The URL can be used to link to this page

Economic Development Packet 2022 09-06-22 AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, September 6, 2022 6:00 p.m. City Hall Conference Room 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, IL Citizen Comments: Minutes for Correction/Approval: August 2, 2022 New Business: 1. EDC 2022-53 Building Permit Report for July 2022 2. EDC 2022-54 Building Inspection Report for July 2022 3. EDC 2022-55 Property Maintenance Report for July 2022 4. EDC 2022-56 Economic Development Report for August 2022 5. EDC 2022-57 Williams Group – Riverwalk and Art Easement 6. EDC 2022-58 TIF Agreement – Williams Group 7. EDC 2022-59 Ordinance Approving the Third Amendment to the Annexation and Planned Unit Development Agreement for a Portion of the Windmill Farms Development (Restore Church, Inc.) 8. EDC 2022-60 Restore Church Rezoning Old Business: 1. EDC 2020-32 Urban Chickens Additional Business: 2019 – 2021 City Council Goals – Economic Development Committee Goal Priority Staff “Southside Development” 4 Bart Olson, Krysti Barksdale-Noble & Lynn Dubajic “Downtown and Riverfront Development” 5 Bart Olson, Tim Evans & Krysti Barksdale-Noble “Metra Extension” 7 Bart Olson, Rob Fredrickson, Eric Dhuse, Krysti Barksdale-Noble & Erin Willrett “Manufacturing and Industrial Development” 8 (tie) Bart Olson, Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Erin Willrett, Lynn Dubajic, Eric Dhuse & Brad Sanderson “Expand Economic Development Efforts” 10 Krysti Barksdale-Noble & Lynn Dubajic “Revenue Growth” 13 Rob Fredrickson, Krysti Barksdale-Noble & Lynn Dubajic “Entrance Signage” 17 Krysti Barksdale-Noble & Erin Willrett United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 www.yorkville.il.us UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WORKSHEET ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, September 6, 2022 6:00 PM CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITIZEN COMMENTS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MINUTES FOR CORRECTION/APPROVAL: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. August 2, 2022 □ Approved __________ □ As presented □ With corrections --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. EDC 2022-53 Building Permit Report for July 2022 □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. EDC 2022-54 Building Inspection Report for July 2022 □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. EDC 2022-55 Property Maintenance Report for July 2022 □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. EDC 2022-56 Economic Development Report for August 2022 □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. EDC 2022-57 Williams Group – Riverwalk and Art Easement □ Moved forward to CC __________ □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. EDC 2022-58 TIF Agreement – Williams Group □ Moved forward to CC __________ □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. EDC 2022-59 Ordinance Approving the Third Amendment to the Annexation and Planned Unit Development Agreement for a Portion of the Windmill Farms Development (Restore Church, Inc.) □ Moved forward to CC __________ □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. EDC 2022-60 Restore Church Rezoning □ Moved forward to CC __________ □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OLD BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. EDC 2020-32 Urban Chickens □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Minutes Tracking Number Minutes of the Economic Development Committee – August 2, 2022 Economic Development Committee – September 6, 2022 Majority Committee Approval Minute Taker Name Department DRAFT Page 1 of 2 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, August 2, 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 attendance Community Development Director Krysti Barksdale-Noble/in-person attendance Senior Planner Jason Engberg/in-person attendance Code Official Pete Ratos/in-person attendance Other Guests City Consultant Lynn Dubajic Kellogg/in-person attendance John McFarland, CalAtlantic/electronic attendance The meeting was called to order at 6:00pm by Chairman Jason Peterson Citizen Comments None Minutes for Correction/Approval July 5, 2022 The minutes were approved as presented. New Business 1. EDC 2022-48 Building Permit Report for June 2022 Mr. Ratos reported 221 permits in June which included single-family, single-family attached and commercial permits. Alderman Koch asked if building will slow with rising interest rates. Mr. Olson said the builders predict a decrease and mortgage applications nationwide have also dropped. Mr. Ratos said Yorkville is seeing “urban flight” with people moving out of the city. 2. EDC 2022-49 Building Inspection Report for June 2022 In June there were 906 inspections, most of which were for single-family homes. Some outsourcing is still occurring. 3. EDC 2022-50 Property Maintenance Report for June 2022 Twelve cases were heard by the Hearing Officer in June with several cases on Honeysuckle. City staff members are working with the owner to become compliant. Mr. Ratos said the weeds and grass cases have decreased tremendously from past years. Page 2 of 2 4. EDC 2022-51 Economic Development Report for July 2022 Ms. Dubajic Kellogg reported a large amount of activity. She said Manpower is moving to Heartland, work is being done on the former Millhurst, construction for Chipotle is moving along, Taco Valley is opening and there is a new BBQ place in Kendall Crossing. Belle Tire is slated to open in September and Mr. Ratos added that Belle Tire can be converted to a full mechanic shop in the future if desired. 5. EDC 2022-52 Caledonia – Phase 3 Request for Final Plat Approval John McFarland of CalAtlantic is seeking approval of Final Plat to subdivide two undeveloped parcels into 62 lots with 61 houses. In November 2004 a PUD was approved for Caledonia and Phase 3 now remains. In 2016 the city approved reduced permit fees which will sunset in November 2023. Parkway trees and sidewalk improvements will be the builder's responsibility and the sanitary sewer connections will be paid in full at $2,000 per lot once this portion is finished. Staff supports the Final Plat and this will move to the PZC on August 10th. Mr. McFarland added that Lennar is the contract purchaser. Old Business: 1. EDC 2020-32 Urban Chickens Ms. Noble summarized previous discussions saying staff was given direction to move ahead using the Oswego ordinance. Based on feedback, she said staff is proposing to include the following: zoning districts E-1, R-1, and R-2 which would include approximately 4,400 parcels. Other criteria included 12,000 sq. ft. lots and a maximum of 6 hens in the rear yard only. Structures must be kept rodent-free, requires enclosure of 144 sq. ft. within a fenced yard, no electric cords to the enclosure, no slaughtering with the exception of humane or religious reasons and no roosters allowed. Also, staff is recommending regular inspections and one-time $25 fee. HOA approval/letter must also be secured prior to getting a permit. Chairman Peterson said typically HOA's will require a permit before they will give permission. The committee provided further feedback. Mr. Ratos added that sometimes no one manages HOA's or there may not be one. If someone had chickens and it was not allowed by the HOA, the HOA would have to enforce. It was noted that the Oswego ordinance requires an HOA letter. Committee members also said the language should state roosters are “prohibited”. Chairman Peterson suggested a lot size of 11,000 sq. ft. and due to concern for dogs chasing chickens, it was suggested to make the fence a privacy fence, however, some HOA's do not allow those. It was decided to recommend an 11,000 sq. ft. lot size and a 4-foot opaque privacy fence around the lot. The committee did not oppose the slaughtering aspect of the ordinance. The committee will bring it back next month. Administrator Olson recapped the recommendations: the HOA requirement will be omitted, minimum lot size is 11,000 sq. ft. and a 4-foot privacy fence will be required around the lot that has chickens. Additional Business: None There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 6:43pm. 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 2022-53 Building Permit Reports for July 2022 Economic Development Committee – September 6, 2022 Informational None All permits issued in July 2022. D. Weinert Community Development Name Department L:\Agendas - Packets\Packets\2022 Packets\Economic Development\09-06-22\July 2022.doc Prepared by D Weinert UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE BUILDING PERMIT REPORT JULY 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 July 2022 147 10 0 0 12 0 125 3,052,438.00 91,690.30 Calendar Year 2022 907 108 21 0 72 0 706 34,323,118.00 969,388.05 Fiscal Year 2023 506 48 9 0 40 0 409 15,100,232.00 466,501.30 July 2021 149 26 10 0 3 0 110 6,819,196.00 261,925.91 Calendar Year 2021 1066 158 82 0 80 0 746 47,074,320.00 1,640,910.04 Fiscal Year 2022 527 59 58 0 28 0 381 22,322,360.00 745,872.35 July 2020 204 24 8 0 14 0 158 6,296,223.00 207,609.60 Calendar Year 2020 1052 89 26 0 58 0 879 26,594,990.00 908,034.56 Fiscal Year 2021 666 44 22 0 18 0 582 14,896,478.00 440,572.99 July 2019 380 18 0 0 9 0 353 7,000,146.00 203,800.08 Calendar Year 2019 1030 92 10 0 71 0 857 31,153,024.00 1,154,308.81 Fiscal Year 2020 749 44 5 0 28 0 672 14,309,478.00 546,279.09 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 2022-54 Building Inspection Reports for July 2022 Economic Development Committee – September 6, 2022 Informational None All inspections scheduled in July 2022. D. Weinert Community Development Name Department DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 1DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 1TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ AM 046-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 10000001 COUNTY INSPECTIONS 0 07/06/2022 Comments1: 8045 VAN EMMON RD, HIDEAWAY LAKES -- CAS Comments2: TLE BANKPR _____ AM 047-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/06/2022 Comments1: 7412 FAIRWAY DR - WHITE TAIL RIDGEPR _____ 048-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/15/2022 Comments1: 4177 CHERRY DR -- OSWEGOPR _____ 049-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/20/2022 Comments1: 7102 GOLFVIEW CT - WHITETAILPR _____ AM 050-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/29/2022 Comments1: 9250 CHATHAM PL -- NEWARKED _____ 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20201300 950 GILLESPIE LN 148 07/01/2022 Comments1: B-BOX INOPERABLETS _____ 018-REI REINSPECTION 07/20/2022 Comments1: ENGINEERING FINAL INSPECTIONED _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20201301 948 GILLESPIE LN 147 07/01/2022BF _____ PM 022-REI REINSPECTION 07/06/2022 Comments1: FINAL BUILDING, ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICA Comments2: L -- ABBY 630-365-7229ED _____ 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20201302 946 GILLESPIE LN 146 07/01/2022ED _____ 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20201303 944 GILLESPIE LN 145 07/01/2022ED _____ 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20201304 942 GILLESPIE LN 144 07/01/2020 Comments1: B-BOX INOPERABLETS _____ 019-REI REINSPECTION 07/20/2022 Comments1: ENGINEERING SITE INSPECTIONED _____ 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20201305 940 GILLESPIE LN 143 07/01/2022 Comments1: B-BOX INOPERABLETS _____ 018-REI REINSPECTION 07/20/2022 Comments1: ENGINEERING SITE -- B-BOXJP _____ PM 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201869 2602 MCLELLAN BLVD 61 07/26/2022BF _____ 014-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20210170 3145 JUSTICE DR 692 07/13/2022 Comments1: PUBLIC & PRIVATE WALKS, REAR STOOP -- CH Comments2: RIS 224-358-1606 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 2DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 2TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/21/2022 Comments1: BRIAN 224-422-9457 -- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTGH _____ 016-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/21/2022GH _____ 017-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 07/21/2022PBF _____ 018-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/21/2022 Comments1: BRIAN 224-422-9457TS _____ 019-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 07/25/2022BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20210203 439 NORWAY CIR 9 07/27/2022 Comments1: GENERATOR -- MIA 630-546-8476PR _____ 025-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20210558 1232 HAWK HOLLOW DR 273 07/11/2022 Comments1: TEMP TO FINALPR _____ 023-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20210559 1234 HAWK HOLLOW DR 273 07/11/2022 Comments1: TEMP TO FINALED _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20210793 3126 JUSTICE DR 616 07/05/2022 Comments1: TEMP TO FINALED _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20210794 3129 JUSTICE DR 687 07/07/2022 Comments1: TEMP TO FINALBF 12:30 003-EDA ENGINEERING - DRIVEWAY AP 20210869 2971 GRANDE TR 389 07/20/2022 Comments1: 630-360-0241 DOMINICTS _____ 024-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20210942 2954 OLD GLORY DR 265 07/15/2022ED _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20210950 3125 JUSTICE DR 686 07/07/2022 Comments1: TEMP TO FINALGH _____ AM 015-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 20210951 1264 HAWK HOLLOW DR 270-1 07/25/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159PBF _____ 016-SUM SUMP 07/26/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001GH _____ AM 017-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 20210952 1262 HAWK HOLLOW DR 270-2 07/25/2022 Comments1: UPLAND 630-465-1159 JOSEPBF _____ PM 018-SUM SUMP 07/26/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 3DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 3TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 019-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20210953 1254 HAWK HOLLOW DR 271-1 07/20/2022 Comments1: STEVE 224-760-2584 -- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTGH _____ 020-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/20/2022GH _____ 021-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/20/2022PBF _____ 022-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/20/2022 Comments1: STEVE 224-760-2584TS _____ 023-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 07/20/2022GH _____ 019-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20210954 1252 HAWK HOLLOW DR 271-2 07/20/2022 Comments1: STEVE 224-760-2584GH _____ 020-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/20/2022GH _____ 021-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 07/20/2022PBF _____ 022-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/20/2022 Comments1: STEVE 224-760-2584TS _____ 023-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 07/20/2022ED _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211002 2463 JUSTICE CT 618 07/05/2022 Comments1: TEMP TO FINALED _____ 022-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211003 2461 JUSTICE CT 617 07/05/2022 Comments1: TEMP TO FINALED _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211004 3109 JUSTICE DR 684 07/08/2022 Comments1: TEMP TO FINALED _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211036 3105 JUSTICE DR 683 07/07/2022 Comments1: TEMP TO FINAL -- DYING TREEED _____ 022-REI REINSPECTION 20211105 1142 HAWK HOLLOW DR 302-1 07/01/2022 Comments1: FINAL SITEED _____ 022-REI REINSPECTION 20211106 1138 HAWK HOLLOW DR 302-2 07/01/2022 Comments1: SITE FINALED _____ 022-REI REINSPECTION 20211107 1136 HAWK HOLLOW DR 302-3 07/01/2022 Comments1: SITE FINAL -- PARKWAY TREEED _____ 022-REI REINSPECTION 20211108 1134 HAWK HOLLOW DR 302-4 07/01/2022 Comments1: SITE FINAL -- PARKWAY TREE DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 4DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 4TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 017-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211109 1135 HAWK HOLLOW DR 308-1 07/19/2022 Comments1: STEVE -- 224-760-2584GH _____ 018-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/19/2022GH _____ 019-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 07/19/2022PR _____ 020-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/19/2022 Comments1: STEVE -- 224-760-2584TS _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 07/19/2022GH _____ 017-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211110 1137 HAWK HOLLOW DR 308-2 07/19/2022 Comments1: STEVE -- 224-760-2584GH _____ 018-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/19/2022GH _____ 019-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 07/19/2022PR _____ 020-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/19/2022 Comments1: STEVE -- 224-760-2584TS _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 07/19/2022TS _____ 022-REI REINSPECTION 07/21/2022 Comments1: ENGINEERING SITE FINALTS _____ 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211111 1139 HAWK HOLLOW DR 308-3 07/19/2022GH _____ 018-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/22/2022 Comments1: JEFF - 847-456-8082GH _____ 019-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/22/2022GH _____ 020-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 07/22/2022PBF _____ 021-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/22/2022 Comments1: JEFF - 847-456-8082TS _____ 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211112 1141 HAWK HOLLOW DR 308-4 07/19/2022GH _____ 019-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/22/2022 Comments1: JEFF - 847-456-8082 SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTGH _____ 020-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/22/2022GH _____ 021-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 07/22/2022 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 5DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 5TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PBF _____ 022-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/22/2022 Comments1: JEFF - 847-456-8082PR _____ 014-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211120 1376 SPRING ST 216 07/22/2022 Comments1: TIM - 630-878-5291PR _____ 015-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/22/2022PR _____ 016-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 07/22/2022PR _____ 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/22/2022PR _____ 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 07/22/2022ED _____ 022-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211121 2466 JUSTICE CT 621 07/06/2022 Comments1: TEMP TO FINAL -- B-BOX AND TREEED _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211122 2471 JUSTICE CT 620 07/06/2022 Comments1: TEMP TO FINALED _____ 023-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211123 2465 JUSTICE CT 619 07/06/2022 Comments1: TEMP TO FINAL -- TREETS _____ 024-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211144 3986 SHOEGER CT 25 07/21/2022 Comments1: PROPERTY CORNERS AND B-BOXTS _____ 025-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211145 3988 SHOEGER CT 25 07/21/2022 Comments1: PROPERTY CORNERS AND BBOXTS _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211146 4023 SHOEGER CT 26 07/21/2022 Comments1: PROPERTY CORNERS AND BBOXTS _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211147 4025 SHOEGER CT 26 07/21/2022 Comments1: PROPERTY CORNERS AND BBOXTS _____ 022-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211148 4043 SHOEGER CT 27 07/22/2022 Comments1: B-BOX AND SIDEWALK SQUARETS _____ 024-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211149 4045 SHOEGER CT 27 07/22/2022 Comments1: B-BOX & SIDEWAK SQUARETS _____ 028-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211150 4063 SHOEGER CT 28 07/22/2022TS _____ 025-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211151 4065 SHOEGER CT 28 07/22/2022 Comments1: B-BOXTS _____ 022-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211152 4062 SHOEGER CT 29 07/22/2022 Comments1: B-BOX DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 6DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 6TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------TS _____ 022-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211153 4064 SHOEGER CT 29 07/22/2022 Comments1: B-BOXGH _____ 007-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211199 1124 HAWK HOLLOW DR 301-4 07/01/2022 Comments1: JEFF - 847-456-8082GH _____ 008-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/01/2022GH _____ 009-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/01/2022PBF _____ 010-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/01/2022 Comments1: JEFF - 847-456-8082BC _____ 011-INS INSULATION 07/07/2022 Comments1: JEFF - 847-456-8082GH _____ 012-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 07/01/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082 -- SEE INSPECTION R Comments2: EPORTGH _____ 011-INS INSULATION 20211200 1126 HAWK HOLLOW DR 301-3 07/05/2022 Comments1: JEFF - 847-456-8082GH _____ 012-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 07/01/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082TS _____ 022-REI REINSPECTION 20211244 2902 ALDEN AVE 323 07/25/2022 Comments1: ENGINEERING FINAL INSPECTIONTS _____ 021-REI REINSPECTION 20211245 2898 ROOD ST 303 07/25/2022 Comments1: ENGINEERING FINAL INSPECTIONED _____ 022-REI REINSPECTION 20211282 2861 CRYDER WAY 475 07/05/2022 Comments1: EFL -- CARMELLA 630-364-0224ED _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211290 2464 JUSTICE CT 622 07/06/2022 Comments1: TEMP TO FINALED _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211291 2462 JUSTICE CT 623 07/07/2022 Comments1: TEMP TO FINALED _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211292 3108 JUSTICE DR 624 07/07/2022 Comments1: TEMP TO FINALBC _____ AM 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211305 987 N CARLY CIR 122 07/25/2022 Comments1: PAVERS AND HOT TUB -- JENNIFER 85-793-24 Comments2: 00 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 7DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 7TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------TS _____ 022-REI REINSPECTION 20211311 2898 ALDEN AVE 324 07/25/2022 Comments1: ENGINEERING SITEBF _____ 019-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211333 4026 BRADY ST 6 07/29/2022 Comments1: ABBY 630-273-2528BF _____ 020-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/29/2022BF _____ 021-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 07/29/2022PBF _____ 022-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/29/2022 Comments1: ABBY 630-273-2528TS _____ 023-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 07/29/2022BF _____ PM 020-REI REINSPECTION 20211340 4085 BRADY ST 12 07/12/2022 Comments1: RE FINAL MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL FINAL Comments2: -- ABBY 630-365-7229PR _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 07/13/2022BF _____ 022-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/12/2022BF _____ 023-REI REINSPECTION 07/19/2022 Comments1: FINAL BUILDING, ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICA Comments2: L - ABBY 630-365-7229PBF _____ AM 024-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/20/2022 Comments1: ABBY 630-273-2528BF _____ PM 020-REI REINSPECTION 20211341 4083 BRADY ST 12 07/12/2022 Comments1: RE FINAL ELECTRIC AND MECHANICAL -- ABBY Comments2: 630-365-7229BF _____ PM 021-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/12/2022PR _____ 022-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 07/13/2022PBF _____ PM 023-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/12/2022 Comments1: 630-273-2012 ABBYTS _____ 024-REI REINSPECTION 07/20/2022 Comments1: B-BOX AND SIDEWALKBF _____ 028-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211362 4099 BRADY ST 13 07/29/2022 Comments1: ABBY 630-273-2528BF _____ 029-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/29/2022 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 8DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 8TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ 030-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 07/29/2022PBF _____ 031-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/29/2022 Comments1: ABBY 630-273-2528TS _____ 032-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 07/29/2022GH _____ AM 013-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211377 3821 BISSEL DR 1211 07/26/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 630-232-2255GH _____ AM 014-WK SERVICE WALK 07/26/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 630-232-2255GH _____ AM 013-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211378 3823 BISSEL DR 1212 07/26/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 630-232-2255GH _____ AM 014-WK SERVICE WALK 07/26/2022GH _____ 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/26/2022 Comments1: BRIAN 224-422-9457-- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTGH _____ 016-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/26/2022GH _____ 017-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 07/26/2022PBF _____ 018-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/26/2022 Comments1: BRIAN 224-422-9457TS _____ 019-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 07/27/2022GH _____ AM 013-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211379 3825 BISSEL DR 1213 07/26/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 630-232-2255GH _____ AM 014-WK SERVICE WALK 07/26/2022GH _____ AM 013-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211380 3827 BISSEL DR 1214 07/26/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 630-232-2255GH _____ AM 014-WK SERVICE WALK 07/26/2022BF _____ 013-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 20211399 3149 JUSTICE DR 693 07/13/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606PR _____ 022-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211400 3361 SEELEY ST 805 07/11/2022 Comments1: TEMP TO FINALPR _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211401 3365 SEELEY ST 806 07/11/2022 Comments1: TEMP TO FINAL DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 9DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 9TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211402 3369 SEELEY ST 807 07/11/2022 Comments1: TEMP TO FINALGH _____ 008-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 20211434 2196 FAIRFAX WAY 509 07/05/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082GH _____ 009-REI REINSPECTION 07/06/2022 Comments1: GREEN PLATEJP 11:00 003-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20211453 1453 RUBY DR 353 07/21/2022 Comments1: SHERRIE - 815-836-8731ED _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211455 3106 JUSTICE DR 625 07/07/2022 Comments1: TEMP TO FINALED _____ 014-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211458 3356 SEELEY ST 726 07/05/2022 Comments1: BRIAN 224-422-9457BC _____ 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/14/2022 Comments1: BRIAN 224-422-9457 -- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTBC _____ 016-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/14/2022BC _____ 017-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 07/14/2022PBF _____ 018-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/14/2022 Comments1: BRIAN 224-422-9457BC _____ 019-REI REINSPECTION 07/18/2022 Comments1: FINAL FRAMING -- BRIAN 224-422-9457GH _____ 013-INS INSULATION 20211462 3807 BISSEL DR 122-4 07/06/2022 Comments1: CHRIS -- 224-358-1606 -- SEE INSPECTION Comments2: REPORTGH _____ 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211463 3809 BISSEL DR 122-5 07/08/2022 Comments1: CHRIS -- 