The URL can be used to link to this page

2013-12-11 PacketCHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 ,QQ AGENDA e,�lg'rjp1l,y Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 2.A. Subiect: County Administrator's Report County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: The County Administrator will update the Board on the progress of various projects as requested by the Board of Supervisors. Preparer: Louis G. Lassiter Attachments: ■ Yes Title: Assistant County Administrator F-1No 01000,01 I. II. County Administrator's Top 40's List Critical Proiects/Activities 1. ARWA Reservoir Project 2. Community Risk Analysis/Emergency Service Coverage 3. Eastern Midlothian Re -development - Chippenham Square - Spring Rock - Stonebridge (future phases) - Streetscaping (future phases) 4. Irrigation Policies/Demand Management for Water Use 5. Magnolia Green CDA 6. Sports Quest/River City Sportsplex 7. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Presentation to Board 8. Utilities Policies and Managed Growth Ongoing Proiects/Activities 1. 2014 Legislative Program 2. Airport Master Plan 3. Animal Welfare Issues 4. Capital Improvement Program 5. Capital Regional Collaborative Focus Group 6. Cash Proffers 7. Chesterfield Avenue Enhancements Future Phases - Phase II started 3/2012 8. Citizen Budget Advisory Committee 9. Countywide Comprehensive Plan Implementation 10. Efficiency Studies - Countywide 11. Financial/Budget Issues 12. Five Story/Three Story Building Renovations 13. High Speed Rail/Ettrick Train Station 14. Jefferson Davis Streetscape Project - (next phase) - in process 15. Joint Meetings of Board of Supervisors/School Board 16. RMA - Legislation bill did not pass - 2013 17. RRPDC - Large Jurisdiction Committee 18. RRPDC - Transportation Strategies Work Group (work on hold) 19. Recycling Committee Recommendations 20. Smith/Wagner Building 21. Sports Tourism Plan Implementation 22. UASI (Regional) Completed Proiects/Activities 1. Airport Entrance Improvements - 7/2012 2. Board's Appointments Process - 812008 �� 3. Bow Hunting Restrictions - 212412010 Updated 12/3/2013 County Administrator's Top 40's List 4. Business Climate Survey - 712008 5. Business Climate Survey - 4/2010 6. Business Fee Holiday (Extension) - 912010 7. CBLAB Discussions -1212009 8. Census 2010/Redistricting - 612011 9. Chesterfield Avenue Enhancements Phase 1 - 5/2011 10. Citizen GIS - 512010 11. Citizen Satisfaction Survey - 20081201012012 12. Comprehensive Plan Adoption -1012012 13. COPS Grants 14. DCR Erosion & Sediment Control Program - 3111111 15. Eastern Midlothian Re -development - Stonebridge (Phase 1) - Groundbreaking 10/25/11 - Streetscaping (Phase 1) -12/2011 16. Efficiency Studies - Fire Department and Fleet Management - 612008 17. Efficiency Study - Quality/Chesterfield University Consolidation - 712009 18. Electronic Message Centers - 912011 19. Electronic Signs -112010 20. Board's Emergency Notification Process 21. Employee Health Benefits - Contract Rebid - 812011 22. Federal Stimulus Package - 412013 - Energy Block Grant Economic Development Police Department 23. Financial/Budget Issues - Adoption of 2011 Budget - 412011 - Adoption of County CIP - 412011 - Adoption of School CIP - 412011 - Bond Issue/Refinancing - AAA Ratings Retained 24. 457 Deferred Comp Plan (Approved) 25. GRTC Service - Funded for FYI 26. Hydrilla Issue 27. Hosting of Hopewell Website 28. Impact Fees for Roads - 912008 29. In Focus Implementation - Phase I - 812008 30. In -Focus Implementation - Phase II (Payroll/HR) -1212009 31. Insurance Service Upgrade (ISO) for Fire Department - 912009 32. Jefferson Davis Streetscape Project - 512010 33. Leadership Exchange Visits with City of Richmond 34. 2011 Legislative Program - adopted 1113012011 35. Low Impact Development Standards 36. Mass Grading Ordinance (canceled) 37. Meadowdale Library -1112008 38. Meadowville Interchange - Ribbon Cutting 12/15/2011 39. Midlothian Turnpike/Courthouse Road Streetscape Improvements (Towne Center) 40. Minor League Baseball (new team) - 212010 40003 2 Updated 12/3/2013 County Administrator's Top 40's List 41. Multi -Cultural Commission (Quarterly Reports due to Board) -1112008 42. Planning Fee Structure (General Increases) - 612009 43. Planning Fee Structure (Reductions for In -Home Businesses) -112009 44. Planning Fees (Holiday for Commercial Projects) - 812009 45. Police Chase Policy (Regional) - 512010 46. Postal Zip Codes - Changes approved 412011, USPS date of implementation 612011 47. Potential Legislation - Impact Fees/Cash Proffers -112009 48. Property Maintenance - Proactive Zoning Code Enforcement (countywide) - 212009 49. Property Maintenance - Rental Inspection Program 50. Public Safety Pay Plans Implemented (Phase I) - 912008 51. Redistricting 2011 Calendar/Process Report 52. Regional Workforce Investment Initiative 53. Results of Operations -1111912010 and 1112011 54. Sign Ordinance 55. Southwest Corridor Water Line - Phase I - 712008 56. Sports Tourism Plan -112010 57. Sports Tourism Program with Metropolitan Richmond Sports Backers - 812009 58. Streetlight Policy -1211110 59. Ukrops Kicker Complex - soccer fields - Opened 812009 60. Upper Swift Creek Plan (Adopted) - 612008 61. Upper Swift Creek Water Quality Ordinances 62. VDOT Subdivision Street Acceptance Requirements - 712009 63. VRS Benefits for New Employees - 712010 64. Walk Through Building Permit Process -1012009 65. Water Issues/Restrictions 66. Website Redesign - 612009 67. Wind Energy Systems - 311012010 68. Wireless Internet Access in County Facilities - 912008 69. Watkins Centre 70. Woolridge Road Reservoir Crossing Project - 512010 71. Ukrops Kicker Comples/GRAP Swimming Pool - Stratton Property - Pool opening March, 2012 000004 Updated 12/3/2013 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: S.A. Subiect: Recognition of Department Employees of the Year for 2013 County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Summary of Information: Annually, the Board of Supervisors recognizes the county's Employees of the Year who are selected to represent the various county departments. The annual Employee of the Year Program, begun in 1976, reflects the county's commitment to quality and excellence in the areas of customer service, teamwork, innovation, and continuous improvement. Employees of the Year may also excel by solving an extraordinary problem or achieving a significantly difficult goal. This year, we are pleased to recognize 29 Employees of the Year who were selected to represent their departments. The attached listing identifies the 2013 Employees of the Year, and they are present to be recognized by the Board of Supervisors. Preparer: Lou Lassiter Title: Assistant County Administrator Attachments: ■ Yes No I T 2013 Employees of the Year NAME DEPARTMENT Janice Blakley County Administration Kristi Brittle Human Resource Management Melissa Bryan Information Systems Technology Elizabeth Caroon Police Diane Dawson Community Correction Services Kate Denwiddie Library Alvie Edwards Internal Audit Trina Estes Mental Health Support Services Brian Geouge Parks and Recreation Carl Glover Environmental Engineering Joseph Harvey Fire Department Ben Humphrey Economic Development Elbert Johnson Juvenile Detention Home Harold Leach Purchasing Juanita Leon Health Department Erica Lowe Utilities Patricia Mason Commonwealth Attorney Iris Mayfield Treasurer Stefanie Munksgard Emergency Communications Nicole Nicolosi Accounting Lou O'Boyle Center for Organizational Excellence Douglas Peck General Services Elaine Reedy Victim/Witness Assistance Program Sytira Saunders Planning Amy Sheets Public Affairs Lynne Sims Comprehensive Services Jennifer Taylor Sheriff Tammi Tomlinson Budget and Management Susan Wilson County Attorney X11 E() CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 5.8. Subiect: Resolution Recognizing Lieutenant Emmett H. Smith, Jr., Sheriff's Office, Upon His Retirement County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: J0 Board Action Requested: Adoption of the attached resolution. Summary of Information: Lieutenant Emmett H. Smith, Jr. will retire on January 1, 2014, after 25 years of service to Chesterfield County. Preparer: Dennis S. Proffitt Title: Sheriff Attachments: ■ yes F-1 No # nQQQQ'; RECOGNIZING LIEUTENANT EMMETT H. SMITH, JR. UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Mr. Emmett H. Smith, Jr. has faithfully served Chesterfield County for 25 years; and WHEREAS, in December of 1988, Mr. Smith joined the Chesterfield County Sheriff's Office as a deputy and faithfully served under John Mutispaugh, Walter Minton, Clarence G. Williams, Jr. and current Sheriff Dennis S. Proffitt; and WHEREAS, Deputy Smith was transferred to the Fugitive Task Force in July 1995 as investigator where he was instrumental in the success of "Operation Pay -Up," which located parents who were behind in child support payments, helping collect more than $250,000; and WHEREAS, Investigator Smith graduated from the 25th Basic Police Academy in 1995; and WHEREAS, Investigator Smith was selected as Employee of the Quarter in 1999; and WHEREAS, Investigator Smith was promoted to Sergeant in November 1999, working in the Court Services section; and WHEREAS, Sergeant Smith received a commendation in 1999 for greatly enhancing the cooperation between federal and local authorities as part of his involvement in the apprehension of a fugitive wanted for murder; and WHEREAS, Sergeant Smith was promoted to Lieutenant in November 2006 and was assigned to the Jail Compliance Section of the Sheriff's Office; and WHEREAS, Lieutenant Smith was a member of the Law Enforcement Memorial Committee from 2010 through 2013; and WHEREAS, in September 2010, Lieutenant Smith received a Good Conduct Award, and in November 2011, he received the Community Relations Award; and WHEREAS, Lieutenant Smith has aided in ensuring that employees of the Sheriff's Office meet the highest standards by serving as a field training officer; and WHEREAS, Lieutenant Smith demonstrated further commitment to protecting the citizens of Chesterfield County by serving on the Sheriff's Special Operations Response Team; and 1=. WHEREAS, Lieutenant Smith received numerous letters of appreciation and commendation for his dedication and service to the employees and citizens of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Lieutenant Smith has been actively involved in supporting Virginia Special Olympics for many years, helping raise more than $100,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 11th day of December 2013, recognizes the outstanding contributions of Lieutenant Emmett H. Smith, Jr., expresses the appreciation of all residents for his service to Chesterfield County and extends appreciation for his dedicated service to the county and congratulations upon his retirement, as well as best wishes for a long and happy retirement. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to Lieutenant Smith and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: S.C. Subiect: Resolution Recognizing Mrs. Carol R. Blair, Commercial Plans Review Section of Building Inspection Department, Upon Her Retirement County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Adoption of attached resolution. Summary of Information: Mrs. Carol R. Blair will retire from January 1, 2014, after providing 25 Chesterfield County. the Building Inspection Department on years of service to the citizens of Preparer: Richard C. Witt Title: Buildinq Official Attachments: ■ Yes No # dU4410 RECOGNIZING MRS. CAROL R. BLAIR UPON HER RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Carol R. Blair was hired by Chesterfield County in 1988 as a full-time employee in the Building Inspection Department; and WHEREAS, in March 1992, Mrs. Blair was promoted to Senior Customer Service Representative; and WHEREAS, in June 2003, Mrs. Blair was promoted to Secretary; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Blair was named the Chesterfield County Building Inspection Department Employee of the Year in 2002 and 2004; and WHEREAS, in March 2006, Mrs. Blair was promoted to Administrative Secretary; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Blair was assigned to the Commercial Plan Review division of the Building Inspection Department and was instrumental in making the entire commercial permit application through issuance process work in a professional, efficient and effective manner; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Blair was a member of the Tri -Cities Chapter of the International Association of Administrative Professionals (IAAP), earning her Certified Professional Secretary designation in 2002 and her Certified Administrative Professional designation in 2003; and WHEREAS, after serving as secretary of the Tri -Cities Chapter in 2010 and vice president in 2011, Mrs. Blair received the Award of Excellence for the Tri -Cities Chapter of IAAP and became president of the organization in 2012; and WHEREAS, throughout her career, Mrs. Blair sought to improve herself through Chesterfield University classes, earning the Employee Leadership certificate in 2012; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Blair was responsible for accurately and efficiently processing thousands of permits annually from contractors and architects for county commercial construction projects; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Blair is known for her dedication to customer service and has always gone the extra mile to provide the world-class customer service that has made Chesterfield County a true First Choice community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 11th day of December 2013, publicly recognizes the contributions of Mrs. Carol R. Blair, expresses the appreciation of all residents for her service to the county, and extends appreciation for her dedicated service and congratulations upon her retirement, as well as best wishes for a long and happy retirement. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of the resolution be presented to Mrs. Blair and that the resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. CASE MANAGER: Robert Clay u y� 1749 + G BS Time Remaining: 218 days STAFF'S REQUEST ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION 13SN0510 Tamera A. Moats Clover Hill Magisterial District 4356 Ketcham Drive Item Number: 7.A. April 1 ti 201 3 C;PG June 18,22013-GPG ulyi7,2013 BS December 11, 2013 BS REQUEST: Conditional use approval to permit a family day-care home in a Residential (R-7) District. PROPOSED LAND USE: A family day-care home (the keeping of up to twelve (12) children) has operated within the existing single-family residence for approximately two (2) years, without the required zoning approval. Conditional use approval is requested to bring the use into compliance with zoning requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROFFERED CONDITIONS ON PAGE 2. AYES: MESSRS. BROWN, WALLIN, PATTON AND WALLER. NAY: MR. GULLEY. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval for the following reasons: A. As conditioned, the family day-care home should be compatible with surrounding residential development. Similar family day-care homes have been approved in other neighborhoods throughout the County and have operated without any apparent adverse impact on area residents. B. As conditioned, the residential character of the area will be maintained. 110')012 Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service (NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY PROFFER CONDITIONS. CONDITION(S) NOTED "STAFF/CPC" WERE AGREED UPON BY BOTH STAFF AND THE COMMISSION.) PROFFERED CONDITIONS (STAFF/CPC) 1. Non -Transferable Ownership: This conditional use approval shall be granted to and for Tamera A. Moats, exclusively, and shall not be transferable nor run with the land. (P) (STAFF/CPC) 2. Expansion of Use: There shall be no exterior additions or alterations to the existing structure to accommodate this use. (P) (STAFF/CPC) 3. Signage: There shall be no signs permitted to identify this use. (P) (STAFF/CPC) 4. Number of Children: This conditional use approval shall be limited to providing care, protection and guidance to a maximum of 12 children, other than the applicant's own children, at any one time. (P) (STAFF/CPC) 5. Hours of Operation: Hours and days of operation shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. There shall be no Saturday or Sunday operation of this use. (P) (STAFF/CPC) 6. Time Limitation: This conditional use approval shall be granted for a period not to exceed 5 years from the date of approval. (P) (STAFF/CPC) 7. Employees: No employees shall be permitted to work on the premises other than family member employees that live on the premises. (P) GENERAL INFORMATION Location: The request property is located on the west line of Ketcham Drive, north of Towchester Drive and better known as 4356 Ketcham Drive. Tax ID 764-688-9224. Existing Zoning: R-7 Size: 0.4 acre 0000la3 2 13SN0510-2013DEC11-BOS-RPT Existing Land Use: Single-family residential Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North, South, East and West — R-7; Single-family residential UTILITIES Public Water and Wastewater Systems: The request site is currently connected to the public water and wastewater system. This request will not impact the public utility systems. ENVIRONMENTAL Drainage and Erosion: This request will have no impact on these facilities. PUBLIC FACILITIES Fire Service: The Manchester Fire Station, Company Number 2, and Manchester Volunteer Rescue Squad currently provide fire protection and emergency medical service (EMS). This request will have a minimal impact on Fire and EMS. County Department of Transportation: This request will have minimal impact on the existing transportation network. Virginia Department of Transportation VDOT): A VDOT representative visited the property and found that there is sufficient on -street parking (with curb and gutter) to support a family day-care home. Incidental to the on - street parking is a substantial paved driveway to the actual residence. VDOT has no further concerns. LAND USE Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for Suburban Residential II use (2.0 to 4.0 dwellings per acre). 006014 3 13SN0510-2013DEC11-BOS-RPT Area Development Trends: Use: Area properties are zoned residentially and are occupied by single-family residential uses within the Creekwood Subdivision. It is anticipated that residential use will continue in the area as recommended by the Plan. As noted herein, a conditional use to permit a family day-care home is requested. The Zoning Ordinance permits the keeping of a maximum of five (5) children at any one (1) time, exclusive of the occupants' children and any children who reside in the home, by right in a residential district. The applicant has been operating a state licensed family day-care home at this location for the past two (2) years. As a result of recent state law changes pertaining to day-care licensing, the applicant contacted the County to verify zoning requirements. When the applicant contacted the County, she became aware of the conditional use approval requirement. Approval of this request would permit the keeping of a maximum of twelve (12) children at any one (1) time, excluding the applicant's children and any children who reside in the home (Proffered Condition 4). Proffered conditions would limit this use to the applicant only for a period of ten (10) years from the date of approval. (Proffered Conditions 1 and 6) Proffered Condition 5 restricts the hours of operation. Proffered Condition 7 would not permit employees to work on the premises other than family member employees that live in the home. Site Design: The applicant proposes to use the dwelling and yard for the day-care. To insure that the residential character of the area is maintained, Proffered Condition 2 would preclude exterior additions or alterations to the existing dwelling to accommodate the proposed use. Proffered Condition 3 prohibits any signage to identify this use. CONCLUSION The proposed family day-care home, as conditioned, should have no adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Similar family day-care homes have been approved in other neighborhoods and have operated without any apparent adverse impact on area residences. The proffered conditions are similar to conditions imposed on other family day-care homes, and are designed to maintain the residential character of the area. Given these considerations, approval of this request is recommended. 4 13SN0510-2013DEC11-BOS-RPT CASE HISTORY Planning Commission Meeting (4/16/13): On their own motion and with the applicant's consent, the Commission deferred this case to their June 18, 2013 public hearing. AYES: Messrs. Brown, Wallin, Gulley and Waller. ABSENT: Mr. Patton. Staff (4/17/13): The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information should be submitted no later than April 22, 2013 for consideration at the Commission's June 18, 2013 public hearing. Applicant, Area Citizens, Planning Staff, District Supervisor and Planning Commissioner (5/9/13): A meeting was held to discuss this request. setting a precedent for other commercial u have on covenants and restrictions for the allow this type of use. Planning Commission Meeting (6/18/13): The applicant accepted the recommendation. Concerns were expressed relative to the use es in this area; what impact this use would subdivision; and the need for flexibility to There was support present, noting the applicant as an asset to the neighborhood and a very good child care provider; and that the use would not set a precedent given other home-based businesses in the neighborhood. There was also opposition present expressing concerns relative to precedent for more commercial uses in the community and the use being in conflict with the covenants of the neighborhood. Mr. Gulley noted the purpose of covenants is to protect integrity of neighborhoods and health, safety and welfare of residents. He indicated the neighborhood split on this issue; the balance of needs on both sides; the official position of the homeowners' association in not supporting the request; and that he would not support the case. 13SNO510-2013DEC 11-B OS -RPT The remaining Commissioners noted concerns relative to inconsistent enforcement of neighborhood covenants; that interpretation and enforcement of neighborhood covenants was not a responsibility of the Commission's; that each request was evaluated on its own merits; and that this use exception would not set a precedent. It was generally agreed that the time period should be shortened. The applicant agreed to reduce the time limit from ten (10) to five (5) years. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Patton, the Commission recommended approval and acceptance of the proffered conditions on page 2. AYES: Messrs. Brown, Wallin, Patton and Waller. NAY: Mr. Gulley. Applicant (7/2/13): Proffered Condition 6 was modified to reflect a time period of five (5) years. Board of Supervisor's Meeting (7/17/13): The applicant accepted the recommendation. There was both opposition and support at the public hearing. The opposition expressed concern that a precedent could be set by allowing a business to continue in the neighborhood and that the business was in conflict with the covenants and restrictions. Those in support expressed appreciation for the care the applicant displays in her work; noted the use as an asset to the community; noted many home-based businesses in the community; and indicated the use would not set a precedent. After closing the public hearing and additional discussion, the Board agreed to defer the case for a sufficient time so as to allow the Homeowners' Association and the applicant to work through issues in the community's best interest. On their own motion and with the applicant's consent, the Board deferred this case to their December 11, 2013 public hearing. Staff (7/17/13): The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information should be submitted no later than November 11, 2013 for consideration at the Board's December 11, 2013 public hearing. 