign Plans prepared by Image FX, Corp. no date provided; 6. Sign Plans prepared by Blair Companies dated 06.16.20; and 7. Preliminary Stormwater Report prepared by HR Green dated March 11, 2022. The petitioner is seeking special use permit authorization of a proposed new fuel station and convenience store building to be constructed on approximately 5.51-acres of land located at the northeast corner of IL Route 47 (Bridge Street) and IL Route 71 (Stagecoach Trail). The property consists of two (2) parcels and will be resubdivided into two (2) lots consisting of the fuel station/convenience store and onsite detention (~4.32-ac), as well as a future buildable lot (~1.19-ac). This property is currently improved with various detached metal structures on a gravel foundation utilized for industrial/farming storage and truck related services. These existing structures will be demolished and rezoned from M-1 Manufacturing to B-3 General Business District with a special use for a fuel station. Based upon my review of the application, documents and preliminary plans, I have compiled the following comments: GENERAL ZONING/PLANNING COMMENTS: 1. ZONING - The subject property is currently zoned as M-1 Limited Manufacturing District. The following are the current immediate surrounding zoning and land uses: Zoning Land Use North B3- SU (Unincorporated Kendall County) Kendall County Highway Department South B-3 General Business District Silver Dollar Restaurant All Season Motel Transportation Land Use (IL Route 71) East M-1 Limited Manufacturing District Undeveloped Agricultural Land West B-3 Business District Transportation Land Use (IL Route 47) Fountain Village Commercial Development Memorandum To: Plan Council From: Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director Date: May 5, 2022 Subject: PC 2022-08 Graham C Store (Sp. Use, Rezone, Sign Variance & Final Plat) 107 E. Stagecoach Trl. - Proposed New Fuel Station & Convenience Store 2. BUILDING SETBACKS – Staff notes that the petitioner has depicted the following property’s building setback locations for Lot 1: BUILDING SETBACK REQUIRED MINIMUM PROPOSED SETBACK Interior Side Yard (North) 20’ +/- 30’ (C Store) Front Yard (West/IL 47) 50’ +/- 216.5’ (C Store) +/- 50.5’ (Gas Pump Canopy) Corner Side Yard (South/IL 71) 30’ +/- 91.1’ (C Store) +/- 30’ (Gas Pump Canopy) Rear Yard (East) 20’ +/- 40’ (Unlabeled Structure) 3. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT - Maximum building height for the B-3 District is 80 feet. The overall height of the primary building (convenience store) is not provided. Per Section 10-2-3, building height is measured at the mean height between the eaves and ridge. a. Petitioner must provide dimensioned and scaled building elevations. 4. PARKING - According to the data table on the Site Plans submitted, there are 34 total parking stalls provided for the convenience store, including two (2) ADA handicapped accessible space. Per Section 10-16-3 of the Yorkville Zoning Code, the total required minimum parking needed is 14 spaces, which is exceeded by the 34 on-site spaces provided. The typical stall and drive aisle dimensions meet the minimum zoning standards. 5. PARKING SETBACKS – The applicant appears to have met the required minimum parking lot setback of 20 feet from arterial roadways (IL Rte. 47 and IL Rte. 71) for the proposed development, as follows: Per Section 10-2-3 of the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance, “Parking Area, Private” is an open, hard surfaced area, other than a street or public way for the storage of private passenger vehicles. “Driveway” is defined as a paved or unpaved private roadway providing vehicular access between the right of way of the street and a parking space (storage area). 6. PARKING LOT SCREENING - All open automobile parking areas shall comply with the requirements of the current landscape ordinance regulations for perimeter parking lot landscaping. Code Reference: PARKING LOT SETBACK REQUIRED MINIMUM PROPOSED PARKING LOT SETBACK IL Rte. 47 – West (Arterial) 20’ +/- 20’ (Please Verify) IL Rte. 71- South (Arterial) 20’ +/- 68’ (Please Verify) https://library.municode.com/il/yorkville/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT8BURE _CH12LAOR_8-12-2LATRPRRE 7. LOADING ZONE – Is a designated loading zone area provided for convenience and food delivery services? Per Section 10-2-3, Off-Street Loading and Unloading Spaces shall be exclusive of access aisles and maneuvering space. 8. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE – Per Section 10-7-1 of the Yorkville Zoning Code, the maximum lot coverage for the B-3 General Business District (inclusive of sidewalks, parking areas and all impervious surfaces) is 80%. The Site Data Table needs to indicate the maximum impervious coverage. 9. BUILDING ELEVATIONS – The prepared elevations appear to meet the minimum Appearance Code Standards. a. Code Reference: https://library.municode.com/il/yorkville/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT 8BURE_CH15APCO_8-15-5CRAP 10. SIGNAGE – The petitioner has requested a variance for the monument signage on site plan. a. Per Section 10-20-9-A of the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance, free standing monument signs on lots three (3) acres or larger with more than one street frontage, one freestanding sign sixty-four (64) square feet or less in area and twelve feet (12’) or less in height per street frontage with an entrance/exit is allowed. b. As proposed, only one (1) monument sign on Lot 1 is requested at the intersection of IL Rte. 47 and IL Rte. 71. A portion of the sign is located within the 10’ public utility and drainage easement. Staff recommends that the sign either be adjusted so that it is not within the PU&D easement or sign a hold harmless agreement. c. The proposed overall sign height is 30’ which exceeds the current code by 18 feet (or 250% taller). Additionally, the proposed sign area appears to be approximately 153 square feet which exceeds the maximum area of 64 sq. feet (~42% larger). d. The Casey’s Gas Station on US 34 and McHugh was granted a sign variance for a monument sign of approximately 47 square feet, which exceeded the maximum sign area for parcel less than 3 acres by 15 square feet or 32%. Also, the recently approved Gas N Wash on IL Rte. 47 and Waterpark Way was granted a sign variance for a monument sign of approximately 107 square feet (40% larger than permitted by code) and an overall height of 12 feet. e. Staff would support the sign variance for increased sign area, as it is consistent with previously approved gasoline station signs. However, staff is not supportive of the overall height of 30 feet, especially since the nearest gas fueling station to this property (Shell) is approximately 20’-4” tall. Staff recommends reducing the overall height to no taller than 20 feet by either removing a panel insert (e.g. BP Gasoline Invigorate), reducing the third digital panel display, or removing a tenant panel. 11. DRIVEWAYS – Per Section 10-16-3-D of the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance, Nonresidential driveways shall be a minimum of two hundred feet (200') when from the driveway edge to the nearest intersecting street right of way line. Driveways not meeting the minimum distances may be approved administratively by the city administrator with a recommendation to approve made by the city engineer. If administrative approval is not granted, a variance must be approved. The proposed plan meets this standard. However, staff has the following concerns: a. Consider providing a “Do Not Block Entrance” sign at the southern driveway entrance (IL Rte. 71) to avoid potential conflicts with vehicles in turning lanes exiting the gas station site as this appears to be the prime ingress/egress access point for semi-trucks. 12. LIGHTING – A photometric plan has been provided along with manufacturers cut sheets of the proposed light standards to be installed within the parking lot area. Maximum illumination at the property line shall not exceed 0.1 foot-candle and no glare shall spill onto adjacent properties or rights of way. a. Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking areas shall be directed away from residential properties and public highways in such a way as not to create a nuisance. The City of Yorkville promotes the "dark sky" concept. Lighting fixtures should be full cutoff, and the use of wall packs on buildings should be minimized. b. Section 10-16-3-D-7 of the Zoning Code requires the average foot candle to be between 2.0 and 2.5. Proposed average is 1.82. Additionally, the maximum to minimum light intensity ratio should be no more than 20:1. Please confirm the minimum to maximum light intensity ratio is in conformance. 13. OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAY AREAS – Due to the proposed use as a gas station with retail convenience store, staff assumes there will be outdoor sales and display areas located on the property. Therefore, the following provisions of the Zoning Ordinance shall apply: a. Per Section 10-3-10-F of the Yorkville Zoning Code, outdoor sales and display areas shall not exceed 35% of the gross floor area of the primary building (max 1400 sq. ft for Lot 102). Staff is seeking confirmation from the Petitioner that the overall area of the Outdoor Sales area will not exceed 1,400 square feet at any given time. b. Per Section 10-3-10-H of the Yorkville Zoning Code, outdoor sales and display areas, when located on a sidewalk and/or walkway, must allow for an unconstructive area of 3 feet for pedestrian access and shall not block the ingress or egress of the building at any time. 14. TRUCK TURNING TEMPLATE – A truck turning template demonstrating the maneuverability of standard sized semitrucks within the site layout has been provided. Staff has the following comments: a. Will the median at the proposed IL Rte. 47 right-in/right-out entrance be mountable? b. It appears the primary access point for semi-trucks to the site travelling east/west will be via the existing full access on IL Rte. 71. For northbound semi-trucks, it also seems the existing full access on IL Rte. 47 will be utilized. Is it the intention to have all semi-truck vehicles exit at these access points, thereby discouraging the use of the proposed IL Rte. 47 right-in/right-out access point? If so, will there be internal directional signage for semi-trucks? 15. TRASH ENCLOSURE - Commercial trash dumpsters and other large waste receptacles must be screened on three (3) sides with a solid opaque material wall at least six feet (6') in height or to the extent where the wall screens the dumpster from view. Applicant must verify the overall height of the proposed trash enclosure. Landscaping is preferred to be put around the perimeter of the three (3) solid walls. 