224-358-1606 -- SEE INSPECTION Comments2: REPORTGH _____ 010-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/08/2022GH _____ 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/08/2022PR _____ 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/08/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606-- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RT DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 10DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 10TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 013-REI REINSPECTION 07/11/2022 Comments1: RFR --- CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 014-INS INSULATION 07/14/2022 Comments1: 224-358-1606 CHRIS DR HORTONBF _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211464 3828 BAILEY RD 123-1 07/27/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606 -- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTBF _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/27/2022BF _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/27/2022PBF _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/27/2022 Comments1: CHRI 224-358-1606GH _____ 014-INS INSULATION 07/29/2022 Comments1: BRIAN 224-422-9457GH _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211465 3826 BAILEY RD 123-2 07/29/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/29/2022GH _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/29/2022PBF _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/29/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606PBF _____ PM 018-SUM SUMP 20211483 641 ASHWORTH LN 512 07/26/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001GH _____ 007-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 20211485 2204 FAIRFAX WAY 508 07/15/2022 Comments1: JEFF - 847-456-8082PBF _____ PM 009-SUM SUMP 20211486 661 ASHWORTH LN 511 07/27/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001GH _____ AM 017-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20211487 2282 FAIRFAX WAY 502 07/13/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 018-WK SERVICE WALK 07/13/2022GH _____ AM 009-STP STOOP 20211488 2222 FAIRFAX WAY 507 07/20/2022 Comments1: FRONT STOOP -- JUAN 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 010-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 07/20/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 11DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 11TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ PM 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211517 1133 TAUS CIR 108 07/27/2022 Comments1: 630-878-5291 TIM GREYERBC _____ AM 021-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211540 722 OMAHA DR 46 07/26/2022 Comments1: 630-248-0918 MARCUSBC _____ 022-FEM ROUGH FRM, ELE, MECH 07/26/2022BC _____ 023-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 07/26/2022PR _____ AM 024-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/26/2022 Comments1: 630-248-0918 MARCUSGH _____ 019-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211572 2702 NICKERSON CT 171 07/07/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342GH _____ 020-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/07/2022GH _____ 021-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 07/07/2022PR _____ 022-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/07/2022 Comments1: ANDREW -- 331-431-7342TS _____ 023-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 07/14/2022BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211603 1732 JOHN ST 07/21/2022 Comments1: GENERATOR -- MIA 630-546-8476PR _____ 023-REI REINSPECTION 20211606 2716 POTTER CT 148 07/07/2022 Comments1: FINAL PLUMBING --- ANDREW 331-431-7342PR _____ 024-REI REINSPECTION 07/07/2022 Comments1: EFLBC _____ AM 011-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20211679 1735 MARKETVIEW DR 07/01/2022 Comments1: BELLE TIRE 630-669-1344 CHRISPR _____ 012-ELS ELECTRIC SERVICE 07/05/2022 Comments1: BELLE TIRE 630-383-6164 BRIAN CONDUIT F Comments2: OR SITE LIGHTINGBC _____ AM 013-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 07/13/2022 Comments1: INTERIOR SLAB -- BRAD 630-878-9255BC _____ PM 014-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 07/14/2022 Comments1: REMAINING INTERIOR SLAB -- BRAD 630-878- Comments2: 9255 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 12DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 12TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ AM 015-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/14/2022 Comments1: RAY 847-878-0162PR _____ 016-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/18/2022 Comments1: SCOTT - 815-693-5122PR _____ AM 017-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/19/2022 Comments1: BELLE TIRES BRIAN 630-383-6164PR 09:00 018-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/21/2022 Comments1: LAWRENCE BELLE TIRE 630-207-1275BC 08:00 PM 019-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 07/29/2022 Comments1: BRAD 630-878-9255BC 10:00 001-FTG FOOTING 20211728 444 E VETERANS PKWY 07/22/2022 Comments1: CHIPOTLE(FOUNDATION ONLY PERMIT) MARK 70 Comments2: 8-243-9074PR 13:00 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/25/2022 Comments1: CHIPOTLE (FOUNDATION ONLY PERMIT) MARK 7 Comments2: 08-243-9074PR _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 07/28/2022 Comments1: MARK 708-243-9074ED _____ 013-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211732 841 GREENFIELD TURN 48 07/07/2022 Comments1: NEEDS PARKWAY TREEPR _____ 014-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/12/2022 Comments1: DAVE -- 630-878-5792PR _____ 015-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/12/2022PR _____ 016-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 07/12/2022PR _____ 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/12/2022BC _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211746 1616 COTTONWOOD TR 24 07/28/2022 Comments1: LETITIA - 815-370-6514GH _____ 017-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211747 541 ASHWORTH LN 517 07/12/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082 -- SEE INSPECTION TICK Comments2: ETGH _____ 018-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/12/2022GH _____ 019-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 07/12/2022 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 13DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 13TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PBF _____ 020-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/12/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082PR _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 07/12/2022GH _____ PM 009-STP STOOP 20211748 521 ASHWORTH LN 518 07/11/2022 Comments1: FRONT AND REAR -- JUAN 847-551-9066BC _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/18/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082BC _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/18/2022BC _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/18/2022PR _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/18/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 014-INS INSULATION 07/21/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082 -- BASEMENT NOT COMPLE Comments2: TE - CHECK AT FINALPBF _____ PM 015-SUM SUMP 07/27/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001GH _____ PM 008-STP STOOP 20211749 501 ASHWORTH LN 519 07/11/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066BC _____ 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/22/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082BC _____ 010-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/22/2022BC _____ 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/22/2022 Comments1: INSTALL DUCTS FOR BATH EXHAUST FANSPBF _____ 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/22/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 013-INS INSULATION 07/27/2022 Comments1: JEFF - 847-456-8082 -- SEE INSPECTION RE Comments2: PORTBC _____ 014-REI REINSPECTION 07/25/2022 Comments1: ROUGH MECHANICAL- MIKE -- 224-325-9199GH _____ AM 017-WK SERVICE WALK 20211751 2001 PRAIRIE GRASS LN 45 07/12/2022 Comments1: REMY - 630-973-6699 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 14DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 14TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ AM 018-WK SERVICE WALK 20211752 936 HAYDEN DR 44 07/12/2022 Comments1: REMY -- 630-973-6699GH _____ AM 016-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20220003 2327 FAIRFIELD AVE 499 07/13/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 017-WK SERVICE WALK 07/13/2022GH _____ 013-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220004 2305 FAIRFIELD AVE 500 07/13/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082-- SEE INSPECTION RE Comments2: PORTGH _____ 014-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/13/2022GH _____ 015-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/13/2022PR _____ 016-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/13/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082BC _____ 017-INS INSULATION 07/18/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082GH _____ AM 018-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 07/28/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066GH _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220005 2264 FAIRFAX WAY 504 07/13/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082 -- SEE INSPECTION R Comments2: EPORTGH _____ 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/13/2022GH _____ 018-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 07/13/2022PR _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/13/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082PR _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 07/13/2022TS _____ 021-REI REINSPECTION 07/18/2022 Comments1: SITE RE-INSPECTION -- JEFF - 847-456-808 Comments2: 2GH _____ AM 017-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20220006 2248 FAIRFAX WAY 505 07/13/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 018-WK SERVICE WALK 07/13/2022BC _____ 012-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220007 2236 FAIRFAX WAY 506 07/07/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 15DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 15TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 013-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/07/2022BC _____ 014-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/07/2022PR _____ 015-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/07/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082GH _____ 016-INS INSULATION 07/12/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082GH _____ 017-REI REINSPECTION 07/08/2022 Comments1: ROUGH FRAMING -- MIKE 224-325-9199GH _____ 018-REI REINSPECTION 07/08/2022 Comments1: ROUGH MECHANICALGH _____ AM 015-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20220017 2711 NICKERSON CT 162 07/14/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN -- 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 016-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 07/14/2022 Comments1: PATIOGH _____ 017-REI REINSPECTION 07/14/2022 Comments1: PATIOBC _____ PM 006-INS INSULATION 20220028 2942 GRANDE TR 419 07/26/2022 Comments1: FIRE DAMAGE REPAIR 630-432-3753 JIM -- S Comments2: EE INSPECTION REPORTBC _____ 007-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/26/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTON REPORTBC _____ 018-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220031 2288 FAIRFAX WAY 501 07/20/2022 Comments1: JEFF - 847-456-8082BC _____ 019-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/20/2022BC _____ 020-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 07/20/2022PBF _____ 021-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/20/2022 Comments1: JEFF - 847-456-8082TS _____ 022-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 07/20/2022 Comments1: SIDEWALKTS _____ 023-REI REINSPECTION 07/25/2022 Comments1: FINAL ENGINEERING DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 16DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 16TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PBF _____ PM 016-SUM SUMP 20220033 508 BRAEMORE LN 535 07/26/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001GH _____ AM 016-INS INSULATION 20220034 362 TIMBER OAK LN 36 07/12/2022 Comments1: JASON 630-632-7433 -- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTGH _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220038 2706 NICKERSON CT 169 07/14/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342 -- SEE INSPECTION RE Comments2: PORTGH _____ 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/14/2022GH _____ 018-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 07/14/2022PBF _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/14/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342TS _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 07/15/2022PR _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20220049 3073 GRANDE TR 554 07/11/2022BC _____ AM 001-OCC OCCUPANCY INSPECTION 20220063 664 W VETERANS PKWY F 07/26/2022 Comments1: DOMINIQUE -- 630-943-8938 -- SEE INSPECT Comments2: ION REPORTMT _____ 002-FFD BKFD FINAL INSPECTION 07/28/2022BC _____ 003-REI REINSPECTION 07/29/2022 Comments1: OCCUPANCY -- DOMINIQUE 630-943-8938GH _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220066 2874 OLD GLORY DR 274 07/01/2022 Comments1: AUSTIN 630-720-1287GH _____ 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/01/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTGH _____ 018-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 07/01/2022PBF _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/01/2022 Comments1: AUSTIN 630-720-1287GH _____ 020-REI REINSPECTION 07/06/2022 Comments1: FINAL ELECTRIC -- JIM 331-223-6615 -- SE Comments2: E INSPECTION REPORTED _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 07/06/2022 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 17DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 17TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 014-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220067 2727 ELLORY CT 127 07/01/2022 Comments1: DECK FRAMING -- ANDREW 331-431-7342GH _____ AM 015-STP STOOP 07/05/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175 NOT READYGH _____ 016-STP STOOP 07/08/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175 -- FRONTGH _____ AM 017-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 07/26/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175 -- SEE INSPECTIO Comments2: N REPORTTS _____ 018-ADA ADA ACCESSIBLE WALK WAY 07/26/2022BF _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220073 1125 HAWK HOLLOW DR 309-1 07/20/2022 Comments1: STEVE 224-760-2584-- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTBF _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/20/2022BF _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/20/2022PBF _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/20/2022 Comments1: STEVE 224-760-2584BF _____ 012-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 07/20/2022 Comments1: STEVE 224-760-2584GH _____ 013-REI REINSPECTION 07/28/2022 Comments1: ROUGH FRAMING -- STEVE 224-760-2584 -- S Comments2: EE INSPECTION REPORTBF _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220074 1127 HAWK HOLLOW DR 309-2 07/20/2022 Comments1: STEVE 224-760-2584 -- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTBF _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/20/2022BF _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/20/2022PBF _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/20/2022 Comments1: STEVE 224-760-2584BF _____ 012-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 07/20/2022 Comments1: STEVE 224-760-2584BF _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220083 2962 ELLSWORTH DR 359 07/14/2022 Comments1: SOLAR -- EDDIE 801-837-4586 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 18DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 18TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/14/2022GH _____ 011-INS INSULATION 20220085 4831 W MILLBROOK CIR 153 07/06/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342 -- SEE INSPECTION RE Comments2: PORTBC _____ 012-REI REINSPECTION 07/01/2022 Comments1: FRAMING -- ANDREW 331-431-7342GH _____ AM 013-WK SERVICE WALK 07/15/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175 -- NEED TO PIN S Comments2: TOOP, WILL SEND PICJP _____ AM 014-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 07/26/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175 -- SERVICE WALK Comments2: NEEDS COMPACTING AND PINSGH _____ 012-INS INSULATION 20220086 3021 MCLELLAN BLVD 561 07/05/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615GH _____ PM 013-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 07/26/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175 -- 2 ADA RAMPSTS _____ 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20220087 3069 GRANDE TR 555 07/21/2022GH _____ 018-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/26/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615GH _____ 019-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/26/2022GH _____ 020-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 07/26/2022PBF _____ 021-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/26/2022 Comments1: JIM -- 331-223-6615GH _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220088 2868 OLD GLORY DR 275 07/27/2022 Comments1: AUSTIN 630-720-1287GH _____ 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/27/2022GH _____ 018-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 07/27/2022PBF _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/27/2022 Comments1: AUSTIN 630-720-1287TS _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 07/27/2022GH _____ 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220089 2863 ROOD ST 318 07/14/2022 Comments1: AUSTIN 630-720-1287 -- SEE INSPECTION RE Comments2: PORT DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 19DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 19TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 016-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/14/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTGH _____ 017-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 07/14/2022PBF _____ 018-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/14/2022 Comments1: AUSTIN - 630-720-1287TS _____ 019-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 07/14/2022GH _____ 020-REI REINSPECTION 07/15/2022 Comments1: FINAL ELECTRIC -- 331-223-6615GH _____ 015-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20220090 3022 GRANDE TR 535 07/06/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN -- 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 008-STP STOOP 20220106 4886 W MILLBROOK CIR 3 07/14/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175BC _____ 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/19/2022 Comments1: ANDREW -- 331-431-7342BC _____ 010-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/19/2022BC _____ 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/19/2022PR _____ 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/19/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342GH _____ 013-INS INSULATION 07/22/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342 -- SEE INSPECTION RE Comments2: PORTGH _____ AM 014-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 07/28/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175PR _____ PM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220123 1800 MARKETVIEW DR 4 07/25/2022 Comments1: 708-415-0784 MENARDS GUARDHOUSE CANOPY A Comments2: LEEI _____ PM 002-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 07/26/2022 Comments1: CURB 708-415-0784 MENARDS GUARDHOUSE CAN Comments2: OPY ALPR 12:00 003-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 07/27/2022 Comments1: AL 708-415-0784 -- CURBBC 11:30 001-FTG FOOTING 20220129 628 WHITE OAK WAY 59 07/01/2022 Comments1: NORWOOD 630-904-2288 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 20DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 20TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/11/2022 Comments1: NORWOOD -- 630-904-2282GH _____ PM 003-BKF BACKFILL 07/21/2022 Comments1: 630-904-2288 NORWOOD FOR CRESTVIEWPR _____ 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 07/27/2022 Comments1: LATE AM -- DAVE 630-244-2739GH _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220133 3341 SEELEY ST 800 07/01/2022 Comments1: DR HORTON 224-358-1606 CHRIS -- SEE INSP Comments2: ECTION REPORTGH _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/01/2022 Comments1: DR HORTON 224-358-1606 CHRISGH _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/01/2022 Comments1: DR HORTON 224-358-1606 CHRISPBF _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/01/2022 Comments1: DR HORTON 224-358-1606 CHRISBC _____ 012-INS INSULATION 07/18/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606BC _____ 011-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220134 2809 BERRYWOOD LN 799 07/12/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606BC _____ 012-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/12/2022BC _____ 013-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/12/2022PBF _____ 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/12/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 015-INS INSULATION 07/25/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606 - SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTJP 13:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220136 181 CLAREMONT CT 22 07/21/2022 Comments1: 815-460-3449 CEDAR RUSTICBC _____ AM 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20220153 1956 MEADOWLARK LN 82 07/07/2022 Comments1: KATHY -- 630-904-2288BC _____ AM 008-STP STOOP 07/07/2022BC _____ AM 009-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 07/07/2022 Comments1: PARTIAL DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 21DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 21TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ 010-ADA ADA ACCESSIBLE WALK WAY 07/11/2022PR _____ 011-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/27/2022 Comments1: DAVE --- 630-878-5792PR _____ 012-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/27/2022PR _____ 013-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/27/2022PBF _____ 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/27/2022 Comments1: DAVE 630-878-5792BC _____ 009-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 20220160 542 ASHWORTH LN 522 07/29/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082PBF _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220161 2361 FAIRFIELD AVE 496 07/01/2022 Comments1: JEFF - 847-456-8082GH _____ PM 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 07/11/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066GH _____ PM 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 07/11/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220162 2349 FAIRFIELD AVE 497 07/01/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082GH _____ AM 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 07/19/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 07/19/2022PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220164 522 ASHWORTH LN 521 07/01/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082GH _____ AM 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 07/13/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 07/13/2022GH _____ 008-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 20220165 572 ASHWORTH LN 523 07/27/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 010-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 20220166 561 ASHWORTH LN 516 07/27/2022 Comments1: JEFF - 847-456-8082 -- SEE INSPECTION RE Comments2: PORTPBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220167 2387 FAIRFIELD AVE 494 07/11/2022 Comments1: 847-456-8082 JEFF LENNAR DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 22DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 22TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ AM 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 07/19/2022 Comments1: JUAN -- 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 07/19/2022BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220178 555 BRAEMORE LN 532 07/25/2022 Comments1: JUAN -- 847-551-9066BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/28/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066BC _____ 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20220182 602 ASHWORTH LN 524 07/26/2022BC _____ 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 07/26/2022PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220183 2375 FAIRFIELD AVE 495 07/01/2022 Comments1: JEFF - 847-456-8082GH _____ PM 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 07/11/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066GH _____ PM 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 07/11/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20220185 2736 ELLORY CT 134 07/05/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 07/05/2022GH _____ 008-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 07/14/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342 -- SEE INSPECTION RE Comments2: PORTBC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220186 2728 ELLORY CT 138 07/18/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN - 815-839-8175BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/21/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175PBF _____ PM 003-WAT WATER 07/22/2022 Comments1: LOUISE -- 630-492-7635GH _____ PM 004-BKF BACKFILL 07/25/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN -- 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 010-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 20220187 3079 GRANDE TR 553 07/01/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 23DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 23TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ 011-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220188 3089 GRANDE TR 551 07/27/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615BF _____ 012-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/27/2022BF _____ 013-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/27/2022PBF _____ 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/26/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615GH _____ 015-INS INSULATION 07/29/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615BF _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220189 3025 MCLELLAN BLVD 560 07/21/2022 Comments1: JIM -- 331-223-6615 -- SEE INSPECTION RE Comments2: PORTBF _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/21/2022BF _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/21/2022PBF _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/21/2022GH _____ 014-INS INSULATION 07/25/2022 Comments1: JIM - 331-223-6615 - SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTGH _____ PM 015-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 07/28/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175 -- SEE INSPECTIO Comments2: N REPORTBC _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220190 4763 W MILLBROOK CIR 149 07/27/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342BC _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/27/2022BC _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/27/2022PBF _____ 011-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/27/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 630-915-8068GH _____ 012-INS INSULATION 07/29/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342PBF _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220191 2713 NICKERSON CT 163 07/12/2022 Comments1: 331-341-7342 ANDREWGH _____ AM 007-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 07/15/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN - 815-839-8175 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 24DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 24TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 07/15/2022GH _____ 009-STP STOOP 07/15/2022BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220192 2638 KELLOG CT 46 07/28/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN -- 815-839-8175GH _____ 011-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220193 3131 GRANDE TR 491 07/12/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615 -- SEE INSPECTION REPOR Comments2: TGH _____ 012-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/12/2022GH _____ 013-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/12/2022PBF _____ 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/12/2022 Comments1: JIM -- 331-223-6615GH _____ 015-INS INSULATION 07/14/2022 Comments1: JIM -- 331-223-6615GH _____ AM 016-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 07/27/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 017-WK SERVICE WALK 07/27/2022BC _____ AM 004-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 20220208 577 MANCHESTER LN 398 07/06/2022 Comments1: DAVE 630-664-3283 -- SMOKE DETECTORS MUS Comments2: T BE INTERCONNECTED/DEAD OUTLET IN OFFIC Comments3: EBC _____ AM 005-REI REINSPECTION 07/08/2022 Comments1: FINAL ELEC BASEMENT REMODEL DAVE 630-664 Comments2: -3283 -- SEE INSP REPORTBC _____ PM 006-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/12/2022 Comments1: BASEMENT FINISH 6302-664-3283 DAVEBC _____ PM 001-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 20220211 1091 BLACKBERRY SHORE LN 43 07/01/2022 Comments1: BASEMENT -- CARLOS 630-405-4132 -- SEE I Comments2: NSPECTION REPORTPBF _____ PM 002-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/01/2022 Comments1: BASEMENT -- SEE INSPECTION REPORTPR 11:00 004-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 20220232 1789 MARKETVIEW DR 8 07/08/2022 Comments1: BLACK IRON DUCT HOOD RON 630-615-0858 NO Comments2: ODLES DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 25DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 25TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ AM 005-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/13/2022 Comments1: RON -- 630-615-0858PR _____ AM 006-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/13/2022PR _____ 007-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/13/2022BF _____ 007-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220259 3349 SEELEY ST 802 07/27/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606-- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTBF _____ 008-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/27/2022BF _____ 009-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/27/2022PBF _____ 010-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/27/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 011-INS INSULATION 07/29/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606BF _____ 007-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220260 3353 SEELEY ST 803 07/27/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606 -- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTBF _____ 008-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/27/2022BF _____ 009-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/27/2022PBF _____ 010-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/27/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606BF _____ 007-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220261 3357 SEELEY ST 804 07/21/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606 -- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTBF _____ 008-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/21/2022BF _____ 009-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/21/2022PBF _____ 010-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/21/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 011-INS INSULATION 07/25/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606 - SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTJP _____ AM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220269 2595 ANNA MARIA LN 723 07/06/2022 Comments1: 630-429-6054 ALBERT, SCHEDULER'S # 915-8 Comments2: 92-0331 SANDRA DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 26DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 26TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ PM 003-WAT WATER 20220282 3035 GRANDE TR 530 07/06/2022 Comments1: AL'S - 630-492-7635GH _____ AM 004-BKF BACKFILL 07/07/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN - 815-839-8175PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/13/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615BC _____ PM 006-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 07/19/2022 Comments1: JIM - 331-223-6615BC _____ AM 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 07/18/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN - 815-839-8175BC _____ AM 008-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 07/20/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175BC _____ 009-STP STOOP 07/20/2022BC _____ 005-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20220291 1222 CANNONBALL TR 1 07/07/2022PR _____ 006-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/20/2022PR _____ 007-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/20/2022PR _____ 008-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/20/2022 Comments1: DAVE MCCUE 630-878-5792PR _____ 009-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/20/2022GH _____ 010-INS INSULATION 07/25/2022 Comments1: 630-878-5792 DAVE/MCCUE - SEE INSPECTION Comments2: REPORTJP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220318 204 CANNONBALL TR A 17 07/26/2022 Comments1: 630-973-7121 SUSANJP _____ AM 007-STP STOOP 20220328 1842 WREN RD 2871 07/25/2022 Comments1: JOSE -- 630-465-1159JP _____ AM 007-STP STOOP 20220329 1844 WREN RD 287-2 07/25/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159JP _____ AM 007-STP STOOP 20220330 1846 WREN RD 287-3 07/25/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159JP _____ AM 007-STP STOOP 20220331 1848 WREN RD 287-4 07/25/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 27DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 27TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ AM 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220341 1755 MARKETVIEW DR 8 07/12/2022 Comments1: DREW 630-849-5766BC _____ AM 009-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/12/2022PR _____ AM 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/13/2022 Comments1: NOODLES DREW 630-849-5766BF _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20220351 3746 BISSEL DR 131-1 07/05/2022 Comments1: JEFF - 630-330-6705PR _____ PM 003-WAT WATER 07/11/2022 Comments1: TERRI - 847-975-2512GH _____ 004-BKF BACKFILL 07/20/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/26/2022 Comments1: CHRIS -- 224-358-1606BF _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20220352 3744 BISSEL DR 131-2 07/05/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 630-330-6705PR _____ PM 003-WAT WATER 07/11/2022 Comments1: TERRI - 847-975-2512GH _____ 004-BKF BACKFILL 07/20/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/26/2022 Comments1: CHRIS -- 224-358-1606BF _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20220353 3742 BISSEL DR 131-3 07/05/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 630-330-6705PR _____ PM 003-WAT WATER 07/11/2022 Comments1: TERRI - 847-975-2512GH _____ 004-BKF BACKFILL 07/20/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/26/2022 Comments1: CHRIS -- 224-358-1606BF _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20220354 3738 BISSEL DR 131-4 07/05/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 630-330-6705PR _____ PM 003-WAT WATER 07/11/2022 Comments1: TERRI - 847-975-2512 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 28DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 28TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 004-BKF BACKFILL 07/20/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/26/2022 Comments1: CHRIS -- 224-358-1606BF _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20220355 3736 BISSEL DR 131-5 07/05/2022 Comments1: JEFF - 630-330-6705PR _____ PM 003-WAT WATER 07/11/2022 Comments1: TERRI - 847-975-2512GH _____ 004-BKF BACKFILL 07/20/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/26/2022 Comments1: CHRIS -- 224-358-1606PR _____ PM 003-WAT WATER 20220356 3726 BISSEL DR 1321 07/11/2022 Comments1: TERRI - 847-975-2512GH _____ 004-BKF BACKFILL 07/20/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/26/2022 Comments1: CHRIS -- 224-358-1606PR _____ PM 003-WAT WATER 20220357 3728 BISSEL DR 1322 07/11/2022 Comments1: TERRI - 847-975-2512GH _____ 004-BKF BACKFILL 07/20/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/26/2022 Comments1: CHRIS -- 224-358-1606PR _____ PM 003-WAT WATER 20220358 3732 BISSEL DR 1323 07/11/2022 Comments1: TERRI - 847-975-2512GH _____ 004-BKF BACKFILL 07/20/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/26/2022 Comments1: CHRIS -- 224-358-1606PR _____ PM 003-WAT WATER 20220359 3734 BISSEL DR 1324 07/11/2022 Comments1: TERRI - 847-975-2512 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 29DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 29TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 004-BKF BACKFILL 07/20/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/26/2022 Comments1: CHRIS -- 224-358-1606BC _____ 001-TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, 20220366 2437 ALAN DALE LN 129 07/13/2022 Comments1: 630-746-1534 MARKK ABOVE GROUND POOLBC _____ AM 002-BND POOL BONDING 07/19/2022 Comments1: AGP -- 630-246-1534 --BC _____ 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/25/2022 Comments1: ABOVE GROUND POOL 630-746-1534 MARKBC 09:00 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220368 1593 CORAL DR 111 07/22/2022 Comments1: CHRIS -- 815-482-2135BC _____ 002-TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, 07/25/2022BC _____ 003-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 07/28/2022 Comments1: IGP -- CHRIS 815-482-2135BC _____ 004-BND POOL BONDING 07/28/2022BC _____ 005-TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, 07/28/2022BC _____ PM 001-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 20220369 1211 N BRIDGE ST 07/13/2022 Comments1: HASAN 708-717-7710PR _____ 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/20/2022 Comments1: BRAD 630-768-7054GH _____ 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20220370 3059 GRANDE TR 557 07/01/2022GH _____ 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 07/01/2022GH _____ 008-STP STOOP 07/01/2022 Comments1: FRONT & REARGH _____ PM 009-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 07/11/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615GH _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220371 3083 GRANDE TR 552 07/27/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175 -- SEE INSPECTIO Comments2: N REPORTBC _____ PM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/28/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 30DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 30TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220372 3062 GRANDE TR 542 07/21/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/22/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175GH _____ PM 003-BKF BACKFILL 07/28/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175 -- SEE INSPECTIO Comments2: N REPORTPBF _____ AM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 07/29/2022 Comments1: LOUISE -- 630-492-7635GH _____ AM 005-BKF BACKFILL 07/29/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175JP _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220375 921 GILLESPIE LN 112 07/20/2022 Comments1: PAVER PATIO -- PAULA 630-479-5268BC 12:00 003-FOU FOUNDATION 20220380 1192 TAUS CIR 123 07/01/2022 Comments1: JOHN 630-546-8057GH _____ AM 004-BKF BACKFILL 07/11/2022 Comments1: JOHN 630-546-8057PR _____ AM 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/14/2022 Comments1: CLAYON 630-236-3678JP _____ AM 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20220397 742 GREENFIELD TURN 103 07/12/2022 Comments1: JOHN 630-746-1315 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTBC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220398 1004 STATE ST 07/07/2022 Comments1: WINDOWS 603-521-0444 SAMANTHAPBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220400 642 ASHWORTH LN 526 07/11/2022 Comments1: 847-456-8082 JEFF LENNARBC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220402 665 BRAEMORE LN 528 07/25/2022 Comments1: JUAN - 847-551-9066PBF _____ PM 002-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 07/26/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001GH _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 20220403 538 BRAEMORE LN 536 07/01/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066PBF _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/15/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 31DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 31TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PBF _____ PM 005-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 07/26/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001GH _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 20220404 668 BRAEMORE LN 539 07/01/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066PBF _____ PM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 07/26/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001GH _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220406 2456 RICHMOND AVE 483 07/08/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066BC _____ PM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/11/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066BC _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 07/18/2022 Comments1: JUAN - 847-551-9066PBF _____ PM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 07/27/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220407 2451 FAIRFIELD AVE 488 07/15/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ AM 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 07/20/2022 Comments1: -- 847-551-9066 -- SEE INSPECTION REPOR Comments2: TGH _____ AM 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 07/20/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220408 2294 RICHMOND AVE 476 07/11/2022 Comments1: NEED SOIL REPORT FOR NE CORNERBC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/13/2022 Comments1: JUAN - 847-551-9066BC _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 07/18/2022 Comments1: JUAN - 847-551-9066 -- BRACE BEFORE BACK Comments2: FILLPBF _____ PM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 07/27/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001PBF _____ AM 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220409 648 BRAEMORE LN 538 07/12/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082GH _____ AM 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 07/20/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 32DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 32TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ AM 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 07/20/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTPR _____ AM 006-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220415 2851 ALDEN AVE 288 07/11/2022 Comments1: JOSE 224-428-4879PR _____ AM 007-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/11/2022PR _____ AM 008-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 07/11/2022PR _____ AM 009-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/11/2022BC _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220429 386 SUTTON ST 223 07/11/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 630-330-8038GH _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220439 889 GILLESPIE LN 120 07/27/2022 Comments1: RODOLFO 630-201-6581 PAVER PATIOGH _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220440 907 GILLESPIE LN 115 07/27/2022 Comments1: RODOLFO 630-201-6581 PAVER PATIOJP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220450 404 W VAN EMMON ST 07/15/2022 Comments1: FENCE -- MONICA 630-327-7066BC _____ 007-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220457 2968 OLD GLORY DR 263 07/08/2022 Comments1: AARONPR _____ AM 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/22/2022 Comments1: CARMELLA -- 630-364-0224PR _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/22/2022PR _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/22/2022PR _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/22/2022PR _____ AM 012-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 07/20/2022 Comments1: CLEAN EDGE 630-364-0224GH _____ AM 013-INS INSULATION 07/25/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORT - 630-364-0224 CLE Comments2: AN EDGEPR _____ AM 001-ELU ELECTRICAL - UNDERSLAB 20220460 500 PARKSIDE LN 07/20/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE CLUBHOUSE -- DEVON -- 815-693-1 Comments2: 935 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 33DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 33TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ PM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220468 2194 MEADOWVIEW LN 15 07/26/2022 Comments1: SOLAR -- ANDREW 414-369-8258BF _____ PM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/26/2022JP _____ PM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220471 1104 HAMPTON LN 260 07/01/2022 Comments1: PATIO LAFFEY 630-688-4528BC _____ 004-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220480 2623 MCLELLAN BLVD 44 07/12/2022 Comments1: PERGOLA WITH ELEC 630-220-8758 DEREK (HO Comments2: MEOWNER MIKE KANE)BC _____ AM 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220482 2508 LYMAN LOOP 75 07/27/2022 Comments1: DECK -- DAN 630-946-7486GH _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220499 1112 CARLY DR 26 07/13/2022 Comments1: PAVERS 630-806-0915 HECTOR YORKVILLE HIL Comments2: LJP _____ AM 004-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220512 594 W BARBERRY CIR 58 07/06/2022 Comments1: DAVE 779-301-0553 -- FENCE INCOMPLETE - Comments2: POSTS SHOULD BE STABILIZED.JP _____ 005-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/07/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORT -- SEVERAL DENTS A Comments2: ND SCRATCHES ON VINYLGH _____ AM 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20220519 2805 BERRYWOOD LN 798 07/07/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 07/07/2022GH _____ 008-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 07/07/2022 Comments1: MISSING 2-GARAGE WALLGH _____ 006-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 20220520 2801 BERRYWOOD LN 797 07/07/2022BF _____ 007-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 07/13/2022 Comments1: SLAB & GARAGE -- CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 008-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 07/29/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606BF _____ 006-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220521 2797 BERRYWOOD LN 796 07/13/2022 Comments1: SLAB & GARAGE -- CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 007-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 07/29/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 34DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 34TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 005-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220522 3352 SEELEY ST 727 07/06/2022 Comments1: CHRIS -- 224-358-1606GH _____ 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 07/06/2022GH _____ 007-STP STOOP 07/06/2022BC _____ 001-BND POOL BONDING 20220536 2742 PHELPS CT 270 07/12/2022 Comments1: GREG ABOVE GROUND POOL 815-329-0661 RECE Comments2: PTICAL MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 6' FROM POOLBC _____ AM 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/15/2022 Comments1: TRENCH - BOND -- GREG -- 815-329-0661BC _____ AM 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220538 2361 IROQUOIS LN 11 07/27/2022 Comments1: PERGOLA FRAMING CYNTHIA 630-659-4306JP 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220543 3465 RYAN DR 4 07/07/2022 Comments1: MIKE -- 630-406-8410.EXT 208BC _____ 002-BND POOL BONDING 20220547 2709 GOLDENROD DR 243 07/01/2022 Comments1: VICKI 630-300-8404BC _____ 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/01/2022 Comments1: AGPBC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220552 599 BLUESTEM DR 20 07/29/2022 Comments1: WINDOWS 603-521-0444 SAMANTHA/HOME DEPOTJP _____ AM 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20220555 407 BRUELL ST 07/21/2022 Comments1: 8-830 -- JIM 815-712-6086BC _____ AM 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/26/2022 Comments1: JIM 815-712-6086JP _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220557 3975 SHOEGER DR 36 07/29/2022 Comments1: PAVER PATIO -- KIRT 630-878-6457BC _____ 004-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220586 567 COACH RD 416 07/01/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTBC _____ AM 005-REI REINSPECTION 07/11/2022 Comments1: CONNOR 630-364-8848JP _____ 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220589 1958 SUNNY DELL COURT 96 07/20/2022 Comments1: 11-12 MIKE -- 630-406-8410, EX 208BC _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220595 481 E COUNTRYSIDE PKWY 07/21/2022 Comments1: SIGN -- DIANA -- 630-543-9490, EX 23 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 35DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 35TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220596 481 E COUNTRYSIDE PKWY 07/21/2022 Comments1: SIGN -- DIANA -- 630-543-9490, EXT 23BC _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220597 481 E COUNTRYSIDE PKWY 07/21/2022 Comments1: SIGN -- DIANA 630-543-9490, EX23BF _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220601 2036 WREN RD 31 07/14/2022 Comments1: SOLAR -- EDDIE 801-837-4586BF _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/14/2022BC _____ AM 001-TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, 20220604 2372 WINTERTHUR GREEN 183 07/14/2022 Comments1: TONY 630-270-9099BC _____ AM 002-ELE ELECTRIC SERVICE 07/14/2022BC _____ AM 003-BND POOL BONDING 07/22/2022 Comments1: TONY 630-270-9099BC _____ AM 004-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/22/2022 Comments1: TONY 630-270-9099BF _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220609 2061 WHITEKIRK LN 79 07/06/2022 Comments1: SOLAR -- EDDIE 801-837-4526BF _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/06/2022PR _____ AM 001-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 20220610 618 GREENFIELD TURN 88 07/01/2022 Comments1: JENNIFER 941-812-3507 PLUMBING REMODELJP _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220614 2861 ALDEN AVE 290 07/21/2022 Comments1: PAVER PATIO -- CLAY 314-791-1577JP 12:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220616 2295 HOBBS LN 157 07/20/2022 Comments1: ALEX 708-8403211BC _____ 001-TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, 20220622 1622 COTTONWOOD TR 22 07/08/2022 Comments1: AGP -- RYAN -- 630-450-5380BC _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/13/2022 Comments1: AGP -- RYAN 630-450-5380BC _____ 003-BND POOL BONDING 07/13/2022JP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220623 610 STATE ST 7 07/13/2022 Comments1: FENCE DAISY 708-548-2780GH _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220628 1387 SLATE DR 335 07/14/2022 Comments1: PAVERS - NANCY 210-334-1728 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 36DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 36TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BH _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220635 508 CENTER PKWY 6B 07/13/2022 Comments1: FRANK - 630-744-9477BH _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/13/2022 Comments1: BURNT BARREL ADDITION 630-744-9477 FRANK Comments2: WILLMANBH _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 07/15/2022 Comments1: BURNT BARREL ADDITION 630-744-9477 FRANK Comments2: WILLMANBH _____ 004-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 07/15/2022 Comments1: SLAB --630-744-9477 FRANKPR _____ 005-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220640 1213 DEER ST 2 07/13/2022 Comments1: MIC -- 630-330-3682PR _____ 006-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/13/2022PR _____ 007-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/13/2022PR _____ 008-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/29/2022 Comments1: (((CANCELLED)))PR _____ 009-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/29/2022 Comments1: (((CANCELLED)))PR _____ 010-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/29/2022 Comments1: 630-330-3683 TIFFANY/RESTORE INV. ((((CA Comments2: NCELLED)))JP 10:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220643 2831 ALDEN AVE 284 07/06/2022 Comments1: AM BACKYARD 815-834-1200 MONICABF _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220644 2078 WHITEKIRK LN 98 07/14/2022 Comments1: SOLAR -- EDDIE 801-837-4586BF _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/14/2022BF _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220663 1942 WREN RD 5 07/06/2022 Comments1: SOLAR -- EDDIE 801-837-4526BF _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/06/2022GH 09:00 004-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 20220667 2645 N BRIDGE ST 07/22/2022JP _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220668 535 COACH RD 413 07/25/2022 Comments1: PATIO BRIAN 708-308-2126 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 37DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 37TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JP 11:30 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220670 70 TRILLIUM CT 07/15/2022 Comments1: PEERLESS FENCE/DON 630-774-9234JP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/19/2022 Comments1: FENCE TRACY 331-441-9101 DO NOT KNOCKBC _____ PM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220676 1771 CALLANDER TR 67 07/15/2022 Comments1: PATIO 630-330-7580 CHUY/PUEBLOJP 10:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220684 512 FAIRHAVEN DR 52 07/07/2022 Comments1: 815-630-4279 -- FLATTEN ICE & WATER ON R Comments2: EAR LOWER ROOFJP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/11/2022 Comments1: ROOF 815-630-4279 SAVAGE ROOFINGJP 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220685 2075 KINGSMILL CT 153 07/12/2022 Comments1: CARLA 815-460-3449 -- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTJP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220686 509 W DOLPH ST 07/11/2022 Comments1: FENCE -- ADAM 630-297-3572JP 08:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220687 88 CROOKED CREEK DR 10 07/27/2022 Comments1: DANA 630-552-9144PR _____ 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220688 2953 OLD GLORY DR 256 07/19/2022 Comments1: KITCHEN RENO AM KITCHEN & BATH 630-933-9 Comments2: 323PR _____ 002-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/19/2022PR _____ 003-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/19/2022JP 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220690 2384 SUMAC DR 50 07/28/2022 Comments1: GABRIEL 630-406-8410, X 202BF _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220691 