0000-7 6 13SNO510-2013DEC11-BOS-RPT Staff (11/21/13): To date, no new information has been received. The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, December 11, 2013 beginning at 3:30 p.m., will take under consideration this request. (1064):js 13SN0510-2013DEC 11-B OS -RPT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 8.A.1. Subiect: Nomination/reappointment to the Personnel Appeals Board County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: The Board of Supervisors is requested to nominate/reappoint Mr. Steven Bowman to serve a second three-year term on the Personnel Appeals Board. Summary of Information: The purpose of the Personnel Appeals Board is to hear employee grievances relating to disciplinary actions or discriminatory application of county personnel policies. The Personnel Appeals Board has the ability to modify or reverse disciplinary decisions of department directors. The appointments are for a three-year term and are not related to residing in a particular magisterial district. Mr. Steven C. Bowman's first term on the Personnel Appeals Board will expire on December 31, 2013, and Mr. Bowman is eligible and willing to serve another term. The Board has not received additional applications to serve on the Personnel Appeals Board and is, therefore, requested to reappoint Mr. Bowman to serve a second three-year term, which would begin January 1, 2014, and end on December 31, 2016. Board members concur with Mr. Bowman's reappointment. Under the existing Rules of Procedure, appointments are nominated at one meeting and appointed at the subsequent meeting unless the Rules of Procedure are suspended by a unanimous vote of the Board members present. Preparer: Mary Martin Selby Title: Director Human Resource Services Attachments:17yes ■ No # On004 9 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA 41749) Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 8.A.2. Subiect: Nomination/Reappointment to Chesterfield Community Services Board County Administrator: Nominate and appoint Mr. Nicholas Pappas, Mr. Ricky Russell and Mr. Patrick Young as At -Large representatives and nominate and reappoint Ms. Janet Stephens, Dale District representative, to the Chesterfield Community Services Board, with terms effective January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2016. Summary of Information: The Chesterfield Community Services Board is designated as an Administrative/ Policy Board responsible for the provision of public mental health, intellectual disabilities and substance abuse services. Mr. Nicholas Pappas resides in the Midlothian District and would serve as an At -Large Representative. Mr. Ricky Russell resides in the Clover Hill District and would serve as an At -Large Representative. Mr. Patrick Young resides in the Matoaca District and would serve as an At -Large Representative. Each of these candidates has specific expertise and experience that has proven to be beneficial to the Board should the Board of Supervisors so choose to appoint them. Ms. Janet Stephens, Dale District Representative, has expressed a willingness to continue for another term. Board members concur with this reappointment. Under the existing Rules of Procedure, appointments to boards and committees are nominated at one meeting and appointed at the subsequent meeting unless the Rules of Procedure are suspended by a unanimous vote of the Board members present. Nominees are voted on in the order they are nominated. Preparer: Debbie Burcham Title: Executive Director, Community Services Board Attachments: L-1 Yes E No 600020 51 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 8.B.1.a. Subiect: Resolution Recognizing Ms. June M. Fells, General Services, Buildings and Grounds, Upon Her Retirement County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Adoption of the attached resolution. Summary of Information: Ms. Fells will retire effective January 1, 2014, after providing more than 20 years of service to the citizens of Chesterfield County. Preparer: Robert C. Key Title: Director of General Services Attachments: 0 yes F] No # RECOGNIZING MS. JUNE M. FELLS UPON HER RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Ms. June M. Fells joined Chesterfield County, Department of General Services on September 13, 1993, as a custodian in the Buildings and Grounds Division; and WHEREAS, in 1998, Ms. Fells received a Letter of Appreciation from the Sheriff's Academy for the extra work that she completed in an exceptional fashion; and WHEREAS, Ms. Fells served on the Custodial Communication Process Action Team and the Buildings and Grounds Custodial Safety Team where she was instrumental in bringing awareness of non-custodial situations that posed possible safety issues to the custodial staff; and WHEREAS, in 2003, Ms. Fells received a Celebrating Success Award for a suggestion that was implemented and resulted in a cost savings of approximately $80,000 per year in salaries, benefits and vehicle usage; and WHEREAS, in 2012, Ms. Fells served on the Department of General Services' Employee Advisory Council as the Buildings and Grounds Custodial Services' representative; and WHEREAS, Ms. Fells was instrumental in supporting the custodial staff as a member of the Hospitality Team and offering assistance to her fellow co-workers in times of personal needs; and WHEREAS, Ms. Fells was instrumental in supporting the custodial staff as a member of the Christmas Mother Team and supporting the Department of General Services with the Christmas Mother program; and WHEREAS, Ms. Fells has been a generous supporter of the American Heart Association and United Way; and WHEREAS, Ms. Fells completed classes through Chesterfield County's Center for Organizational Excellence, which included computer training and time management; and WHEREAS, Ms. Fells has faithfully served Chesterfield County's Custodial Services under the leadership of three Department of General Services' directors and two county administrators; and WHEREAS, Ms. Fells will be greatly missed for the effective communication she had with her customers, team members and supervisors to ensure customer satisfaction and for her devotion to safe practices. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes the outstanding contributions of Ms. June M. Fells, expresses the appreciation of all residents for her service to Chesterfield County, and extends appreciation for her dedicated service to the county and congratulations upon her retirement, as well as best wishes for a long and happy retirement. 000162,2. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 82.1.b. Subject: Resolution Recognizing Mrs. Rose A. Baker, General Services, Fleet Management Division, Upon Her Retirement County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Adoption of the attached resolution. Summary of Information: Mrs. Rose Baker will retire effective January 1, 2014, after providing more than 15 years of service to the citizens of Chesterfield County. Preparer: Robert C. Key Title: Director of General Services Attachments: ■ Yes F-1No �� RECOGNIZING MRS. ROSE A. BAKER UPON HER RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Mrs. Rose A. Baker was hired by Chesterfield County, Department of General Services, on October 19, 1998, as a part-time Customer Service Representative in the Solid Waste Management Division; and WHEREAS, in 1998, Mrs. Baker was recognized as the Chesterfield County Solid Waste Management Division's Employee of the Year; and WHEREAS, in 2000, Mrs. Baker completed the required course work to receive her Certificate of Achievement for Total Quality Improvement from Chesterfield County's Center of Organizational Excellence; and WHEREAS, in 2001, Mrs. Baker was promoted to a full-time Customer Service Technician at the Courthouse School Bus Maintenance Facility; and WHEREAS, in 2002, Mrs. Baker was recognized as the Chesterfield County Courthouse School Bus Maintenance Facility's Employee of the Year; and WHEREAS, in 2005, Mrs. Baker received her Supervisor Leadership Certificate of Completion; and WHEREAS, in 2008, Mrs. Baker was recognized as the Walmsley School Bus Maintenance Facility and Department of General Services' Employee of the Year; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Baker has served on the United Way Campaign, Chesterfield Employee Association, Employees Advisory Council, and many other committees during her tenure in Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Baker tutored and mentored many of her co-workers to become the best in their field; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Baker is a highly -qualified and competent customer service provider, dedicated to providing world-class customer service to Chesterfield County government and Chesterfield County schools, as well as to the public; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Baker has consistently performed her duties and responsibilities in a professional manner and placed the welfare and safety of students, faculty, citizens, and fellow county employees above her own personal comfort and feelings and will be missed by her fellow co-workers and customers. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes the outstanding contributions of Mrs. Rose A. Baker, expresses the appreciation of all residents for her service to Chesterfield County, and extends appreciation for her dedicated service to the county and congratulations upon her retirement, as well as best wishes for a long and happy retirement. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 8.13.1.c. Subject: Resolution Recognizing Mr. Robert A. Milton, General Services, Fleet Management Division, Upon His Retirement County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Adoption of the attached resolution. Summary of Information: Mr. Milton will retire effective January 1, 2014, after providing more than 21 years of service to the citizens of Chesterfield County. Preparer: Robert C. Key Title: Director of General Services Attachments: ■ Yes No RECOGNIZING MR. ROBERT A. MILTON UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Mr. Robert A. Milton was hired by Chesterfield County, Department of General Services, on November 9, 1992, as a Vehicle Mechanic at the Consolidated Vehicle Maintenance Facility in the Fleet Management Division; and WHEREAS, in 1998, Mr. Milton was promoted to Automotive Vehicle Maintenance Supervisor at the Consolidated Vehicle Maintenance Facility; and WHEREAS, in 1999, Mr. Milton was transferred to the Courthouse School Bus Maintenance Facility; and WHEREAS, in 2002, Mr. Milton was transferred to the Walmsley School Bus Maintenance Facility in order to assist in the remodeling and reopening of the facility as an Annex Maintenance site; and WHEREAS, in 2007, Mr. Milton was transferred to the Consolidated Vehicle Maintenance Facility to assist in the reorganization of the facility; and WHEREAS, Mr. Milton served not only as a supervisor but more importantly as a mentor and tutor to many automotive technician trainees and apprentices during his tenure; and WHEREAS, Mr. Milton was recognized as a Certified Master ASE Technician through the National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence; and WHEREAS, Mr. Milton accomplished challenging tasks by establishing priorities for work, assigning work to technicians and assisting technicians with complex troubleshooting, diagnosis and repair issues; and WHEREAS, productivity, morale, and customer satisfaction have improved as a result of Mr. Milton's leadership skills and professional knowledge wherever he has been entrusted with supervisory authority and responsibility; and WHEREAS, Mr. Milton has consistently performed his duties and responsibilities in a professional manner and placed the welfare and safety of students, faculty, citizens, and fellow county employees above his own personal comfort and feelings and will be missed by his fellow co-workers and customers. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes the outstanding contributions of Mr. Robert A. Milton, expresses the appreciation of all residents for his service to Chesterfield County, and extends appreciation for his dedicated service to the county and congratulations upon his retirement, as well as best wishes for a long and happy retirement. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 8.B.1.d. Subiect: Resolution Recognizing Mr. Ralph E. Westfall, Information Systems Technology Department, Upon His Retirement County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Adoption of the attached resolution. Summary of Information: Staff requests the Board adopt the attached resolution recognizing Mr. Ralph E. Westfall for 29 years of dedicated service to the Chesterfield County Information Systems Technology Department. Preparer: Barry Condrey Attachments: E Yes Title: Chief Information Officer, IST F-1No H60402.7 RECOGNIZING MR. RALPH E. WESTFALL UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Mr. Ralph E. Westfall will retire from the Chesterfield County Information Systems Technology Department on December 31, 2013, after providing 29 years of quality service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Mr. Westfall has faithfully served the county in the capacity of application team lead, business applications manager, and interim deputy chief information officer for the Information Systems Technology Department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Westfall has provided leadership for local, regional and state public safety technology initiatives and policy development while providing consistent motivation to his team encouraging them to attain excellence and quality in their performance; and WHEREAS, Mr. Westfall led the development of the first network -based application, ushering in a new paradigm of services and capabilities for his customers; and WHEREAS, Mr. Westfall served on and provided exceptional leadership for the Automation and Communications Team, Standards Review Board, IST Quality Council, Climate Assessment Team and Improve Internal Processes Goal Team; and WHEREAS, in 2001, Mr. Westfall completed coursework in the University of Richmond Robins School of Business Management Institute and received an advanced certificate in project management; and WHEREAS, Mr. Westfall has demonstrated outstanding leadership throughout his tenure with Chesterfield County, resulting in the development of major public safety systems, such as the Police Records Management System, Sheriff's Jail Management System, Law Enforcement Information Exchange, and the award-winning Booking Front End System; and WHEREAS, Mr. Westfall has been a consistent high performer who is dedicated to excellence; and WHEREAS, Mr. Westfall's humble character, selfless dedication to Chesterfield County and commitment to the county's public safety systems are a model for all county employees; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors will miss Mr. Westfall's diligent service and unquestioned integrity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes Mr. Ralph Westfall, and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County, appreciation for his service to the county, congratulations upon his retirement, and best wishes for a long and happy retirement. 0dw, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 8.13.2. Subiect: Authorize the County Administrator to Execute Change Order Number Two for the Ettrick Park Road and Parking Lot Project County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: The Board of Supervisors is requested to authorize the County Administrator to execute Change Order Number Two with Perkinson Construction LLC in the amount of $2,653.22 for Ettrick Park Road construction. Summary of Information: This change order will correct additional unsuitable subgrade materials encountered during the construction of the new entrance Road for Ettrick Park. It includes undercut and removal of weak soils through creation of a strengthened subgrade by addition of geotextile reinforcing mat and stone fill. These actions will improve the pavement sub -base to support driveway construction and extend the lifespan of the pavement. Sufficient funds are available within the Parks CIP, Park Improvement contingency. Parks staff recommends approval. Preparer: Michael S. Golden Title: Director, Parks and Recreation Preparer: Allan M. Carmody Title: Director, Budget and Management Attachments: FlYes No V CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 8.B.3. Subiect: Page 1 of 1 Award Contract for Engineering Services for Parks Development and Related Work to Austin Brockenbrough and Associates, LLP County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Authorize the County Administrator to execute a requirement contract with Austin Brockenbrough & Associates, LLP for engineering services for parks development and related projects for miscellaneous construction and renovations. Summary of Information: Following a request for proposals (RFP) and interviews with three of the ten firms that submitted proposals, Austin Brockenbrough & Associates, LLP was selected to provide engineering services for parks development and related projects. In addition to new construction, projects will include renovations, major maintenance and long range planning for Parks and Recreation. This contract is for one year with four possible one-year renewals. The actual value of this contract will depend on future needs for construction, renovations and major maintenance and park planning. Preparer: Michael Golden Title: Director. Parks and Recreation Attachments: ❑ Yes 0 No #o000,10, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 83.4. Subiect: Set a Public Hearing to Consider Amending Section 5-6 of the County Code Relating to the Removal of Derelict Nonresidential Structures County Administrator: Set a public hearing for January 8, 2014, to consider amending Section 5-6 of the County Code relating to the removal of derelict nonresidential structures as permitted by Section 15.2-906 of the Code of Virginia. Summary of Information: The General Assembly this year passed House Bill 1589 which authorizes the county to adopt an ordinance permitting the removal of derelict nonresidential building or structure by the county with the consent of the property owner and imposition of a lien on the property to recover removal costs. On July 17, 2013, the Board of Supervisors referred consideration of House Bill 1589 to the Building Inspection Department and County Attorney's Office and requested a report by October 9, 2013. The report was provided to the Board of Supervisors at the October 9, 2013 meeting. Staff did not support adopting the ordinance because there are limited resources available for removal and because the recovery of removal costs through a lien on property will be difficult for properties on which there is a first mortgage. The demolition lien would be subordinate to the mortgage unless the bank or lending institution holding the first mortgage agreed to make its own lien subordinate to the county's removal lien. The Board indicated that it wanted to at least consider the adoption of such an ordinance so that the removal option will be available if an appropriate situation arose. The attached ordinance amendment will provide for removal of derelict nonresidential buildings as well as a mechanism for recovering removal costs. Preparer: Richard C. Witt Title: Building Official 2723:91456.1(91275.1 Attachments: 0 Yes F-1No # AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 5-6 RELATING TO DERELICT STRUCTURES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Section 5-6 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended and re- enacted to read as follows: Sec. 5-6. Authority to remove, repair or secure unsafe, derelict, or defaced structures. (a) The building official may require property owners to remove, repair or secure any building, wall or other structure which is located on their property and which the building official has determined (i) poses a danger to public health or safety or (ii) has a defacement that is visible from a public right-of-way. (b) If the building official determines that a building, wall or structure poses a danger to public health or safety, or has a defacement that is visible from a public right-of-way, he shall cause a notice to be served on the owner and any recorded lien holder of the building, wall or other structure, requiring the owner to remove, repair or secure the building, wall or other structure. For purposes of this section, repair may include maintenance work to the exterior of a building to prevent deterioration of the building or adjacent buildings. For purposes of this section, reasonable notice includes a written notice (i) mailed by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, sent to the last known address of the property owner and (ii) published once a week for two successive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the county. No action shall be taken by the county to remove, repair or secure any building, wall or other structure for at least 30 days following the later of the return of the receipt or newspaper publication. (c) The property owner shall remove, repair or secure the building, wall or structure, as required by the notice, within 30 days after notice has been given to the owners of such property as provided in subsection (b), whichever is later. If the owner fails to take the action required in the notice within the 30 -day period, the building official may remove, repair or secure the building, wall or structure, as required by the notice. With respect to violations of subparagraph (a)(i), the costs and expenses of removing, repairing or securing shall be charged to and paid by the owners of the property and may be collected by the county as taxes and levies are collected. (d) Every charge authorized by this section with which the owner of any such property has been assessed and which remains unpaid shall constitute a lien against such property ranking on a parity with liens for unpaid local taxes and enforceable in the same manner as provided in Code of Virginia, tit. 58.1, ch. 39, art. 3 (§§ 58.1-3940 et. seq.) and art. 4 (§§ 58.1-3965 et. seq.), as amended. The county may waive such liens in order to facilitate the sale of the property. Such liens may be waived only as to a purchaser who is unrelated by blood or marriage to the owner and who has no business association with the owner. All such liens shall remain a personal obligation of the owner of the property at the time the liens were imposed. (e) In addition to the remedies set forth above, any owner of such property in violation of subparagraph (a)(i) who fails to take the action required in the notice within the 30 -day period, shall be subject to a civil penalty of $1,000.00. 2723:91275.1 �f} A nonresidential derelict building or structure is one built for business or industrial uses and which is no longer being used for a place of business or industry and which is in such poor condition as to cause a blight upon the neighborhood in which it is located. With the written consent of the property owner, the building official may, through his agents or employees, demolish or remove a derelict nonresidential building or structure, provided that it is neither (i) located within or determined to be a contributing property within a state or local history district, nor (ii) individually designated in the Virginia Landmarks Register. The property owner's written consent shall identify whether the property is subject to a first lien evidenced by a recorded deed of trust and, if so, shall document the property owner's best reasonable efforts to obtain the consent of that trustee under the deed of trust as may be required under the terms and conditions of that recorded deed of trust. The costs of demolition or removal shall constitute a lien against the property. If the trustee of the first lien deed of trust consents to the demolition or removal then the lien shall rank on parity with liens for unpaid local taxes and be enforceable in the same manner as provided in (d) above. In the event the consent of the trustee of the first lien deed of trust is not obtained the lien for the costs of demolition and removal shall be subordinate to that first lien evidenced by a recorded deed of trust, but shall otherwise be enforceable in the same manner as provided in (d) above. (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 2723:91275.1 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY i BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 "* AGENDA Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 8.13.5.a. Subiect• Request Permission for an Existing Gravel Driveway to Encroach Within a Fifty -Foot County Right of Way to Access Property at 10319 Reedy Branch Road County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Grant Michael A. Burr permission for an existing gravel driveway to encroach within a 50' county right of way to access property at 10319 Reedy Branch Road, subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary of Information: Michael A. Burr has requested permission for an existing gravel driveway to encroach within a 50' county right of way to access property at 10319 Reedy Branch Road. This request has been reviewed by county staff. Approval is recommended. District: Matoaca Preparer: John W. Harmon Title: Real Property Manager Attachments: ■ Yes No # 0000-34 (.'hesterfieW C,'wirito IDepadment of L"Hies E VV I - MO *e t <0I Ol () � ss 1{tw&U* Live+♦ tla"MW 4 LCW�� liy a?' murA ft 4 Mhi l Mi A4chael a 20319 A. $urr + f ? t pg. 3SS6 pG 8ranch Rd ;PIIV. X53636 664 , 3505000,00 /fit . 