92SN0111Fabruary-iS;-i99~-6P6
Hal-ig~-t99~-6P6
July 22, 1992 BS
REQb~STANALYSIS
RECOMMENDATION
92SN0111
Jim Andelin
Dale Magisterial District
Western teminus of Gilling Road
REQUEST:
Conditional Use to permit a stock farm (the keeping of various
animals, to include but not necessarily limited to, fowl, deer,
llamas, primates and hoof stock) in a Residential (R-7) District.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The applicant is currently keeping a number of domesticated animals as
outlined on the attachment. In addition to keeping these an~m-ls for
the family's enjoyment, the applicant allows schools to conduct field
trips on the property.
(NOTE: On July 22, 1992, the Board of Supervisors is sctm~ul~l to co~sids~ --
O~dinance Amendment related to the d~inition of stock farms. If the Boazd
fails to taka action on the amendment or i~ the Board's action fails to classif~
this use as a stock fazm, this request caamot be act~tuponb~theBoard.)
PLANNING COMMISSION I{ECOMMEA!DATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS ON PAGE 2.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend denial for the'following reasons:
The requested land use does not comply with the Central Area Land Usa
and Transportation Plan, which desi§nat~s the property and surroxmding
area for medium density residential use.
The requested land use is not compatible with existing and anticipated
area residential development.
(NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY PROFFER CONDITIONS.
THE CONDITIONS NOTED WITH "STAFF/CPC" WERE AG~ERt% UPON BY BOTH STAFF AND THE
COMMISSION. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "STA~" ARE RECOMMENDED SOI.~ BY STAFF.
CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "CPC" ARE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION.)
CONDITIONS
(cpc) 1.
This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Jim Andelin,
exclusively, and shall not be transferable nor run with the land.
(CPC)
(CPC) 2.
The animal holding areas shall be cleaned and made free of waste
as necessary to prevent odor and insect problems. The waste from
the monkey area must be disposed of by installing a septic system
or removing waste from the premises. This waste must be stored
and hauled away in enclosed containers and not spread on fields
at the site. (CPC)
(STAFF) 2.
The animal holding areas shall be cleaned and made free of waste
daily. Waste shall be stored in enclosed containers and disposed
of weekly. Spreading of waste on fields at the site shall not be
permitted. In addition, the applicant shall employ a means for
eliminating any odor problems and propagation of insects. (P)
(c c) 3.
This Conditional Use shall be limited to the keeping of the
following:
41 birds and fowl
2 llamas
11 kangaroos
4 additional hoof stock.
(cec)
8 deer
54 primates
2 camels
(CPC) 4.
The plan submitted with the application shall be considered the
plan of operation. At such time that the livestock area is
expanded, as depicted on the plan, the expansion area shall be
secured with a fence and such fence shall be located at least
seventy-five (75) feet from the property line. The exact
treatment of the fence shall be approved by the Planning
Department. (CPC)
(cpc) 5.
In conjunction with this operation, the applicant shall be
permitted to conduct field trips for schools, churches and other
similar organizations provided there are no more than two (2)
such trips conducted each day. Field trips shall be limited to
Monday through Saturday between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (CPC)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
Lies at the western terminus of Gilling Road, west of South Melbeck Road.
Tax Map 52-9 (1) Parcels 4 and 9 (Sheet 15).
Existing Zoning:
R-7
---- 2
~-~92SN0111/PC/JULY22G
Size:
8.82 Acres
Existing Land Use:
Single family residential and stock farm.
Adjacent Zoning & Land Use:
North - R-7; Single family residential or vacant
South - R-9; Vacant, but proposed for single family residential subdivision
East - R-7; Single family residential
West - R-7; Single family residential or vacant
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Utilities:
Public Water System:
The public water system is available to the request site. Should the
applicant apply for a building permit for a new structure, then the
use of the public water system would be required by Ordinance, as
there is an existing water line within 200 feet of the site along
Gilling Road (Chapter 20, Article III, Section 20-42).
Wells:
The Health Department has indicated that the applicant's current
request will have no impact on the existing well located on the
subject property. County Ordinance requires that areas used for
housing animals such as is depicted in this request be located a
minimum of 100 feet from wells. As these areas are in excess of 100
feet away, there will be no impact on the existing well.
Public Wastewater System:
The public wastewater system is available to the request site. Should
the applicant apply for a building permit for a new structure, and the
structure were to be located within 200 feet of the existing
wastewater line along Gilling Road, or utilize more than 3,000 gallons
of water per day, then the use of the public wastewater system would
be required by Ordinance (Chapter 20, Article III, Section 20-63 and
Article XI, Section 20-195).
Septic Tank and Drainfield System:
The Health Department has indicated that the applicant's
request will have no impact on the existing septic system.
current
Drainage and Erosion; and Transportation:
The proposed amendment will have no impact on these facilities.
92SN0111/PC/JULY22G
Fire Service:
Dale Fire Station, Company #11. The proposed zoning and land uses will not
generate additional need for fire protection services.
LAND USE
General Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Central Area Land Use and Transportation
Plan, which designates the property for medium density residential use
(1.51 to 4.00 units/acre).
Area Development Trends:
The area surrounding the request site is characterized by single family
residential zoning and is developed or being developed for such use or is
vacant. As indicated by the attached zoning map which denotes the location
of existing single family residences, as well as tentative subdivision
approvals, the area is already predominantly zoned and developed for
residential use. The General Plan also proposes further residential
development in the area.
Zoning History:
On December 8, 1976, the Board of Supervisors granted a variance to allow
construction of the existing dwelling which has no public road frontage
(Case 76S234).
Site Design:
The plan submitted with the application depicts an area enclosed with a
seven (7) foot high perimeter fence. Also shown is a wooded buffer of
varying width along the south, east and west property boundaries and a
proposed future expansion area. Within the fenced area are different
holding or display areas for the various animals. A gravel driveway is
shown leading from Gilling Road to the request site. Attached is a detail
of the animals that the applicant wishes to keep, as well as a detail of
the use.
It should be noted that the applicant has taken steps to locate what could
be considered the more offensive and/or noisiest animals as far away from
existing residences as possible. Additionally, the operation is kept in a
very clean fashion and in consulting with the County Animal Control
Department, they indicated that none of the animals listed in this request
are considered dangerous and that their department has had no problems with
the use.