2465 EMERALD LN 117 07/12/2022 Comments1: SOLAR -- JOSH 512-619-5854 -- NO ONE AT Comments2: SITEBF _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/12/2022 Comments1: NO ONE AT SITEBF _____ AM 005-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/21/2022 Comments1: SHANNON 224-619-7216 TRON SOLARBF _____ AM 006-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/21/2022 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 38DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 38TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JP 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220694 568 MANCHESTER LN 386 07/27/2022 Comments1: AMERICAS BACKYARD -- 331-452-2271GH _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220700 774 ARROWHEAD DR 16 07/11/2022 Comments1: MARTHA 630-659-4298 -- SEE INSPECTION RE Comments2: PORTJP 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220702 2948 ELLSWORTH DR 363 07/27/2022 Comments1: PERLAJP _____ AM 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20220706 467 SUTTON ST 209 07/15/2022 Comments1: SCOTT 847-858-1773JP _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220709 4449 E MILLBROOK CIR 226 07/01/2022 Comments1: PATIO 630-865-9503 VICTORBC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220717 213 W ELIZABETH ST 07/19/2022 Comments1: ELECTRIC CAR CHARGING STATION -- CAILEAN Comments2: - 661-316-9172JP _____ 001-MIS MISCELLANEOUS 20220722 903 MCHUGH RD 07/06/2022 Comments1: SIDING -- ANGEL -- 630-688-5671BF _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220723 2102 WHITEKIRK LN 104 07/18/2022 Comments1: 801*837-4586 SOLAR EDDY SUNRUNBF _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/18/2022JP _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220725 111 E ORANGE ST 07/07/2022 Comments1: PATIO -- GRANT 630-465-6655JP _____ 002-STP STOOP 07/07/2022BC _____ AM 001-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 20220727 106 BEAVER ST 07/27/2022 Comments1: VERN 630-987-1670PR _____ AM 005-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220729 2078 ABERDEEN CT 103 07/15/2022 Comments1: CHRIS - 630-688-0331PR _____ AM 006-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/15/2022PR _____ AM 007-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/15/2022PR _____ AM 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220734 26 GAWNE LN 07/07/2022 Comments1: DECK -- CARMELLA 630-364-0224BF _____ PM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220738 3082 GRANDE TR 546 07/12/2022 Comments1: 815-839-8175 MIDWEST DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 39DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 39TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/14/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN - 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 07/21/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN - 815-839-8175 -- SEE INSPECT Comments2: ION REPORTPBF _____ PM 004-WAT WATER 07/22/2022 Comments1: LOUISE -- 630-492-7635PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/27/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220739 2810 BERRYWOOD LN 826 07/08/2022 Comments1: JESUS 630-453-9281BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/13/2022 Comments1: JESUS 630-453-9281PBF _____ PM 003-WAT WATER 07/25/2022 Comments1: HOLIDAY SEWER - 847-975-2512GH _____ 004-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 07/29/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220740 3348 SEELEY ST 728 07/08/2022 Comments1: JESUS 630-453-9281BF _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/12/2022 Comments1: JESUS 630-453-9281PBF _____ 003-WAT WATER 07/15/2022 Comments1: TERRI -- 847-975-2512GH _____ 004-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 07/29/2022BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220741 3344 SEELEY ST 729 07/08/2022 Comments1: JESUS 630-453-9281BF _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/12/2022 Comments1: JESUS -630-453-9281PBF _____ 003-WAT WATER 07/15/2022 Comments1: TERRI - 847-975-2512GH _____ 004-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 07/29/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 40DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 40TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220742 3340 SEELEY ST 730 07/08/2022 Comments1: UPLAND -- 630-453-9281BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/13/2022 Comments1: JESUS 630-453-9281PBF _____ 003-WAT WATER 07/15/2022 Comments1: TERRI - 847-975-2512GH _____ 004-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 07/29/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20220743 2687 SEELEY ST 825 07/06/2022BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/11/2022 Comments1: JEFF 630-330-6705GH _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 07/15/2022 Comments1: CHRIS - 224-358-1606PBF _____ PM 004-WSS WATER & STORM SEWER 07/25/2022 Comments1: HOLIDAY SEWER - 847-975-2512BF _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220744 2079 DUNBAR CT 90 07/14/2022 Comments1: 1ST SOLAR -- PLEASE -- EDDIE 801-837-458 Comments2: 6BF _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/14/2022BF _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220745 2048 WHITEKIRK LN 07/14/2022 Comments1: SOLAR -- EDDIE 801-837-4586BF _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/14/2022GH 11:00 002-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220746 406 WOODWORTH ST 07/05/2022 Comments1: PENNY 630-882-9244JP _____ 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/11/2022 Comments1: FINAL ROOF -- PENNY 630-882-9244 -- SENT Comments2: PICS AFTER INSPECTIONJP 10:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220748 864 WESTERN LN 87 07/27/2022 Comments1: A&B 815+786-3100JP _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220749 701 WINDETT RIDGE RD 84 07/20/2022 Comments1: PATIO 630-862-8053 JOHN/CEMENTRIXJP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220754 831 HAMPTON LANE 129 07/15/2022 Comments1: ROOF -- AUSTIN 815-280-8501 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 41DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 41TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JP _____ AM 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20220756 1401 SEQUOIA CIR 07/01/2022 Comments1: 630-327-1313BC _____ AM 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/21/2022 Comments1: DAVE -- 630-327-2339BF _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220759 1523 MONTROSE CT 10 07/26/2022 Comments1: SOLAR -- EDDIE, 804-837-4586BF _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/26/2022BC _____ 001-BND POOL BONDING 20220760 2342 IROQUOIS LN 27 07/15/2022 Comments1: ABOVE GROUND POOL MAL & RYANBC _____ 002-TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, 07/15/2022BC _____ 003-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/15/2022BC _____ 004-BND POOL BONDING 07/20/2022BC _____ 005-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/20/2022 Comments1: FINAL POOLBF _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220761 2184 BURR CT 9 07/29/2022 Comments1: SOLAR -- KEITH 630-362-5980BF _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/29/2022 Comments1: SOLARBC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20220766 1924 CONEFLOWER CT 146 07/01/2022 Comments1: CARMELLA -- 630-364-0224PR _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/25/2022 Comments1: DECK 630-364-0224 CLEAN EDGEJP 09:00 AM 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220768 2849 OLD GLORY DR 239 07/28/2022 Comments1: 9:30 AM MATT 773-829-2777JP _____ AM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220775 553 W BARBERRY CIR 46 07/16/2022 Comments1: EARLY -- JENNY 630-551-3400 -- SENT PICT Comments2: URESJP _____ 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20220777 3252 LAUREN DR 119 07/20/2022 Comments1: CARLOS 312-818-8181BC _____ PM 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/25/2022 Comments1: DECK 312-818-8181 CARLOS LEON DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 42DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 42TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220780 2762 HOBBS CT 149 07/27/2022 Comments1: GUS G&T 331-717-8254JP 11:30 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220782 2062 SQUIRE CIR 187 07/14/2022 Comments1: AMERICAS BACKYARD 815-834-1200 ADRIANNABC _____ AM 001-BND POOL BONDING 20220786 323 FONTANA DR 58 07/21/2022 Comments1: MARVA - 630-440-5200BC _____ AM 002-TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, 07/21/2022JP 13:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220787 2243 FAIRFAX WAY 377 07/12/2022 Comments1: CARLA 815-460-3449JP _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220788 3291 LAUREN DR 81 07/12/2022 Comments1: PATIO& WALK 630-725-6206 ILSE -- NEED A Comments2: DDITIONAL PINNING SOUTH OF STOOPBF _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220789 2339 TITUS DR 256 07/13/2022 Comments1: SOLAR --- SAM -- 331-442-9476BF _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/13/2022BF _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220791 1971 WREN RD 20 07/18/2022 Comments1: 801*837-4586 SOLAR EDDYBF _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/18/2022JP _____ 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220793 1849 ASTER DR 96 07/01/2022 Comments1: 630-330-8362 APRILBC _____ 001-TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, 20220794 701 GREENFIELD TURN 69 07/13/2022 Comments1: AGP MICHAEL 630-306-1110BC _____ 002-BND POOL BONDING 07/13/2022GH 10:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220796 203 CENTER PKWY 19 07/05/2022 Comments1: JASON 331-575-7705TS _____ PM 001-SEW SEWER INSPECTION 20220797 107 E PARK ST 10 07/14/2022 Comments1: JENEA -- 815-981-3794GH _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220798 2622 BURR ST 14 07/06/2022 Comments1: KURTIS 630-251-2192 -- SEE INSPECTION RE Comments2: PORTGH _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220800 2501 ANNA MARIA LN 712 07/13/2022 Comments1: PTO + SHED PAD-- LAFFEY CONC 630-688-452 Comments2: 8 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 43DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 43TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JP 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220801 231 BARRETT DR UNITS A 07/14/2022 Comments1: CARRIE - 630-844-2553, EX 103JP 11:00 002-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 07/15/2022 Comments1: CARRIE - 630-844-2553, EX 103JP _____ 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/22/2022 Comments1: ROOF -- CARRIE - 630-844-2553, X 103 -- Comments2: UNIT D, A , DRIP EDGE @FRONT AND BACKJP 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220802 241 BARRETT DR, UNITS A-D 07/13/2022 Comments1: CARRIE - 630-844-2553, EX 103JP 11:00 002-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 07/14/2022 Comments1: CARRIE - 630-844-2553, EX 103JP _____ 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/22/2022 Comments1: ROOF -- CARRIE 630-844-2553, X103JP 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220803 261 BARRETT DR, UNITS A- 07/11/2022 Comments1: CARRIE - 630-844-2553, EX 103 (((CANCELL Comments2: ED)))JP 11:00 002-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 07/12/2022 Comments1: CARRIE - 630-844-2553, EX 103JP _____ 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/22/2022 Comments1: ROOF -- CARRIE - 630-844-2553, X 103JP 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220804 201 BARRETT DR UNITS A-D 07/20/2022 Comments1: CARRIE - 630-844-2553 X103JP 11:00 002-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 07/21/2022 Comments1: CARRIE - 630-844-2553 X 103 -- SEE INSPE Comments2: CTION REPORTJP _____ 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220805 211 BARRETT DR, UNITS A-D 07/18/2022 Comments1: SENDING PICTURES -- CARRIE - 630-844-255 Comments2: 3 X103JP 11:00 002-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 07/19/2022 Comments1: CARRIE - 630-844-2553 X103JP 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220806 202 PORTAGE LN, UNITS A-D 07/11/2022 Comments1: CARRIE - 630-844-2553, EX 103 (((((CANCE Comments2: LLED))))JP 11:00 002-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 07/12/2022 Comments1: CARRIE - 630-844-2553, EX 103 --C AND D Comments2: ONLY DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 44DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 44TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JP 11:00 003-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 07/13/2022 Comments1: CARRIE -- 630-844-2553, EX 103JP _____ 004-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/22/2022 Comments1: ROOF -- CARRIE 630-844-2553, EXT 103GH _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220807 1931 WREN RD 16 07/27/2022 Comments1: PAVER PATIO - CARLOS - 630-815-1221 FIRE Comments2: PIT 19FT TO CENTER, NOT 20FT FROM HOUSEJP 11:00 002-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220808 181 WILLOUGHBY CT, UNITS 07/29/2022 Comments1: CARRIE - 630-844-2553, X 103JP 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220812 309 WALTER ST 07/01/2022 Comments1: TTLC 815-205-1500 X 4004 AUSTINJP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/15/2022 Comments1: ROOF -- AUSTIN 815-205-1500JP _____ 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220813 1104 HAMPTON LN 260 07/07/2022 Comments1: SHERRIE -- 630-822-8238 -- NEED PICS OF Comments2: FRONT OF TOWNHOMEJP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/11/2022 Comments1: ROOFGH 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220814 205 E SOMONAUK ST 1 07/05/2022 Comments1: JOSEPH JAMES 773-510-0955 ANNAJP _____ PM 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/14/2022 Comments1: ROOF - PENNY 630-882-9244- SEE INSPECTIO Comments2: N REPORTJP 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220815 191 WILLOUGHBY CR A-D 07/25/2022 Comments1: CARRIE -- 630-844-2553 X 103JP 11:00 002-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 07/26/2022 Comments1: CARRIE- 630-844-2553 X 103BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220816 2437 FAIRFIELD AVE 489 07/25/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/29/2022 Comments1: OSCAR 847-551-9066JP 10:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220818 404 W WASHINGTON ST 07/06/2022 Comments1: CANCELLED DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 45DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 45TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JP 11:00 002-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 07/07/2022BF _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220821 1742 CALLANDER TR 60 07/26/2022 Comments1: SOLAR -- EDDIE - 801-837-4586BF _____ 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/26/2022JP 12:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220824 261 WINDHAM CIR 42 07/12/2022 Comments1: 630-272-4143 KEVINJP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/14/2022 Comments1: ROOF VERNE MOORE 815-501-4110 JOEPR _____ PM 001-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 20220825 808 BRISTOL AVE 5 07/28/2022 Comments1: JOHN 815-414-8100JP 09:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220826 2311 MILL RD 07/21/2022 Comments1: ERIC A&B 630-450-3059JP 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220829 599 W BARBERRY CIR 6 07/15/2022 Comments1: 11:30 -- SHERRI 815-836-8731GH _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220832 1322 CHESTNUT CIR 07/15/2022 Comments1: PATIO 630-675-7102 JILL -- FIBER MESH -- Comments2: PINNED TO FOUNDATIONBC _____ AM 001-BND POOL BONDING 20220834 2475 FAIRFAX WAY 246 07/20/2022 Comments1: MATT -- 815-693-4447BC _____ AM 002-TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, 07/20/2022BC _____ AM 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/20/2022 Comments1: AGPGH _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220838 2462 JUSTICE CT 623 07/27/2022 Comments1: PATIO 630-330-7580 CHUY/PUEBLOGH _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220839 1338 HAWK HOLLOW DR 291 07/19/2022 Comments1: PATIO -- CHUEYGH _____ PM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220840 522 RED TAIL LN 22 07/27/2022 Comments1: PATIO 630-330-7580 CHUY/PUEBLOJP _____ PM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220841 2602 MCLELLAN BLVD 61 07/26/2022 Comments1: PATIO -- SEE INSPECTION REPORTJP _____ AM 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20220844 802 CAULFIELD PT 112 07/15/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 46DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 46TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220851 2201 COUNTRY HILLS DR 470 07/13/2022 Comments1: PATIO 630-465-1732 JUSTINJP 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220852 1912 WESTON AVE 59 07/26/2022 Comments1: ACOSTA FENCE -- 815-255-2132JP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/29/2022 Comments1: FENCE 630-819-0152JP 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220853 512 WARBLER LN 359 07/28/2022 Comments1: BONNIE 815-255-2132BF _____ PM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220857 3168 JUSTICE DR 604 07/28/2022 Comments1: SOLAR 402-378-3132 ADT/BRISA-- NO PLANS Comments2: AT SITE INSPECTIONBF _____ PM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/28/2022 Comments1: SOLARJP 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220858 224 LEISURE ST 07/12/2022 Comments1: ANGEL -- 630-554-3317JP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/15/2022 Comments1: ANGEL 630-554-3317JP 11:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220859 4447 PLEASANT CT 1205 07/25/2022 Comments1: 630-234-5418 GIL/NEW HORIZONJP _____ AM 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20220861 507 MADISON CT 07/25/2022 Comments1: 773-968-6654 STANLEYBC _____ AM 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/29/2022 Comments1: ZACH 630-246-1369BF _____ PM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220867 2354 TITUS DR 240 07/25/2022 Comments1: SOLAR 224-407-1899 PAUL FREEDOM FOREVERBF _____ PM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 07/25/2022 Comments1: SOLARJP _____ AM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220873 898 PARKSIDE LN 191 07/21/2022 Comments1: 11:30AM -- SHERRIE 815-836-8731-- SEE IN Comments2: SPECTION REPORTJP _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220879 559 COACH RD 415 07/21/2022 Comments1: TIM -- 630-842-5007JP _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220888 2252 RICHMOND AVE 471 07/28/2022 Comments1: IGNACIO 630-546-8434 -- SEE INSPECTION R Comments2: EPORT DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 47DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 47TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JP _____ PM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220894 2712 NICKERSON CT 166 07/22/2022 Comments1: PATIO CHUY PUEBLO 630-330-7580GH _____ PM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220895 3126 JUSTICE DR 616 07/26/2022 Comments1: PATIO -- CHUEY -- SEE INSPECTION REPORTGH _____ AM 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220898 3156 MATLOCK DR 670 07/22/2022 Comments1: BJ 630-788-8629GH _____ AM 002-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/22/2022 Comments1: REINSPECT AT FINALPBF _____ AM 003-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/22/2022GH _____ 004-INS INSULATION 07/22/2022JP _____ PM 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20220914 4814 W MILLBROOK CIR 12 07/27/2022 Comments1: 630-669-3724 TOMBC _____ AM 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/28/2022 Comments1: DECK -- TOM - 630-669-3724PR _____ 001-SEW SEWER INSPECTION 20220933 303 W MAIN ST 07/19/2022 Comments1: SEWER REPAIRJP 10:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220934 1307 WALSH DR 120 07/28/2022 Comments1: RENEE -- 630-923-2285 ((((CANCELLED))))) DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 48DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 48TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PERMIT TYPE SUMMARY: ADD ADDITION 5 AGP ABOVE-GROUND POOL 26 BDO COMMERCIAL BUILD-OUT 4 BSM BASEMENT REMODEL 13 CCO COMMERCIAL OCCUPANCY PERMIT 3 CLT COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR LIGHTING 2 COM COMMERCIAL BUILDING 15 CRM COMMERCIAL REMODEL 10 DCK DECK 20 DRV DRIVEWAY 2 ELE ELECTRICAL UPGRADE 2 ESN ELECTRIC SIGN 2 EVS ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STAT 1 FNC FENCE 29 GEN STAND BY GENERATOR 2 IGP IN-GROUND POOL 5 MSC MISCELLANEOUS 5 PRG PERGOLA 1 PTO PATIO / PAVERS 30 REM REMODEL 7 REP REPAIR 3 ROF ROOFING 41 RS ROOFING & SIDING 3 SEW SANITARY SEWER LINE 1 SFA SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED 165 SFD SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED 357 SGN SIGN 1 SID SIDING 1 SOL SOLAR PANELS 36 WIN WINDOW REPLACEMENT 3INSPECTION SUMMARY: ADA ADA ACCESSIBLE WALK WAY 2 BKF BACKFILL 23 BND POOL BONDING 11 BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 13 EDA ENGINEERING - DRIVEWAY APRON 1 EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPECTION 61 ELE ELECTRIC SERVICE 1 ELS ELECTRIC SERVICE 1 ELU ELECTRICAL - UNDERSLAB 1 EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 11 ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WATER 8 FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 47 FEM ROUGH FRM, ELE, MECH 1 FFD BKFD FINAL INSPECTION 1 FIN FINAL INSPECTION 100 FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 22 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 49DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 49TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FME FINAL MECHANICAL 1 FOU FOUNDATION 22 FTG FOOTING 20 GAR GARAGE FLOOR 15 GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 21 INS INSULATION 25 MIS MISCELLANEOUS 1 OCC OCCUPANCY INSPECTION 1 PHD POST HOLE - DECK 9 PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20 PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READY 35 PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 27 PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 24 PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 36 REI REINSPECTION 35 REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 32 RFR ROUGH FRAMING 38 RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 26 ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & WATER 33 SEW SEWER INSPECTION 2 STP STOOP 16 SUM SUMP 6 TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, ETC) 9 WAT WATER 16 WK SERVICE WALK 11 WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 9 WSS WATER & STORM SEWER 1INSPECTOR SUMMARY: BC BOB CREADEUR 145 BF B&F INSPECTOR CODE SERVICE 87 BH BRIAN HOLDIMAN 4 ED ERIC DHUSE 28 EEI ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES 1 GH GINA HASTINGS 218 JP JOHN PETRAGALLO 98 MT MICHAEL TORRENCE 1 PBF BF PLUMBING INSPECTOR 76 PR PETER RATOS 98 TS TOM SOELKE 39STATUS SUMMARY: A PR 6 C BC 35 C BF 23 C ED 20 C GH 65 C JP 44 DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 50DATE: 07/29/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 50TIME: 15:20:58 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2022 TO 07/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ C PBF 16 C PR 31 C TS 22 I BC 108 I BF 64 I BH 4 I ED 3 I EEI 1 I GH 153 I JP 54 I PBF 60 I PR 61 I TS 7 T ED 5 T TS 10 V BC 2 V MT 1REPORT SUMMARY: 795 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 2022-55 Property Maintenance Reports for July 2022 Economic Development Committee – September 6, 2022 Informational None Pete Ratos Community Development Name Department Page | 1 Property Maintenance Report July 2022 There were 4 cases heard in July 2022. 