16. LANDSCAPE PLAN – A landscape plan must be submitted prior to Economic Development Committee (EDC) meeting. 17. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – Future Land Use for this site is Destination Commercial (DC) which is consistent with the proposed B-3 General Business District and gas station land use. 18. FUTURE SHARED USE TRAIL – The plans indicate a Future Shared-Use Path along IL Rte. 47 to be installed by others and a proposed asphalt shared-use path at the intersection of IL Rte. 47 and IL Rte. 71 connecting the Future Shared-Use Path to the gas station property. Staff recommends an additional asphalt share-use path installed by the developer connecting the IL Rte. 47 path to the proposed future Lot 2 parcel. 19. FINAL PLAT – Refer to City Engineer’s comments. 20. STORMWATER DETENTION AREA – A backup/dormant Special Service Area will be required per the Stormwater Ordinance to ensure future maintenance of the detention facility. City staff will guide you through that process upon approval of the requested entitlements. Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/gov_officials.php Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: See attached memo. Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #6 Tracking Number EDC 2022-35 PZC 2022-11 Comprehensive Plan Update – Future Land Use Amendment Economic Development Committee – June 7, 2022 CC – 04/26/22 Approved an Ordinance Approving the Rezoning to B-3 General Business Zoning PZC 2022-02 & EDC 2022-20 Majority Approval Details an update to the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use map for approved Bricolage Wellness Jason Engberg, AICP Community Development Name Department Summary On April 26, 2022 the City Council approved rezoning the property located at 8721 Route 126, Bricolage Wellness, which was part of the Windmill Farms Planned Unit Development (PUD), from the established remnant Planned Unit Development zoning to the B-3 General Business District. The commercial zoning district is consistent with the trend of development within the immediate area surrounding the property as 75% of the adjacent properties are designated as B-3 General Business District. While this is true, the City’s 2016 Comprehensive Plan classified the parcel’s future land use as “Estate/Conservation Residential (ERC)” which is intended to provide flexibility for residential design in areas that can accommodate low-density detached single-family housing. Since there is now a discrepancy between what was adopted and what the plan suggested, staff is recommending amending the plan to align the zoning with the proposed future land use. Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Jason Engberg, Senior Planner CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director Date: June 1, 2022 Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update – Future Land Use Amendment Previous Amendments In 2020, staff evaluated conflicts between adopted land uses and developments with designated future land uses since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. It was determined there were 5 contradictions within the Comprehensive Plan and staff proposed an amendment to the plan which was approved as an appendix to the plan. A list of these developments can be seen in the table below: Project Current Comp Plan Future Land Use Designation Proposed Comprehensive Future Land Use Designation PZC 2017-01 Cedarhurst Living Suburban Neighborhood Commercial Office (CO) PZC 2017-07 Casey’s General Store Mid-Density Residential Destination Commercial (DC) PZC 2017-13 Coffman Carpets Mid-Density Residential Destination Commercial (DC) PZC 2018-18 Heartland Business Mid-Density Residential Commercial Office (CO) PZC 2019-03 Hively (Windmill Farms) Estate/Conservation Residential Destination Commercial (DC) Proposed Amendment The property located at 8721 Route 126, Bricolage Wellness, was rezoned to the B-3 General Business District this past April. As stated previously, the commercial zoning district is consistent with the commercial trend of development within the immediate area but the designated future land use within the Comprehensive Plan as “Estate/Conservation Residential (ERC)”. This land use is intended to provide flexibility for residential design in areas that can accommodate low-density detached single-family housing. This ERC land use category was implemented as a “holding” classification for those areas, particularly on the outskirts or along the perimeter of the City’s corporate boundaries, that had an entitlement plan approved but lacked the public infrastructure to support the development of the land within the 10-year timeline of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. As conditions change, reevaluation of this guiding document is necessary and is important to make these changes to ensure the plan is consistent with the current built environment and is not interpreted incorrectly within the planning horizon of the document. Therefore, staff is recommending an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use map for this property to be designated as “Destination Commercial (DC)”. The “Destination Commercial” future land use is intended for a variety of low-scaled auto oriented commercial uses, including offices. The proposed amendment to the existing appendix is attached to this memorandum. Staff Comments The Comprehensive Plan land use map is a guide to future development and zoning decisions, but it is also meant to be adjusted when circumstances warrant a change in planning direction in a given area of the City. The changes to this area have already been decided and it is appropriate to change their land use designation. Prior to holding a public hearing, City staff is seeking comments and direction from the Economic Development Committee and will be available at Tuesday night’s meeting to discuss this matter in greater detail. Attachments 1. Proposed Appendix Amendment Pages 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 * Please see page 186-188 for an addendum to the Future Land Use Map in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. SECTION 9 - STEWARDSHIP AND IMPLEMENTATION 186 THE YORKVILLE PLAN • CONNECTING OUR PAST TO THE FUTURE FUTURE LAND USE - MAP ADDENDUMS CASEY’S GENERAL STORE COFFMAN CARPETS HEARTLAND BUSINESS CENTER New Future Land Use Designation: Destination Commercial Summary: An application was approved requesting annexation, rezoning, special use, and variance authorization to construct a gasoline station with accessory convenience store southwest of the MchHugh Road and Route 34 intersection. The property original contained a small apartment complex and single gamily detached home. The property was originally designated as “Mid-Density Residential” which is meant to provide higher density residential developments near commercial areas which include a variety of housing options. The “Destination Commercial” designation is meant to provide large format and outlot development for commercial business along Yorkville’s main commercial corridors. The original designation reflected the existing apartments on site while the “Destination Commercial” now reflects what has been approved. New Future Land Use Designation: Destination Commercial Summary: An application was approved requesting annexation pursuant to an annexation agreement and rezoning classification for the existing carpet retail store. The property is located south of U.S. Route 34 and west of McHugh Road. The property was originally designated as “Mid-Density Residential” which is meant to provide higher density residential developments near commercial areas which include a variety of housing options. The “Destination Commercial” designation is meant to provide large format and outlot development for commercial business along Yorkville’s main commercial corridors. The “Destination Commercial” land use now reflects what has been approved. New Future Land Use Designation: Commercial Office Summary: An application was approved requesting authorization of an amendment to the existing Heartland Subdivision Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Annexation Agreement Amendment for the purpose of reducing a side yard setback to allow for a two-story office building. The property is located at the southwest corner of McHugh Road and Route 34. The property was originally designated as “Mid-Density Residential” which is meant to provide higher density residential developments near commercial areas which include a variety of housing options. The “Commercial Office” designation is meant to provide commercial, office, and retail space along the City’s main commercial corridors including Route 47 and Route 34. The “Commercial Office” land use now reflects what has been approved. SECTION 9 - STEWARDSHIP AND IMPLEMENTATION 187THE YORKVILLE PLAN • CONNECTING OUR PAST TO THE FUTURE CEDARHURST LIVING HIVELY (WINDMILL FARMS) New Future Land Use Designation: Commercial Office Summary: An application was approved requesting authorization of an amendment to the existing Cannonball Trails Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Annexation Agreement Amendment for the purpose of constructing a new two-story assisted living with memory care facility at the northeast corner of US 34 and Cannonball Trails. The property was originally designated as “Suburban Neighborhood” which is meant to provide single family detached housing options in traditional subdivision layouts. The “Commercial Office” designation is meant to provide commercial, office, and retail space along the City’s main commercial corridors including Route 47 and Route 34. The “Commercial Office” land use now reflects what has been approved. New Future Land Use Designation: Destination Commercial Summary: An application was approved requesting rezoning of three parcels within the Windmill Farms Planned Unit Development which approved certain land uses consistent with those found in the R-4 General Multi-Family Residence District and B-3 General Business zoning districts. The requested new zoning was be B-3 General Business District on two (2) parcels and A-1 Agricultural District on one (1) parcel. The properties which require a change in designation are the B-3 properties located at the southeast and southwest corner of Route 126 and Route 71. While not yet constructed, the properties were rezoned to accommodate a landscaping retail business. The property was originally designated as “Estate/ Conservation Residential” which is meant to provide flexibility for residential design that can accommodate low-density single-family housing. The “Destination Commercial” designation is meant to provide large format and outlot development for commercial business along Yorkville’s main commercial corridors. Now that the properties are zoned B-3 General Business, it is appropriate to amend the designation with the plan as it will likely be used for commercial uses in the future. ELDAMAIN ROAD CORRIDOR New Future Land Use Designation: General Industrial Summary: In 2019, the Illinois Department of Transportation announced that $45 million in funds for the construction of the Eldamain Road bridge over the Fox River was allocated in their multiyear plan. The city was contacted by Kendall County asking us to revisit the comprehensive plan’s future land use designation for the Eldamain Road corridor to align with the Kendall County Land Resource Management Plan. Yorkville’s future land use designation for this area is “Estate/Conservation Residential” which is intended to provide flexibility for residential design of large lot single-family homes or clustering of home with most of the development dedicated for conservation or green space area. However, Kendall County’s Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP) identifies this area’s future land use as “Mixed Use Business.”