Conclusions:
The proposed land use does not comply with the Central Area Land Use and
Transportation Plan, which designates the property and surrounding area for
medium density residential use. Additionally, the requested land use is
4
--~92 SN 0111/PC/JULY22G
not compatible with existing and anticipated area residential development.
Therefore, staff recommends denial of this request.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (2/18/92):
There were approximately twenty (20) people present in support of the
request. Those adjacent property owners in support indicated that they
enjoyed the animals. Several teachers and area residents indicated that
the use provided educational services for school children. Those area
residents in support indicated that they had not experienced any odor or
traffic problems from the use4
Approximately seven (7) persons were present in opposition to the request.
They expressed concern relative to odor, pollution, noise and runoff from
animal waste into a area creek. They also expressed concern that an insect
problem exists and that the number of animals being kept may increase.
Several members of the Commission indicated that the use provided a great
service.to the school system and properly conditioned could be compatible
with area residential development.
Mr. Miller indicated that the use did not comply with the Central Area Plan
and, therefore, he could not support the use.
The County Attorney's Office ruled that the proposed use does not conform
to the Zoning Ordinance's definition of a stock farm. Therefore, the
Planning Commission deferred this request for sixty (60) days to allow
staff time to prepare an Ordinance Amendment to accommodate the proposed
USe.
Planning Commission and Staff (3/19/92):
The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare several various Ordinance
amendments that would permit the proposed use through the Conditional Use
process.
Planning Commission Meeting (4/21/92):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case for
thirty (30) days to allow time for consideration of an Ordinance Amendment
on May 19, 1992.
Staff (4/22/92):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised
information should be submitted no later than April 27, 1992, for
consideration at the Commission's May public hearing.
92SN0111/PC/JULY22G
Staff (4/28192):
To date, no new information has been received.
Planning Commission Meeting (5/19/92):
The Commission recommended approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment which
would classify this use as a stock farm.
Mr. Miller indicated that public input had been obtained in February. He
indicated while there had been support for the request at that time, there
had also been opposition. He indicated that the use did not comply with
the Central Area Plan; that the use contributed to additional traffic
through a residential neighborhood; and that the use was not compatible
with area residential development.
He made a motion to recommend denial of the request, but there was no
second to his motion.
Staff had outlined a number of recommended conditions for the Commission's
consideration should they wish to recommend approval of the request. There
was a general discussion regarding the recommended conditions and the
applicant's desire for several modifications. Staff indicated that the
suggested modifications would be enforceable with the exception of
Condition 2 regarding odor and removal of aninml waste. Staff recommended
imposition of Condition 2 in lieu of the Condition 2 recommended by the
Commission.
On motion of Mr. Gulley, seconded by Mr. Easter, the Commission recommended
approval of this request subject to the conditions on page 2.
AYES: Messrs. Gulley, Cunningham, Easter and Marsh.
NAY: Mr. Miller.
~ne Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, July 22, 1992, beginning at 7:00 p.m.,
will take under consideration this request.
"~ 92SN0111/PC/JULY22G
6
A
/-
~EADOWS
i.'l
N
il
I-aL.
ROOK FAI
I%
/I
'RAMPLING
N
I--I
LEGEND
WATER LINES .<<~i
SEWER LINES :,':'
Qz_$1qoll i- I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
~RAMPLING
,4
-i
N
/?-9
IROOK
· APPROXIMATE LOCATIONii
OF EXISTING HOMES
cj ?_~NC3 1 ~t_Z. ..
.I/DUCKS
Po~d
SWANS'
~ oo
i'l
GiLLING
ROAD
ctZ SNOIli-3
We the undersigned understand that Jim Andelin is applying for a
Conditional Use Permit for a stock farm to allow him to continue to have,
raise, maintain and exhibit (to school groups, church groups and friends)
his current and proposed inventory of animals at 5624 Gilling Rd. We agree
that the animals and their facilities are not offensive or objectable in
any way including sight, odor and noise. We ask the Board of Supervisors
and the Planning Commission for approval of this Conditional Use Permit.
Signature Street Address/Parcel
We the undersigned understand that Jim Andelin is applying for a
Conditional Use Permit for a stock farm to allow him bo continue to have,
raise, maintain and exhibit (to school groups, church groups and friends)
his current and proposed inventory of animals at 5624 Gilling Rd. We agree
that the animals and their facilities are not offensive or objectable in
any way including sight, odor and noise. We ask the Board of Supervisors
and the Planning Commission for approval of this Conditional Use Permit.
Si, ;ure
VIRGINIA WATER CONTROL BOARD
PIEDMONT REGIONAL OFFICE
SUBJECT:
TO
FROM:
DATE
COPIES:
PC 92-1814
PReP Office
R. R. Daub ~)
July 14, 1992
PReP File
On July 2, 1992 I investigated'a complaint from a citizen living near a
small private zoo in Chesterfield Co. The citizen was concerned that
runoff water from the zoo may be polluting a nearby creek, an unnamed
tributary to Falling Creek. I met the owner of the zoo, Jim Andelin,
at his residence at 5624 Gilling Road. The zoo is located behind his
house and together we walked the entire grounds.
Mr. Andelin explained that the animal cage area has all of the
'wastewater draining to a septic tank. During periodic washing of the
cages, the wash water and animal wastes are collected by a cement
drainage system and pumped to a septic tank.- It appeared that all rain
runoff from the cage area of the zoo would also drain to the septic
tank. The grounds outside the cages are fields for larger animals.
Most of this is pasture land with adequate grass cover. Runoff water
from these fields flows to the creek of the original concern but no
evidence of any water quality problems was found in the creek.
A small spring-fed pond is also located on the zoo property. It is
used by water fowl and was not discharging at the time and did not
appear eutrophic from excess nutrients. I checked the creek at two
locations downstream of the zoo within the Rock Springs Farms
subdivision but did not find any evidence to indicate a water quality
problem.
In conclusion I believe the zoo's waste water Collections system is
adequate and the pasture land is being used properly to'protect the
receiving stream from excess animal waste runoff.
/kmo
The Zoo1ogical Society of San
1 !! I (~ -1 !!!! I
Board of Trustees
Albert L. Anderson
Pz'esiden t
Bill L.Fox
First Vice President
Kurt Benirschke, M.D.