7/6/2022 N 5852 544 W Barberry Cir Nuisance Tree Dismissed 7/11/2022 N 5854 Liberty St Vacant Lot Weeds Liable $750 N 5855 206 Burnett St Weeds Liable $250 N 5856 2246 Lavender Way Weeds Dismissed Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Pete Ratos, Code Official CC: Bart Olson, Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Jori Behland Date July 29, 2022 Subject: July Property Maintenance Case #Case Date TYPE OF VIOLATION STATUS VIOLATION LETTER SENT FOLLOW UP STATUS CITATION ISSUED DATE OF HEARING POSTED 20220282 7/28/2022 Watering Restrictions CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220281 7/28/2022 Working Without Permit CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220280 7/27/2022 Working Without Permit CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220279 7/27/2022 Grass/Weeds Height CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220278 7/26/2022 Working Without A Permit IN VIOLATION 1/1/1900 1/1/1900 1/1/1900 1/1/1900 20220277 7/26/2022 Permit Required IN VIOLATION 20220276 7/26/2022 Grass/Weeds Height CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220275 7/26/2022 Grass/Weeds Height CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220274 7/25/2022 Garbage/Rubbish/Debris TO BE INSPECTED 1/1/1900 1/1/1900 1/1/1900 1/1/1900 20220273 7/25/2022 Grass/Weeds Height IN VIOLATION 20220272 7/22/2022 Watering Restrictions CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220271 7/22/2022 Watering Restrictions CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220270 7/22/2022 Garbage/Grass Weeds Height IN VIOLATION 20220269 7/21/2022 Garbage/Rubbish/Debris CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220268 7/21/2022 Garbage/Rubbish/Debris CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220267 7/21/2022 Grass/Weeds Height CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220266 7/20/2022 Grass/Weeds Height IN VIOLATION 7/22/2022 20220265 7/20/2022 Dead Trees CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220264 7/20/2022 Grass/Weeds Height IN VIOLATION 20220263 7/20/2022 Grass/Weeds Height CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220262 7/19/2022 Watering Restrictions CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220261 7/19/2022 Watering Restrictions CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220260 7/19/2022 Grass/Weeds Height CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220259 7/14/2022 Working Without Permit CLOSED 20220258 7/14/2022 Watering Restrictions CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220257 7/14/2022 Watering Restrictions CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220256 7/14/2022 Grass/Weeds Height CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220255 7/14/2022 Construction Noise Before 700am CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220254 7/13/2022 Watering Restrictions CLOSED COMPLIANT PIN 02-30-200-022 Bristol Bay Subdivision 455 Parkside Ln 2203 Richmond Ave 303 Fontana Dr 2354 Titus Dr 2391 Autumn Creek 835 Carly Ct 112 Colonial Pkwy 1845 Aster Dr 2121 Country Hills Dr 2101 Country Hills 620 Manchester Ln 564 Warbler Ln 801 Behrens Ct 510 W Hydraulic Ave 313 E Fox St 2066 Dunbar Ct 2068 Whitekirk Ln 2072 Whitekirk Ln 206 Wolf St 892 N Carly Cir 305 Shadow Wood Dr 451 Honeysuckle 622 Windett Ridge 1845 Marketview 2942 Grande Trail 407 Bruell St Case Report 7/1/2022 - 07/31/2022 ADDRESS OF COMPLAINT 2902 Alden Ave Page: 1 of 2 20220253 7/13/2022 Watering Restrictions CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220252 7/12/2022 Watering Restrictions CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220251 7/8/2022 Grass/Weeds Height CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220250 7/8/2022 Weeds/Grass CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220249 7/7/2022 Grass/Weeds Height CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220248 7/7/2022 Grass/Weeds Height IN VIOLATION 7/25/2022 8/29/2022 7/7/2022 20220247 7/6/2022 Fence Maintenance CLOSED 20220246 7/6/2022 Grass/Weeds Height CLOSED COMPLIANT 7/6/2022 20220245 7/6/2022 Grass/Weeds Height IN VIOLATION 7/19/2022 7/6/2022 20220244 7/6/2022 Grass/Weeds Height CLOSED COMPLIANT 7/6/2022 20220243 7/6/2022 Watering Restrictions CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220242 7/6/2022 Garbage/Junk/Refuse CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220241 7/6/2022 Grass/Weeds Height CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220240 7/6/2022 Grass/Weeds Height CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220239 7/5/2022 Grass/Weeds Height IN VIOLATION 7/25/2022 8/29/2022 7/6/2022 20220237 7/1/2022 Fence Maintenance CLOSED COMPLIANT 20220236 7/1/2022 Watering Restrictions CLOSED COMPLIANT Total Records: 46 7/29/2022 Lot 52 Kendall 107 E Stagecoach Rd 3128 Boombah Blvd 1853 Aster 3185 Justice Dr PIN: 0505478008 PIN: 0505478007 212 Windham Cir 1765 Callander Trl 451 Honeysuckle 3126 Rehbehn Ct 544 W Barberry Cir 114 Washington 3108 Boombah Blvd 101 E Center St 532 Poplar 2068 Aberdeen Ct Page: 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 2022-56 Economic Development Reports for August 2022 Economic Development Committee – September 6, 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 September 2022 EDC Meeting of the United City of Yorkville August 2022 Activity New Development: - Walnut Plaza: Living Rite, the Center for Behavioral Health has opened an office at 924 N. Bridge Street. Kendall County resident and owner Shannon Pociecha, prides herself in serving the needs of her clients, and also dedicates a significant amount of time and resources to educating the community and developing clinicians working within the mental health industry. The Yorkville office is the fifth location for Living Rite. - Downtown Yorkville: Riverside Plaza: Fox Republic Brewing, is coming to Yorkville. The 3,250 square feet of space in the building located at 101 W. Hydraulic, will be home to a craft brewing operation with a 7 Barrel system. Fox Republic will occupy the wide-open area, and the brewing process will be visible to customers. Fox Republic Brewing will work with area restaurants to provide food service. There will also be a large outdoor patio for customers to enjoy. More details will follow. Opening is anticipated in summer of 2023. - Downtown Yorkville: Parma Pizza Bar has expanded with new outdoor seating on the patio on VanEmmon. The patio accommodates approximately 25 people, and can also be reserved for private parties. Parma is also launching a new fall menu soon, and has added lunch service on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. - Fountain Village: CMR Health Group has open an office at 1949 S. Bridge Street. CMR Health Group is a network of healthcare providers that focus on providing holistic, personalized healthcare that directly addresses the root cause and provides individualized solutions for pain or health issues. Those providers include CMR Complete Medical Recovery, CMR Complete Muscle Recovery, A Touch of Ginger (a full-service acupuncture practice), Walton Chiropractic, and CMR Complete Mind Renewal (coming soon). This Holistic Medical Group treats both the “inside and outside” of the patient. August 2022 Previously Reported Updates: - Kendall Crossing: Coldwell Banker Real Estate Group. Existing business expanding to take entire 4,000 square foot building at 38 Countryside Parkway. Renovations will be complete in fall 2022. - Heartland Center Office: Manpower. Existing business relocating and expanding to 608 E. Veterans Parkway Suite 3. Renovations will be complete in fall 2022. - Kendall Crossing: Burnt Barrel Social, building a 560 square foot addition onto their existing dining room. Work has begun, it is expected to open at the end of 2022. - Kendall Crossing: Station One Smokehouse, Family-owned, family-friendly, central Texas-style barbecue restaurant will open at Kendall Crossing. Permits have been applied for, and work will begin as soon as possible. The opening will take place early 2023. Learn more about award winning Station One Smokehouse at www.stationonesmokehouse.com - Yorkville Crossing: A/K/A Menard’s Center: Belle Tire, Construction well underway. Opening in mid-September 2022. - Yorkville Crossing: A/K/A Menard’s Center: Multi-Tenant building: Noodles & Co, Construction underway. Opening will take place in early September 2022. - Yorkville Crossing: A/K/A Menard’s Center: Multi-Tenant building: Pets Supply Plus. Remodeling underway, and re-grand opening will take place in the fall. - Gerber Collison & Glass, Architect, and civil are working on plans. They are planning to build and open in 2023. - BP and Graham’s Marketplace. Gasoline service station with convenience store located at the northeast corner of Route 47 & Route 71. Opening in late 2023. Rezoning, and special use has been completed. Construction will begin shortly. - Chipotle Mexican Grill: Construction has begun. Opening targeted for end of 2022 or early 2023. - Caring Hands Thrift Shop: 4,000 square foot business expansion. The store closed on July 11th. Original building reopened in mid-August, and new addition will open later in 2022. - Downtown Yorkville: Riverside Plaza: Fox’s Den Meadery: Yorkville resident, Enrico “Rico” Bianchi, is preparing the space at in the 101 S. Bridge, redevelopment (The Williams Group). This business will make “Mead Wine” and is considered a micro-winery. Production will begin in Late summer, and tasting room open in early 2023. - 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. Remodeling the space as begun. Opening in late 2022. - Continue working with a variety of other potential business owners. There are a variety of parties doing due diligence on space to lease and buildings and land to purchase. Information will be forthcoming. Respectfully submitted, Lynn Dubajic 651 Prairie Pointe Drive Yorkville, IL 60560 lynn@dlkllc.com 630-209-7151 cell Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: See attached memo. Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Manager Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #5 Tracking Number EDC 2022-57 Williams Group – Riverfront Walk & Art Easements Economic Development Committee – September 6, 2022 Majority Vote Discussion regarding acquisition of a riverfront walk and art easements on the Property located at 101 S. Bridge Street. Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, AICP Community Development Name Department Summary City staff is recommending approval of the attached easements on the property owned by the Williams Group at 101 S. Bridge Street, for a future riverfront walk and art installation. The riverfront walk would span the length of the Fox River between IL Route 47/Bridge Street bridge and the City owned parcel located at 201 W. Hydraulic. The riverfront walk would include a trail/sidewalk, greenspace, lighting, and potentially outdoor seating (benches, tables with umbrellas, and chairs). The art easement will be located near the corner of W. Hydraulic Avenue and Bridge Street. This installation will serve as a placemaking element within the downtown and help to define the historic commercial core visually better between Van Emmon Street and Hydraulic Ave. The acquisition of both easements will forward the goals of previously approved City plans. Project Proposal As mentioned, the City has approved various plans which contemplates these easements on the property for the development of a riverfront walk as a westward extension of the Riverfront Bicentennial Park, and the utilization of public art as a placemaking feature in the downtown. These include the Comprehensive Plan Update (2016), Downtown Overlay District – Streetscape Master Plan (2019) and the Downtown Art Plan (2020). Riverfront Walk Easement The Grant of Easement to the United City of Yorkville for the proposed riverwalk, prepared by Engineering Enterprises, Inc. dated July 5, 2022, depicts an approximately 14,200 square foot easement area located along the rear edge of the property to the northern edge of the Fox River. This easement area will be dedicated to the City for the future construction pedestrian and bike trail. The easement will allow the City to maintain, repair, and operate any improvements made within the easement area for the use and enjoyment of the general public. Art Easement The public art Grant of Easement to the United City of Yorkville prepared by Engineering Enterprises, Inc. dated May 16, 2022, depicts an approximately 38 square foot area. As proposed, the easement will be dedicated to the City for the installation, maintenance and display of an art sculpture at the northwest corner of S. Bridge Street (IL Route 47) and Hydraulic Avenue. Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Krysti Barksdale-Noble, AICP CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Tim Evans, Parks and Recreation Director Brad Sanderson, EEI, City Engineer Date: August 16, 2022 Subject: Williams Group – Riverfront & Art Easement 101 S. Bridge Street Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed easements, as prepared by Engineering Enterprises, Inc. HYDRAULIC AVENUE BRIDGE STREET (ROUTE 47)SMITH STREETFOX RIVER SUGA R G R O V E, IL.MARK G SCHE L L ER035-003581 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR STATE OF ILLINOIS PAGE 1 OF 1 Engineering Enterprises, Inc. GRANT OF EASEMENT TO THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE 800 GAME FARM ROAD YORKVILLE, IL 60560 HYDRAULIC AVENUELOT 1B R I D G E S T R E E T ( R O U T E 4 7 )SUGAR GROVE , IL. MA R K G SCHELLER035-003581PROFESSIONALLANDSURVEYORSTATE OFILLINOISPAGE 1 OF 1Engineering Enterprises, Inc.GRANT OF EASEMENTTO THEUNITED CITY OF YORKVILLEKENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOISUNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE800 GAME FARM ROADYORKVILLE, IL 60560 HYDRAULIC AVENUE BRIDGE STREET (ROUTE 47)SMITH STREETFOX RIVER SUG AR G R O VE, IL.MARK G SCHEL L E R035-003581 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR STATE OF ILLINOIS PAGE 1 OF 1 Engineering Enterprises, Inc. GRANT OF EASEMENTTO THEUNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE 800 GAME FARM ROAD YORKVILLE, IL 60560 HYDRAULIC AVENUE LOT 1 BRIDGE STREET (ROUTE 47)SUGAR GR O V E, IL.MARK G SCHELL E R035-003581PROFESSIONALLANDSURVEYORSTATE OFILLINOIS PAGE 1 OF 1 Engineering Enterprises, Inc. GRANT OF EASEMENT TO THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE800 GAME FARM ROADYORKVILLE, IL 60560 HYDRAULIC AVENUE LOT 1 BRIDGE STREET (ROUTE 47)SU G AR G R O V E, IL.MARK G SCHELL E R035-003581 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR STATE OF ILLINOIS PAGE 1 OF 1Engineering Enterprises, Inc. GRANT OF EASEMENT TO THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE 800 GAME FARM ROAD YORKVILLE, IL 60560 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 #6 Tracking Number EDC 2022-58 Williams Group TIF #2 (Fox Republic Brewing) Economic Development Committee – September 6, 2022 Majority Approval Bart Olson Administration Name Department Summary Consideration of a second TIF agreement with the Williams Group for a portion of the old Investor Tools building, generally at the northwest corner of W Hydraulic and Bridge St, for renovation and use as a brewery. Background This item was last discussed by the City Council in January 2022, when the City Council approved a TIF agreement for renovation of the main part of the old Investor Tools building for use as a meadery, coffee shop, office, and two residential apartments. Since then, the renovation is nearly complete, and the coffee shop is now open for business. The building/room that currently holds a dog training facility is wrapping up its current lease, and the developers have made plans to renovate the space and turn it into Yorkville’s first official craft brewery (Fox Republic Brewing). Staff has reviewed the renovation plans and project budget, and have prepared a simple TIF agreement for the project. That draft agreement is attached, and its terms are in line with the first agreement with the Williams Group. The Williams Group will be present at the EDC meeting to present their development plan to the committee, but their staff-level, written presentation is attached. In general, they propose to a portion of the Investor Tools building adjacent to the recently renovated units, for use as a modern craft brewing production facility and tap room. They do not have plans to serve food per se, but they will partner with restaurants to have food available to be delivered. Their project budget is attached, which shows $269,200 in proposed renovations. The Williams Group’s TIF incentive request is as follows: 1) A maximum project reimbursement of 25% of their total investments (estimated ~$67,300) 2) Inclusion of this project’s budget and related TIF increment in the previously approved TIF incentives related to 75% of the TIF increment generated from PIN #02-32-279-006, starting upon completion of the project 3) Building permit fee waivers in an amount of 50% (estimated to be worth $5,000) All three requests above were approved in the same amount in the first TIF agreement with the developer. In exchange for the TIF request above, the City will receive renovation of another portion of the project and a new business in downtown Yorkville. Memorandum To: City Council From: Bart Olson, City Administrator CC: Date: August 31, 2022 Subject: Williams Group TIF Agreement #2 Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the TIF agreement. 1 REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS AND THE WILLIAMS GROUP, LLC THIS REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement #2”) is entered into as of the _______ day of _______________, 2022 (“Effective Date”) by and between the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, an Illinois municipal corporation (“City”), and The Williams Group, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company (the “Developer”). In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth in this Agreement, the City and Developer hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE 1: RECITALS 1.1 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. 1.2 The City is engaged in the revitalization of its downtown commercial district which includes the properties commonly known as 101 West Hydraulic (previously, 101 South Bridge Street), 109 and 111 South Bridge Street and 111, 119 and 201 West Hydraulic Avenue, which properties are identified by parcel index numbers 02-32-278-008 and 02-32-279-001, -003 and -004, -005, -006 and -009. 1.3 The City has the authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Illinois, to promote the health, safety, and welfare of its inhabitants, to prevent the spread of blight, to encourage private development in order to enhance the local tax base, to increase job opportunities, and to enter into contractual agreements with third parties for the purpose of achieving these purposes. 1.4 Pursuant to the Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act of the State of Illinois, 65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-1, et seq., as from time to time amended (the “TIF Act”), the Mayor and City Council of the City (collectively, the “Corporate Authorities”) are empowered to undertake the redevelopment of a designated area within its municipal limits in which existing conditions permit such area to be classified as a “blighted area” or a “conservation area” as such terms are defined in the TIF Act. 1.5 To stimulate and induce redevelopment pursuant to the TIF Act, the City, after giving all required notices, conducting a public hearing and making all findings required by law, on June 13, 2006, pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 2006-46, 2006-47 and 2006-48, approved a Redevelopment Plan (the “Redevelopment Plan”) for an area designated as the Downtown Redevelopment Project Area #1 (the “Project Area”), which Project Area includes the Subject Property, and adopted tax increment financing for the payment and financing of “Redevelopment Project Costs”, as defined by the TIF Act, incurred within the Project Area as authorized by the TIF Act. 1.6 On February 8, 2022, the Developer entered into a Redevelopment Agreement with the City (“Agreement #1) providing for the acquisition of several parcels of property located within the Project Area and the redevelopment of the property commonly known as 101 South Bridge Street to provide two (2) retail units on the first floor and two (2) dwelling units with two (2) bedrooms each on the second floor (“Project #1). The City agreed to provide financial assistance 2 as permitted by the TIF Act pursuant to the terms and conditions of Agreement #1. The City and the Developer agree that the construction of Project #1 has been completed. 1.7 The Developer has now submitted a proposal to the City to redevelop the property commonly known as 101 West Hydraulic (previously, 101 South Bridge Street) (the “Subject Property”) which is improved with a vacant 3,250 square foot structure. The Developer proposes to repurpose the vacant structure into a brewery to sell craft beer the “Project 2”). 1.8 The Developer has advised the City that the redevelopment of the Subject Property shall require an investment of approximately $270,000 and that it is not economically feasible to proceed without financial assistance due to the extraordinary costs to renovate and repurpose the structure into a craft brewery. 1.9 The City desires to have the Subject Property redeveloped and repurposed as proposed by the Developer because the City believes the Project shall eliminate the blight factors found within the Subject Property while increasing the tax base for the City and taxing districts authorized to levy taxes upon the Subject Property; provide job opportunities for its residents; and, improve the general welfare of the community; and, therefore, is prepared to reimburse the Developer for certain costs associated with the Project, subject to the terms of this Agreement, the TIF Act and all other applicable laws of the City and State of Illinois. ARTICLE 2: DEVELOPER’S OBLIGATIONS 2.1 Within sixty (60) days from the date hereof, the Developer shall have submitted to the City all plans for the Project #2 and applications for all permits required to redevelop the Subject Property. 2.2 Within sixty (60) days from the date hereof, the Developer shall submit to the City proof of financing and equity contribution, if required, in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated budget for the Project #2 as itemized on Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Project #2 Costs”). 2.3 Within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date hereof, the Developer shall have commenced construction of Project #2 and have completed construction and received a certificate of occupancy for the Subject Property before January 1, 2024. 2.4 Within thirty (30) days of receipt of a certificate of occupancy for the Subject Property, the Developer shall submit to the City all paid bills, invoices, receipts or any documentation which shall demonstrate payment of all costs of Project #2, in an amount equal or greater than the total Project #2 Costs as itemized on Exhibit A. 2.5 The Developer shall deliver to the City a lease from the operator of the craft brewery for the Subject Property for a term of no less than five (5) years. 2.6 The Developer covenants and agrees to construct the Project in accordance with all ordinances of the City, laws of the State of Illinois and all permits and the terms of this Agreement #2 and thereafter maintain the Subject Property. 3 2.7 The Developer covenants and agrees not to contest the real estate assessment of the Subject Property at any time during the term of this Agreement. 2.8 The Developer covenants and agrees to pay all fees, fines, licenses, taxes of any due to the City or assessed upon the Subject Property during the term of this Agreement. ARTICLE 3: CITY OBLIGATIONS 3.1 The City hereby agrees to reduce the Developer’s costs for plan review, building permits and one (1) water connection in an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the City’s fees for such services. 3.2 The City has established a special tax allocation fund solely for the Project Area (the “STAF”) into which the City shall deposit all Incremental Taxes, as defined below, generated from the Project Area. 3.3 So long as no notice of default has been issued and remains outstanding pursuant to article 5 hereof, on December 1 or ten (10) days following the date upon which the City receives Incremental Taxes from the final installment of real estate taxes for 2022 and each year during the term of this Agreement, seventy-five percent (75%) of the Incremental Taxes with respect to the Subject Property shall be transferred and deposited into the Williams Subaccount #2 of the STAF (which Subaccount #2 shall be automatically created by the ordinance approving this Agreement #2) and annually first applied to all amounts due to the Developer pursuant to the terms and conditions of Agree #1 and thereafter shall be annually used to reimburse the Developer for Project #2 Redevelopment Project Costs, as hereinafter defined, until the first to occur: (i) payment of the lesser of twenty-five percent (25%) of the total actual costs of the Project or $67,500; or, (ii) December 31, 2030. 3.4 As used in this Agreement #2, “Incremental Taxes” shall mean the amount in the STAF equal to the amount of a valorem taxes, if any, paid in respect of the Project Area and its improvements which is attributable to the increase in the equalized assessed value of all the parcels of property located herein over the initial equalized assessed value of said parcels. 3.5 For purposes in this Agreement #2, Redevelopment Project Costs, shall mean and include all costs and expenses as defined as “redevelopment project costs” in Section 11-74.4-3(q) of the TIF Act. ARTICLE 4. REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES, AND COVENANTS 4.1 Developer’s Representations Warranties and Covenants. To induce the City to enter into this Agreement, Developer represents, covenants, warrants, and agrees that: (a) Recitals. All representations and understanding as set forth in Article 1 are true, complete, and accurate in all respects. (b) Organization and Authorization. Developer is an Illinois limited liability company duly formed and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois authorized to do 4 business in Illinois, and Developer has the power to enter into, and by proper action has been duly authorized to execute, deliver, and perform, this Agreement #2. Developer will do, or cause to be done, all things necessary to preserve and keep in full force and effect its existence and standing as a limited liability company authorized to do business in the State of Illinois for so long as Developer is developing and constructing the Project. (c) Non-Conflict or Breach. The execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement #2 by Developer, the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, and the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement #2 shall not conflict with or result in a violation or breach of any of the terms, conditions, or provisions of any offering or disclosure statement made, or to be made, on behalf of Developer, or any restriction, organizational document, agreement, or instrument to which Developer, or any of its partners or venturers, is now a party or by which Developer, or any of its partners or venturers, is bound, or constitute a default under any of the foregoing. Any claim of Conflict or Breach made by either party in this Agreement #2 shall be subject to all enforcement and cure provisions provided in Article 7 in this Agreement #2. (d) Pending Lawsuits. There are no actions at law or similar proceedings either pending or, to the best of Developer' s knowledge, threatened against Developer that would materially or adversely affect: (i) The ability of Developer to proceed with the construction and development of the Subject Property; (ii) Developer's financial condition; (iii) The level or condition of Developer's assets as of the date of this Agreement; or (i) Developer' s reputation 4.2 City’s Representations, Warranties and Covenants. To induce Developer to enter into this Agreement and to undertake the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, the City represents, covenants, warrants and agrees as follows: (a) Recitals. All representations and agreements made by the City in Article 1 are true, complete, and accurate in all respects. (b) Authorizations. The City has the power to enter into and perform its obligations under this Agreement and by proper action has duly authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute and deliver this Agreement #2. (c) Non-Conflict or Breach. The execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement by the City, the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby and the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement #2 shall not conflict with or result in a violation or breach of the terms 5 of any order, agreement, or other instrument to which the City is a party or by which the City is now bound. (d) Pending Lawsuits. There are no actions at law or similar proceedings either pending or to the best of the City's knowledge being threatened against the City that would materially or adversely affect: (i) The ability of Developer to proceed with the construction of Project #2. (ii) The ability of the City to perform its obligations under this Agreement #2. ARTICLE 5: ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES 5.1 Enforcement: Remedies. The parties may enforce or compel the performance of this Agreement #2, in law or in equity, by suit, action, mandamus, or any other proceeding, including specific performance, subject to the cure provisions provided in 5.2 hereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer agrees that it will not seek, and does not have the right to seek, to recover a judgment for monetary damages against the City or any elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives, engineers, consultants, or attorneys thereof, on account of the negotiation, execution, or breach of any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement #2. 5.2 Notice; Cure; Self-Help. In the event of a breach of this Agreement #2, the parties agree that the party alleged to be in breach shall have, unless specifically provided otherwise by any other provision of this Article 5, 30 days after notice of any breach delivered in accordance with Section 8.10 to correct the same prior to the non-breaching party's pursuit of any remedy provided for in Section 5.4 and 5.7; provided, however, that the 30-day period shall be extended, but only (i) if the alleged breach is not reasonably susceptible to being cured within the 30-day period, and (ii) if the defaulting party has promptly initiated the cure of the breach, and (iii) if the defaulting party diligently and continuously pursues the cure of the breach until its completion. If any party shall fail to perform any of its obligations under this Agreement #2, and if the party affected by the default shall have given written notice of the default to the defaulting party, and if the defaulting party shall have failed to cure the default as provided in this Section 5.2, then, except as specifically provided otherwise in the following sections of this Article 5 and in addition to any and all other remedies that may be available either in law or equity, the party affected by the default shall have the right (but not the obligation) to take any action as in its discretion and judgment shall be necessary to cure the default. In any event, the defaulting party hereby agrees to pay and reimburse the party affected by the default for all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by it in connection with action taken to cure the default, including attorney’s fees and court costs. 