15'GRAVEL DRIVEWAY fCENSE AREA �{ ,y �•i i' J�� r+� 1 s Ait Q � PLar Ir 4 p4ec6L.S Or LANO SITQS%rED IN MA7'dAG6 DiSTtCtt r, CW&STFUMELD Co., VA" VOIL tit�d,... /�'►se.4.ks�,, /tuts. $9, 197a C�a� fl t'b. `ib11 • R 9Z s"aaow�aa. wa�sr+t v�►. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY y' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 8.13.5.b. Subiect: Request Permission for a Proposed Deck to Encroach Within a Sixteen -Foot Drainage Easement Across Lot 3, Pocoshock Heights, Section F County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Grant Andrew S. Kusterer and Ashley W. Kusterer permission for a proposed deck to encroach within a 16' drainage easement across Lot 3, Pocoshock Heights, Section F, subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary of Information: Andrew S. Kusterer and Ashley W. Kusterer have requested permission for a proposed deck to encroach within a 16' drainage easement across Lot 3, Pocoshock Heights, Section F. This request has been reviewed by Environmental Engineering. The existing storm sewer will not be affected. Approval is recommended. District: Clover Hill Preparer: John W. Harmon Attachments: ■ Yes FINo Title: Real Property Manager 00003 7 VICINITY SKETCH Request Permission for a Proposed Deck to Encroach within a Sixteen Foot Drainage Easement Across Lot 3, Pocoshock Heights, Section F N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities Ar Map of Chesterfield County 01--% CO vo}Y 3c ai �I}wR77 r.R s 189-77 132 ,i77 .46 1 .- E! r,V i 0 of N �Q IZ This is an ArcGIS map prepared by Chesterfield County Planning Department. This information is only for representation purpose. For detailed information please contact Planning Department @ 748.1050 1DGoGj-q d C 0 x o Q � L L y N Z t ._t r. oe o c$+ V4 � C V4 c a 01--% CO vo}Y 3c ai �I}wR77 r.R s 189-77 132 ,i77 .46 1 .- E! r,V i 0 of N �Q IZ This is an ArcGIS map prepared by Chesterfield County Planning Department. This information is only for representation purpose. For detailed information please contact Planning Department @ 748.1050 1DGoGj-q :- CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 8.B.S.c. Subject: Request Permission to Construct a Gravel Driveway Within a Fifty -Foot County Right of Way Known as Highland Avenue County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Grant Benjamin F. Benton permission to construct a gravel driveway within a 50' county right of way known as Highland Avenue to access property at 4311 Highland Avenue, subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary of Information: Benjamin F. Benton has requested permission to construct a gravel driveway within a 50' county right of way known as Highland Avenue to access property at 4311 Highland Avenue. This is a requirement for Variance 14AN0113 and has been reviewed by county staff. Approval is recommended. District: Bermuda Preparer: John W. Harmon Attachments: ■ Yes F] No Title: Real Property Manager 0CG0, 0 40 VICINITY SKETCH Request Permission to Construct a Gravel Driveway within a Fifty Foot County Right of Way known as Highland Avenue CURTIS ............. ------------ ................ REQUEST PERMISSION FOR A GRAVEL DRIVEWAY M M. ........................................ - 4% U) N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities 1koi - *et 0(a 0-041 .•^ ' Y c"14 ii , Y) r� l _ 11t CN Cp�ON�A� Point A - Point B 357'± LICENSE AREA �-777, t e'er t t Benjamin F. Benton 4311 Highland Ave DB. 3502 PG. 938 PIN: 789651803300000 �m n CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 8.13.5.d. Subject: Request Permission to Construct a Gravel Driveway Within a Fifty -Foot County Right of Way Known as Seminole Avenue County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: V Grant Joseph T. Dice, IV and Kimberly A. Dice permission to construct a gravel driveway within a 50' county right of way known as Seminole Avenue to access property at 10610 Seminole Avenue, subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary of Information: Joseph T. Dice, IV and Kimberly A. Dice have requested permission to construct a gravel driveway within a 50' county right of way known as Seminole Avenue to access property at 10610 Seminole Avenue. This is a requirement for Variance 07AN0380 and has been reviewed by county staff. Approval is recommended. District: Bermuda Preparer: John W. Harmon Attachments: ■ Yes FINo Title: Real Property Manager .0 VICINITY SKETCH Request Permission to Construct a Gravel Driveway within a Fifty Foot County Right of Way Known as Seminole Avenue Pt[HURST ST REQUEST PERMISSION FOR APROPOSED GRAVEL DRIVEWAY 0 N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities t, �T S 11101 -300ket ,-,-0240"' 0- ---"032 31 1611 3309,"" 5506 054 ou 0 210'2' 10547--"' 02 )644 10546 3991"' $693 9803 Point A 1A 10 1 0 'fo 062_, 032,1� 0 6'690 2988 -'9888 --010 8 8 --1- 255' 065 --'"License Area --11 9083 4 64 2-31-6 3 379 �1�10600 0607 2 018/ 14 36 5074 1-73 W2 9672 2 - ,-106 06 231 1.06 8 022 /V46 O12 386 -1,66 40 .1 6e 4064 24 �1 10 026 --106 1 13116 1-10 046 8,657 f 0.2 /1661 1 1. Point A /023 .1 57 03 1.0621 0363 629 b614 X 10633 027' r C3 R148 032 6 Y 029 3343 074310630 f 1,06 031 1539 1062 15?,4 0,628• / 10610 Seminole Ave 7976632166 DICE JOSEPH T IV and KIMBERLY A DB:7531 PG:196 "1131 G 6 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 8.13.6. Subject: Authorize the Award of a Contract for Consulting Services for the Replacement of the Public Safety Radio Communications System County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: The Board is requested to authorize the award of a contract for consulting services for the replacement of the public safety radio communications system to Altairis Technology Partners, LLC in the amount of $1,573, 995, authorize the County Administrator to execute the contract, and transfer $75,000 in additional funds for the contract. Summary of Information: The Capital Region Communications Steering Committee, which was established in 1999 to support regional communications efforts, is recommending that the Board award a contract for Consulting Services for the replacement of the Public Safety Radio Communications System to Altairis Technology Partners, LLC. The use of the same consultant by each of the participating jurisdictions is necessary for the orderly and coordinated development of this project on a regional basis. (continued on next page) Preparer: Richard Troshak Title: Director of Emergency Communications Preparer: Allan Carmody Title: Budget Director Attachments: Flyes 0 No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA The solicitation for this contract was issued by Henrico on behalf of the counties of Chesterfield, Hanover and Henrico, and the City of Richmond. We have enjoyed an excellent regional working relationship with compatible and interoperable radio functionalities among these jurisdictions. Henrico and Richmond are also planning on replacing their respective systems within the same time frames. Under the recommended contract, Altairis Technology Partners, LLC will provide five major categories of services over the duration of this project, with numerous specific tasks under each category: 1) development of system(s) performance specifications; 2) preparation of RFP for acquisition and implementation of the system(s); 3) solicitation, evaluation, and award of vendor contracts; 4) system(s) vendor design, implementation, testing and acceptance; and 5) post implementation services during warranty period. Compensation to the consultant will be based upon a "not to exceed" amount for each phase of the established scope of work specific for Chesterfield County. The total fees for consulting services rendered through acceptance of a new radio system will not exceed $1,573,995 and that the new system will be cutover by approximately the end of calendar year 2018. Staff recommends award of the contract to Altairis Technology Partners, LLC for consulting services related to the replacement of the county's public safety radio communications system. Funding in the amount of $1,500,000 is currently available for this purpose from previous Capital Improvement Program funding, however based on the negotiation with Altairis, additional funding is required. Therefore, a transfer of $75,000 from balances remaining in another public safety capital project will enable the completion of the project as described. ,-i CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 8.13.7. Subject: Initiate an Application for Renewal of a Manufactured Home Permit for a Manufactured Home Located at 2651 Velda Road County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Initiate an application for renewal of a manufactured home permit on property located at 2651 Velda Road (Tax ID 794-666-2833), in a Residential (R-7) District, appoint Kirkland Turner, Director of Planning, as agent for the Board of Supervisors for the purpose of this application and waive disclosure. Summary of Information Ms. Jaeckle is requesting that the Board initiate an application for renewal of a previously approved manufactured home permit. The Board of Supervisors last approved a manufactured home permit on January 25, 2012 (Case 11SN0238) to permit the use of a manufactured home in a Residential (R-7) District. Among the conditions of approval were a two (2) year time limitation for the permit, a restriction on the owner/occupant, skirting of the foundation and a prohibition on any additional living space being added to the home. The property owner requests permission to continue the manufactured home use on the request property. Preparer: Kirkland A. Turner Attachments: ■ Yes 1-1 No Title: Director of Planning CHESTERFIELD COUNTY g BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 83.8. Subject: Acceptance of a Parcel of Land Along Carver Heights Drive from Henry D. Moore County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.6482 acres along Carver Heights Drive from Henry D. Moore, and authorize the County Administrator to execute the deed. Summary of Information: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.6482 acres along Carver Heights Drive from Henry D. Moore. This dedication is for improvements in conjunction with the development of Christian Life worship Center. Approval is recommended. District: Bermuda Preparer: John W. Harmon Attachments: E Yes [-� No Title: Real Property Manager o"(d., 5 VICINITY SKETCH Acceptance of a Parcel of Land Along Carver Heights Drive from Henry D. Moore N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities Wddnxb� - 46 (G- 13 G, 10) S 11 z°°FF .z w owtM y $ a 323 0 cn cn W Z $ _ =ayvs�pa _ aVC, io wy CL �QaT Eli 1-3 FE 8 Mo � �W bSSi YY V J � f tp � ,OS 6Ef M„Lt,1f,f85 � _ �dc QQ q m MEN � � � t A1}g8RffiRRy 8 ��8� j aaab saa 33 am f � � 88$88gB88 _ �w I I Zk th HIR { ffI a �O I�<<-Mr/tbb.p@g 1W.m' �Zel ----''eiT'-=y'soTf:�Sn d g �o w m R y E r+Ja3tvwuin x�.czsi.9ss_. � W `� e CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 8.13.9. Subject: Authorize the Appropriation of $121,272 in State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Grant Funds from the Department of Justice for the Chesterfield County Sheriff's Office County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: The Board of Supervisors is requested to appropriate $121,272 in grant funds from the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program to partially offset the cost of housing illegal aliens in the Chesterfield County Jail. Summary of Information: Since 2001, the Sheriff's Office has participated in the Department of Justice State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. The purpose of this program is to provide partial reimbursement to localities to offset the cost of housing illegal aliens in local jail facilities. Recipients are required to designate the purpose for which funds will be utilized. Approval of this request