Second Vice Presiden t
John M Thornlon
Secretary
Thompson Feller
TreasLlI'eF
ivor deKJrby
George h, Gildred
Lee S, Monroe, MD
Lewis Silverberg
A. Eugene Trepte
Thomas Warner
Belly Jo E Williams
Trustees Emerili
Howard L, Chernoff
Dallas Clark
E. Minton Fetter, M.D
USMC (l~et~
Roberl J, Sullivan
Millon G. Wegetor/h
~culive Directors Emerili
Charles L. Bieler
Charles R, Schroeder
Douglas G. Myers
Executive Director
February 10, 1992
To Whom It May Concern:
On 20 January 1992, I had the opportunity to visit Andelin Acres, owned
by Mr. Jim Andelin, in my capacity of Assistant Curator of Mammals for
the San Diego Zoo. I was inspecting his facilities and animal management
protocol to confirm that he met the standards we require. Mr. Andelin's
facilities would need to pass this inspection before animals could be
transferred from the San Diego Zoo into his care.
I found Mr. Andelin's facilities and animal care practices to be acceptable.
The animals are well cared for.~ His ideas for future expansion of his
facilities look good.
Respectfully,
Assistant Curator of Mammals
Post Office Box 551, San Diego, California 92112-0551 USA · Telephone (619) 231-1515 · FAX (619) 231-0249
DUKE UNIVERSITY PRIMATE CENTER
3705 Erwin Road
Durham, NC 27705
(919) 684-2535 or 489-3364 Fax (919) 490-6718
January 28, 1992
To Whom it may Concern:
I visited Jim Andelin's animal facility in the Summer of 1991.
The animals were housed there in indoor-outdoor or strictly outdoor
caging with sheltered areas. All cages were clean, the animals
were provided with ample space, shelter and food, and were housed
in natural social groups where possible. The animals appeared
healthy and exhibited normal behaviors. Many cages had educational
signs describing the species' wild habitat and status. Mr. Andelin
appeared willing to accept suggestions for future caging, and has
already built a large enclosure based on ours here at Duke to house
lemurs. I believe he has the skills and knowledge necessary to
maintain the colony of animals he has developed, and that he will
ask and take advice when necessary.
Sincerely,
Barbara Coffman
Colony Manager
Duke University Primate Center
July 18, 1992
Dear Eembers ol' the Board of Supervisors for Chesterfield
County and Members of the Community,
I regret ~hat I cannot be present for tonight's
meeting. I would like to share my support and enthusiasm
for Jim Andelin's endeavor, as Fell as help address the
concerns Er. Andelin's neighbors have for the safety
and cleanliness ~£ their community.
I am a licensed Virginia veSerinarian. For the past
21/2 years, I have consulted with several private farms
for the care of exotic (non-domestic) animals. In
accordance with USDA regulations, Mr. Andelin and I have
developed a program of Veterinary care For his animals.
However, I am just one of many professionals with whom
Mr. Andelin consults. Because he utilizes information
from a variety of expef~, Mr. Andelin has built and
operates a first-class facility for exotic animals.
In designing the animals enclosures, Mr. Andelin
has given careful consideration to many things, Cages
and paddocks are not visible from the road, so the
neighborhood atmosphere is not disrupted. The animals
are provided with an interesting environment tailored
to individual needs. Cleanliness is never compromised.
There are many design features which enable easy and
thorough cleaning of animals living quarters. This
makes the property pleasant for the animals_and human
visitors.
Understandably, the biggest concern is public safety~
We all know that any animal, even a pet, can be dangerous
and proper precautions must be taken. First, direct contact
that could lead to bites, scratches, etc. should be avoided.
The caging Mr. Andelin has provided is more than adequate
to contain his animals. In addition, guard rails and a
perimeter fence are in place. Visitors simply do not
have access to aggressive animals. Secondly, steps are
Taken To prevent zoonotic diseases--those which are
transmissible from animals to man. 0nly health~ animals
which have been examined and tested by a veterinarian
are brought to the property. Mr. Andelin's personal
standards on this issue exceed what is required of him
by the USDA.
The animals that Mr. Andelin owns are unique, and
they provide a unique opportunity for the community.
This is a safe place for children to visit and learn.
~Ir. Andelin manages his farm wisely. He does not cut
corners, especially when human~:and animal health and
safety are of concern. I hope the Chesterfield County
school children, friends, and neighbors will continue
to be able to benefit from this facility.
PETITION
WE THE RESIDENTS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY DO HEREBY URGE THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REJECT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
CHANGE THE STOCK FARM ORDINANCE. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL
INCLUDE EXOTIC ANIMALS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CAMELS,
EMUS, MONKEYS, KANGAROOS, GIRAFFES, ETC.
NAME ADDRESS
DATE
PETITION
WE THE RESIDENTS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY DO HEREBY URGE THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REJECT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
CHANGE THE STOCK FARM ORDINANCE. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL
INCLUDE EXOTIC ANIMALS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CAMELS,
EMUS, MONKEYS, KANGAROOS, GIRAFFES, ETC.
NAME ADDRESS
DATE
PETITION
WE THE RESIDENTS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY DO HEREBY URGE THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REJECT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
CHANGE THE STOCK FARM ORDINANCE. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL
INCLUDE EXOTIC ANIMALS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CAMELS,
EMUS, MONKEYS, KANGAROOS, GIRAFFES, ETC.
NAME ADDRESS
DATE
T E M F' (": 0 E X l::' : ,", .", ,", r.} 00
C: 0 ! e ,." ,. ,':
..... : ......... ' ...... = 00000 C.'
Y [) f) ( f) 4- I 0 % 6
'!; 7.00
2 = F,:.Rf,l.,.i
R = DEF'T RE"TF:;'J
,°., .,~ p 20 3 B
DUP,,F'F,'.,MT: NO
A F' P L. ,.,r' A 'r, ,...':" ........... ,,'"' 3048 ?
c' -' c, ',' t:, r', *. ~' Iii: ....... ' -
..... , .............. 09048 ~
P!.T.R~ilT T..SSUE: 0311.87
L. A S T I N R F:' t:' C: T ¢'/. ,"~. '" R 7
L A S T -':.: H A N (ii E -: .1. :1. :-:':: 090
¥' -:.. i. ,, ~..,~ 3 0 .... 4 ;q ~
'? C: l...'..30:3 :I 0 '?, T
E ST. CC'.ST' .......... :
F:' F :' ;'"' 'r .'r L: t::' c,-
5.0000
TEMF'..C:O,,?XP,: 000000
C:. fi ,,.,'r S¢''' r'' '.::, ,.*, .... ...... X 0'~' n r~:" 0,, ,, ,, ,,
'"-'.... 0. U ,",'*'-c, ,..c' ,".r, .... .......
f:O.. SEUEF,: ...........