5.3 Events of Default by Developer. Any of the following events or circumstances shall be an event of default by Developer with respect to this Agreement #2: (a) If any material representation made by Developer in this Agreement #2, or in any certificate; notice, demand to the City; or request made by the City in connection 6 with any of documents, shall prove to be untrue or incorrect in any material respect as of the date made. (b) Default by Developer in the performance or breach of any material covenant contained in this Agreement #2 concerning the existence, structure, or financial condition of Developer. (c) Developer's default in the performance or breach of any material covenant, warranty, or obligation contained in this Agreement. (d) The entry of a decree or order for relief by a court having jurisdiction in the premises in respect of Developer in an involuntary case under the federal bankruptcy laws, as now or hereafter constituted, or any other applicable federal bankruptcy, or appointing a receiver, liquidator, assignee, custodian, trustee, sequestrator, or similar official of Developer for any substantial part of its property, or ordering the winding-up or liquidation of its affairs and the continuance of any such decree or order un-stayed and in effect for a period of 60 consecutive days. There shall be no cure period for this event of default. (e) The commencement by Developer of a voluntary case under the federal bankruptcy laws, as now or hereafter constituted, or any other applicable federal bankruptcy, insolvency, or the consent by Developer to the appointment of or taking possession, by a receiver, liquidator, assignee, trustee, custodian, sequestrator, or similar official of Developer or of any substantial part of Developer' s property, or the making by any such entity of any assignment for the benefit of creditors or the failure of Developer generally to pay such entity's debts as such debts become due or the taking of action by Developer in furtherance of any of the foregoing. There shall be no cure period for this event of default. 5.4 Remedies for Default By Developer. (a) Subject to the provisions of this Agreement #2, in the case of an event of default by Developer, the City, pursuant to Section 5.1, may institute such proceedings as may be necessary or desirable in its opinion to cure or remedy such default or breach, including proceedings to compel specific performance of Developer of its obligations under this Agreement #2. Subject to the cure provisions in paragraph 5.2 of this Agreement #2. (b) In case the City shall have proceeded to enforce its rights under this Agreement #2 and such proceedings shall have been discontinued or abandoned for any reason or shall have been determined adversely to the City, then, and in every such case, Developer and the City shall be restored respectively to their several positions and rights hereunder, and all rights, remedies and powers of Developer and the City shall continue as though no such proceedings had been taken. Subject to the cure provisions in paragraph 5.2 of this Agreement #2. 7 5.5 Indemnification by Developer: Agreement #2 to Pay Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. Developer agrees to indemnify the City, and all of its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives, engineers, consultants, and attorneys, against any and all claims that may be asserted at any time against any of such parties in connection with or as a result of (i) Developer's development, construction, maintenance, or use of the Subject Properties; or (ii) Developer's default under the provisions of this Agreement #2. Such indemnification obligation, however, shall not extend to claims asserted against the City or any of the aforesaid parties in connection with or as a result of: (i) the performance of the City's representations, warranties and covenants under Article 6 of this Agreement #2; (ii) the City's default under the provisions of this Agreement #2; or (iii) the act, omission, negligence or misconduct of the City or any of the aforesaid parties. If Developer shall commit an event of default and the City should employ an attorney or attorneys or incur other expenses for the collection of the payments due under this Agreement #2 or the enforcement of performance or observance of any obligation or agreement on the part of Developer herein contained, Developer, on the City's demand, shall pay to the City the reasonable fees of such attorneys and such other reasonable expenses so incurred by the City, in the event the City is determined to the be prevailing party. 5.6 Events of Default by City. Any of the following events or circumstances shall be an event of default by the City with respect to this Agreement #2: (a) A default of any term, condition, or provision contained in any agreement or document relating to the Project (other than this Agreement #2), that would materially and adversely impair the ability of the City to perform its obligations under this Agreement, and the failure to cure such default within the earlier of 30 days after Developer's written notice of such default or in a time period reasonably required to cure such default or in accordance with the time period provided therein. (b) Failure to comply with any material term, provision, or condition of this Agreement #2 within the time herein specified and failing to cure such noncompliance within 30 days after written notice from Developer of each failure or in a time period reasonably required to cure such default. (c) A representation or warranty of the City contained herein is not true and correct in any material respect for a period of 30 days after written notice to the City by Developer. If such default is incapable of being cured within 30 days, but the City begins reasonable efforts to cure within 30 days, then such default shall not be considered an event of default hereunder for so long as the City continues to diligently pursue its cure. 5.7 Remedies for Default by City. Subject to the provisions of this Agreement #2, in the case of an event of default by the City, Developer, pursuant to Section 5.1, may institute such proceedings as may be necessary or desirable in its opinion to cure or remedy such default or breach, including proceedings to compel the City's specific performance of its obligations under this Agreement #2; provided, however, no recourse under any obligation contained herein or for any claim based thereon shall be had against the City, its officers, agents, attorneys, representatives in any amount in excess of the specific sum agreed to be paid by the City hereunder, and no liability, right or claim at law or in equity shall be attached to or incurred by the City, its officers, agents, attorneys, representatives or employees in any amount in excess of specific sums agreed 8 by the City to be paid hereunder and any such claim is hereby expressly waived and released as a condition of and as consideration for the execution of this Agreement #2 by the City. In the event any action is maintained by the City against Developer, and the City is found to the non-prevailing party, the City shall reimburse Developer for any costs and reasonable Attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing claim under this Agreement #2 as the prevailing party. ARTICLE 6: GENERAL PROVISIONS 6.1 Maintain Improvements in Good and Clean Condition: Developer shall maintain the Subject Property in reasonably good and clean condition at all times during the development by Developer of the Subject Property, which shall include promptly removing all mud, dirt, and debris that is deposited on any street, sidewalk, or other public property in or adjacent to the Subject Properties by Developer or any agent of or contractor hired by, or on behalf of Developer and repair any damage to any public property that may be caused by the activities of Developer or any agent of or contractor hired by, or on behalf of, Developer. 6.2 Liability and Indemnity of City. (a) No liability for City Review. Developer acknowledges and agrees that (i) the City is not, and shall not be, in any way liable for any damages or injuries that may be sustained as the result of the City's review and approval of any plans or improvements or as a result of the issuance of any approvals, permits, certificates, or acceptances for the development or use of any portion of the Subject Properties or the improvements and (ii) the City's review and approval of any plans and the issuance of any approvals, permits, certificates, or acceptances does not, and shall not, in any way be deemed to insure Developer, or any of its successors, assigns, tenants, or licensees, or any third party, against violations or damage or injury of any kind at any time. (b) Hold Harmless and Indemnification. Developer shall hold harmless the City, and all of its elected and appointed officials, employees, agents, representatives, engineers, consultants, and attorneys from any and all claims that may asserted at any time against any of such parties in connection with (i) the City's review and approval of any plans or improvements or (ii) the City's issuance of any approval, permit or certificate. The foregoing provision, however, shall not apply to claims made against the City as a result of a City event of default under this Agreement #2, claims that are made against the City that relate to one or more of the City's representations, warranties, or covenants under Article 4 and claims that the City, either pursuant to the terms of this Agreement #2 or otherwise explicitly has agreed to assume. (c) Defense Expenses. Developer shall pay all expenses, including legal fees and administrative expenses, incurred by the City in defending itself with regard to any and all of the claims identified in the first sentence of Subsection (b) above. The City agrees that upon a successor becoming bound to the obligations created herein in the manner provided herein and providing the financial assurances required herein, the liability of Developer shall be released to the extent of the transferee's assumption of such liability. 9 6.6 No Implied Waiver of City Rights. The City shall be under no obligation to exercise rights granted to it in this Agreement except as it shall determine to be in its best interest from time to time. Except to the extent embodied in a duly authorized and written waiver of the City, no failure to exercise at any time any right granted herein to the City shall be construed as a waiver of that or any other right. 6.7 Force Majeure. Time is of the essence of this Agreement #2, provided, however, a party shall not be deemed in material breach of this Agreement with respect to any of its obligations under this Agreement on such party’s part to be performed if such party fails to timely perform the same and such failure is due in whole or in part to any strike, lock-out, labor trouble (whether legal or illegal), civil disorder, weather conditions, failure or interruptions of power, restrictive governmental laws and regulations, condemnations, riots, insurrections, acts of terrorism, war, fuel shortages, accidents, casualties, floods, earthquakes, fires, acts of Gods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, freight embargoes, acts caused directly or indirectly by the other party (or the other party’s agents, employees or invitees) or similar causes beyond the reasonable control of such party (“Force Majeure”). If one of the foregoing events shall occur or either party shall claim that such an event shall have occurred, the party to whom such claim is made shall investigate same and consult with the party making such claim regarding the same and the party to whom such claim is made shall grant any extension for the performance of the unsatisfied obligation equal to the period of the delay, which period shall commence to run from the time of the commencement of the Force Majeure; provided that the failure of performance was reasonably caused by such Force Majeure. ARTICLE 7. TERM Term. This Agreement #2 shall be in full force and effect upon its execution by the parties and terminate upon the first to occur: (i) the payment to the Developer the lessor of twenty-five percent (25%) of the total cost of the Project; or, $398,912; or, (ii) December 31, 2030. ARTICLE 8. NOTICES 8.1 Notices. All notices and other communications in connection with this Agreement #2 shall be in writing and shall be deemed delivered to the addressee thereof (a) when delivered in person on a business day at the address set forth below, or (b) on the third business day after being deposited in any main or branch United States post office, for delivery by properly addressed, postage prepaid, certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, at the address set forth below, or (c) by facsimile or email transmission, when transmitted to either the facsimile telephone number or email address set forth below, when actually received. Notices and communications to Developer shall be addressed to, and delivered at, the following addresses: With a copy to: 10 The Williams Group, LLC 1905 Marketview Drive Suite 255 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Attn: Edward L. Williams Notices and communications to the City shall be addressed to and delivered at these addresses: With a copy to: United City of Yorkville Kathleen Field Orr 800 Game Farm Road 2024 Hickory Road, Suite 205 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Homewood, Illinois 60430 Attn: City Administrator By notice complying with the requirements of this Section, each party shall have the right to change the address or addressee, or both, for all future notices and communications to such party, but no notice of a change of address or addressee shall be effective until actually received. ARTICLE 9. IN GENERAL 9.1 Amendments and Waiver. No modification, addition, deletion, revision, alteration, or other change to this Agreement #2 shall be effective unless and until the change is reduced to writing and executed and delivered by the City and the Developer. No term or condition of this Agreement #2 shall be deemed waived by any party unless the term or condition to be waived, the circumstances giving rise to the waiver and, where applicable, the conditions and limitations on the waiver are set forth specifically in a duly authorized and written waiver of such party. No waiver by any party of any term or condition of this Agreement #2 shall be deemed or construed as a waiver of any other term or condition of this Agreement #2, nor shall waiver of any breach be deemed to constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach whether of the same or different provisions of this Agreement #2. 9.2 No Third Party Beneficiaries. No claim as a third party beneficiary under this Agreement by any person, firm, or corporation shall be made, or be valid, against the City or Developer. 9.3 Entire Agreement. This Agreement #2 shall constitute the entire agreement of the Parties; all prior agreements between the Parties, whether written or oral, are merged into this Agreement #2 and shall be of no force and effect. 9.4 Counterparts. This Agreement #2 is to be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which shall constitute the same instrument. 11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates set forth below their respective signatures, to be effective as of the Effective Date. United City of Yorkville Attest: By: __________________________ By: _____________________________ Mayor City Clerk Date: ___________________, 2022 The Williams Group, LLC By: __________________________ Its Manager 12 Exhibit A Estimated Project Costs 1 AUGUST 21 , 2022 The Williams Group 101 W Hydraulic Fox Republic Brewing 2 Overview Fox Republic Brewing will occupy approximately 3,250 sq/ft in the Riverside Plaza development at 101 W Hydraulic. We will have a 7 BBL system and sell craft beer only with no food in-house. We plan to partner with local Yorkville restaurants to provide food service. Our head brewer is one of the partners in the business and has over 20+ years of experience operating various breweries. The first phase of the Riverside Plaza development was completed mid-August and is now fully occupied by two 2nd floor apartments, Second Chance Cardiac Solutions, Foxes Den Meadery, and Iconic Coffee. *Please see separate attachment for higher resolution floor plan* Iconic Coffee 4 Proposed Budget 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 memorandum. Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Purchasing Manager Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #7 Tracking Number EDC 2022-59 Windmill Farms – 3rd Amendment to Annexation Agreement (Restore Church) Economic Development Committee – September 6, 2022 CC – 04/26/22 Approved an Ordinance Approving a Second Amendment to the Annexation and PUD Agreement (Windmill Farms). EDC 2022-21 Majority Vote Proposed amendment to the Windmill Farms Annexation Agreement. Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, AICP Community Development Name Department SUMMARY: The request is for an amendment to an existing annexation agreement for the Windmill Farms Planned Unit Development (PUD) approved in 2008. The PUD covered approximately 91-acres of land under contract by the former developer, Jake Land Group, for a proposed commercial and multi-family residential development (refer to concept PUD Plan below). Although the City annexed the parcels and rezoned the entire site under a “PUD” zoning, a final plat was never recorded to formalize the PUD and development never commenced. This left the properties in the Windmill Farms development saddled with entitlements that limited their ability to redevelop, expand or rezone without City Council action. Included within the original Windmill Farms development are 33-acres consisting of three (3) parcels currently owned by Restore Church, Inc. A portion of the overall 33-acres utilized for religious institution with plans for expansion and future land uses compatible with the underlining B-3 zoning designation. Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Kathleen Field-Orr, City Attorney Date: August 29, 2022 Subject: Windmill Farms – 3rd Amendment to Annexation Agreement Regarding Zoning of Certain Property within Original Development Restore Church, Inc. intends to continue operations of its ministry in the existing 6,800 square foot church building which was a renovation of an existing structure and construct a 10,000 square foot addition. Future plans for the remainder of the overall 33-acres are yet to be determined but will comply with the proposed B-3 permitted zoning land uses. Therefore, the amendment seeks to remove the subject property from the previously approved annexation agreement. Since the annexation agreement is not set to expire until 2028, each property owner must seek City Council approval to remove themselves from the agreement’s provisions by amendment. Once removed, the property will only retain its zoning, which is the PUD District zoning. Additionally, the City no longer has a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district, therefore the property will be required to rezone. The proposed agreement amendment is being considered concurrently with a request for rezoning from PUD to B-3 General Business District by the Planning and Zoning Commission. DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND: In 2008, Windmill Farms was annexed into Yorkville and zoned within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District via ordinances 2008-40 and 2008-42. The developer at that time, Jake Land Group, LLC, annexed eight (8) parcels totaling roughly 78-acres and assembled those with five (5) already annexed parcels to create a thirteen (13) parcel, an approximately 91-acre site, with a mix of residential and commercial land uses. Some of the parcels were purchased by the developer, while others were under contract. As part of the annexation agreement, certain B-3 General Business District and R-4 General Multi- Family Residence District land uses were permitted, and development was subject to the approved Windmill Farms concept land plan. The annexation and zoning were the only approvals granted for the Windmill Farm development. Since that time, the Jake Land Group, LLC parcels were foreclosed upon and the contracts with the owners of the other parcels fell through. The majority of the property remained vacant or undeveloped since the original approvals in 2008. Additionally, some parcels have been further subdivided. The current ownership of the parcels is depicted in the following map: ZONING ANALYSIS: The existing Windmill Farms Annexation and Planned Unit Development Agreement presents a unique land approval dilemma for successor property owners, specifically related to zoning of the parcels currently for sale and future land use development. The annexation agreement, which is nearing 15 years of its 20-year term, established a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district for the development with portions of the property subject to certain B-3 business and R-4 multi-family residential land uses. Recently, two (2) amendments to the Windmill Farms Annexation Agreement have been approved. The most recent was by Bricolage Wellness in April 2022 for the reuse of an existing residence as a professional office/clinic for therapeutic services and the other in 2019, when Hively Landscaping petitioned for annexation amendment through an identical entitlement process for three (3) parcels they purchased in the Windmill Farms development. Both successfully rezoned their parcels from PUD to B-3 General Business District and Hively also rezoned one parcel to A-1 Agriculture as depicted in the zoning map below: According to the 2006 annexation agreement for Windmill Farms, a preliminary process for the approval of a PUD as a special use was anticipated with the adoption of the concept plan. However, the concept plan was never formalized via an ordinance approving the special use for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and final plat of subdivision. With the passage of time, the concept plan for the Windmill Farm development is no longer valid. Therefore, it is staff and the City Attorney’s recommendation to amend the only authorizing document for the Windmill Farms development, the annexation and PUD agreement, to remove the subject parcel and thereby allowing it to be rezoned. Further, the rezoning will have no effect on the validity of the annexation itself. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: As prepared by the City Attorney, the proposed amendment deletes Paragraph 1: Annexation and Zoning of the original annexation agreement and replaces it with the following: The City has adopted an ordinance annexing to the City the Subject Property and shall adopt an ordinance zoning the Subject Property into the B-3 General Business zoning district, which may be further changed without amendment of this Agreement pursuant to the procedures of the Zoning Code. Paragraph 2A of the annexation agreement is proposed to be deleted, as it relates solely to the concept plan that was never adopted into a final plat for a special use PUD. And finally, paragraphs B and D of Section 3 of the original annexation agreement regarding the requirement for connection to City water and annexing into the Yorkville Bristol Sanitary District is deleted in its entirety, too. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff is highly supportive of the proposed annexation agreement amendment based upon legal counsel recommendation and in consideration of the length of time the area has remained undeveloped under the current concept plan and zoning. This annexation agreement amendment request is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council on October 25, 2022. Staff and the petitioner will be available at Tuesday night’s meeting to answer any questions. Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 1 Ordinance No. 2022-_____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, APPROVING THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE ANNEXATION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR A PORTION OF THE WINDMILL FARMS DEVELOPMENT (Restore Church, Inc.) 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, Jake Land Group, LLC (the “Original Owner”) entered into an ANNEXATION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WINDMILL FARMS (the “Original Annexation Agreement”) dated May 27, 2008 that was approved by the Mayor and City Council (the “Corporate Authorities”) by Ordinance No. 2008-40 on May 27, 2008 and recorded with the Kendall County Recorder on July 17, 2008 as document 200800016874; and, WHEREAS, the Original Annexation Agreement provided for the annexation and zoning of approximately 62.82 acres of land to the City and the development of 15.32 acres already annexed to the City; and, WHEREAS, on April 9, 2019, by Ordinance No. 2019-22, the Original Agreement was amended as it related to 16.21 acres of the Windmill Farms to rezone three (3) parcels to the City’s A-1 Agricultural District and B-3 General Business District for the development of a landscape nursery business (the "First Amendment"); the First Amendment was recorded with the Kendall County Recorder' s Office on May 2, 2019 as document #201900005298; and, WHEREAS, on April 26, 2022, by Ordinance No. 2022-14, the Original Agreement was amended a second time as it related to approximately 1.17 acres of the Windmill Farms development to rezone that property located at 8721 Route 126 to the City’s B-3 General Business District for the operation of a professional services office use (the "Second Amendment"); the Second Amendment was recorded with the Kendall County Recorder' s Office on June 27, 2022 as document #202200010973; and, WHEREAS, Restore Church, Inc. (“Developer”) is the owner of approximately 33.4 acres of the Windmill Farms property that is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof (the “Subject Property”) with PIN Numbers: 05-03-300-029, 05-03-300-031 and 05-03-300-033; and, WHEREAS, Developer has petitioned the City to amend the Original Annexation Agreement to rezone the Subject Property pursuant to the current United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance (the “Zoning Code”) in order to permit the Developer to proceed with operation under the City’s B-3 General Business District for a large religious institution land use; and, WHEREAS, the Corporate Authorities conducted a public hearing on the third amendment of the Original Annexation Agreement on October 25, 2022 and the statutory procedures provided in 65 ILCS 5/11-15.1-1, as amended, for the approval of this Third Amendment have been complied with. Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, as follows: Section 1: The above recitals are incorporated and made a part of this Ordinance. Section 2: That the THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN JAKE LAND GROUP LLC AND THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE (Windmill Farms), attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference as Exhibit A be and is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver said Second Amendment. Section 3: 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 __________________, A.D. 2022. ______________________________ CITY CLERK KEN KOCH _________ DAN TRANSIER _________ ARDEN JOE PLOCHER _________ CRAIG SOLING _________ CHRIS FUNKHOUSER _________ MATT MAREK _________ SEAVER TARULIS _________ JASON PETERSON _________ APPROVED by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of __________________, A.D. 2022. ______________________________ MAYOR THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN JAKE LAND GROUP LLC AND THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE (Windmill Farms) This Third Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Annexation Agreement dated May 27, 2008, pertaining to the Windmill Farms properties, is entered into this __ day of October, 2022, by and between the United City of Yorkville, Illinois, a municipal corporation (the “City”) and Restore Church, Inc., the owner of a portion of the Windmill Farms properties (the “DEVELOPER”); and, WHEREAS, Jake Land Group, LLC (the “Original Owner”) entered into an ANNEXATION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WINDMILL FARMS (the “Original Annexation Agreement”) dated May 27, 2008 that was approved by the Mayor and City Council (the “Corporate Authorities”) by Ordinance No. 2008-40 on May 27, 2008 and recorded with the Kendall County Recorder on July 17, 2008 as document 200800016874; and, WHEREAS, the Original Annexation Agreement provided for the annexation of approximately 62.82 acres of land to the City and the development of 15.32 acres already annexed to the City (the “Property”), when due to the changes in the economic conditions in the country and most particularly in the region, the Original Owner lost ownership of the Property; and, WHEREAS, on April 9, 2019, by Ordinance No. 2019-22, the Original Agreement was amended as it related to 16.21 acres of the Windmill Farms to rezone three (3) parcels to the City’s A-1 Agricultural District and B-3 General Business District for the development of a landscape nursery business (the "First Amendment"); the First Amendment was recorded with the Kendall County Recorder' s Office on May 2, 2019 as document #201900005298; and, WHEREAS, on April 26, 2022, by Ordinance No. 2022-14, the Original Agreement was amended a second time as it related to approximately 1.17 acres of the Windmill Farms development to rezone that property located at 8721 Route 126 to the City’s B-3 General Business District for the operation of a professional services office use (the "Second Amendment"); the Second Amendment was recorded with the Kendall County Recorder' s Office on June 27, 2022 as document #202200010973; and, WHEREAS, DEVELOPER is the owner of approximately 33.4 acres of the Windmill Farms property that is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof (the “Subject Property”) with PIN Numbers: 05-03-300-029, 05-03-300-031 and 05-03-300-033; and, WHEREAS, DEVELOPER has petitioned the City to rezone the Subject Property pursuant to the current United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance (the “Zoning Code”) in order to permit DEVELOPER to proceed with operation under the City’s B-3 General Business District for a large religious institution land use; and, WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER is prepared to participate in all public hearings as required by law to accomplish this Amendment to the Original Annexation Agreement and as may be required to rezone the Property under the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The above recitals are incorporated herein and made a part of this Agreement. 2. That the fifth whereas clause be and is herby repealed. 3. That Paragraph 1 of the Original Annexation Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: ANNEXATION AND ZONING The City has adopted an ordinance annexing to the City the Subject Property and shall adopt an ordinance zoning the Subject Property into the B-3 General Business District for parcels 05-03-300-029, 05-03-300-031 and 05-03-300-033, which may be further changed without amendment of this Agreement pursuant to the procedures of the Zoning Code. 4. That Paragraph 2A of the Original Annexation Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety. 5. That Paragraph 9, Notice, of the Original Annexation Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the person named to receive notice for the Developer and insert the following: To Developer: Jordan Gash Restore Church, Inc. 8710 State Route 71 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 With a copy to: John Philipchuck, Attorney Cobine West Gensler Philipchuck & Corrigan, Ltd. 111 East Jefferson Avenue Naperville, IL 60540 6. That Paragraphs B and D of Section 3, of the Original Annexation Agreement regarding the requirement for connection to City water and annexing into the Yorkville Bristol Sanitary District is hereby deleted in its entirety. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Second Amendment to the Original Annexation Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers on the above date at Yorkville, Illinois. United City of Yorkville, an Illinois municipal Corporation By: _______________________________________ Mayor Attest: _________________________________ City Clerk DEVELOPER By: _______________________________________ Restore Church, Inc. Attest: __________________________________ Witness PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN a public hearing shall be held on an amendment to that certain Annexation Agreement (Windmill Farms) dated May 27, 2008, by and among Jake Land Group, LLC (“Original Owner”), and the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, on October 25, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall at the United City of Yorkville, 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, Illinois for the purpose of amending the Windmill Farms Annexation Agreement related to the zoning of three (3) parcels into the B-3 General Business District. The purpose of the amendment is to allow for the continued operation of the existing religious institution land use and accommodate future commercial development proposed for three (3) B-3 zoned parcels. The real property is comprised of three (3) parcels totaling approximately 34 acres and situated east of Illinois State Route 71 and Illinois State Route 126 intersection on the northeast corner of Wing Road and Illinois State Route 71. The common address is 8710 Route 71 in Yorkville, Illinois. The legal description of said parcels are as follows: PARCEL 1: 27.60 AC TR LYG PT SW¼ & PT NW¼ SEC 3-36-7 (EXC PT DESCRBD AS "EXC" PER DOC 17-16528, PG 5) CITY OF YORKVILLLE "THAT PART OF THE NORTHEAST, NORTHWEST ANO SOUTHWEST QUARTERS OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 36 NORTH, RANGE 7 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREE 10 MINUTES 48 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4 1284.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 29 MINUTES 40 SECONDS WEST 680.30 FEET; THENCE NORTH 09 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST 10.0 FEET FOR A POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 09 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST 579.53 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF A TRACT OF LANO CONVEYED TO ELSIE BOYD BY A DEED DATED MARCH 26, 1929 AND RECORDED DECEMBER 14, 1938 IN DEED RECORD BOOK 88 ON PAGE 399; THENCE NORTH 09 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 24 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID BOYD TRACT 748.57 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF ILLINOIS STATE ROUTE NO. 71; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CENTER LINE, BEING ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,459.20 FEET ANO A RADIAL BEARING OF NORTH 26 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST AT THE LAST DESCRIBED POINT 627.46 FEET; THENCE NORTH 60 DEGREES 02 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID CENTER LINE 332.0 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 12 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST 264.0 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 84 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST 202.0 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 42 MINUTES 30 SECONDS WEST 423.02 FEET TO SAID CENTER LINE; THENCE NORTH 60 DEGREES 02 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID CENTER LINE 472.59 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN NORTH 00 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 48 SECONDS EAST PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST 1/4, FROM A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST 1/4 WHICH IS 598.62 FEET EASTEAL Y OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNEA OF SAID NORTHEAST 1/4; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 48 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE 880.56 FEET TO SAID SOUTH LINE; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 34 MINUTES 48 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 598.62 FEET TO SAID SOUTHWEST CORNER; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 48 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 1275.36 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN SOUTH 89 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 33 SECONDS EAST FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 33 SECONDS WEST 681.94 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING IN KENDALL TOWNSHIP, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS (EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PART IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 36 NORTH, RANGE 7 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN) PIN# 05-03-300-029 PARCEL 2: .49 AC TR LYG SW¼ SEC 3-36-7 (EXC PT DESCRBD AS "EXC" PER DOC 17- 16528, PG 5) CITY OF YORKVILLE THAT PART OF THE WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 36 NORTH, RANGE 7 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 3; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 14 MINUTES 45 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 3, 1284.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 00 DEGREES WEST, 684.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 09 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, 592.27 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 57 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST, 327.57 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF WING ROAD; THENCE NORTH 21 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, 705.85 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE OF ILLINOIS ROUTE 71 FOR THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 21 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, 119.0 FEET; THENCE NORTH 68 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 31 SECONDS EAST, PERPENDICULAR TO SAID EASTERLY LINE, 211.0 FEET; THENCE NORTH 21 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST PARALLEL WITH SAID EASTERLY LINE, 131.87 FEET TO SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ILLINOIS ROUTE 71; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE, BEING A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 11509.16 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 211.36 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING IN KENDALL TOWNSHIP, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS PIN# 05-03-300-033 PARCEL 3: 5.40 AC TR LYG SW¼ SEC 3-36-7 (EXC PT DESCRBD AS "EXC" PER DOC 17-16528, PG 5} CITY OF YORKVILLE THAT PART OF THE WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 36 NORTH, RANGE 7 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 3, THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 14 MINUTES 45 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 3, 1284.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, 684.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 09 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, 592.27 FEET FOR THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 57 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST, 327.57 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF WING ROAD; THENCE NORTH 21 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, 586.85 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID EASTERLY LINE WHICH IS 119.0 FEET (MEASURED ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE) SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ILLJNOIS ROUTE 71; THENCE NORTH 68 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 31 SECONDS EAST, PERPENDICULAR TO SAID EASTERLY LINE 211 .0 FEET; THENCE NORTH 21 DEGREES 62 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST, PARALLEL WITH SAID EASTERLY LINE, 131.87 FEET TO SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ILLINOIS ROUTE 71, THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE BEING A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 11509.16 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 261.03 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN NORTH 09 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 09 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID LINE 695.72 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING IN KENDALL TOWNSHIP, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS. (Loss and except from Above Parcels 1, 2 & 3 part of the Southwest Quarter and part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 36 North, Range 7 East of the Third Principal Meridian, described as follows with bearings and distances based upon the Illinois State Plane Coordinate System, (Grid) East Zone ( NAD-83, 2007 adj.): Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 3; thence North 01 degree 35 minutes 30 seconds West 1995.04 feet along the west line of said southwest quarter section to the centerline of Illinois Route 71; thence North 69 degrees 55 minutes 19 seconds East 262.19 feet along said centerline to the point of curvature of a 11,479.05 foot radius curve to the Jett: thence northeasterly 1163.11 feet along said curve whose chord bears North 67 degrees 01 minutes 09 seconds East 1162.62 feet; thence South 25 degrees 53 minutes 00 seconds East 50.00 feet to the Point of Beginning on the southeasterly right of way line of Illinois Route 71; thence northeasterly 1118.45 feet along said southeasterly right of way line along a 11,529.02 foot radius curve to the left whose chord bears North 61 degrees 20 minutes 15 seconds East 1116.01 feet: thence North 58 degrees 33 minutes 29 seconds East 316.42 feet along said right of way line to the west line of property described In document number 201300024064; thence South 13 degrees 56 minutes 03 seconds East 15. 73 feet along said west line; thence South 58 degrees 33 minutes 29 seconds West 65.67 feet; thence South 56 degrees 13 minutes 50 seconds West 246.22 feet to a non-tangential curve to the right; thence southwesterly 656.26 feet along a 11,554.05 foot radius curve to the right whose chord bears South 60 degrees 11 minutes 25 seconds West 658.17 feet; thence South 50 degrees 42 minutes 49 seconds Weal 51.33 feet; thence southwesterly 75.56 feet along o 11,564.05 loot radius curve to the right whose chord bears South 62 degrees 15 minutes 33 seconds West 75.56 feet; thence South 73 degrees 52 minutes 10 seconds West 76.98 feet; thence southwesterly 226.37 feet along a 11,549.05 foot radius' curve to the right whose chord bears South 63 degrees 22 minutes 56 seconds West 226.37 feet; thence South 15 degrees 56 minutes 14 seconds West 40.32 feet; thence South 23 degrees 05 minutes 13 seconds East 100.12 feet; thence South 10 degrees 56 minutes 42 seconds East 51.74 feet to the easterly right of way line of Wing Road; thence North 22 degrees 56 minutes 26 seconds West 200.26 feet along said right of way line to the Point of Beginning.) PIN# 05-03-300-033 The public hearing may be continued from time to time without further notice being published. All interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing and will be given an opportunity to be heard. Any written comments should be addressed to the United City of Yorkville Community Development Department, City Hall, 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, Illinois 60560, and will be accepted up to the date of the public hearing. By order of the Corporate Authorities of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois. JORI BEHLAND City Clerk 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 #8 Tracking Number EDC 2022-60 Restore Church – Windmill Farms PUD (rezoning) Economic Development Committee – September 6, 2022 Majority Vote Proposed professional services office on a parcel within the former Windmill Farms Development. Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, AICP Community Development Name Department SUMMARY: The petitioner, Jordan Gash, on behalf of Restore Church, Inc., is seeking rezoning approval of three (3) parcels totaling approximately 33 acres located within the Windmill Farms development. The previously approved Windmill Farms Annexation and Planned Unit Development Agreement permitted certain land uses consistent with those found in the R-4 General Multi-Family Residence District and B-3 General Business zoning districts. The petitioner has utilized the existing one-story commercial structure on one of the parcels as a religious institute. The requested new zoning of B-3 General Business District would be consistent with the recently rezoned parcels to the west and remove the remnant Planned Unit Development zoning established as part of the Windmill Farms agreement. Below is a map of the subject property parcels and the overall boundary of the Windmill Farms PUD. Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Jason Engberg, Senior Planner Date: August 26, 2022 Subject: PZC 2022-19 Restore Church – Windmill Farms Religious Institution Land Use Expansion (Rezoning) PROPERTY BACKGROUND: As stated, the subject property was zoned within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District with B-3 General Business District and R-4 General Multi-Family Residence District land uses, as part of the Windmill Farms’ annexation approved in 2008 per Ordinance 2008-40. Per Exhibit “E” of Ord. 2008- 40, the approximately 91-acre site, of which the subject parcels are included, was to be developed with a mix of residential and commercial land uses. The annexation and concept site plan were the only approvals granted for the Windmill Farms development. The subject property consists of the following three (3) parcels: Per the City Attorney, since the Windmill Farms Planned Unit Development was never formalized by final plat of subdivision, and with the passage of time, the approved concept plan for the development is no longer valid. Therefore, concurrent with this rezoning request, a separate Annexation and PUD agreement amendment has been requested that will invalidate the former PUD zoning classification and removes the provisions of the concept plan from the subject property. This process is identical to the 2019 rezoning approval for the Hively Landscaping parcels and the Bricolage Wellness parcel, both also part of the Windmill Farms PUD. PARCEL AREA LAND USE 05-03-300-029 27.5 acres Parking/Stormwater management/Undeveloped 05-03-300-031 0.5 acres Existing church structure 05-03-300-033 5.4 acres Undeveloped parcel TOTAL AREA 33.4 acres SITE ANALYSIS: The following map illustrates the current zoning and land uses of the entire 91-acre Windmill Farms PUD, including the subject property parcels: Zoning The proposed land use is considered a “large religious institution” as defined in the Zoning Ordinance having 400 or more seats or larger than 8,000 square feet of total gross floor area and is outright permitted within the requested B-3 General Business District zoning. The B-3 zoning is also consistent with the underling zoning of the subject property established by the PUD, as the existing structure was formerly used as a commercial office prior to being purchased by Restore Church, Inc. in 2017. Further, the requested zoning is in keeping with the trend of development within the area immediately surrounding the subject property since seventy-five percent (75%) of the properties are zoned B-3. The most recent occurred earlier this year with the Bricolage Wellness rezoning for the parcel to the west on Wing Road for a professional office use and, in 2019, when Hively Landscaping petitioned to have the parcel directly north of that property rezoned from PUD to the B-3 General Business District for a commercial landscaping and greenhouse business. Comprehensive Plan (Future Land Use) The subject property’s future land use is classified 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 but also include sensitive environmental and scenic features that should be retained and enhanced. This 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 anticipated. Therefore, if the rezoning request is approved, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use map will be required. This will provide a documentation of the change in the City’s approval of the development conditions related to this property and align the proposed B-3 zoned parcel with a future land use designation suitable for the professional services office land use, such as “Destination Commercial (DC)”. The “Destination Commercial” future land use, as defined in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update, is intended to accommodate mainly single-story in height and require deep setbacks and large parking areas, such as large religious institutions. Proposed Religious Institutional Use Restore Church is a religious facility which provides in-person and media based (social media, video and radio) ministry from their current building located at 8710 Route 71 in Yorkville. In 2018, Restore Church renovated the existing approximately 6,800 square foot commercial storage structure for the current church building for religious services and ancillary uses. At that time, there was an expansion of surface parking, construction of a stormwater detention basin and site landscaping provided. As parishioners to the church increased over the past few years, Restore Church has recently submitted plans for an approximately 10,000 square foot building expansion. The petitioner has stated they may seek future uses consistent with the B-3 General Business Zoning District classification on the remaining undeveloped area of the subject parcels. Those future uses may or may not require City Council review such as special uses, variances or final plat of subdivision approval. Utilities There are no nearby public utilities (water, sewer) in this area. The petitioner has been utilizing an existing well and septic field for the on-site needs of the existing church. Per City Code, however, once utilities are available within 250’ of the subject property, they are required to connect to city water and sewer. Vehicular Access/Parking The three (3) parcels are easily accessible via a right-in and right-out access point off of the newly widened and reconstructed IL Route 71 (Stagecoach Trail) and full access off of Wing Road. Access is also available to IL Route 126 9Schoolhouse Road) via Wing Road. Traffic layout seems to allow the flow of vehicles from the west on IL 71 to turn southbound on Wing Road and then westward to an internal private drive lane servicing the church. Vehicles traveling east on IL 71 can turn south onto the private drive lane into the church’s property. Adequate parking is provided on the subject parcels for the existing religious land use and planned 10,000 square foot church expansion. Furthermore, area for parking lot expansion is also available for future land uses. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff is supportive of the proposed rezoning; even though, if approved, would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Update. Our recommendation is in consideration of the length of time the area has remained undeveloped under the current concept plan and zoning. This is in addition to the existing annexation agreement not correctly approving a special use authorizing a PUD for the Windmill Farm development and the recent rezoning of the adjacent parcel for the same requested B-3 zoning. This rezoning request is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 12, 2022. Staff and the petitioner will be available at Tuesday night’s meeting to answer any questions. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Petitioner Rezoning Application 2. Ordinance 2008-40 - Windmill Farms Annexation and PUD Agreement 3. Public Hearing Notice PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PZC 2022-19 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT Jordan Gash, on behalf of Restore Church, Inc., petitioner, has filed an application with the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, requesting rezoning classification of three (3) parcels totaling approximately 34 acres located at 8710 Route 71 in Yorkville, Illinois. The real property, situated east of Illinois State Route 71 and Illinois State Route 126 intersection on the northeast corner of Wing Road and Illinois State Route 71, is part of the previously approved Windmill Farms Annexation Agreement. The Windmill Farms Annexation Agreement zoned the parcels as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) which allowed for certain land uses consistent with those found in the R-4 General Multi-Family Residence District and B-3 General Business Zoning districts. The petitioner is seeking to rezone the three (3) parcels totaling 34 acres from the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning designation to the B-3 General Business District. The purpose of the rezoning is to continue to operate the existing religious institution land use and accommodate future commercial development. The legal description of said parcels are as follows: PARCEL 1: 27.60 AC TR LYG PT SW¼ & PT NW¼ SEC 3-36-7 (EXC PT DESCRBD AS "EXC" PER DOC 17-16528, PG 5) CITY OF YORKVILLLE "THAT PART OF THE NORTHEAST, NORTHWEST ANO SOUTHWEST QUARTERS OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 36 NORTH, RANGE 7 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREE 10 MINUTES 48 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4 1284.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 29 MINUTES 40 SECONDS WEST 680.30 FEET; THENCE NORTH 09 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST 10.0 FEET FOR A POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 09 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST 579.53 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF A TRACT OF LANO CONVEYED TO ELSIE BOYD BY A DEED DATED MARCH 26, 1929 AND RECORDED DECEMBER 14, 1938 IN DEED RECORD BOOK 88 ON PAGE 399; THENCE NORTH 09 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 24 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID BOYD TRACT 748.57 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF ILLINOIS STATE ROUTE NO. 71; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CENTER LINE, BEING ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,459.20 FEET ANO A RADIAL BEARING OF NORTH 26 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST AT THE LAST DESCRIBED POINT 627.46 FEET; THENCE NORTH 60 DEGREES 02 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID CENTER LINE 332.0 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 12 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST 264.0 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 84 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST 202.0 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 42 MINUTES 30 SECONDS WEST 423.02 FEET TO SAID CENTER LINE; THENCE NORTH 60 DEGREES 02 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID CENTER LINE 472.59 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN NORTH 00 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 48 SECONDS EAST PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST 1/4, FROM A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST 1/4 WHICH IS 598.62 FEET EASTEAL Y OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNEA OF SAID NORTHEAST 1/4; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 48 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE 880.56 FEET TO SAID SOUTH LINE; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 34 MINUTES 48 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 598.62 FEET TO SAID SOUTHWEST CORNER; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 48 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 1275.36 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN SOUTH 89 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 33 SECONDS EAST FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 33 SECONDS WEST 681.94 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING IN KENDALL TOWNSHIP, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS (EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PART IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 36 NORTH, RANGE 7 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN) PIN# 05-03-300-029 PARCEL 2: .49 AC TR LYG SW¼ SEC 3-36-7 (EXC PT DESCRBD AS "EXC" PER DOC 17- 16528, PG 5) CITY OF YORKVILLE THAT PART OF THE WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 36 NORTH, RANGE 7 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 3; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 14 MINUTES 45 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 3, 1284.