will authorize appropriation of funds to offset the costs of jail deputy salaries. Preparer: Dennis S. Proffitt Preparer: Allan M. Carmody Attachments: F]Yes 0 No Title: Sheriff Title: Director of Budget and Management CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 8.6.10. Subiect: Page 1 of 2 Award of Construction Contract for the Huntingcreek Hills Drainage Project County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: n The Board of Supervisors is requested to award a construction contract to Lyttle Utilities, Inc. for the Huntingcreek Hills Drainage Project in the amount of $319,000. Summary of Information: The Hunting Creek Hills Drainage Projects addresses drainage problems in the Hunting Creek Hills subdivision, located in the Dale Magisterial District. This area experiences nuisance storm event flooding and water ponding or standing after rain events. County forces alone are unable to keep large areas drained due to a lack of a drainage conveyance system. This project would consist of infrastructure installation along the north boundary of the subdivision behind the terminus of the cul-de-sacs of Playground Court, Huntingcreek Circle, Hunterstand Lane, Hunterstand Court, Watchhaven Circle and Retriever Toad. The finished system will serve to significantly improve drainage to approximately 40 existing housing units at these locations. This project will consist of the construction of a paved ditch and storm sewer system with outfalls running generally north towards Kingsland Creek and improvements to the existing drainage system along Retriever Road which runs generally south towards Proctors Creek. There were three responsible bidders on this project. Preparer: Scott B Smedley Title: Director, Environmental Engineering Preparer: Allan M. Carmody Title: Director, Budget and Management Attachments: ■ Yes F-1No # ' &) 5 4 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 AGENDA Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 8.13.11. Subject: Transfer and Appropriation of Additional Funds and Authorization to Award the Construction Contract and Execute Change Orders for the East River Road Widening Project County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: The Board is requested to take the following actions for the East River Road Widening Project: 1) authorize the transfer request of $1,000,000 in Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Revenue Sharing state funds from the Route 360 (Winterpock Road to Woodlake Village Parkway) Widening Project; 2) appropriate $156,057 in Shed 16 cash proffers; 3) transfer $300,000 in local funding from the Route 360 (Winterpock Road to Woodlake Village Parkway) Widening Project and $543,943 available from other completed projects for the balance of the local $1 -million match, 4) award the construction contract; and 5) authorize the County Administrator to execute all necessary change orders, up to the full amount budgeted, for the East River Road Widening Project. Summary of Information: In September, the Board authorized award of a construction contract up to $6,100,000 for the East River Road Widening Project. Bids were received on November 13, 2013 (see Attachment A). The lowest responsive and responsible bid of $6,999,267 was submitted by Branscome, Inc. The bid is approximately 12 percent higher than the engineer's estimate. The engineer's estimate does not reflect increases in aggregate and asphalt prices. (Continued on next page) Preparer: Barbara K. Smith Title: Interim Director of Transportation Preparer: Allan M. Carmody Title: Director of Budget and Management Attachments: 0 Yes F-1 No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA Summary of Information: (Continued) In order to award the construction contract and accommodate potential change orders, staff recommends the Board authorize the transfer request of $2,000,000 (506 state funds and 500 local match) in VDOT revenue sharing funds from the Route 360 (Winterpock Road to Woodlake Village Parkway) Widening Project and other completed road projects to the East River Road Widening Project. The majority of the local funds on the Route 360 project are cash proffers which, per the cash proffer policy, are intended to address road improvements which benefit the Route 360 Corridor area from which they were collected. The Board is requested to appropriate $156,057 from the Ettrick cash proffer Shed 16 for part of the local match. The remaining local match needed ($843,943) will be provided using the non-cash proffer funding on the Route 360 project of $300,000 with the balance coming from available completed project balances. The Board is also requested to authorize the County Administrator to award the construction contract and execute all necessary change orders, up to the full amount budgeted, for the project. Staff believes re -advertising the project will not result in a reduced construction bid. Staff believes the transfer of $2,000,000 in revenue sharing funds from the Route 360 (Winterpock Road to Woodlake Village Parkway) Widening Project and other available funding will not jeopardize the completion of the project. Additional allocations totaling $8,200,000 are programmed for FY2015 - FY2017. Staff believes this remaining funding will be sufficient to complete the project. The project was advertised for construction and one bid was received on December 3, 2013. The bid submitted ($7,595,392) is approximately 436 over the engineer's estimate of $5,307,378. Staff is currently evaluating the bid to determine how to proceed with the project; however, it is anticipated that the project will need to be re -advertised. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board take the following actions for the East River Road Widening Project: 1. Authorize the transfer request of $1,000,000 in VDOT Revenue Sharing state funds from the Route 360 (Winterpock Rd to Woodlake Village Pkwy) Widening Project to the East River Road Widening Project; 2. Appropriate $156,057 in cash proffers from Shed 16; 3. Transfer $300,000 in local funding from the Route 360 (Winterpock Rd to Woodlake Village Pkwy) Widening Project and $543,943 available from other completed projects for the balance of the local $1 -million match; 4. Award the construction contract, at a price of $6,999,267, to Branscome, Inc.; and 5. Authorize the County Administrator to execute all necessary change orders for the work, up to the full amount budgeted, for the East River Road Widening Project. District: Matoaca hast Kiver .Koad VNIde tert;Gld Project City of +dol oni al Heights v� 0 PROJECT MAP :.rJ • . +1 EAST RIVER ROAD WIDENING PROJECT PROJECT REVENUE DATE AMOUNT SOURCE 2/27/13 $ 300,000 Revenue Sharing Transfer from Right -of -Way $ 350,000 Beach at Brandy Oaks Project 07/01/13 $ 3,600,000 FIT 14 Revenue Sharing 09/18/13 $ 3,600,000 Revenue Sharing Transfers Construction $5,300,000 State Funds: Revenue Sharing 12/11/13 Proposed $ 1,000,000 Transfer from At 360 (Winterpock Rd to Woodlake Village Pkwy) TOTAL $ 7,500,000 Widening Project County Funds: Revenue Sharing Local Match 12/11/13 Proposed $ 300,000 Non -Cash Proffer from Route 360 $ 156,057 Shed 16 Cash Proffers $ 543,943 Other Completed Projects TOTAL $ 9,500,000 PROJECT ESTIMATE TASK ORIGINAL CURRENT Preliminary Engineering $ 600,000 $ 650,000 Right -of -Way $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Utility Relocation $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Construction Engineering $ 450,000 $ 450,000 Construction $5,300,000 $7,000,000 Construction Contingency $ 500,000 $ 700,000 TOTAL $ 7,500,000 $ 9,500,000 CONSTRUCTION BIDS CONTRACTORS AMOUNT Branscome, Inc. $ 6,999,267 Shoosmith Construction Inc. $ 8,599,000 ATTACHMENT A °x'005,9 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 9.A. Subject: Report on Status of General Fund Balance, Reserve for Future Capital Projects, District Improvement Funds, and Lease Purchases County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Acceptance of attached report. Summary of Information: Preparer: James J. L. Stegmaier Title: County Administrator Attachments: Yes No # , CHESTERFIELD COUNTY GENERAL FUND BALANCE Budgeted Ending Balances December 11, 2013 % of General Fund Fiscal Year Budgeted Expenditures* 2010 $53,495,000 8.1% 2011 $53,495,000 8.3% 2012 $53,495,000 8.2% 2013 $53,495,000 8.0% 2014 $54,500,000 8.0% *Effective FY2012, the Board of Supervisors adopted a change to the financial policy ratio to raise the targeted fund balance level from 7.5 percent to 8.0 percent iDIZ0061 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY RESERVE FOR FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS December 11, 2013 Board Meeting Date Description Amount Balance* FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 BEGINNING JULY 1, 2012 3/28/2012 FY2013 Budget Addition 13,905,000 17,394,080 3/28/2012 FY2013 Capital Projects (13,199,300) 4,194,780 1/22/2013 Return funds from completed projects 368,699 4,563,479 3/15/2013 Return funds from completed projects 171,301 4,734,780 6/19/2013 Return funds from completed projects 8,358 4,743,137 6/30/2013 Return funds from completed projects 343,260 5,086,397 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 BEGINNING JULY 1, 2013 4/10/2013 FY2014 Budget Addition 15,590,000 20,676,397 4/10/2013 FY2014 Capital Projects (14,695,500) 5,980,897 10/23/2013 Additional funding for Bon Air Library renovation project (43,000) 5,937,897 *Pending outcome of FY2013 audit results 0'2,0062 10062 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT FUNDS December 11, 2013 District Maximum Carry Over from Prior Years* FY2014 Appropriation Funds Used Items on Year to Date 12/11 Agenda Balance Pending Board Approval* Bermuda $25,644 $33,500 $14,333 $0 $44,811 Clover Hill 37,500 33,500 0 - 71,000 Dale 37,500 33,500 6,569 - 64,431 Matoaca 37,500 33,500 0 - 71,000 Midlothian 37,500 33,500 19,462 - 51,538 County Wide *Pending outcome of FY2013 audit results SCHEDULE OF CAPITALIZED LEASE PURCHASES APPROVED AND EXECUTED Prepared by Accounting Department November 30, 2013 Outstanding Date Original Date Balance Began Description Amount Ends 11/30/2013 04/99 Public Facility Lease — Juvenile Courts Project $ 16,100,000 01/20 $ 5,785,000 (Refinanced 10/10) 03/03 Certificates of Participation* — Building Construction, Expansion and Renovation 6,100,000 11/23 630,000 03/04 Certificates of Participation* — Building Construction, Expansion and Renovation; Acquisition/Installation of Systems 21,970,000 11/15 1,490,000 10/04 Cloverleaf Mall Redevelopment Project 16,596,199 10/13 13,142,494 12/04 Energy Improvements at County Facilities 1,519,567 12/17 713,212 05/05 Certificates of Participation* — Building Acquisition, Construction, Installation, Furnishing and Equipping; Acquisition/Installation of Systems 14,495,000 11/24 2,985,000 05/06 Certificates of Participation* — Building Acquisition, Construction, Installation, Furnishing and Equipping; Acquisition/Installation of Systems 11,960,000 11/24 5,110,000 08/07 Certificates of Participation — Building Expansion/Renovation, Equipment Acquisition 22,220,000 11/27 15,215,000 06/12 Certificates of Participation Refunding — Building Acquisition, Construction, Expansion, Renovation, Installation, Furnishing and Equipping; Acquisition/Installation of Systems; Equipment Acquisition 19,755,000 11/24 19,080,000 *Partially Refinanced 06/12 TOTAL APPROVED AND EXECUTED 130,715,766 $ 64,150,706 PENDING EXECUTION Approved Description Amount None X064 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 9.B. Subiect: Report on Roads Accepted into the State Secondary System County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Acceptance of attached report. Summary of Information: Preparer: Janice Blakley Attachments: ■ Yes Title: Clerk to the Board F-1No ;-# c Report of changes to the highway system of: County of Chesterfield County Report Period. 