S E P T I C ..................... ~ ¥
40,:)0
2 c: (', A
C) q,
('.'. 7 / 'L 3 / ......
PETITION
WE THE RESIDENTS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY DO HEREBY URGE THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REJECT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
CHANGE THE STOCK FARM ORDINANCE. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL
INCLUDE EXOTIC ANIMALS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CAMELS,
EMUS, MONKEYS, KANGAROOS, GIRAFFES, ETC.
NAME ADDRESS
DATE
,educational. Area residents indicated that they had no problems with odors or
traffic and that they supported Mr. Andelin's operation.
Mr. Miller requested for anyone in opposition to please coma forward.
Mr. Jmm-s Hill, Ms. Karma Hay, Mr. John Downey and Mr. Ed Schneider, area
residents, c~m, forward in opposition. They expressed concerns relative to
odor, pollution, noise and runoff from ani~l waste into an area creek. ~hey
also indicated that an i~ect problem exists. They al~o feared an-increase in
the number of anlm~Is.
Mr. Andelin indicated that he had spoken with Mr. Hill regarding probl-ms with
water standing in, the ditch adjacent to his home. Mr. Andelin indicated that he
had cleaned the ditch so it would drain properly, Mr. Andelin also indicate~
that he had a pond and had never noticed any anlm~l waste in the pond except
from the ducks.
Mr. Andelin indicated that he had installed fly strips to control i--~cts and
""~"that,~; the ducks also ate insects . He also indicated that residentst septic
,: sys. t~m~ could be causing th~ odor probl~m-~. H~ further indicate~ that he would
'~ '"' not keep offspring and would comply with th, County's recommended conditions.
In response to a question by Mr. 'Gulley, Mr. Andelin stated th-t cr--k~ did run
behind the Hays' and Nill~' residences. T~e creek behimith. Hays' property was
the same as the creek that ran through his (Mr. Andelinrs) property. The creek
that ran behind the Hill's property origl-ated from adjacent land to his (Mr.
Andelin's) property.
In response to a question by Mr. Gulley, Ms. Rogers indicated that if the
property zoned R-12 to the west was developed, it would be the County's intent
to require extm-~ion of Gilling Road. She indicated ~h~t County policy
restricts the number of vehicles on a subdivision strmet to 1,500 per day.
Mr. Marsh .~dmcat~i that standing water does create odor probl~m-~ ami that due
~~~inters in the past four (4). years, mosquito probl-m-~ exist. He
indicated thmt the benefi.ta of the uae, outweiEh,d the negatives. .He-felt th~m
was a plus to the County a~d should be approved.
Mr. Gulley i,dicated that he had visited the site and' thought it was well kept
and clean. He indicated that he had received call~ and letters from teachers in
support. He.also ind/c~ted that this was a great service to the school system
and the operation should be left intact.
k brief discussion followed as to whether or not the applicant's use constituted
the operation of a stock farm base~ on the definition in the Zoning Ordi-~ce.
Hr. Easter indicated that c.itiz--~ had been very complimentary to Mr. Andel~-
and the animals. He indicated that there should be a way to balance the
positives and negatives of the use. He indicated that the request may need to
be deferred to determine the proper application necessary to accommodate the
use. He also indicated that as developm-nt occurs in ~ area, the use could
create a problem, and therefore, there may need to be & time limit i~posed.
3O
2/18192/PC/MINFEB18
Aiding Bush in the quest for answers about
exotic animal medicine is Richard J. Montali,
',he Zoo's pathologist, who makes sure a ne-
cropsy is performed after the death of every
animal--from a day-old baby chick to a 50-
Siberian crane.
A veterinarian with special training in x
pathology, Dr. Montali is one of the two
full-time veterinary pathologists working in
an American zoo (the other one is in San
Diego). His scientific detective work often
prevents one animal death from quickly
multiplying into many. In 1976 Montali
~ramatically proved to the zoo community
~he value of dissecting and researching the
~ause of death in exotic animals.
The Zoo's last anteater died first, followed
five days later by the death of a dik-dik, a
~mll African antelope. Montali was unable
~a pinpoint the cause of death of the anteater,
nor did he link the two deaths at first. But the
dik-dik, he found, died of yersiniosis--a
deadly disease that is often called pseudo-
:.~berculosis and that can be transmitted be-
:',~'een animals and humans. When no other
~nimals became sick, it was felt the disease
:ad been confined to the dik-dik. Two
~onths after the anteater's death, however, a
~lesbok suddenly died, followed by another
~lesbok the following day. A third death oc-
:urred three days later.
Fearing an epidemic, Montali began inten-
.~¥e scientific search to see if the anteater,
.~lk-dik, and blesbok deaths were related.
~epresentative specimens of all organs were
:aken, and selected tissue samples stained
!0r microscopic examination. Specimens of
langs, liver, spleen, small intestine, heart
ilo0d, and abdominal wall fluid were cul-
~ared for bacteria and fungi, with several
:altures going to two different laboratories
i3r confirmation of yersiniosis. Because of
~e possibility the disease may have been
:~ought in by vermin, Zoo personnel trapped
iour rats and two pigeons. After blood sam-
:]es were taken, they were euthanized and
:ecropsied, tissue specimens being collected
:n the process.
Nine days after the first blesbok death the
:.'agnosis was confirmed as yersiniosis, a
:~reat to other animals and humans. Anti-
'~0tics were immediately administered to
inimals exposed to the disease. Keepers in
~e hoofed stock area were forbidden to visit
:~er areas of the Zoo. All Zoo emploYees
~re warned to wash their hands carefully
:.~fare eating. A concentrated extermination
It is an almost daily task on the part of Zoo staff
to examine giraffe hoofs, which can become
painfully overgrown or develop cracks. If a crack
appears, a line is filed perpendicular to it to dis-
perse stress and prevent further cracking.
program quickly eliminated the suspected
· disease carriers--wild rodents and pigeons.