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 00 DEGREES WEST, 684.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 09 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, 592.27 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 57 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST, 327.57 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF WING ROAD; THENCE NORTH 21 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, 705.85 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE OF ILLINOIS ROUTE 71 FOR THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 21 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, 119.0 FEET; THENCE NORTH 68 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 31 SECONDS EAST, PERPENDICULAR TO SAID EASTERLY LINE, 211.0 FEET; THENCE NORTH 21 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST PARALLEL WITH SAID EASTERLY LINE, 131.87 FEET TO SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ILLINOIS ROUTE 71; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE, BEING A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 11509.16 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 211.36 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING IN KENDALL TOWNSHIP, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS PIN# 05-03-300-033 PARCEL 3: 5.40 AC TR LYG SW¼ SEC 3-36-7 (EXC PT DESCRBD AS "EXC" PER DOC 17-16528, PG 5} CITY OF YORKVILLE THAT PART OF THE WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 36 NORTH, RANGE 7 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 3, THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 14 MINUTES 45 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 3, 1284.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, 684.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 09 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, 592.27 FEET FOR THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 57 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST, 327.57 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF WING ROAD; THENCE NORTH 21 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, 586.85 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID EASTERLY LINE WHICH IS 119.0 FEET (MEASURED ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE) SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ILLJNOIS ROUTE 71; THENCE NORTH 68 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 31 SECONDS EAST, PERPENDICULAR TO SAID EASTERLY LINE 211 .0 FEET; THENCE NORTH 21 DEGREES 62 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST, PARALLEL WITH SAID EASTERLY LINE, 131.87 FEET TO SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ILLINOIS ROUTE 71, THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE BEING A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 11509.16 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 261.03 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN NORTH 09 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 09 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID LINE 695.72 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING IN KENDALL TOWNSHIP, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS. (Loss and except from Above Parcels 1, 2 & 3 part of the Southwest Quarter and part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 36 North, Range 7 East of the Third Principal Meridian, described as follows with bearings and distances based upon the Illinois State Plane Coordinate System, (Grid) East Zone ( NAD-83, 2007 adj.): Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 3; thence North 01 degree 35 minutes 30 seconds West 1995.04 feet along the west line of said southwest quarter section to the centerline of Illinois Route 71; thence North 69 degrees 55 minutes 19 seconds East 262.19 feet along said centerline to the point of curvature of a 11,479.05 foot radius curve to the Jett: thence northeasterly 1163.11 feet along said curve whose chord bears North 67 degrees 01 minutes 09 seconds East 1162.62 feet; thence South 25 degrees 53 minutes 00 seconds East 50.00 feet to the Point of Beginning on the southeasterly right of way line of Illinois Route 71; thence northeasterly 1118.45 feet along said southeasterly right of way line along a 11,529.02 foot radius curve to the left whose chord bears North 61 degrees 20 minutes 15 seconds East 1116.01 feet: thence North 58 degrees 33 minutes 29 seconds East 316.42 feet along said right of way line to the west line of property described In document number 201300024064; thence South 13 degrees 56 minutes 03 seconds East 15. 73 feet along said west line; thence South 58 degrees 33 minutes 29 seconds West 65.67 feet; thence South 56 degrees 13 minutes 50 seconds West 246.22 feet to a non-tangential curve to the right; thence southwesterly 656.26 feet along a 11,554.05 foot radius curve to the right whose chord bears South 60 degrees 11 minutes 25 seconds West 658.17 feet; thence South 50 degrees 42 minutes 49 seconds Weal 51.33 feet; thence southwesterly 75.56 feet along o 11,564.05 loot radius curve to the right whose chord bears South 62 degrees 15 minutes 33 seconds West 75.56 feet; thence South 73 degrees 52 minutes 10 seconds West 76.98 feet; thence southwesterly 226.37 feet along a 11,549.05 foot radius' curve to the right whose chord bears South 63 degrees 22 minutes 56 seconds West 226.37 feet; thence South 15 degrees 56 minutes 14 seconds West 40.32 feet; thence South 23 degrees 05 minutes 13 seconds East 100.12 feet; thence South 10 degrees 56 minutes 42 seconds East 51.74 feet to the easterly right of way line of Wing Road; thence North 22 degrees 56 minutes 26 seconds West 200.26 feet along said right of way line to the Point of Beginning.) PIN# 05-03-300-033 A copy of the application is available for review during normal City business hours at the office of the Community Development Director. NOTICE IS HEREWITH GIVEN THAT the Planning and Zoning Commission for the United City of Yorkville will conduct a Public Hearing on said application on Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 7 p.m. at the United City of Yorkville, City Hall, located at 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, Illinois 60560. The public hearing may be continued from time to time to dates certain without further notice being published. All interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing and will be given an opportunity to be heard. Any written comments should be addressed to the United City of Yorkville Community Development Department, City Hall, 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, Illinois, and will be accepted up to the date of the public hearing. By order of the Corporate Authorities of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois. JORI BEHLAND City Clerk 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 – September 6, 2022 Majority Direction Discussion regarding permitting and regulating urban (domesticated) chickens in residentially zoned districts. Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, AICP Community Development Name Department Summary: Per the most recent direction from the Economic Development Committee (EDC) at the August 2, 2022 meeting, please see the proposed changes to the draft regulations permitting urban (domesticated) chickens for single-family residentially zoned parcels. The attached draft ordinance has also been revised to reflect the proposed changes enumerated in red in the table below: PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED REGULATIONS (BASED ON OSWEGO ORDINANCE) CURRENTLY PROPOSED REGULATIONS (BASED ON 8-2-22 EDC COMMENTS) PERMITTED ZONING (see attached map) R-1 Zoning District (Oswego) Lots must be used for residential purposes Oswego’s R-1 District is similar to Yorkville’s R-2 District. Yorkville is proposing permitting urban chickens in the following districts: E-1 (2 parcels) R-1 (121 parcels) R-2 (4,294 parcels) Total 4,417 parcels Lots only zoned E-1, R-1 and R-2 and used for single-family detached residential purposes are permitted E-1 (2 parcels) R-1 (135 parcels) R-2 (4,935 parcels) Total 5,072 parcels MIN. LOT SIZE 12,000 sq. ft. 11,000 sq. ft. MAX. NUMBER OF CHICKENS Max. of 6 domestic hens Max. of 6 domestic hens LOCATION/SETBACK Rear Yard only. Enclosures and fenced areas shall be set back thirty (30) feet from any occupied residential structure, other than that of the owner, but not less than the minimum setback required for accessory structures in the zoning district. Rear Yard only. Enclosures and fenced areas shall be set back thirty (30) feet from any occupied residential structure, other than that of the owner, but not less than the minimum setback required for accessory structures in the zoning district. SANITATION All structures shall be constructed and maintained in such a manner as to be free of rodent infestation. All feed shall be protected in a container with a tightly fitted lid. All structures shall be constructed and maintained in such a manner as to be free of rodent infestation. All feed shall be protected in a container with a tightly fitted lid. ENCLOSURE/COOP Hens shall be provided with a covered inside enclosure up to 144 square feet and an adjacent outside fenced area. The outside area shall be no less than 32 square feet. Electric service to enclosures shall not be provided by an extension cord. Hens shall be provided with a covered inside enclosure up to 144 square feet and an adjacent outside fenced area. The outside area shall be no less than 32 square feet. Electric service to enclosures shall not be provided by an extension cord. Four foot (4’) tall privacy or solid yard fence required along the perimeter of the lot. SLAUGHTERING Prohibited, except for humane or religious reasons. Prohibited, except for humane or religious reasons. 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: August 8, 2022 Subject: Urban (Domesticated) Chickens ROOSTERS Prohibited Prohibited PERMIT REQUIRED Required, must have HOA approval Required w/o Inspection Does not require HOA approval to issue permit ($25.00 one-time fee) Staff Comments: Staff is seeking formal direction from the Economic Development Committee (EDC) on the proposed revised draft ordinance based on the feedback received at the August 2, 2022 meeting. 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 Urban Chickens on Residential Parcels =/> 11,000 square feet 2. Current Draft Ordinance 3. August 2, 2022 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 >11,000 Square Foot Residential Parcels 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/Chicken Map DATE: August 9, 2022 Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 1 Draft 08/08/22 Ordinance No. 2022-_____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ALLOWING BACKYARD COOPS/ENCLOSURES FOR DOMESTICATED HENS 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 hens 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 HENS 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 Hen” 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, with the exception for humane or religious reasons. Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 2 8-19-2: Certain conduct declared unlawful. A. The keeping by any person of domesticated hens 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 hen 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 hens 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 hens shall be permitted on lots used for single-family detached residential purposes of twelve eleven thousand (12,00011,000) 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 six (6) domesticated hens shall be permitted on any lot. C. Roosters shall be prohibited in the City limits. D. Domesticated hens and associated enclosures, coops and fencing shall be located within the rear yard of any lot and must maintain a minimum setback of thirty (30) feet from any occupied residential structure, other than of the owner, but not less than the minimum setback required for accessory structures in the zoning district. E. Slaughtering of domesticated hens shall be prohibited in City limits, except for humane or religious reasons. 8-19-3: Coop and fence type. A. Hens shall be provided with a covered inside enclosure up to 144 square feet and an adjacent outside fenced area. The outside fenced area shall be no less than 32 square feet in area. B. Electric service to enclosures shall not be provided by an extension cord. C. Hens shall be kept in the enclosure and fenced area at all times. Formatted: List Paragraph, Left, No bullets or numbering Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 3 C.D. A minimum four foot (4’) tall privacy or solid yard fence shall be required along the perimeter of the subject property lot in accordance with Chapter 17 Fencing and Screening of Title 10 Zoning of the Yorkville City Code. 8-19-4: Sanitation A. Enclosures or coops for domesticated hens shall be constructed and maintained in such a manner as to be free of rodent infestation, 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 and other items that are associated with the keeping of domesticated hens that likely to attract or become infested with 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. No feed shall be scattered on the ground. C. All areas where hens are kept shall be free of undue accumulation of waste such as to cause odors detectable on adjacent properties. D. No person shall allow domesticated hens to produce noise loud enough to disturb the peace of persons of reasonable sensitivity. 8-19-5: Permit. A. Permit applications for domesticated hens 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 hens if the property is not owner occupied; 2.1.Submit proof of authorization from the applicable homeowner’s association; and 3.2.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. Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 4 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 hens 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 hens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, normally maintained as a household pet or guardian.” “DOMESTICATED HENS: A subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus which are kept in an enclosure in the rear 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 hens 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.” 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 __________________, A.D. 2022. ______________________________ CITY CLERK KEN KOCH _________ DAN TRANSIER _________ ARDEN JOE PLOCHER _________ CRAIG SOLING _________ CHRIS FUNKHOUSER _________ MATT MAREK _________ SEAVER TARULIS _________ JASON PETERSON _________ Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 5 APPROVED by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of __________________, A.D. 2022. ______________________________ MAYOR Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 1 Ordinance No. 2022-_____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ALLOWING BACKYARD COOPS/ENCLOSURES FOR DOMESTICATED HENS 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 hens 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 HENS 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 Hen” 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, with the exception for humane or religious reasons. Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 2 8-19-2: Certain conduct declared unlawful. A. The keeping by any person of domesticated hens 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 hen 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 hens 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 hens shall be permitted on lots used for single-family detached residential purposes of eleven thousand (11,000) 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 six (6) domesticated hens shall be permitted on any lot. C. Roosters shall be prohibited in the City limits. D. Domesticated hens and associated enclosures, coops and fencing shall be located within the rear yard of any lot and must maintain a minimum setback of thirty (30) feet from any occupied residential structure, other than of the owner, but not less than the minimum setback required for accessory structures in the zoning district. E. Slaughtering of domesticated hens shall be prohibited in City limits, except for humane or religious reasons. 8-19-3: Coop and fence type. A. Hens shall be provided with a covered inside enclosure up to 144 square feet and an adjacent outside fenced area. The outside fenced area shall be no less than 32 square feet in area. B. Electric service to enclosures shall not be provided by an extension cord. C. Hens shall be kept in the enclosure and fenced area at all times. Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 3 D. A minimum four foot (4’) tall privacy or solid yard fence shall be required along the perimeter of the subject property lot in accordance with Chapter 17 Fencing and Screening of Title 10 Zoning of the Yorkville City Code. 8-19-4: Sanitation A. Enclosures or coops for domesticated hens shall be constructed and maintained in such a manner as to be free of rodent infestation, 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 and other items that are associated with the keeping of domesticated hens that likely to attract or become infested with 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. No feed shall be scattered on the ground. C. All areas where hens are kept shall be free of undue accumulation of waste such as to cause odors detectable on adjacent properties. D. No person shall allow domesticated hens to produce noise loud enough to disturb the peace of persons of reasonable sensitivity. 8-19-5: Permit. A. Permit applications for domesticated hens 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 hens 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. Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 4 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 hens 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 hens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, normally maintained as a household pet or guardian.” “DOMESTICATED HENS: A subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus which are kept in an enclosure in the rear 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 hens 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.” 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 __________________, A.D. 2022. ______________________________ CITY CLERK KEN KOCH _________ DAN TRANSIER _________ ARDEN JOE PLOCHER _________ CRAIG SOLING _________ CHRIS FUNKHOUSER _________ MATT MAREK _________ SEAVER TARULIS _________ JASON PETERSON _________ Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 5 APPROVED by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of __________________, A.D. 2022. ______________________________ MAYOR Summary: At the July 5th Economic Development Committee (EDC) meeting, staff was given direction to draft an ordinance permitting urban (domesticated) chickens for single-family residentially zoned parcels mirroring the Village of Oswego’s Ordinance No. 17-26 adopted by their board in May 2017. The attached draft ordinance has been prepared for the consideration of the EDC. The following is a comparison of staff’s most recently proposed regulations presented in July and the currently proposed regulations of the Oswego ordinance: PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED REGULATIONS CURRENTLY PROPOSED REGULATIONS (OSWEGO ORDINANCE) PERMITTED ZONING (see attached map) Lot must be used for residential purposes • E-1 (2 parcels) • R-1 (38 parcels) • R-2 (305 parcels) Total 345 parcels R-1 Zoning District (Oswego) Lots must be used for residential purposes Oswego’s R-1 District is similar to Yorkville’s R-2 District. Yorkville is proposing permitting urban chickens in the following districts: E-1 (2 parcels) R-1 (121 parcels) R-2 (4,294 parcels) Total 4,417 parcels MIN. LOT SIZE 20,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. ft. MAX. NUMBER OF CHICKENS Max. of 5 chickens Max. of 6 domestic hens LOCATION/SETBACK Rear/Side Yard 15 ft. setback from property lines Rear Yard only. Enclosures and fenced areas shall be set back thirty (30) feet from any occupied residential structure, other than that of the owner, but not less than the minimum setback required for accessory structures in the zoning district. SANITATION Performance Standards & Property Maintenance Code applies. Prohibit feed from being scattered on the ground. All structures shall be constructed and maintained in such a manner as to be free of rodent infestation. All feed shall be protected in a container with a tightly fitted lid. ENCLOSURE/COOP 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. Hens shall be provided with a covered inside enclosure up to 144 square feet and an adjacent outside fenced area. The outside area shall be no less than 32 square feet. Electric service to enclosures shall not be provided by an extension cord. SLAUGHTERING Prohibited Prohibited, except for humane or religious reasons. 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 13, 2022 Subject: Urban (Domesticated) Chickens ROOSTERS Permitted up to 4 months of age Prohibited PERMIT REQUIRED Required w/o Inspection ($25.00 one-time fee) Required, must have HOA approval Additional Required Code Amendments: As in the Village of Oswego ordinance, the regulations permitting domesticated chickens are proposed as an allowed accessory use/structure. This will require an amendment to Title 8: Building Regulations, 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 Hens, 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 hens 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 hens 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 HENS: 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 hens 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: Reiterating the discussion of the EDC at the July meeting regarding sanitation concerns, 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 revised draft ordinance based on the Oswego residential chicken regulations. 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. Current Draft Ordinance 2. Village of Oswego Ordinance 17-26 3. Village of Oswego Chicken Coop Permit Form 4. July 5, 2022 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 >12,000 Square Foot Residential Parcels 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/Chicken Map DATE: July 28, 2022 Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 1 Draft 07/13/22 Ordinance No. 2022-_____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ALLOWING BACKYARD COOPS/ENCLOSURES FOR DOMESTICATED HENS 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 hens 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 HENS 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 Hen” 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, with the exception for humane or religious reasons. Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 2 8-19-2: Certain conduct declared unlawful. A. The keeping by any person of domesticated hens 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 hen 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 hens 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 hens shall be permitted on lots used for single-family detached residential purposes of twelve thousand (12,000) 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 six (6) domesticated hens shall be permitted on any lot. C. Roosters shall be prohibited in the City limits. D. Domesticated hens and associated enclosures, coops and fencing shall be located within the rear yard of any lot and must maintain a minimum setback of thirty (30) feet from any occupied residential structure, other than of the owner, but not less than the minimum setback required for accessory structures in the zoning district. E. Slaughtering of domesticated hens shall be prohibited in City limits, except for humane or religious reasons. 8-19-3: Coop and fence type. A. Hens shall be provided with a covered inside enclosure up to 144 square feet and an adjacent outside fenced area. The outside fenced area shall be no less than 32 square feet in area. B. Electric service to enclosures shall not be provided by an extension cord. C. Hens shall be kept in the enclosure and fenced area at all times. Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 3 8-19-4: Sanitation A. Enclosures or coops for domesticated hens shall be constructed and maintained in such a manner as to be free of rodent infestation, 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 and other items that are associated with the keeping of domesticated hens that likely to attract or become infested with 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. No feed shall be scattered on the ground. C. All areas where hens are kept shall be free of undue accumulation of waste such as to cause odors detectable on adjacent properties. D. No person shall allow domesticated hens to produce noise loud enough to disturb the peace of persons of reasonable sensitivity. 8-19-5: Permit. A. Permit applications for domesticated hens 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 hens if the property is not owner occupied; 2. Submit proof of authorization from the applicable homeowner’s association; and 3. 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: Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 4 “AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL: Livestock, poultry with the exception of domesticated hens 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 hens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, normally maintained as a household pet or guardian.” “DOMESTICATED HENS: A subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus which are kept in an enclosure in the rear 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 hens 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.” 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 ________, 2022. ______________________________ CITY CLERK KEN KOCH _________ DAN TRANSIER _________ ARDEN JOE PLOCHER _________ CRAIG SOLING _________ CHRIS FUNKHOUSER _________ MATT MAREK _________ SEAVER TARULIS _________ JASON PETERSON _________ Approved by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, this _____ day of _______________ 2022. ______________________________ MAYOR 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 LOT SIZE COMPARISON 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/Chicken Heat Map DATE: June 2, 2022 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)