. The Mixed-Use Business category would include offices, warehouses, highway-oriented commercial businesses and light industrial. To better align the potential future land uses in this region, the “General Industrial” is more appropriate given the new funding for infrastructure in the area. SECTION 9 - STEWARDSHIP AND IMPLEMENTATION 188 THE YORKVILLE PLAN • CONNECTING OUR PAST TO THE FUTURE FUTURE LAND USE - MAP ADDENDUMS ASHLEY ROAD New Future Land Use Designation: N/A Summary: The Raintree Village and Prestwick residential developments have both resumed construction after the adoption of the comprehensive plan. Along with the single-family attached and detached housing in both subdivisions, Prestwick has constructed a new private high school. Along with these developments, the intersection at Route 126 (Schoolhouse Road) and Ashley Road must be improved by the end of 2021. With the growth in this region and the improved intersection being complete before the end horizon of this plan, the potential connection and realignment of Minkler Road to the north has been added to the future land use map. BRICOLAGE WELLNESS New Future Land Use Designation: Destination Commercial Summary: In 2022, an application was approved requesting rezoning of the property located at 8721 Route 126 within the Windmill Farms Planned Unit Development. This PUD approved certain land uses consistent with those found in the R-4 General Multi-Family Residence District and B-3 General Business zoning districts. The requested new zoning was be B-3 General Business District to conduct a commercial office land use for a therapy and wellness business. The existing structure was originally being used as a residential home and the property was originally designated as “Estate/Conservation Residential”. Due to the commercial trends within the area since 2016, City Council approved this rezoning classification from residential to commercial. The new “Destination Commercial” classification is now a more suitable designation for this property. 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 #7 Tracking Number EDC 2022-36 Bristol Bay – Units 10 & 12 (Final Plat) Economic Development Committee – June 7, 2022 8-2006 & 10-2006 Approval of Final Plats of Subdivision Majority Vote Proposed Final Plat of Subdivision of Units 10 & 12 in the Bristol Bay P.U.D. Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, AICP Community Development Name Department 1 Proposed Request: The petitioner, Troy Mertz, on behalf of Bristol Bay Yorkville, LLC, is seeking Final Plat approval to subdivide approximately 20.5 acres into two (2) units consisting of 119 multi-family townhome lots in Unit 10 and 60 multi-family townhome lots in Unit 12 in Bristol Bay, for a total of 179 dwellings. Both units were previously approved final plats by the City Council in 2006 but were never recorded. The general location of the areas to be subdivided is north of Galena Road and west of Rosenwinkel Street just south of Units 11 and Unit 9 in the Bristol Bay subdivision. The subject property, located immediately north of Galena Road and west of Rosenwinkel Street in the far northeast quadrant of the city, was originally annexed and approved as part of the Bristol Bay planned residential development in 2005. Although the Final Plat of Subdivision for Bristol Bay Unit 10 was approved via Resolution No. 2006-69 in August 2006 and Unit 12 was approved in October 2006 via Resolution 2006-98, neither was ever recorded. Per Section 11-2-3H of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, final plats must be recorded with the County Recorder of Deeds within thirty (30) days from the date of final approval, or final approval shall be considered null and void. Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Brad Sanderson, EEI, City Engineer Date: May 31, 2022 Subject: PZC 2022-12 Bristol Bay – Units 10 & 12 (Final Plats of Subdivision) Proposed Final Plat Approval for Multi-Family Townhome Units 2 General PUD/Annexation Agreement Comments: ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS/APPEARANCE CODE The original annexation agreement (Ord. 2005-34) provided general architectural renderings and stated that the residential improvements shall be constructed substantially consistent with those renderings or adhere to the City’s Appearance Code standards, whichever is the least restrictive. Additionally, Ord. 2005-34 requires the developer to impose covenants, conditions and restrictions relating to façade materials, accessory structures, and other building restrictions at the time of final plat submittal for each unit. Exhibit R of the original annexation agreement depicts the townhome product offered by the former developer (Centex/Pulte). The petitioner has provided elevations for the proposed new townhome product offered within these units. Below are images of products from Exhibit R and the proposed new townhome elevations. Exhibit R of Original Annexation Agreement Proposed New Townhome Dwelling Units Note, the proposed new townhome elevations have incorporated transom windows on center unit front doors, shake style siding on top quarter of side elevations that face the street and dormer with contrast color on rear elevations. This new product complies with the City’s current Appearance Code and the architectural standards of the Bristol Bay annexation agreement. 3 Proposed Unit 10 Final Plat of Resubdivision: The proposed Final Plat of Subdivision for Bristol Bay P.U.D. Unit 10, as prepared by HR Green, illustrates the proposed 119 townhome dwelling units. The final plat deviates slightly from the previously approved final plat prepared by Smith Engineering Consultants, Inc. dated 09/26/06 which depicted 138 townhome dwelling units. The proposed final plat represents a reduction of 19 dwelling units (~13.77% decrease). Below are depictions of the originally approved Final Plat for Unit 10 and the proposed new Final Plat of Subdivision for Bristol Bay Unit 10. 4 It appears the reduction in overall lots are due to the change in overall townhome counts per building, with the majority of the reductions attributed to previously 5-6-unit buildings being reduced to 4-5 units. This occurs mostly within the central area of Unit 10 north/west of Santa Monica Street and south/east of Monterey Street. The lot sizes from the previously approved Unit 10 Final Plat ranged from 1,033 sq. ft. – 1,703 sq. ft. with an average lot size of 1,368 sq. ft. However, the lot sizes in the proposed Unit 10 Bristol Bay Final Plat range from 1,405 sq. ft. – 1,736 sq. ft. for an average lot size of 1,570.5 sq. ft. Proposed Unit 12 Final Plat of Resubdivision: Per the previously approved final plat for Unit 12 of the Bristol Bay PUD prepared by Smith Engineering Consultants, Inc. dated 10/10/06, there were a total of 68 townhome dwelling units. The proposed total number of dwelling units for the Unit 12 Final Plat of Bristol Bay is 60; a reduction of 8 dwelling units (~11.76% decrease). Additionally, lots within the northwest quadrant of Unit 12 appear to reorient dwelling units in lots 32, 33 and 34. 5 As in Unit 10, the lot sizes from the previously approved Unit 12 Final Plat ranged from 1,033 sq. ft. – 1,703 sq. ft. with an average lot size of 1,368 sq. ft. Lot sizes in the proposed Unit 12 Bristol Bay Final Plat range from 1,405 sq. ft. – 1,736 sq. ft. for an average lot size of 1,570.5 sq. ft. Below are depictions of the originally approved Final Plat for Unit 12 and the proposed new Final Plat of Subdivision for Bristol Bay Unit 12. Density/Fiscal Analysis Below is a density comparison of the currently approved dwelling count for the overall Bristol Bay Planned Unit Development (north and south of Galena Road), as amended by the recently approved Units 3 & 13, with the proposed dwelling count for Units 10 and 12: Current Residential Land Use Land Use Dwelling Units (DU) Dwelling Unit % Gross Acreage % of Total Acres Density Residential-Condominiums 624 30% 40.1 12.0% 15.6 du/ac Residential-Townhomes 803 39% 94.0 29.0% 8.5 du/ac Residential-Duplex 182 9% 32.7 10.0% 5.6 du/ac Residential-Single Family 467 22% 162.9 49.0% 2.9 du/ac TOTAL 2076 100.00% 329.7 100.00% 6.3 du/ac Proposed Residential Land Use Land Use Dwelling Units (DU) Dwelling Unit % Gross Acreage % of Total Acres Density Residential-Condominiums 624 30% 40.1 12.0% 15.6 du/ac Residential-Townhomes 776 38% 94.0 29.0% 8.3 du/ac Residential-Duplex 182 9% 32.7 10.0% 5.6 du/ac Residential-Single Family 467 23% 162.9 49.0% 2.9 du/ac TOTAL 2049 100.00% 329.7 100.00% 6.2 du/ac Staff also evaluated the Bristol Bay lot count specifically for the units north of Galena Road and prepared the lot analysis chart below: Currently Approved Lot Count Proposed Lot Count Single- Family Town- homes Duplexes Condos Single- Family Town- homes Duplexes Condos Unit 1 0 0 0 288 Unit 1 0 0 0 288 Unit 2 0 142 0 0 Unit 2 0 142 0 0 Unit 3 0 139 0 0 Unit 3 0 139 0 0 Unit 4 44 0 0 0 Unit 4 44 0 0 0 Unit 5 76 0 0 0 Unit 5 76 0 0 0 Unit 6 51 0 0 0 Unit 6 51 0 0 0 Unit 7 37 0 0 0 Unit 7 37 0 0 0 Unit 8 0 0 0 0 Unit 8 0 0 0 0 Unit 9 0 0 0 96 Unit 9 0 0 0 96 Unit 10 0 138 0 0 Unit 10 0 119 0 0 Unit 11 0 0 0 240 Unit 11 0 0 0 240 Unit 12 0 68 0 0 Unit 12 0 60 0 0 Unit 13 69 0 0 0 Unit 13 69 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 277 487 0 624 SUBTOTAL 277 460 0 624 GRAND TOTAL 1,388 GRAND TOTAL 1,361 6 Considering the loss of twenty-seven (27) townhome dwelling units, there is no significant impact to the dwelling type mix or the density of the overall Bristol Bay development. The same is true for the units north of Galena Road, which results in an overall change in dwelling units from 1,388 to 1,361 (approx. 