· The Zoo's fourth, and last, blesbok received
massive doses of antibiotics. It survived.
ur b~ggest concern ~s an infectious dis- \/
ease that could go through the Zoo and wipe~
out a lot of animals," says Montali, who also
discovered an outbreak of deadly DVE (duck
viral enteritis) in the spring of 1975. In the
space of less than one month, it killed 27
ducks, including North American black
ducks, wood ducks, scaups, shelducks, gold-
eneye, buffleheads, common mergansers,
widgeon, and an Australian gray teal~
Montali's diagnosis, based on necropsies
and analysis of tissue samples of liver, spleen,
esophagus, cecum, cloaca, and brain, resulted
in 800 remaining birds being vaccinated with
a modified live-virus vaccine. Zoo officials
also realized at the time that if the disease
had not been discovered early on, the entire
bird collection could have been lost. Like the
yersiniosis, the DVE was apparently brought
in by nonresidents, this time wild migratory
waterfowl which frequently use the open
ponds as refueling stops on trips north and
south. (What with pinioned wings, Zoo birds
do not join the migrations.)
The necropsies take place in a new Pathol-
ogy Building, a brick-and-stone structure
equipped with its own ultraviolet-lighted
cooler to keep bacteria from spreading. Out-
side is an incinerator capable of devouring
175 pounds of flesh and bones an hour with-
out spewing any pollutants-or more impor-
93
Aiding Bush in the quest for answers about
exotic animal medicine is Richard J. Montali,
~he Zoo's pathologist, who makes sure a ne-
~r0psy is performed after the death of every
animal--from a day-old baby chick to a 50-
!'ear-old Siberian crane.
A veterinarian with special training in x
pathology, Dr. Montali is one of the two
full-time veterinary pathologists working in
an American zoo (the other one is in San
Diego). His scientific detective work often
one animal death from quickly
multiplying into many. In 1976 Montali
dramatically proved to the zoo community
1he value of dissecting and researching the
cause of death in exotic animals.
The Zoo's last anteater died first, followed
ti~'e days later by the death of a dik-dik, a
small African antelope. Montali was unable
t~ pinpoint the cause of death of the anteater,
~0r did he link the two deaths at first. But the
~ik-dik, he found, died of yersiniosis--a
~eadly disease that is often called pseudo-
:aberculosis and that can be transmitted be-
:',~'een animals and humans. When no other
~nimals became sick, it was felt the disease
:ad been confined to the dik-dik. Two
~0nths after the anteater's death, however, a
~lesbok suddenly died, followed by another
ilesbok the following day. A third death oc-
:urred three days later.
Fearing an epidemic, Montali began inten-
~n.e scientific search to see if the anteater,
51k-dik, and blesbok deaths were related.
~epresentative specimens of all organs were
:aken, and selected tissue samples stained
iar microscopic examination. Specimens of
l~ngs, liver, spleen, small intestine, heart
blood, and abdominal wall fluid were cul-
'.~,red for bacteria and fungi, with several
~altures going to two different laboratories
iar confirmation of yersiniosis. Because of
~ possibility the disease may have been
~ught in by vermin, Zoo personnel trapped
~aur rats and two pigeons. After blood sam-
;]es were taken, they were euthanized and
:~cropsied, tissue specimens being collected
,n the process.
Nine days after the first blesbok death the
~agnosis was confirmed as yersiniosis, a
:~reat to other animals and humans. Anti-
~otics were immediately administered to
~imals exposed to the disease. Keepers in
:/e hoofed stock area were forbidden to visit
:'~er areas of the Zoo. All Zoo employees
~ere warned to wash their hands carefully
:e/ore eating. A concentrated extermination
It is an almost daily task on the part of Zoo staff
to examine giraffe hoofs, which can become
painfully overgrown or develop cracks. If a crack
appears, a line is filed perpendicular to it to dis-
perse stress and prevent further cracking.
program quickly eliminated the suspected
' disease carriers~wild rodents and pigeons.
· The Zoo's fourth, and last, blesbok received
massive doses of antibiotics. It survived.
"Our biggest concern is an infectious dis-
ease that could go through the Zoo and wipe
out a lot of animals," says Montali, who also
discovered an outbreak of deadly DVE (duck
viral enteritis) in the spring of 1975. In the
space of less than one month, it killed 27
ducks, including North American black
ducks, wood ducks, scaups, shelducks, gold-
eneye, buffleheads, common mergansers,
widgeon, and an Australian gray teal~
Montali's diagnosis, based on necropsies
and analysis of tissue samples of liver, spleen,
esophagus, cecum, cloaca, and brain, resulted
in 800 remaining birds being vaccinated with
a modified live-virus vaccine. Zoo officials
also realized at the time that if the disease
had not been discovered early on, the entire
bird collection could have been lost. Like the
yersiniosis, the DVE was apparently brought
in by nonresidents, this time wild migratory
waterfowl which frequently use the open
ponds as refueling stops on trips north and
south. (What with pinioned wings, Zoo birds
do not join the migrations.)
The necropsies take place in a new Pathol-
ogy Building, a brick-and-stone structure
equipped with its own ultraviolet-lighted
cooler to keep bacteria from spreading. Out-
side is an incinerator capable of devouring
175 pounds of flesh and bones an hour with-
out spewing any pollutants--or more impor-
93
24 ZOO
teenth and early twentieth centuries was to exhibit one or a pair
of as many different species as they could obtain and fit into the
available spaces. Today, zoo managers have realized that many species
are social and thrive only in the company of their own kind. Many
tamarins (small monkeys), for example, live their natural lives in
extended families, with older offspring assisting parents in raising
new babies, without this early training, the tamarin is unequipped,
in adulthood, to raise its own offspring. Thus, the trend since the
~96os has been for zoos to exhibit more individuals of fewer species.
Animal welfare is put ahead, in this case, of visitor appetite.
For most tropical animals in cold-climate zoos indoor enclosures
are essential. It has been found that such warm-weather creatures
as bongo and other antelope can do perfectly well outdoors in
winter temperatures as long as they have a heated place to rest: an
open shed fitted with a few heat lamps is often sufficient. Other
tropical species must stay indoors, but happily the cage with bars is
on the way out. Often, thick laminated glass is enough to keep the
animal in and it gives the viewer a clear look. Dark-colored, vertically
strung wire is nearly invisible to the viewer and, in aviaries, provides
an added dimension: the birds can be-heard as well as seen. Some
zoos are following the lead of the Bronx Zoo, in which bird habitats
are lit while the passageway from which visitors view the birds is
kept dark.