10/01/2013 through 10/31/2013 This document reports changes in the locality's VDOT maintained secondary system of state highways for the report period. Developer bonds held pending VDOT's acceptance of streets reported here may be released in accordance with the local ordinance. Route Street Name RW Width Mileage Local Gov. VDOT Effective (ft) Resolution Date Pr iect: Collington Sec. 10 Type Change: Addition 7612 Pembrooke Dock Court 40 0.09 3/28/2012 10/17/2013 Termini: From: Rt. 7005 (Pembrooke Dock Lane) To: Cul-de-sac 7005 Pembrooke Dock Lane 44 0.03 3/28/2012 10/17/2013 Termini: From: Rt. 7611/Rt. 7612 To: 0.03m NW to Rt.5989 (Collington Drive) 7005 Pembrooke Dock Lane 44 0.03 3/28/2012 10/17/2013 Termini: From: Existing Rt. 7005(Pembrooke Dock Lane) To: Rt. 7611/Rt. 7612 7611 Pembrooke Dock Place 40 feet 0.13 3/28/2012 10/17/2013 Termini: From: Rt. 7005 (Pembrooke Dock Lane) To: Cul-de-sac Project: Mt. Gilead Boulevard Type Change: Addition 7418 Mt. Gilead Boulevard 70 0.46 12/14/2011 10117/2013 Termini: From: Hicks Rd., (Rt 647) To: Temp EOM Total Net Change in County's Mileage 0.74 For information regarding this report, contact VDOT's Residency Administrator or Central Office (Suzanne Ellison (804) 786-0974) Page 6 of 80 December 11, 2013 Speakers List Afternoon Session 1. Mr. Geor.,e Beadles 2. 3. 4. 5. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1749 AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 11. Subject: Closed Session County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: 0 Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: Closed session pursuant to § 2.2-3711(A)(3), Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to discuss the acquisition by the County of real estate for a public purpose where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position and negotiating strategy of the County. Preparer: Jeffrey L. Mincks Attachments: F]Yes Title: County Attorney 0425:91593.1 0 No rz CHESTERFIELD COUNTY i4 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 �s a ' AGENDA Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 15.A. Subiect: Resolution Recognizing Janet Workman, Danny Workman, Brandy Workman, Amy Vineyard and Mary Hudgins as Lifetime Volunteer Award Recipients for Their Exemplary Volunteerism County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: The Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission requests that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognize Janet Workman, Danny Workman, Brandy Workman, Amy Vineyard and Mary Hudgins for their exceptional community contributions. Summary of Information: Janet Workman, Danny Workman, Brandy Workman, Amy Vineyard and Mary Hudgins, were instrumental in the creation of the Horseplay Riding Program which has served youths with intellectual and physical disabilities over the past 20 years. Their leadership and mentoring have served the community and enriched the lives of individuals with special needs. Preparer: Michael S. Golden Title: Director, Parks and Recreation Attachments: ■ Yes F] No # 6 RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING VOLUNTEERS ON THE HORSEPLAY ADVISORY BOARD WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission has recommended recognition of exemplary volunteerism in the Parks and Recreation area through display of volunteer names and accomplishments on five Volunteer Hall of Fame Monuments located throughout the Parks System; and WHEREAS, the Lifetime Volunteer Award is a special award that recognizes the exemplary leadership and character of volunteers whose achievements will be a source of historic pride for future leaders in the community; and WHEREAS, the Workman family of Janet, Danny and Brandy have been leaders and mentors with Horseplay since the beginning in 1993, Amy Vineyard since 1994 and Mary Hudgins since 2001; and WHEREAS, through the efforts of these individuals, the lives of 300 youths with intellectual and physical disabilities have been enriched through therapeutic horseback riding; and WHEREAS, the physical benefits to these youths include improved balance and coordination, greater strength, muscle control and increased range of motion; and the psychological benefits include a sense of achievement, increased confidence and self-esteem; and WHEREAS, the volunteers of Horseplay have spent hundreds of hours teaching classes, fundraising, hosting county horse shows, training volunteers, maintaining certification and building their own facility to host the program; and WHEREAS, Horseplay began as a Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation program in 1993 and then the volunteers established Horseplay Therapeutic Riding Program in 2004 as a 501C (3) non-profit organization. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 11th of December 2013, publicly recognizes the Workman family of Janet, Danny and Brandy, Amy Vineyard and Mary Hudgins on behalf of the citizens of Chesterfield County, for their dedicated and unselfish commitment to the youths of Chesterfield County with intellectual and physical disabilities by displaying these volunteers' names on the Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Volunteer Hall of Fame Monument located at Harry G. Daniel Park at Ironbridge. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes the dedicated commitment and untiring efforts displayed by the Workman family of Janet, Danny and Brandy, Amy Vineyard and Mary Hudgins and urges all Chesterfield County residents to keep their many contributions fondly in mind when they visit the Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Volunteer Hall of Fame Monument in Harry G. Daniel. Park at Ironbridge. December 11, 2013 Speaker's List Evening Session #1 (Following Presentation of Resolutions) 1. Brenda Stewart 2. Bernie Johns 3. Zachary Johns 4. Tan pp,{�PX`A1 5. Evening Session #2 (End of the Evening Agenda) 1. 2. 3. 0 a Larry and Bernie johns 15537 Chesdin Landing Court Chesterfieff Virginia, 23838 804-590-9595 December 11, 2013 I am here this evening to ask each of you to render assistance to the Parks and Recreation department regarding a change that needs to be made to the Sports Manual of Policies and Procedures, pertaining to cosponsored athletic programs. Item 10 under General criteria, pertains to jurisdictional boundaries that the PR department uses to maintain balance with the co-sponsored athletic associations to form teams for their programs. The way this policy is written, it permits athletic leagues to essentially re -write the policy to their liking, and it has had an adverse effect on our youth athletes who attend county schools on child care waivers. In early August my eight year old son Zachary was denied the opportunity to play football through a co-sponsored program offered through Parks and Recreation. My husband and I tried to explain to the league representatives that our son attends Grange Hall Elementary on a child care waiver and should be given the same opportunities as his classmates. In spite of our plea, our son was told not to return to practice until a waiver was approved by the league, and ultimately was denied because we live outside the "jurisdictional" boundary of Grange Hall Elementary School. I complained to Parks and Recreation about it and I was told that the leagues set their own rules and they were not going to get involved. So, I reviewed the Parks and Recreation policy manual and found numerous items and criteria that the athletic associations must adhere to. Including rosters, with names and addresses be provided that would verify the jurisdictional boundary, for the teams they are forming. This single sentence requirement is too vague and allows any athletic organization to exclude our youth athletes from their programs if they are attending school outside of their home school zone or "jurisdictional" address. When I reached out to the school board about this in October, they quickly responded with a letter to the director of PR and you, requesting that the policy manual be modified to accommodate the diverse needs of the families and 1500 children who attend county schools outside of their jurisdictional school boundary. Each of these families have unique circumstances that lead to the child care waiver being approved. Each of these children are being denied access to athletic programs that run through Parks and Recreation unless they are lucky enough to get their waiver approved, but many times they are not. My request is simple, children in attendance at an elementary school regardless of the reason, those children should be regarded by the PR department to be "within the jurisdictional boundary" for roster classification. By inserting this language into already existing policy, these young athletes will no longer be denied access to the programs that are offered through Parks and Recreation. Since this has all started, I have attended three PRAC meetings and it has become apparent to me, they need your help. Mr. Golden has been waiting since October for the commission to give him a report so that he can do what ultimately needs to be done. This can be found on page 13, General Criteria for Co-sponsorship, item 10. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ` BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 y AGENDA 1749 Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 18.A. Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Alternative Financial Institutions County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Following a public hearing, approve Alternative Financial Institutions. Summary of Information: Policy Amendment Relative to policy amendment relative to PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION At its October 15, 2013 meeting, the Planning Commission, on a vote of 4 to 1, forwarded a recommendation of approval of the attached policy amendment. POLICY HISTORY AND AMENDMENT SUMMARY On April 10, 2013, following a recommendation by the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors adopted amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and a policy regarding the locations of Alternative Financial Institutions. Subsequent to the adoption, the Board considered several proposals for these institutions. During those considerations, concern was expressed that the policy would allow such institutions within freestanding buildings. It was suggested that the policy be amended to require the institutions to be located within a structure housing three or more independent uses that is located in a shopping center which should serve to minimize their visual appearance within the surrounding community. The attached amended policy would accomplish this goal. On August 28, 2013, the Board of Supervisors referred the attached policy amendment to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation. Preparer: Kirkland A. Turner Title: Director of Planning Attachments: ■ Yes No G G 43 070 Proposed Amendment to: ALTERNATIVE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION POLICY Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors Zoning Guidance (NGTE, following general guidelines will be used for evaluation of zoning applications for alternative financial institutions. Compliance with these guidelines will not automatically address all site or operationally specific concerns associated with a particular zoning application. Additional conditions of zoning may be imposed and/or recommended to address such concerns, or to insure compliance with the Plan —=er—Gresterfiel comprehensive plan or the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance.4- A. Definition: Alternative financial institutions (AFIs) provide short-term, high -interest personal lending services. These institutions include: check cashing establishments (not including incidental check cashing), motor vehicle title lenders, pawnbrokers, payday lenders and other businesses with similar business models and land use impacts that are not specifically enumerated by the Zoning Ordinance, as determined by the Director of Planning. For the purposes of this policy, AFIs do not include banks, credit unions, savings and loan associations, or precious metals dealers. B. Criteria: AFIs should be located in compliance with the following criteria and standards: f A maximum of one AFI shall be permitted in a single building. One type of AFI shall not offer services associated with another type of AFI. However, this provision shall not prohibit payday lenders from offering check cashing services. AFIs shall be located within a shopping center and within a building which is designed, constructed or repurposed for use and occupancy by three or more separate tenants. 