1.95% decrease). Additionally, the overall mixture of townhome dwelling units north of Galena Road changes from 35% of all dwelling types (487 of 1,388) to 34% (460 of 1,361), representing a decrease of approximately 1%. However, the impact to anticipated City building permit revenue loss is approximately $440,000, as each townhome development generates approximately $16,292.48 in building permit fees. The following chart outlines the anticipated impact in building permit revenue by line item: Note, a weather warning siren fee will be collected prior to final plat recordation for Units 10 and 12. The fee is $75/acre, totaling $1,537.50 for the 20.5-acre area for these units combined. Staff Comments: The proposed Final Plats of Subdivision Bristol Bay P.U.D. for Units 10 and 12 have been reviewed by the City’s engineering consultant, Engineering Enterprises Inc. (EEI), for compliance with the Subdivision Control Ordinance’s Standards for Specification. Comments dated May 23, 2022 were provided to the applicant (see attached). The comments are minor in nature and will be addressed by the Petitioner prior to recordation. Staff supports approval of the proposed final plats. This matter was discussed at the May 26, 2022 Plan Council meeting and is scheduled for the June 7, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Per Section 6, paragraph A of the annexation 1 Assumes an average of 1,500 square foot townhome unit. United City of Yorkville Fee Fee Amounts Aggregate Total (x27) Building Permit Fee 1 $950 $25,650 Water Connection Fee $4,761 $127,547 Water Meter Fee $550 $14,850 City Sewer Connection Fee $2,000 $54,000 Water & Sewer Inspection Fee $25 $675 Public Walks/Driveway Inspection Fee $35 $945 Development Fees • Public Walks ($700) • Police ($300) • Building ($1,759) • Library ($500) • Parks and Recreation ($100) • Engineering ($100) • Bristol-Kendall Fire ($1,000) $4,409 $119,043 Land Cash Fees • Park ($0) • School ($1,562.48) $1,562.48 $42,186.96 Road Contribution $2,000.00 $54,000 TOTAL $16,292.48 $438,896.96 7 agreement for Bristol Bay (Ord. 2005-34), the City shall act upon any final plat and final engineering or resubmitted final plat and final engineering within sixty (60) days of receipt. Initial receipt of the completed application was on April 25, 2022. Based upon the required City meeting schedule, the final approval of the requested Final Plat Amendment is proposed for July 26, 2022. The petitioner has agreed to this timeline. Should you have any questions regarding this matter; staff will be available at Tuesday night’s meeting. Attachments: 1. Bristol Bay PUD Subdivision Overall Map 2. Copy of Petitioner’s Applications 3. Final Plat of Subdivision Bristol Bay PUD Unit 10 prepared by HR Green dated 04/01/2022 4. Final Plat of Subdivision Bristol Bay PUD Unit 12 prepared by HR Green dated 04/01/2022 5. Plan Council memo for 05-26-22 6. EEI Letters to the City dated May 23, 2022 Unit 8 Unit 6 Unit 5 Unit 1 Uni t 13 Unit 3 Unit 2 Unit 4 Unit 7 Unit 10 Unit 11 U n it 9 Unit 12Bridge Galena Bertram Bristol Bay RosenwinkelWat erpar k Bi g BendGardinerBarrett Plymouth BurnettPensacolaGarritano HarrisonMarquetteTimbalierPortage Camden TampaPierpont Half Moon WinchesterS a r a s o t a Willoughby Engineering Enterprises, Inc. 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554 (630) 466-6700 Accepted Not Accepted BRISTOL BAY LOCATION MAP AND DEVELOPMENT STATUS www.eeiweb.com DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: PATH: BY: October 2015 YO1234 YO1234-Location.mxd H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2012\ KKP ³ 0 800 1,600400 Feet APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT/REPLAT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us INTENT AND PURPOSEThe purpose of this application is to allow land to be divided and distributed in a way that conforms to the City of Yorkville’s standards. The process for applying for a final plat or replat allows for the review of a proposed layout of divided lots and establishes standard design specification to ensure adequate roadways for safe and efficient traffic circulation is provided; safeguard against flood damage; promotes access and availability of utilities; and requires the provision of other necessary public improvements. This packet explains the process to successfully submit and complete an Application for Final Plat/Replat. It includes a detailed description of the process, outlines required submittal materials, and contains the application. For a complete explanation of what is legally required throughout the process, please refer to “Title 11 Subdivision Control” of the Yorkville, Illinois City Code. APPLICATION PROCEDURE STEP1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL SUBMIT APPLICATION, FEES, AND PLANS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. The following must be submitted: One (1) original signed and notarized application. Legal description of the property in Microsoft Word. Three (3) copies each of the exhibits and proposed drawings. All exhibits and plans must be an appropriate size for all details and descriptions to be legible. Appropriate application and filing fee. Checks may be written to the United City of Yorkville. Signed Applicant Deposit Account/Acknowledgment of Financial Responsibility form. One (1) electronic copy (PDF) of all materials submitted including application and exhibits. Within one (1) week of submittal, the Community Development Department will determine if the application is complete or if additional information is needed. An incomplete submittal could delay the scheduling of the project. The petitioner is responsible for payment of recording fees and outside consultant costs (i.e. legal review, engineering review, etc.). The petitioner will be required to establish a deposit account with the City to cover these fees. Once submitted and complete, Community Development staff will provide a tentative schedule of meetings as well as all the needed documents for the process. The petitioner must present the proposed request to the Plan Council. The members of the Council include the Community Development Director, City Engineer, the Building Department Official, the Public Works Director, the Director of Parks and Recreation, a Fire Department Representative, and a Police Department Representative. This meeting is held to provide the petitioner with guidance from all City staff departments to ensure the petitioner is aware of all requirements and regulations for their development. Upon recommendation by the Plan Council, the petitioner will move forward to the Economic Development Committee. STEP2 PLAN COUNCIL MEETS ON THE 2ND & 4TH THURSDAY OF THE MONTH This step is dependent on the complexity of the request and may be skipped at the discretion of staff. APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT/REPLAT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us The petitioner must present the proposed plat to the Economic Development Committee. The committee consists of four alderman who will provide feedback to the petitioner regarding their request. This feedback allows the petitioner to gather comments and concerns prior to full City Council considerations. It also allows the City Council members to review the request prior to its arrival at City Council. STEP3 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETS ON THE 1ST TUESDAY OF THE MONTH The petitioner will attend and present their plat to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission will discuss the request and make a recommendation to City Council. STEP4 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETS ON THE 2ND WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH The petitioner will attend the City Council meeting where the recommendation of the plat will be considered. City Council will make the final approval of the plat. If approved, City staff will have a drafted ordinance to be signed by the Council and must be recorded with the County Clerk before any further steps may be taken by the petitioner. STEP5 CITY COUNCIL MEETS ON THE 2ND & 4TH TUESDAY OF THE MONTH SAMPLE MEETING SCHEDULE MONTH 1 MONTH 2 MONTH 3 MONTH 4 Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 City CouncilPlanning & Zoning CommissionEconomic Development CommitteePlan Council Meeting This is a sample of what a schedule may look like after submission. The Step 1 Submission must be completed before the Plan Council Meeting can be scheduled. This timeline represents an ideal schedule. Throughout the review process, there may be requests or changes to the submission requested by the committees which may delay the meeting schedule. As illustrated, there is a small amount of time between meeting dates and the deadline for updated materials to be submitted for review. Depending on the complexity and nature of the request, this timeline may be extended to give the petitioner and staff enough time to review requested updates to the submission. Meeting Date Updated Materials Submitted for Meeting APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT/REPLAT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us DORMANT APPLICATIONS The Community Development Director shall determine if an application meets or fails to meet the submission requirements. If the Director determines that the application is incomplete it will become dormant under these circumstances: • The applicant has been notified of such deficiencies and has not responded or provided a time line for completing the application within ninety (90) days from the time of notification. • The applicant has not responded in writing to a request for information or documentation from the initial planning and zoning commission review within six (6) months from the date of that request. • The applicant has not responded to a request for legal or engineering deposit replenishment for city incurred costs and fees within ninety (90) days from the date of the request. If the Community Development Director has sent the required notice and the applicant has not withdrawn their application or brought it into compliance, then the director shall terminate the application. After termination, the application shall not be reconsidered except after the filing of a completely new application. Withdrawal or termination of an application shall not affect the applicant’s responsibility for payment of any costs and fees, or any other outstanding debt owed to the city. The balance of any funds deposited with the city that is not needed to pay for costs and fees shall be returned to the applicant. (Ord. 2011-34, 7-26-2011) APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT/REPLAT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us REQUIRED MATERIALS FOR FINAL PLAT OR SUBDIVISION PLAT The following