By the 196os, it was increasingly clear that a "haPpy" animal in a
zoo was one that was sufficiently at 'ease to breed. Increasing at-
tention was given to this aspect of 'animal behavior. Led by the
example of the London Zoo, several had arranged to purchase large
tracts of land outside of cities, places where ungulates, in particular,
could roam relatively freely and in herds, increasing the likelihood
of breeding. Many zoos had added licensed veterinarians to their
staffs, rather than relying on veterinary students, in an effort to
keep the animals not only healthy but in good breeding condition.
~u-(It is worth noting that most veterinary training is geared to treat-
ment of a handful of domestic animals -- livestock and pets. But
exotic animals are just that: exotic. What works for a cow may have
.virtually no effect on an eland, much less on a rhinoceros.)
A new era of wildlife conservation was in the offing. Most zoos
had a strong commitment to this effort. The National Zoo, which
is part of the larger Smithsonian Institution, began, in ~889 precisely,
to conserve a remnant of the great herds of bison that had teemed
across the plains of North America only decades before but that
now were almost extinct. But the zoo's role in conservation was
chiefly educational. It was hoped that visitors would experience the
sight and smell and sound of real exotic animals, read the notice
saying that this species is endangered and, with empathy heightened,
go off and perhaps do something about it.
Then, in the late 197os, the fears that many zoo people had
harbored were confirmed by the Ralls studies. It was, perforce, a
new day for zoos.
24 ZOG
teenth and early twentieth centuries was to exhibit one or a pair
of as many different species as they could obtain and fit into the
available spaces. Today, zoo managers have realized that many species
are social and thrive only in the company of their own kind. Many
tamarins (small monkeys), for example, live their natural lives in
extended families, with older offspring assisting parents in raising
new babies, without this early training, the tamarin is unequipped,
ir~ adulthood, to raise its own offspring. Thus, the trend since the
196os has been for zoos to exhibit more individuals of fewer species,
Animal welfare is put ahead, in this case, of visitor appetite.
· For most tropical animals in cold-climate zoos indoor enclosures
are essential. It has been found that such warm-weather creatures
as bongo and other antelope can do perfectly well outdoors in
winter temperatures as long as they have a heated place to rest: an
open shed fitted with a few heat lamps is often sufficient. Other
tr.opical species must stay indoors, but happily the cage with bars is
on the way out. Often, thick laminated glass is enough to keep the
animal in and it gives the viewer a clear look. Dark-colored, vertically
strung wire is nearly invisible to the viewer and, in aviaries, provides
an added dimension: the birds can be-heard as weIl as seen. Some
zoos are following the lead of the Bronx Zoo, in which bird habitats
are lit while the passageway from which visitors view the birds is
kept dark.
By the 196os, it was increasingly .clear that a "happy" animal in a
zoo was one that was sufficiently at 'ease to breed. Increasing at-
tention was given to this aspect of 'animal behavior. Led by the
example of the London Zoo, several had arranged to purchase large
tracts of land outside of cities, places where ungulates, in particular,
could roam relatively freely and in herds, increasing the likelihood
of breeding. Many zoos had added licensed veterinarians to their
staffs, rather than relying on veterinary students, in an effort to
keep the animals not only healthy but in good breeding condition.
(It is worth noting that most veterinary training is geared to treat-
ment of a handful of domestic animals -- livestock and pets. But
exotic animals are just that: exotic. What works for a cow may have
.virtually no effect on an eland, much less on a rhinoceros.)
A new era of wildlife conservation was in the offing. Most zoos
had a strong commitment to this effort. The National Zoo, which
is part of the larger Smithsonian Institution, began, in ~889 precisely,
to conserve a remnant of the great herds of bison that had teemed
across the plains of North America only decades before but that
now were almost extinct. But the zoo's role in conservation was
chiefly educational. It was hoped that visitors would experience the
sight and smell and sound of real exotic animals, read the notice
saying that this species is endangered and, with empathy heightened,
go off and perhaps do something about it.
Then, in the late ~97os, the fears that many zoo people had
harbored were confirmed by the Ralls studies. It was, perforce, a
new day for zoos.
/'~1 ensek,
IMPRA~ CTICAL PETS.
Emil P., DVM, and Burn, B.: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO
NY: Viking Press, 1976.
"The piercing voice of the peacock, although it may ward off
the mauruder, is so human when raised in alarm that the dis-
turbance is not simply an auditory one." p. 107.
"T. H. White, in his book "The Goshawk" explains in eloquent
and painful detail the ordeal involved in taming and even-
tually winning over his new bird, acquired as an adult. The pF
of dispelling a wild animal's fear of anything unfamiliar
is an exceptionally time-con~uming occupation, requiring the
utmost dedication and patience on the part of the human
involved. Even after a certain amount of trust or understandin
has been achieved, the animal never becomes so "trustworthy"
that it can be treated as a member of the family, so to speak.
The least hint of something unfamiliar--be it a place, an
object, or a strange person or even a strange gesture--will
set off the matural fear processes in the animal and it will
respond by trying to escape or to attack the offending party."
· .. A wild animal and even many domestic ones) can't be entirel
trusted to behave predictably unless the human being also
behaves predictably in the eyes of the animal." p. 139-14.0
~"Happily, the United States g'o'v'ernment~:~.~elm~,mnt~
seen fit to prohibit the importation of monkeys arid ~ther
· pri~nates--for reasons of human health--fo~' any but the most
serious teaching and scientific purposes, so that the pet-shop
trade in monkexs has come to an abrupt halt for imported ani-
mals." .;i.P. 158~
"Most owners are not aware of the disease hazards
involved in kepping primates, Monkeys caught in the wild are
usually shipped in groups, without any examination or quaran-
tine, and may harbor a number of disease organisms, such as
rabies, tuberculosis, hepatitis, and yellow fever, all of
which can be transmitted to humans. Even monkeys that are
healthy on arrival can pick up viral infections and other
diseases from humans, and most people know so little about
proper diet and housing requirments that these fragile creature~
will often succumb to illness before they have been "home"
for more than a few months.