information must be shown on all final plats and final plats of resubdivision: Legal Description Monuments Exterior Boundary Lines Widths Lot Lines Setback Lines Consecutive Numbering & Lettering Lot Angles Circular Curves Street Names Abutment Dedicated Lands LOT AREAS LOT # 1 2 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 SQ.FT. 164,918± 899,104± 1,800± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,800± 1,800± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,800± 1,800± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,800± 1,800± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± ACRES 3.786± 20.641± 0.041± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.041± 0.041± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.041± 0.041± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.041± 0.041± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± LOT AREAS LOT # 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 SQ.FT. 1,800± 1,800± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,800± 1,800± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,800± 1,800± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,800± 1,800± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,800± ACRES 0.041± 0.041± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.041± 0.041± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.041± 0.041± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.041± 0.041± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.041±Illinois Professional Design Firm # 184-0013222363 Sequoia Drive, Suite 101,Aurora, Illinois 60506t. 630.553.7560 f. 630.553.7646www.hrgreen.com1 OF 4 PINs: 02-19-481-001 02-20-353-010 02-20-353-011 LOT 1(SEE SHEET 2 FOR L O T 1 & L O T 1 0 1 - 1 4 8 D E T A I L S ) LOT 51 KENDALL MARKETPLACE DOC. 200700014779 REC. 05/07/2007BLACKBERRY SH O R E L A N E(66' R.O.W. HERETOF O R E D E D I C A T E D P E R D O C . 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 4 7 7 9 )GILLESPIE LANE(80' R.O.W. HERETOFORE DEDICATED PER DOC. 200700014779) LOT 50 LOT 49 LOT 48 LOT 47 LOT 46 LOT 45 LOT 44 LOT 43 LOT 42 LOT 41 LOT 40 LOT 39 LOT 38 LOT 37 LOT 36 LOT 35 LOT 34 LOT 33 LOT 31 LOT 30 LOT 29 LOT 28 LOT 27 LOT 26 LOT 25 LOT 24 LOT 23 FUTURE BEECHER ROAD KENDALL MARKETPLACE DOC. 200700014779 REC. 05/07/2007 KENDALL MARKETPLACE DOC. 200700014779 REC. 05/07/2007 LOT 16 LOT 17 LOT 19 L O T 5 5 KENDALL MARKETPLACE DOC. 200700014779 REC. 05/07/2007 L O T 5 5 KENDALL MARKETPLACE DOC. 200700014779 REC. 05/07/2007 LOT 57HIGH RIDGELANEU N S U B D I V I D E D L A N D S LOT 2 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 148 147 146 145 144 143 142 141 140 139 138 137 136 135 134 133 132 131 120 119 121 122 123 124 130 129 128 127 126 125LOT 32 TOTAL LAND AREA: 1,141,501± SQ.FT. OR 26.205± ACRES KENDALL MARKETPLACE DOC. 200700014779 REC. 05/07/2007 LOT 52 Watercourses and Drainage Access to Lake or Streams (not shown) Survey Certificates of Approval (not shown) A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P FINAL PLAT OF RESUBDIVISION EXAMPLE A B B C C D D E F F G G H I J JK L M O APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT/REPLAT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us INVOICE & WORKSHEET PETITION APPLICATION CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW Engineering Plan Review deposit $500.00 Total: $ AMENDMENT Annexation Plan Plat P.U.D. $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 Total: $ ANNEXATION $250.00 + $10 per acre for each acre over 5 acres Total: $ ____________ - 5 = ____________ x $10 = ____________ + $250 = $ ____________ # of Acres Acres over 5 Amount for Extra Acres Total Amount REZONING $200.00 + $10 per acre for each acre over 5 acres Total: $ If annexing and rezoning, charge only 1 per acre fee; if rezoning to a PUD, charge PUD Development Fee - not Rezoning Fee ____________ - 5 = ____________ x $10 = ____________ + $200 = $ ____________ # of Acres Acres over 5 Amount for Extra Acres Total Amount SPECIAL USE $250.00 + $10 per acre for each acre over 5 acres Total: $ ____________ - 5 = ____________ x $10 = ____________ + $250 = $ ____________ # of Acres Acres over 5 Amount for Extra Acres Total Amount ZONING VARIANCE $85.00 + $500.00 outside consultants deposit Total: $ PRELIMINARY PLAN FEE $500.00 Total: $ PUD FEE $500.00 Total: $ FINAL PLAT FEE $500.00 Total: $ ENGINEERING PLAN REVIEW DEPOSIT Less than 1 acre Over 1 acre, less than 10 acres Over 10 acres, less than 40 acres Over 40 acres, less than 100 acres Over 100 acres $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 Total: $ OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS DEPOSIT Legal, land planner, zoning coordinator, environmental services Total: $ For Annexation, Subdivision, Rezoning, and Special Use: Less than 2 acres Over 2 acres, less than 10 acres Over 10 acres $1,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT/REPLAT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us DATE:PZC NUMBER:DEVELOPMENT NAME: PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: HOME BUSINESS EMAIL:FAX: PROPERTY INFORMATION NAME OF HOLDER OF LEGAL TITLE: IF LEGAL TITLE IS HELD BY A LAND TRUST, LIST THE NAMES OF ALL HOLDERS OF ANY BENEFICIAL INTEREST THEREIN: PROPERTY STREET ADDRESS: DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY’S PHYSICAL LOCATION: CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION: TOTAL LOT ACREAGE:TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS TO BE CREATED: PROPOSED LOT AREAS AND DIMENSIONS LOT NUMBER LOT DIMENSIONS (W x L, IN FEET)LOT AREA (IN SQUARE FEET) APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT/REPLAT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us ATTORNEY INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: ENGINEER INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: LAND PLANNER/SURVEYOR INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: ATTACHMENTS Petitioner must attach a legal description of the property to this application and title it as “Exhibit A”. AGREEMENT I VERIFY THAT ALL THE INFORMATION IN THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT ALL REQUIREMENTS AND FEES AS OUTLINED AS WELL AS ANY INCURRED ADMINISTRATIVE AND PLANNING CONSULTANT FEES WHICH MUST BE CURRENT BEFORE THIS PROJECT CAN PROCEED TO THE NEXT SCHEDULED COMMITTEE MEETING. I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS DOCUMENT AND UNDERSTAND THAT IF AN APPLICATION BECOMES DORMANT IT IS THROUGH MY OWN FAULT AND I MUST THEREFORE FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED ABOVE. OWNER HEREBY AUTHORIZES THE PETITIONER TO PURSUE THE APPROPRIATE ENTITLEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY. PETITIONER SIGNATURE OWNER SIGNATURE APPLICANT DEPOSIT ACCOUNT/ ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us PRINT NAME SIGNATURE* TITLE DATE PROJECT NAME: FUND ACCOUNT NUMBER: PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER DEPOSIT ACCOUNT FUND: It is the policy of the United City of Yorkville to require any petitioner seeking approval on a project or entitlement request to establish a Petitioner Deposit Account Fund to cover all actual expenses occurred as a result of processing such applications and requests. Typical requests requiring the establishment of a Petitioner Deposit Account Fund include, but are not limited to, plan review of development approvals/engineering permits. Deposit account funds may also be used to cover costs for services related to legal fees, engineering and other plan reviews, processing of other governmental applications, recording fees and other outside coordination and consulting fees. Each fund account is established with an initial deposit based upon the estimated cost for services provided in the INVOICE & WORKSHEET PETITION APPLICATION. This initial deposit is drawn against to pay for these services related to the project or request. Periodically throughout the project review/approval process, the Financially Responsible Party will receive an invoice reflecting the charges made against the account. At any time the balance of the fund account fall below ten percent (10%) of the original deposit amount, the Financially Responsible Party will receive an invoice requesting additional funds equal to one-hundred percent (100%) of the initial deposit if subsequent reviews/fees related to the project are required. In the event that a deposit account is not immediately replenished, review by the administrative staff, consultants, boards and commissions may be suspended until the account is fully replenished. If additional funds remain in the deposit account at the completion of the project, the city will refund the balance to the Financially Responsible Party. A written request must be submitted by the Financially Responsible Party to the city by the 15th of the month in order for the refund check to be processed and distributed by the 15th of the following month. All refund checks will be made payable to the Financially Responsible Party and mailed to the address provided when the account was established. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY: I acknowledge and understand that as the Financially Responsible Party, expenses may exceed the estimated initial deposit and, when requested by the United City of Yorkville, I will provide additional funds to maintain the required account balance. Further, the sale or other disposition of the property does not relieve the individual or Company/Corporation of their obligation to maintain a positive balance in the fund account, unless the United City of Yorkville approves a Change of Responsible Party and transfer of funds. Should the account go into deficit, all City work may stop until the requested replenishment deposit is received. *The name of the individual and the person who signs this declaration must be the same. If a corporation is listed, a corporate officer must sign the declaration (President, Vice- President, Chairman, Secretary or Treasurer) INITIAL ENGINEERING/LEGAL DEPOSIT TOTALS ENGINEERING DEPOSITS: Up to one (1) acre Over one (1) acre, but less than ten (10) acres Over ten (10) acres, but less than forty (40) acres Over forty (40) acres, but less than one hundred (100) In excess of one hundred (100.00) acres $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 LEGAL DEPOSITS: Less than two (2) acres Over two (2) acres, but less than ten (10) acres Over ten (10) acres $1,000 $2,500 $5,000 LOT AREASLOT #123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122SQ.FT.7,816±6,361±6,355±10,786±13,218±14,603±17,732±22,192±14,407±20,175±21,652±14,169±10,334±14,041±9,453±10,031±11,070±8,573±9,606±12,289±11,288±11,160±17,417±15,523±13,556±10,816±8,984±1,736±1,461±1,736±1,736±1,461±1,736±1,736±1,461±1,736±1,736±1,461±1,736±1,736±1,461±1,461±1,577±1,736±1,736±1,461±1,461±1,577±1,577±ACRES0.179±0.146±0.146±0.248±0.303±0.335±0.407±0.509±0.331±0.463±0.497±0.325±0.237±0.322±0.217±0.230±0.254±0.197±0.221±0.282±0.259±0.256±0.400±0.356±0.311±0.248±0.206±0.040±0.034±0.040±0.040±0.034±0.040±0.040±0.034±0.040±0.040±0.034±0.040±0.040±0.034±0.034±0.036±0.040±0.040±0.034±0.034±0.036±0.036±LOT AREASLOT #123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171SQ.FT.1,736±1,736±1,461±1,736±1,736±1,461±1,461±1,577±1,736±1,736±1,461±1,736±1,736±1,461±1,461±1,577±1,736±1,736±1,577±1,577±1,461±1,461±1,686±1,686±1,461±1,736±1,736±1,405±1,405±1,736±1,736±1,405±1,405±1,736±1,736±1,461±1,692±1,736±1,405±1,405±1,736±1,736±1,461±1,461±1,577±1,736±1,736±1,461±1,461±ACRES0.040±0.040±0.034±0.040±0.040±0.034±0.034±0.036±0.040±0.040±0.034±0.040±0.040±0.034±0.034±0.036±0.040±0.040±0.036±0.036±0.034±0.034±0.039±0.039±0.034±0.040±0.040±0.032±0.032±0.040±0.040±0.032±0.032±0.040±0.040±0.034±0.039±0.040±0.032±0.032±0.040±0.040±0.034±0.034±0.036±0.040±0.040±0.034±0.034±LOT AREASLOT #1721731741751761771781791801811821831841851861871881891901911921931941951961971981992002012022032042052062072082092102112122132142152162172182191000SQ.FT.1,577±1,736±1,736±1,577±1,461±1,461±1,736±1,736±1,461±1,461±1,577±1,577±1,736±1,736±1,405±1,405±1,736±1,736±1,461±1,461±1,577±1,577±1,736±1,736±1,461±1,461±1,577±1,577±1,736±1,736±1,461±1,461±1,577±1,577±1,709±1,736±1,577±1,461±1,461±1,712±1,711±1,405±1,405±1,736±1,736±1,405±1,405±1,736±88,809±ACRES0.036±0.040±0.040±0.036±0.034±0.034±0.040±0.040±0.034±0.034±0.036±0.036±0.040±0.040±0.032±0.032±0.040±0.040±0.034±0.034±0.036±0.036±0.040±0.040±0.034±0.034±0.036±0.036±0.040±0.040±0.034±0.034±0.036±0.036±0.039±0.040±0.036±0.034±0.034±0.039±0.039±0.032±0.032±0.040±0.040±0.032±0.032±0.040±2.039±S88°47'59"E 659.06'S21°48'57"E 428.69'L=381.81'R =6 0 0.0 0 'C B =S 3 °3 5 '0 8 "E C H =3 7 5 .4 0 ' S14°3 8 ' 4 1 " W 1 4 3 . 5 0 'L=39.33' R=25.00'CB=S59°42'31"W CH=35.39'S14°38'41"W 20.00'N75°13'39"W 563.06'N00°01'41"W 330.99'S89°58'19"W 295.50'N00°10'51"E 106.00'N89°49'09"W 12.74'N00°10'51"E 26.00'L=46.90' R=30.00'CB=N45°23'45"E CH=42.27'N00°36'39"E 20.43'L=42.63' R=188.00'CB=N7°06'25"E CH=42.54'L=7.69' R=5.00'CB=N30°25'55"W CH=6.95'N74°28'01"W 15.10'L=51.13' R=208.00'CB=N22°09'42"E CH=51.00'S61°12'35"E 14.42'L=8.93' R=5.00'CB=N67°37'23"E CH=7.79'L=34.55' R=30.00'CB=N16°32'11"W CH=32.67'N40°28'16"E 26.00'L=16.69' R=30.00'CB=S65°28'02"E CH=16.48'N01°12'01"E 166.22'159157163160161164167166168169170173172174175178177216219218212213215207208211210179183181182184185186188189191194193190195196197200199201209143158150162165171137129111121115108102105187180176217214192204198202203206205110112109107104106103101117116113114123122119120118124125126127128131130133132134135136139138140141142145144147148146149152151156153154155LOT 8LOT 17LOT 18LOT 12LOT 13LOT 14LOT 15LOT 10LOT 9LOT 11LOT 5LOT 6LOT 7LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3LOT 4LOT 26LOT 27LOT 20LOT 19LOT 21LOT 22LOT 23LOT 24LOT 25LOT 16ROSENWINKEL STREETPINs: PT. 02-04-300-02002-04-400-016PT. 02-09-100-01202-09-200-01902-09-200-020MONTEREY STREETIllinois Professional Design Firm # 184-001322 2363 Sequoia Drive, Suite 101 Aurora, Illinois 60506 t. 630.553.7560 f. 630.553.7646 www.hrgreen.com1 OF 5GALENA ROADSAN DIEGO LANEMONTEREY STREETSANTA MONICA STREETSANTAMONICA STREETFUTUREBRISTOL BAY - UNIT 12 RESUB. OF BRISTOL BAY LOT 2048 - UNIT 9 AND LOT 2049 - UNIT 11DOC. 201800003507FUTUREBRISTOL BAY - UNIT 13LOT 1 6 8 5 BRIS T O L B A Y - U N I T 1 DOC. 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 3 9 5 3 2 UNSUBDIVIDED LANDSUNSUBDIVIDED LANDSLOT 1000LOT 1000LOT 1000LOT 1000LOT 1000 N01°12'01"E 166.22'S88°47'59"E 659.06'L=16.69' R=30.00'CB=S65°28'02"E CH=16.48'N40°28'16"E 26.00'L=34.55' R=30.00'CB=N16°32'11"W CH=32.67'L=8.93' R=5.00'CB=N67°37'23"E CH=7.79'S61°12'35"E 14.42'L=51.13' R=208.00'CB=N22°09'42"E CH=51.00'N74°28'01"W 15.10'L=7.69' R=5.00'CB=N30°25'55"W CH=6.95'L=42.63' R=188.00'CB=N7°06'25"E CH=42.54'N00°36'39"E 20.43'L=46.90' R=30.00'CB=N45°23'45"E CH=42.27'N00°10'51"E 26.00'N89°49'09"W 12.74'N00°10'51"E 106.00'S89°58'19"W 295.50'LOT 1641,736± S.F.LOT 1671,577± S.F.LOT 1661,461± S.F.LOT 1681,736± S.F.LOT 1691,736± S.F.LOT 1701,461± S.F.LOT 1731,736± S.F.LOT 1721,577± S.F.LOT 1741,736± S.F.LOT 1751,577± S.F.LOT 1781,736± S.F.LOT 1771,461± S.F.LOT 2161,736± S.F.LOT 2191,736± S.F.LOT 2181,405± S.F.LOT 2151,736± S.F.LOT 1791,736± S.F.LOT 1831,577± S.F.LOT 1811,461± S.F.LOT 1821,577± S.F.LOT 1841,736± S.F.LOT 1851,736± S.F.LOT 1861,405± S.F.LOT 1651,461± S.F.LOT 1711,461± S.F.LOT 1081,461± S.F.LOT 1021,461± S.F.LOT 1051,461± S.F.LOT 1871,405± S.F.LOT 1801,461± S.F.LOT 1761,461± S.F.LOT 2171,405± S.F.LOT 1091,736± S.F.LOT 1071,736± S.F.LOT 1041,736± S.F.LOT 1061,736± S.F.LOT 1031,736± S.F.LOT 1011,736± S.F.LOT 17,816± S.F.LOT 1711,070± S.F.LOT 188,573± S.F.LOT 26,361± S.F.LOT 36,355± S.F.LOT 1610,031± S.F.LOT 2610,816± S.F.LOT 278,984± S.F.LOT 2012,289± S.F.LOT 199,606± S.F.Illinois Professional Design Firm # 184-001322 2363 Sequoia Drive, Suite 101 Aurora, Illinois 60506 t. 630.553.7560 f. 630.553.7646 www.hrgreen.com2 OF 5PINs: PT. 02-04-300-02002-04-400-016PT. 02-09-100-01202-09-200-01902-09-200-020SANTA MONICA STREETMONTEREY STREETMONTEREY STREET FUTUREBRISTOL BAY - UNIT 12 RESUB. OF BRISTOL BAY LOT 2048 - UNIT 9 AND LOT 2049 -UNIT 11DOC. 201800003507SEE SHEET 3 FOR CONTINUATIONLOT 1000LOT 1000LOT 1000 S88°47'59"E 659.06'S21°48'57"E 428.69'L=381.81'R=600.00'CB=S3°35'08"ECH=375.40'LOT 1631,736± S.F.LOT 1641,736± S.F.LOT 2161,736± S.F.LOT 2181,405± S.F.LOT 2121,711± S.F.LOT 2131,405± S.F.LOT 2151,736± S.F.LOT 2081,577± S.F.LOT 2111,712± S.F.LOT 2101,461± S.F.LOT 1831,577± S.F.LOT 1841,736± S.F.LOT 1851,736± S.F.LOT 1861,405± S.F.LOT 1881,736± S.F.LOT 1891,736± S.F.LOT 1911,461± S.F.LOT 1941,736± S.F.LOT 1931,577± S.F.LOT 1901,461± S.F.LOT 1951,736± S.F.LOT 1961,461± S.F.LOT 1971,461± S.F.LOT 200LOT 1991,577± S.F.LOT 2091,461± S.F.LOT 162LOT 1291,461± S.F.LOT 1111,461± S.F.LOT 1211,577± S.F.LOT 1151,461± S.F.LOT 1081,461± S.F.LOT 1871,405± S.F.LOT 2171,405± S.F.LOT 2141,405± S.F.LOT 1921,577± S.F.LOT 1981,577± S.F.LOT 1101,736± S.F.LOT 1121,736± S.F.LOT 1091,736± S.F.LOT 1071,736± S.F.LOT 1171,736± S.F.LOT 1161,577± S.F.LOT 1131,736± S.F.LOT 1141,461± S.F.LOT 1231,736± S.F.LOT 1221,577± S.F.LOT 1191,461± S.F.LOT 1201,461± S.F.LOT 1181,736± S.F.LOT 1241,736± S.F.LOT 1251,461± S.F.LOT 1261,736± S.F.LOT 1271,736± S.F.LOT 1281,461± S.F.LOT 1311,736± S.F.LOT 1301,577± S.F.LOT 822,192± S.F.LOT 1711,070± S.F.LOT 513,218± S.F.LOT 614,603± S.F.LOT 717,732± S.F.LOT 36,355± S.F.LOT 410,786± S.F.LOT 1610,031± S.F.LOT 2610,816± S.F.LOT 278,984± S.F.LOT 2111,288± S.F.LOT 2211,160± S.F.LOT 2513,556± S.F.LOT 2317,417± S.F.Illinois Professional Design Firm # 184-001322 2363 Sequoia Drive, Suite 101 Aurora, Illinois 60506 t. 630.553.7560 f. 630.553.7646 www.hrgreen.com3 OF 5PINs: PT. 02-04-300-02002-04-400-016PT. 02-09-100-01202-09-200-01902-09-200-020MONTEREY STREETSANTA MONICASTREETSANTA MONICA STREETSEE SHEET 2 FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 4 FOR CONTINUATIONLOT 1000LOT 1000LOT 1000 0'75.40'L=381.81'R =600.0 0'C B =S 3 °3 5 '0 8 "E C H =3 7 5 .4 0 ' S14°3 8 ' 4 1 " W 1 4 3 . 5 0 'L=39.33' R=25.00'CB=S59°42'31"W CH=35.39'S14°38'41"W 20.00'N75°13'39"W 563.06'N00°01'41"W 330.99'LOT 1591,692± S.F.LOT 1571,736± S.F.LOT 1631,736± S.F.LOT 1601,736± S.F.LOT 1611,405± S.F.LOT 2071,736± S.F.LOT 2081,577± S.F.LOT 2001,736± S.F.LOT 1991,577± S.F.LOT 2011,736± S.F.LOT 1431,461± S.F.LOT 1581,461± S.F.LOT 1501,405± S.F.LOT 1621,405± S.F.LOT 1371,461± S.F.LOT 2041,577± S.F.LOT 2021,461± S.F.LOT 2031,461± S.F.LOT 2061,709± S.F.LOT 2051,577± S.F.LOT 1311,736± S.F.LOT 1331,461± S.F.LOT 1321,736± S.F.LOT 1341,736± S.F.LOT 1351,736± S.F.LOT 1361,461± S.F.LOT 1391,736± S.F.LOT 1381,577± S.F.LOT 1401,736± S.F.LOT 1411,577± S.F.LOT 1421,577± S.F.LOT 1451,686± S.F.LOT 1441,461± S.F.LOT 1471,461± S.F.LOT 1481,736± S.F.LOT 1461,686± S.F.LOT 1491,736± S.F.LOT 1521,736± S.F.LOT 1511,405± S.F.LOT 1561,736± S.F.LOT 1531,736± S.F.LOT 1541,405± S.F.LOT 1551,405± S.F.LOT 1214,169± S.F.LOT 1310,334± S.F.LOT 1414,041± S.F.LOT 159,453± S.F.LOT 1020,175± S.F.LOT 914,407± S.F.LOT 1121,652± S.F.LOT 2415,523± S.F.17,417± S.F.Illinois Professional Design Firm # 184-001322 2363 Sequoia Drive, Suite 101 Aurora, Illinois 60506 t. 630.553.7560 f. 630.553.7646 www.hrgreen.com4 OF 5PINs: PT. 02-04-300-02002-04-400-016PT. 02-09-100-01202-09-200-01902-09-200-020GALENA ROADROS E N W I N K E L S T R E E T SAN DIEGO LANESANTA MONICA STREETSEE SHEET 3 FOR CONTINUATIONLOT 1000LOT 1000LOT 1000 CONDOMINIUM PROPERTY ACT", Illinois Professional Design Firm # 184-001322 2363 Sequoia Drive, Suite 101 Aurora, Illinois 60506 t. 630.553.7560 f. 630.553.7646 www.hrgreen.com5 OF 5PINs: PT. 02-04-300-02002-04-400-016PT. 02-09-100-01202-09-200-01902-09-200-020 LOT AREASLOT #2829303132333435363738394041220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243SQ.FT.8,663±9,904±9,564±7,818±9,350±7,789±8,726±12,779±6,751±8,369±10,981±11,293±7,000±11,112±1,736±1,461±1,461±1,577±1,736±1,736±1,461±1,461±1,577±1,736±1,736±1,461±1,736±1,736±1,461±1,736±1,736±1,405±1,405±1,736±1,736±1,461±1,461±1,577±ACRES0.199±0.227±0.220±0.179±0.215±0.179±0.200±0.293±0.155±0.192±0.252±0.259±0.161±0.255±0.040±0.034±0.034±0.036±0.040±0.040±0.034±0.034±0.036±0.040±0.040±0.034±0.040±0.040±0.034±0.040±0.040±0.032±0.032±0.040±0.040±0.034±0.034±0.036±LOT AREASLOT #2442452462472482492502512522532542552562572582592602612622632642652662672682692702712722732742752762772782791001SQ.FT.1,681±1,736±1,405±1,405±1,736±1,681±1,577±1,577±1,461±1,461±1,736±1,736±1,461±1,736±1,736±1,461±1,736±1,736±1,405±1,405±1,736±1,736±1,461±1,461±1,577±1,577±1,736±1,736±1,461±1,736±1,736±1,405±1,405±1,577±1,577±1,736±33,858±ACRES0.039±0.040±0.032±0.032±0.040±0.039±0.036±0.036±0.034±0.034±0.040±0.040±0.034±0.040±0.040±0.034±0.040±0.040±0.032±0.032±0.040±0.040±0.034±0.034±0.036±0.036±0.040±0.040±0.034±0.040±0.040±0.032±0.032±0.036±0.036±0.040±0.777±276222237227231234251242246256258272267264LOT 41244240241243248247245254252250249253255257260259263262261279278277275274273271270265266268269221223224220225226228229230232235233238239236LOT 39LOT 40LOT 38LOT 33LOT 34LOT 35LOT 28LOT 36LOT 29LOT 37LOT 30LOT 31LOT 32S88°47'59"E 655.36'S01°12'01"W 166.22'L=16.69' R=30.00'CB=N65°28'02"W CH=16.48'S40°28'16"W 26.00'L=34.55' R=30.00'CB=S16°32'11"E CH=32.67'L=8.93' R=5.00'CB=S67°37'23"W CH=7.79'N61°12'35"W 14.42'L=51.13' R=208.00'CB=S22°09'42"W CH=51.00'S74°28'01"E 15.10'L=7.69' R=5.00'CB=S30°25'55"E CH=6.95'L=42.63' R=188.00'CB=S7°06'25"W CH=42.54'L=46.90' R=30.00'CB=S45°23'45"W CH=42.27'S00°36'39"W 20.43'S89°49'09"E 12.74'S89°58'19"W 403.84'N19°50'05"W 533.68'S00°10'51"W 26.00'S00°10'51"W 106.00'PINs: PT. 02-04-300-020PT. 02-09-100-012Illinois Professional Design Firm # 184-001322 2363 Sequoia Drive, Suite 101 Aurora, Illinois 60506 t. 630.553.7560 f. 630.553.7646 www.hrgreen.com1 OF 3MONTEREYSTREETSANTA MONICA STREETRESUB. OF BRISTOL BAY LOT 2048 - UNIT 9 AND LOT 2049 - UNIT 11DOC. 201800003507UNSUBDIVIDED LANDSSANTA MONICA STREETSANTA MONICA STREETUNSUBDIVIDED LANDSUNSUBDIVIDED LANDSB R I S T O L B A Y P . U . D . - U N I T 1 0 D O C . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ LOT 2761,405± S.F.LOT 2221,461± S.F.LOT 2371,405± S.F.LOT 2271,461± S.F.LOT 2311,461± S.F.LOT 2341,461± S.F.LOT 2511,577± S.F.LOT 2421,461± S.F.LOT 2461,405± S.F.LOT 2561,461± S.F.LOT 2581,736± S.F.LOT 2721,461± S.F.LOT 2671,461± S.F.LOT 2641,736± S.F.LOT 4111,112± S.F.LOT 2441,681± S.F.LOT 2401,736± S.F.LOT 2411,461± S.F.LOT 2431,577± S.F.LOT 2481,736± S.F.LOT 2471,405± S.F.LOT 2451,736± S.F.LOT 2541,736± S.F.LOT 2521,461± S.F.LOT 2501,577± S.F.LOT 2491,681± S.F.LOT 2531,461± S.F.LOT 2551,736± S.F.LOT 2571,736± S.F.LOT 2601,736± S.F.LOT 2591,461± S.F.LOT 2631,405± S.F.LOT 2621,405± S.F.LOT 2611,736± S.F.LOT 2791,736± S.F.LOT 2781,577± S.F.LOT 2771,577± S.F.LOT 2751,405± S.F.LOT 2741,736± S.F.LOT 2731,736± S.F.LOT 2711,736± S.F.LOT 2701,736± S.F.LOT 2651,736± S.F.LOT 2661,461± S.F.LOT 2681,577± S.F.LOT 2691,577± S.F.LOT 2211,461± S.F.LOT 2231,577± S.F.LOT 2241,736± S.F.LOT 2201,736± S.F.LOT 2251,736± S.F.LOT 2261,461± S.F.LOT 2281,577± S.F.LOT 2291,736± S.F.LOT 2301,736± S.F.LOT 2321,736± S.F.LOT 2351,736± S.F.LOT 2331,736± S.F.LOT 2381,405± S.F.LOT 2391,736± S.F.LOT 2361,736± S.F.LOT 3911,293± S.F.LOT 407,000± S.F.LOT 3810,981± S.F.S88°47'59"E 655.36'N19°50'05"W 533.68'S89°58'19"W 403.84'S00°10'51"W 106.00'S89°49'09"E 12.74'S00°10'51"W 26.00'S40°28'16"W 26.00'L=16.69' R=30.00'CB=N65°28'02"W CH=16.48'S01°12'01"W 166.22'L=46.90' R=30.00'CB=S45°23'45"W CH=42.27'S00°36'39"W 20.43'L=42.63' R=188.00'CB=S7°06'25"W CH=42.54'L=7.69' R=5.00'CB=S30°25'55"E CH=6.95'S74°28'01"E 15.10'L=51.13' R=208.00'CB=S22°09'42"W CH=51.00'N61°12'35"W 14.42'L=8.93' R=5.00'CB=S67°37'23"W CH=7.79'L=34.55' R=30.00'CB=S16°32'11"E CH=32.67'LOT 337,789± S.F.LOT 348,726± S.F.LOT 3512,779± S.F.LOT 288,663± S.F.LOT 366,751± S.F.LOT 299,904± S.F.LOT 378,369± S.F.LOT 309,564± S.F.LOT 317,818± S.F.LOT 329,350± S.F.SANTA MONICA STREETMONTEREY STREETRESUB. OF BRISTOL BAY LOT 2048 - UNIT 9 AND LOT 2049 -UNIT 11DOC. 201800003507Illinois Professional Design Firm # 184-001322 2363 Sequoia Drive, Suite 101 Aurora, Illinois 60506 t. 630.553.7560 f. 630.553.7646 www.hrgreen.com2 OF 3PINs: PT. 02-04-300-020PT. 02-09-100-012SANTA MONICA STREETUNSUBDIVIDED LANDSUNSUBDIVIDED LANDSB R I S T O L B A Y P . U . D . - U N I T 1 0 D O C . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CONDOMINIUM PROPERTY ACT", Illinois Professional Design Firm # 184-001322 2363 Sequoia Drive, Suite 101 Aurora, Illinois 60506 t. 630.553.7560 f. 630.553.7646 www.hrgreen.com3 OF 3PINs: PT. 02-04-300-02002-04-400-016PT. 02-09-100-01202-09-200-01902-09-200-020 I have reviewed the application for Final Plat of Subdivision for Bristol Bay Units 10 & 12, as submitted by David Schultz on behalf of Troy Mertz, Petitioner. The Final Plat of Subdivision - Bristol Bay P.U.D. Unit 10 and Bristol Bay P.U.D. Unit 12 was prepared by HR Green and dated 04- 01-2022. The petitioner is seeking Final Plat approval to subdivide approximately 20.5 acres into two (2) units consisting of 119 multi-family townhome lots in Unit 10 and 60 multi-family townhome lots in Unit 12 in Bristol Bay, for a total of 179 dwellings. Both units were previously approved final plats by the City Council in 2006 but were never recorded. The general location of the areas to be subdivided is north of Galena Road and west of Rosenwinkel Street just south of Units 11 and Unit 9 in the Bristol Bay subdivision. Based upon my review of the applications, documents, and plans; I have compiled the following comments: GENERAL PUD/ANNEXATION AGREEMENT COMMENTS: 1. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) – Per Ordinance No. 2005-34, the subject property is currently zoned R-3 Multi-Family Attached Residence District (former General Residence District) with a special use for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). 2. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS/APPEARANCE CODE – The original annexation agreement (Ord. 2005-34) provided general architectural renderings (Exhibit R) and stated that the residential improvements shall be constructed substantially consistent with those renderings or adhere to the City’s Appearance Code standards, whichever is the least restrictive. a. Additionally, Ord. 2005-34 required the developer to impose covenants, conditions and restrictions relating to façade materials, accessory structures and other building restrictions at the time of final plat submittal for each unit. The provisions shall also require the HOA to be responsible for the maintenance of landscaping within the perimeter landscaping easements, signage on the property and other obligations as determined at the time of final platting. b. Exhibit R and Section 25: Architectural Standards and Covenants of the original annexation agreement are attached. Here is a link to the City’s current Appearance Code regulations: https://library.municode.com/il/yorkville/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT 8BURE_CH15APCO Staff requests to review the final building elevations prior to issuance of building permits. FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION COMMENTS: The following comments are related to the respective proposed final plats for Units 10 and 12 in the Bristol Bay PUD. Memorandum To: Plan Council From: Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director Date: May 20, 2022 Subject: PZC 2022-12 Bristol Bay – Units 10 & 12 (Final Plat of Subdivision) Proposed Final Plat Approval for Townhome Dwelling Units Final Plat - Unit 10 1. PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FINAL PLAT – Per Resolution No. 2006-69, the City approved the Final Plat of Subdivision for Bristol Bay Unit 10 on August 22, 2006. However, that final plat was never recorded. Per Section 11-2-3H of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, the final plat shall be recorded with the County Recorder of Deeds within thirty (30) days from the date of final approval, or final approval shall be considered null and void. This requirement does not apply when the delay is due to circumstances beyond the control of the City or developer. 2. TIMING OF FINAL PLAT – Per Section 6, paragraph A of the annexation agreement for Bristol Bay (Ord. 2005-34), the City hall act upon any final plat and final engineering or resubmitted final plat and final engineering within sixty (60) days of receipt. Initial receipt of the completed application was on April 15, 2022 based upon the required City meeting schedule; the final approval of the requested Final Plat Amendment is proposed as July 26, 2022. 3. LOT REDUCTION – Per the previously approved final plat for Unit 10 of the Bristol Bay PUD prepared by Smith Engineering Consultants, Inc. date last revised 09/26/06, there were a total of 138 townhome dwelling units. The proposed total number of dwelling units for the Unit 10 Final Plat of Bristol Bay is 119; a reduction of 19 dwelling units (~13.77% decrease). • It appears the reduction in overall lots are due to the change in overall townhome counts per building, with the majority of the reductions attributed to previously 5-6-unit buildings being reduced to 4-5 units. This occurs mostly within the central area of Unit 10 north/west of Santa Monica Street and south/east of Monterey Street. • Lot sizes from previously approved Unit 10 Final Plat ranged from 1,033 sq. ft. – 1,703 sq. ft. with an average lot size of 1,368 sq. ft. • Lot sizes in the proposed Unit 10 Bristol Bay Final Plat range from 1,405 sq. ft. – 1,736 sq. ft. for an average lot size of 1,570.5 sq. ft. Final Plat – Unit 12 4. PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FINAL PLAT – Per Resolution No. 2006-98, the City approved the Final Plat of Subdivision for Bristol Bay Unit 12 on October 24, 2006. However, that final plat was never recorded. Per Section 11-2-3H of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, the final plat shall be recorded with the County Recorder of Deeds within thirty (30) days from the date of final approval, or final approval shall be considered null and void. This requirement does not apply when the delay is due to circumstances beyond the control of the City or developer. 5. TIMING OF FINAL PLAT – Per Section 6, paragraph A of the annexation agreement for Bristol Bay (Ord. 2005-34), the City hall act upon any final plat and final engineering or resubmitted final plat and final engineering within sixty (60) days of receipt. Initial receipt of the completed application was on April 15, 2022, based upon the required City meeting schedule, the final approval of the requested Final Plat Amendment is proposed as July 26, 2022. 6. LOT REDUCTION/REORIENTATION – Per the previously approved final plat for Unit 12 of the Bristol Bay PUD prepared by Smith Engineering Consultants, Inc. date last revised 10/10/06, there were a total of 68 townhome dwelling units. The proposed total number of dwelling units for the Unit 12 Final Plat of Bristol Bay is 60; a reduction of 8 dwelling units (~11.76% decrease). • Additionally, lots within the northwest quadrant of Unit 12 appear to reorient dwelling units in lots 32, 33 and 34. • Lot sizes from previously approved Unit 12 Final Plat ranged from 1,033 sq. ft. – 1,703 sq. ft. with an average lot size of 1,368 sq. ft. • Lot sizes in the proposed Unit 12 Bristol Bay Final Plat range from 1,405 sq. ft. – 1,736 sq. ft. for an average lot size of 1,570.5 sq. ft. Below is a comparison of the currently approved dwelling count for the overall Bristol Bay Planned Unit Development (PUD) (as amended by the recently approved Units 3 & 13) with the proposed dwelling count for Units 10 and 12: Current Residential Land Use Land Use Dwelling Units (DU) Dwelling Unit % Gross Acreage % of Total Acres Density Residential-Condominium 624 30% 40.1 12.0% 15.6 du/ac Residential-Townhomes 803 39% 94.0 29.0% 8.5 du/ac Residential-Duplex 182 9% 32.7 10.0% 5.6 du/ac Residential-Single Family 467 22% 162.9 49.0% 2.9 du/ac TOTAL 2076 100.00% 329.7 100.00% 6.3 du/ac Proposed Residential Land Use Land Use Dwelling Units (DU) Dwelling Unit % Gross Acreage % of Total Acres Density Residential-Condominium 624 30% 40.1 12.0% 15.6 du/ac Residential-Townhomes 776 38% 94.0 29.0% 8.3 du/ac Residential-Duplex 182 9% 32.7 10.0% 5.6 du/ac Residential-Single Family 467 23% 162.9 49.0% 2.9 du/ac TOTAL 2049 100.00% 329.7 100.00% 6.2 du/ac Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: See attached memo. Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Manager Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Old Business #1 Tracking Number EDC 2020-32 Urban (Domesticated) Chickens Economic Development Committee – June 7, 2022 EDC 05/03/22 Bring back to committee. EDC 2020-32 Majority Direction Discussion regarding permitting and regulating urban (domesticated) chickens in residentially zoned districts. Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, AICP Community Development Name Department Summary: At the May 3rd Economic Development Committee (EDC) meeting, staff was given direction to draft an ordinance permitting urban (domesticated) chickens for single-family residentially zoned parcels on smaller lot sizes than the previously proposed one (1) acre lot minimum and slightly less restrictive setbacks than the minimum 25 ft proposed in January 2021. The EDC also requested regulations related to privacy or solid fencing, required enclosures and a maximum of 4-6 chickens per lot. However, no specific direction given regarding enforcement criteria. Policy Proposals: Based on the feedback provided to staff from the EDC, the following regulations have been revised (in red) from the January 2021 proposal and incorporated into the attached draft ordinance: PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED REGULATIONS CURRENTLY 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 Lot must be used for residential purposes • E-1 (2 parcels) • R-1 (38 parcels) • R-2 (305 parcels) Total 345 parcels MIN. LOT SIZE One (1) acre 20,000 sq. ft. MAX. NUMBER OF CHICKENS Max. of 8 chickens Max. of 5 chickens LOCATION/SETBACK Rear/Side Yard 25 ft. setback from property lines Rear/Side Yard 15 ft. setback from property lines SANITATION 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. 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. Enclosure constructed with a covered, predator-proof roof which allows for two (2) square feet per hen. Privacy or solid yard fence required. Chicken-run optional. SLAUGHTERING Prohibited Prohibited ROOSTERS Permitted up to 4 months of age Permitted up to 4 months of age PERMIT REQUIRED Required w/o Inspection ($25.00 one-time fee) 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: June 2, 2022 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: Although not discussed at the May 2022 meeting, existing enforcement regulations for public health and safety would apply to properties permitted to have domesticated chickens: 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 previously expressed concern regarding nuisance and noise complaints, as well as conflicts between this ordinance and HOA regulations. While the existing enforcement City regulations address the noise and nuisance complaints, the City has no authority to enforce HOA regulations. 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. Map of Residential Parcels Permitted by Current Draft Ordinance 2. Revised Proposed Draft Ordinance 3. 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 (Lots over 20,000 square feet) 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/Complete Chicken Places 6-2-22 DATE: June 2, 2022 E-1 Estate Residence District R-1 Single-Family Suburban Residence District R-2 Single-Family Traditional Residence District TOTAL Autumn Creek --13 Blackberry Creek North --25 Blackberry Woods --5 Briarwood --1 Bristol Bay --2 Caledonia --2 Cannonball Estates --11 Country Hills --6 Countryside --25 Grande Reserve --3 Greenbriar --13 Heartland --2 Kendall Marketplace --1 Kylyn's Ridge --3 None 2 38 106 Prairie Meadows --3 Prestwick --3 Raintree Village --20 River's Edge --5 Sunflower Estates --11 Timber Ridge Estates --16 Whispering Meadows --3 White Oak Estates --95 Wildwood --39 Windett Ridge --22 TOTALS:2 38 435 475 TOTAL PARCELS HOA APPROVED 2 38 305 345 TOTAL PARCELS HOA PROHIBITTED 0 0 130 130 NUMBER OF PARCELS 1 Draft 12/02/2006/02/22 Ordinance No. _____ 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. 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) acretwenty thousand (20,000) square feet 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)five (5) 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) fifteen (15) 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 privacy or solid fence shall be required. A chicken run is optional. 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. 3 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. 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 5:004:30 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 4 on land zoned A-1 agricultural zoning district, in accordance with title 10, chapter 9 of this code.” 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 ________, 20212022. ______________________________ CITY CLERK KEN KOCH ________ DAN TRANSIER ________ JACKIE MILSCHEWSKICRAIG SOLING ________ ARDEN JOE PLOCHER ________ CHRIS FUNKHOUSER ________ JOEL FRIEDERS MATT MAREK ________ SEAVER TARULIS ________ JASON PETERSON ________ Approved by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, this _____ day of _______________ 20212022. ______________________________ MAYOR 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) Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: See attached memo. Follow the link to digitally view the proposed map and additional loop information: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/31ee0618dc75486b999ca271ad583ce0/ Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Purchasing Manager Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Old Business #2 Tracking Number EDC 2021-44 Lisa Loop – Proposed Virtual Bike Path and Monument Pillar Economic Development Committee – June 7, 2022 Committee in favor of Lisa Loop project EDC 2021-44 Majority Approval A proposed memorial to former City Clerk, Lisa Pickering. Jason Engberg Community Development Name Department EDC – 12/07/21 Summary An update on the proposal for the approval of a digital bike path and the installation of a monument pillar in recognition of Lisa Pickering, Yorkville’s former City Clerk, longtime resident, and avid bike rider. The path traces a favorite route Lisa took when bicycling around Yorkville. Since the route utilizes various roadways with and without a dedicated bike path or trail, staff has proposed to recreate the path virtually utilizing ArcGIS Experience and marking the start of the path with a stone pillar and brass plaque. Proposal Since the untimely passing of Lisa Pickering, her fellow colleagues have sought ways to public memorialize Lisa’s life and sixteen (16) years of service to the City of Yorkville. Recognizing her passion for cycling, staff thought it fitting to honor her legacy with a virtual bike path of her favorite route around the City she dedicated so much of her life. With assistance from her husband, staff mapped out the nearly 25-mile course which winds through north Yorkville and Kendall County as seen in the map below. There are two components to the path including the virtual experience map and a monument pillar. Virtual Experience Map ArcGIS Experience is an online web-browser application that utilizes location data to tell a story. The complete “Lisa Pickering Loop – A Bicycle Tour of Yorkville” can be viewed by clicking on the following link: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/31ee0618dc75486b999ca271ad583ce0/. Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Jason Engberg, Senior Planner CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director Tim Evans, Parks and Recreation Director Date: May 31, 2022 Subject: Lisa Pickering Loop – Proposed Virtual Bike Path & Monument Initial Experience Splash Page The web browser experience starts with an initial splash page about Lisa and the purpose of the application. After reading the introduction, the user is shown the entire path around Yorkville. While the user may zoom into certain areas and move around the map freely, the highlight of the application is the guided tour along the path. The user may click through the slideshow at their own pace to read about each of the areas within Yorkville or they may click the “play button” to be automatically taken to each location. The guided tour highlights certain areas that Lisa enjoyed viewing on her bike rides. At the top of the map there is an option to share this application on social media and the splash page instructs those to use the hashtag #LisaLoopYorkville. Staff is hoping that others will use this route and post pictures from their ride. Monument Pillar The second component of the proposed Lisa Loop virtual bike path is a stone pillar which will serve as a physical monument memorializing Lisa. Parks and Recreation staff proposes to use a pillar similar to one currently located along the bike path on Game Farm Road (see image to the left). The pillar will have a brass plaque on one side with an inscription dedicated to Lisa and an image of the loop. A QR Code can also be included to link directly to the ArcGIS Experience webpage. The tentative location for the pillar is somewhere along Beecher Park. According to Parks and Recreation staff, the cost of the pillar can be absorbed in the current department’s budget, and the installation can be done in-house. Existing Roadway Jurisdictions Since the approximately 25-mile route utilizes various public roadways with and without a dedicated bike path or trail located partially under, jurisdictions and homeowner’s associations were sent a courtesy notification this past winter. While staff does not anticipate a significant increase in cyclists along this route, there is a possibility of more bike riders as a result of the path and felt it was best to contact those with jurisdiction over the roadways in case there were any objections. Staff did not receive any objection to the establishment of this virtual path and if approved, the agencies will be contacted again prior to the application going live. See the table below for a reference of the groups that were contacted: Jurisdictional Authority Subdivision United City of Yorkville Caledonia Grande Reserve Autumn Creek Heartland Heartland Circle Blackberry Woods Kendall Marketplace Kendall Marketplace Residential Townes of Kendall Marketplace Kylyn’s Ridge Kendall County Blackberry Oaks Golf Course Kendall County Campus (Complex) Bristol Township Beecher Road Staff Comments Staff is seeking formal direction from the Economic Development Committee regarding the proposed Lisa Pickering Loop project prior to publishing the ArcGIS Experience Map and installation of the monument pillar. Once approved, a webpage on the City’s website will be created providing a link to the map and information about the loop. Additionally, the City will promote the virtual path via social media and provide encouragement to residents to travel the path in Lisa’s honor.