"In any event, if'the monkey survives the first
year of its captivity, owners generally find that they. haye "".'
more on their hands than they can manage. Monkeys, being
curious and clever animals, are usually fai/)y destructive,
and as they approach maturity, they become stronger and more
aggressive, so few can be handled in safety. Rather than risk
nasty bites, most owners simply confine their pets to cages,
where they become little more~than prisoners. Even the rel-
atively equable wooly monkey will become aggressive after.
five or six years--contrary to popular opinion--although few
manage to survive that long in captivity because of their
=2=
particularly fragile physical make-up and great emotional needs.
· . . Ane there is no point at all in trying to housebreak
a monkey; as clever as they are, they are never as submissive
as dogs'or as dainty as cats, and simply cannot get it into
their messy heads that their droppings should not simply
fall where they may. Diapers are necessary if a monkey is
to be given the run of the house, and constant cage cleaning is
essential, for the smell can become quire unbear,hle even :f~er
a few hours
~. p. 159.
"...A spider monkey can be a formidable character,
for it will use its long limbs to grasp a victim (i.e.,
beloved owner) and can inflict an incredible number of bites
before it can be disentangled." pp. 160-161.
"... Another bacterial disease, which is probably
the most widespread of diseases carried by animals (trans-
mitted usually by contaminated water) is salmonellosis; it
may have various reactions in man, affecting the brain, the heari
lungs, joints, bones or gall bladder. Salmonelosis can be
carried by almos~ any species, incluing birds, domestic farm
animals rodents, wild mammals and some reptiles, especially
turtles." p. 274, emphasis added.
"Brucellosis, which usually produces a chronic
influenza type of illness in man, was once very common but is
rare now, except among thouse who regularly handle animals
products." p. 274.
"DEER; WHITE-TAILED.
...LIVING ARRANGEMENTS: half-acre pasture
minimum, with high (4 to 5 foot) fence of material other than
wire; temperature range varied.
VACINE: AVAILBLE: Tetanus.
COMMENTS: Hand-reared and hand-fed deer
may learn to come when called and may tolerate handling;
bucks become aggressive and unpredictable when mature, par-
ticularly during mating season; protected in most atates
and permits required for confinement. IMPOSSIBLE p. 327,
328. '
"LLAMA.
"COMMENTS.
land. DIFFICULT."
Eesily trained when young; need pasture-
p. 341.
"MONKEY, RHESUS:
"VACCINE RECOMMENDED:
tetanus." p. 345.
Mr. Jim A~[ml [ the applicant, came forward. He indicated that he had had
animals an ~isl ~esidence for eight (8) years and that the animals helped to'~
initiate a :~_n~a of responsibility and hard work for his five (5) children. Her/
also indicated that as a community service he did allow schools to conduct a
/~aximum of three (3) tours a day, in the morning hours. He furth-r indicated/
that the tours were very educational for the children. Mr. Andelin indicated
that other than neighbors and the public schools, he does not ailow other tours.)
He stated that he was regulated by State and Federal agencies who conduct-'
unannounced inspections. Mr. Andelin indicated that the an~mm]~ were caged and
the cages were kept clean. He further indicated that he had takan steps to
protect neighbors by installing fences and buffering. He stated that he 'had
received several letters of support from teachers, Duke University and children.
He indicated that he also had a petition with fifty-eight (58) signatures in
c~"{-i~cluding adjacent property owners.
'~ime, Mr. Andelin presented a video of a docummntary that had been
conducted on his property about his animals by a production company ~m-d Times
~nd .S. eaaons.
~quested a show of hands of citizm~m attending the public bearing in
support and opposition. Approximately twenty (20) persons raised hm~ds in
/~support and approx~mtely seven (7) raised bm~ds in opposition.
In response to questions by the Commissioners, Mr. Andelin indicated that he did
not have a commmrcial license because ha was not runnimE a busineaa and that he
~.~,~rwas not receiving any
that students did give donations. 5e also indicated that he only had
indicated money for an~m~]~ that companies-shipped to him. He
tours during month~ of April, May, June, October and November. 5e stated that
he had allo~ed a few church groups amd children's recreational groups to tour.
He indicated that most of the an~mmT~~ waste decomposed nat~rm]]y except in th~
primate area which ia cleaned daily. He fu~tbmr indicata~, that he was trying to
.~.get a p,,m? system installed for an~m=] wasta. Mr. A~delin also indicated that
he did not feel there was an odor problem and abo~t the only noise generated was
from a peacock occaaionally. Ehm stated that relatives lived' bmh~nd him and that
there were large tracts of land in the ar~a. He indicated that there was one
a~jacent property owner in opposition. H~ also indicated that ha would not be
0~a~ding any more an~aia than he currently
Mr. Miller requested for adjacent property owners in support to please come
forward.
Mr. Malcolm Parrish, Mr. Dick Neiswandar, Mr. John Lowe and Mr. John Ruckart,
adjacent property owners, came forward in support. They indicated that they had
never had a problem with odor or noise from the an~n~]s or school busses and
that they enjoyed the
Mr. Miller requested for anyone else in support to please come forward.
Ms. Diane Carothers, Ms. Megan Smith, Mr. Grmh=m Nelm~, Mr. Kent Safenight, Ms.
Helen Wail and Dr. Nmlph Zentgraf, teachers and area residenta, camm forward.
The teachers indicated that the presentations Mr. Andelin conducted were very
29
-~.2/18/g2/PC/M_INFEB18'"~
CASE $:
PETITION
We the neighbors and citizens of Chesterfield County
surrounding Jim Andelin and the prospective zoo do hereby set
forth our OBJECTIONS to the establishment of a zoo in our
peaceful residential area for the reasons set forth below:
We are concerned with the high risks associated with
diseases that animals may spread to our families and pets and the
potential health hazards to the environment and ground water
associated with bacteria in areas around the proposed zoo.
We are concerned with the increased' noise and traffic
associated with the operation of a business enterprise in our
neighborhood as it directly effects the peaceful enjoyment of our
homes and neighborhood inasmuch as it creates an increased danger
to our children at play.
We are concerned with the odors and general uncleanliness
of wild animals being kept in our residential neighborhood as we
feel such an establishment has no place in this area.
We are concerned with the resale value of the property
surrounding the proposed zoo as we feel that such an enterprise
would adversely effect our property and its value.
WE STRONGLY URGE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REJECT THE
PETITION FI] :D BY JIM ANDELIN FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH ABOVE.
CASE #:
92SN0111
PETITION
We the neighbors and citizens of Chesterfield County
surrounding Jim Andelin and the prospective zoo do hereby set
forth our OBJECTIONS to the establishment of a zoo in our
peaceful residential area for the reasons set forth below:
We are concerned with the high risks associated with
diseases that animals may spread to our families and pets and the
potential health hazards to the environment and ground water
associated with bacteria in areas around the proposed zoo.
We are concerned with the increased noise and traffic
associated with the operation of a business enterprise in our
neighborhood as it directly effects the peaceful enjoyment of our
homes and neighborhood inasmuch as it creates an increased danger
to our children at play.
We are concerned with the odors and general uncleanliness
of wild animals being kept in our residential neighborhood as we
feel such an establishment has no place in this area.
We are concerned with the resale value of the property
surrounding the proposed zoo as we feel that such an enterprise
would adversely effect our property and its value.
WE STRONGLY URGE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REJECT THE
PETITION FILED BY JIM ANDELIN FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH ABOVE.
9d~O 1~7/llh~u~ Or, - ~3
(I.- ~ ~ / r'nx~/ -O t/,~ - Tz....-~z, '~- ' /
- ......... , -,_., ,
~AS.E '~: 9 2 SNC~ 1
PETITION
We the neighbors' and citizens of Chest6rfield County
surrounding Jim Andelin and the prospective zoo do hereby set
forth our OBJECTIONS to the establishment of a zoo in our
peaceful residential area for the reasons set forth below:
We are concerned with the high risks associated with
diseases that animals may spread to our families and pets and the
potential health hazards to the environment and ground water
associated with bacteria in areas around the proposed zoo.
We are concerned with the increased' noise and traffic
associated with the operation of a business enterprise in our
neighborhood as it directly effects the peaceful enjoyment of our
homes and neighborhood inasmuch as it creates an increased danger
to our children at play.
We are concerned with the odors and general uncleanliness
of wild animals being kept in our residential neighborhood as we
feel such an establishment has no place in this area.
We are concerned with the resale value of the
surrounding the proposed zoo as we feel that such an
would adversely effect our property and its value.
property
enterprise
WE STRONGL]~ URGE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REJECT THE
PETITION FILED BY JIM ANDELIN FOR THE PEASONS SET FORTH ABOVE.
CA~E #: 92SNO~I1'~ ~
PETITION
We the neighbors and citizens of Chesterfield County
surrounding Jim Andelin and the prospective zoo do hereby set
forth our OBJECTIONS to the establishment of a zoo in our
peaceful residential area for the reasons set forth below:
We are concerned with the high risks associated with
diseases that animals may spread to our families and pets and the
potential health hazards to the environment and ground water
associated with bacteria in areas around the proposed zoo.
We are concerned with the increased noise and traffic
associated with the operation of a business enterprise in our
neighborhood as it directly effects the peaceful enjoyment of our
homes and neighborhood inasmuch as it creates an increased danger
to our children at play.
We are conceraed with the odors and general uncleanliness
of wild animals being kept in our residential Deighborhood as we
feel such an establishment has no place in this area.
We are concerned with the resale value of the property
surrounding the proposed zoo as we feel that such an enterprise
would adversely effect our property and its value.
WE STRONGLY URGE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REJECT THE
PETITION FILED BY JIM ANDELIN FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH ABOVE.
CASE ~: 92SNOlll
PETITION
We the neighbors and citizens of Chesterfield County
surrounding Jim Andelin and the prospective zoo do hereby set
forth our OBJECTIONS to the establishment of a zoo in our
peaceful residential area for the reasons set forth below:
We are concerned with the high risks associated with
diseases that animals may spread to our families and pets and the
potential health hazards to the environment and ground water
associated with bacteria in areas around the proposed zoo.
We are concerned with the increased'noise and traffic
associated with the operation of a business enterprise in our
neighborhood as it directly effects the peaceful enjoyment of our
homes and neighborhood inasmuch as it creates an increased danger
to our children at play.
We are concerned with the odors and general uncleanliness
of wild animals being kept in our residential neighborhood as we
feel such an establishment has no place in this area.
We are concerned with the resale value of the property
surrounding the proposed zoo as we feel that such an enterprise
would adversely effect our property and its value.
WE STRONGLY URGE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REJECT THE
PETITION FILED BY JIM ANDELIN FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH ABOVE.
---
t
'7-7/? z_
CASE %: 92SNO 1 -~ ~
PETITION
We the neighbors and citizens of Chesterfield County
surrounding Jim Andelin and the prospective zoo do hereby set
forth our OBJECTIONS to the establishment of a zoo in our
peaceful residential area for the reasons set forth below:
We are concerned with the high risks associated with
diseases that animals may spread to our families and pets and the
potential health hazards to the environment and ground water
associated with bacteria in areas around the proposed zoo.
We are concerned with the increased' noise and traffic
associated with the operation of a business enterprise in our
neighborhood as it directly effects the peaceful enjoyment of our
homes and neighborhood inasmuch as it creates an increased danger
to our children at play.
We are concerned with the odors and general uncleanliness
of wild animals being kept in our residential neighborhood as we
feel such an establishment has no place in this area.
We are concerne4 with the resale value of the property
surrounding the proposed zoo as we feel that such an enterprise
would adversely effect our property and its value.
.J
WE STRONGLY URGE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REJECT THE
PETITION FILED BY JIM ANDELIN FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH ABOVE.
· '!..kr, r,
'CASE ~: 92SN~lll
PETITION
We the neighbors and citizens.of Chesterfield County
surrounding Jim Andelin and the prospective zoo do hereby set
forth our OBJECTIONS to the establishment of a zoo in our
peaceful residential area for the reasons set forth below:
We are concerned with the high risks associated with
diseases that animals may spread to our families and pets and the
potential health hazards to the environment and ground water
associated with bacteria in areas around the proposed zoo.
We are concerned with the increased~noise and traffic
associated with the operation of a business enterprise in our
neighborhood as it directly effects the peaceful enjoyment of our
homes and neighborhood inasmuch as it creates an increased danger
to our children at play.
We are concerned with the odors and general uncleanliness
of wild animals being kept in our residential neighborhood as we
feel such an establishment .has no place in this area.
We are concerned with the resale value of the property
surrounding the proposed zoo as we feel that such an enterprise
would adversely effect our property and its value.
WE STRONGLY URGE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REJECT THE
'PETITION FILED. BY JIM ANDELIN FOR THE REAS.ONS SET FORT~. .ABOVE~ ~/~/-~/~h~