7 7777- AFIs shall be located only in areas designated by the Co phe" si Pin Comprehensive Plan for General Business use. Special consideration may be given to areas designated for Community Business use, based on proffered conditions providing adequate land use transition and compatibility. A minimum distance separation of 5,280 feet shall be provided between AFIs, as measured between closest property lines. ,� AFIs shall not be located on property that is contiguous to property designated on the Comprehensive Plan for residential use, or is zoned or developed for residential uses. • Signs advertising AFIs shall conform to approved sign within -residential communities packages (as applicable) t n non (e.g. shopping centers). • AFIs shall not display exposed neon window signs other than "open" for business signs. Ch rt erver, Your Comnwnity Newspaper Since 1995 , P.O. Boz 1616, Midlothian, Virginia 23113 • Phone: (804) 545-75(X) • Fax: (904) 744-3269 • Email: news@ chesterfieldobserver.bom • Internet: www.chesterfieldobservdr.com ADVERTISING AFFIDAVIT Client Description Ad Size Cost (per issue) Chesterfield County LN: Alt -Financial -Institutions 12-4 1/10P - 1.05 in. $294.91 Board of Supervisors The Observer, Inc. TAKE NOTICE I Publisher of Take notice that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, at CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER an adjourned meeting on Wednesday, December 11, 2013, at 6:30 p.m. in the County Public Meeting Room at the Chesterfield Administration Building, This is to certify that the attached legal notice was published by Route 10 and Lori Road, Chesterfield, Virginia, will hold a public hearing where Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia, on persons may appear and present their the following date(s): 12/4/2013 views concerning: A proposed policy amendment that would require all alternative financial institutions to be located within a shopping , center and within a building, which is designed, Sworn to and subscribed before me this (� day of constructed or repurposed for use and occupancy by three or more separate tenants. 2013. A copy of the full text of the policy amendment is on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator's Office, Room 504, 9901 Lori Road, Chesterfield County, Virginia and may be examined by all % ��%I /� (�—L�YY✓)� interested persons between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Legal Affiant James T, Grooms Jr., Notary Public Friday. If further information is desired, please contact the Planning Department at 748-1050, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. My commission expires: February 29, 2016 The hearing is held at a public facility designed to be accessible to persons with Commission I.D. 7182093 disabilities. Any persons with questions on S (� the accessibility of the facility or the need 9+a' ,e'�i for reasonable accommodations should contact Janice Blakley> Clerk to the Board, v^ C,ROO� °•, % R , r, ••`yoTARY � ' vat . . Persons needinginterpreter puaLlC I services for the deaf must otiify the �F �'; 93••'.p # 71620 to the Board no later than December 6, 2013. . EG R L O�,MISSION THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Pagel of 2 Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 18.8. Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Code Amendments Relative to Keeping Chickens in Residential Districts (R-7, R-9, R-12, R-15, R-25, R-40 and R-88) County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Hold a public hearing and adopt the attached Ordinance amendments relative to keeping chickens in Residential Districts. Summary of Information PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION On October 15, 2013, following a public hearing, the Planning Commission, with a vote of 4 in favor and 1 opposed, recommended approval of the attached ordinance amendment with one modification, increasing the maximum number of chickens kept from four (4) to six (6) (Sec. 19-65(k)(2)). AMENDMENT OVERVIEW The Zoning Ordinance currently permits the keeping of a maximum of twelve (12) chickens in an Agricultural (A) District on parcels containing less than three (3) acres. The Ordinance does not limit the number of chickens kept on Agricultural parcels having more than three (3) acres. Prior to 2002, the Ordinance permitted the keeping of a maximum of twelve (12) chickens in Residential Districts. In 2002, the Ordinance was amended to require a conditional use for the keeping of any chickens in a Residential District. Preparer: Kirkland A. Turner Title: Director of Plannin Attachments: 0 Yes F-1No #; . ►- CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA Summary of Information (Continued) Recent community interest and pending conditional use applications to allow chicken keeping in Residential Districts prompted the Board of Supervisors to direct staff to consider possible amendments to the ordinance to allow the use in all single family Residential Districts. In June, 2013, staff provided information to the Board outlining possible considerations in the preparation of an ordinance amendment. On August 28, 2013, the Board directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to allow the keeping of chickens in Residential Districts and refer the amendment to the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation no later than the Commission's regularly scheduled meeting in November, 2013. As recommended, chicken keeping would become a use permitted in Residential Districts subject to specific restrictions. If these restrictions are met, no further zoning action would be required. If one or more of these restrictions is not met, conditional use approval would be required. '✓07 4 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 19-65 AND 19-301 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 19-65 and 19-301 of the Code of the Couno�of Chester geld, 1997, as amended, are amended and re-enacted, to read as follows: CHAPTER 19 ZONING Sec. 19-65. Uses permitted with certain restrictions. The following uses shall be permitted in the R-88 District subject to compliance with the following conditions and other applicable standards of this chapter. If these restrictions cannot be met, these uses may be allowed by conditional use, subject to section 19-13: ••• (k) Keeping of chickens provided that: (1) The use is incidental to a dwellin on n the premises; (2) A maximum of four (4) chickens are kept; (3) Roosters are not kept; (4) At all times, chickens are kept within a single building having a single attached fenced outside run as follows: a. The building is a minimum of 10 square feet and a maximum of 20 square feet; b. The fenced outside run area is a maximum of 40 square feet and has a minimum area of 5 square feet per chicken; and c. The fenced outside run area is securely enclosed on the top and sides with a wire mesh or similar material; (5) The building and attached outside run area are located in the rear yard and setback a minimum of 25 feet from all property lines, and (6) Slaughtering of chickens does not occur. 5 1928.91029.3 19-341. Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: •1• Chicken: A domestic egg -lag hen belonging to the subspecies Gallus gallus domesticus and does not refer to any other type of fowl or game bird. *0 Stock Farm, residential: A parcel of land on which are kept one or more cows, sheep, goats, horses, el4ekens or fowl other than chickens, rabbits or other small domesticated livestock, or other farm animals. 000 (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 1928.91029.3 My name is Virginia Summers and I live in the Bermuda district. I want to thank Ms Jaeckle, Mr Stegmeier and the Board for hearing me. I hope members will vote to approve this issue. There are more than a few people keeping chickens under the radar in Chesterfield county who would like nothing better than to be in compliance with the law. Most of whom were completely in compliance with the law before 2002, when we were allowed to keep up to 12 chickens on residential property. Despite all these underground chickens, I have been told that several counties, including Chesterfield, have not received any chickens turned into Animal Control. I've been told Animal Control supports this ordinance. I think allowing chickens as pets will be a positive experience for most. There are numerous forums and groups in Virginia to support chicken keeping. From giving advice on care, to being a resource for heritage breeds, to finding homes when circumstances dictate one needs to re -home birds. With appropriate shelter and confinement, it's easy to keep chickens healthy in a residential area without imposing upon ones neighbors. As far as noise is concerned, a neighbor's private pool 2 houses away from me creates far more noise all summer than a few hens. Actually more noise than a rooster creates. The new ordinance does a reasonable job of creating guidelines to do that. I'd like a larger pen, but then I prefer to give animals more space than the minimum. I appreciate the Planning Commisions decision to increase the number of allowed birds to 6. I know of a flock of 6 birds, which were, between the shorter days, and molting, producing about 1 egg every other day, eventually making up a dozen eggs. One can expect that to start to improve after Dec 21, as egg laying is dependent upon daylight and length of day. Links to chicken forums: http•//i)etchickensofvirginia com/grol)/forums/viewtoDic phn?L-30&t=677 htti)://www.eastcoastchickens.com/index.phi) http //www backyardchickens com/a/how-to-raise-backyard-chickens-in-your-city-the-basics-of- raising-chickens ve Obse C h, w- h + ner,, Your Community Nem,spaper Since 1,995 P.O. Box 1616, Midlothian, Virginia 23113 • Phone: (804) 545-7500 • Fax: (804) 744-3269 • Email: news@chest6rfieldobserveccom • Internet: w•ww.chekterfieldobserver.com ADVERTISING AFFIDAVIT Client Description Ad Size Cost (per issue) Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors TAKE NOTICE Take notice that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, at an adjourned meeting on Wednesday, December 11, 2013, at 6:30 p.m. in the County Public Meeting Room at the Chesterfield Administration Building, Route 10 and Lori Road, Chesterfield, Virginia, will hold a public hearing where persons may appear and present their views concerning: An Ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, by amending and re-enacting Sections 19-65 and 19-301 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to keeping of chickens in Residential Districts. This amendment would allow (with certain restrictions relating to, among other things, number and kind of chickens, nature and dimensions of the chicken coop and outside run, fencing, setbacks, etc.), the keeping of chickens in Residential Districts and remove and separately define the term "chicken" from the definition of "residential stock farm.' After the public hearing, the Board of Supervisors may make changes to the proposed ordinance amendment including, among other things, increases or decreases to the number of permitted chickens and increases or decreases to the proposed restrictions. A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrators Office, Room 504, 9901 Lori Road, Chesterfield County, Virginia and may be examined by all interested persons between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. If further information is desired, please contact the Planning Department at 748- 1050, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The hearing is held at a public facility designed to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Any persons with questions on the accessibility of the facility or the need for reasonable accommodations should contact Janice Blakley, Clerk to the Board, at 748-1200. Persons needing interpreter services for the deaf must notify the Clerk to the Board no later than December 6, 2013. LN:Residential-Chickens 11-27, 1/101? +.61 in. $367.27 12-4 The Observer, Inc. Publisher of CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER This is to certify that the attached legal notice was published by Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia, on the following date(s): 11/27/2013 & 12/4/2013 Sworn to and subscribed before me this L, 4 day of 2013. 01 1tiy r L gal Affiant James T, Grooms Jr., Notary Public My commission expires: February 29, 2016 Commission I.D. 7182093 (SEAL) °e47str��®i�d"" G R O O ^"-"" " o .,. 0 �. NOTARY •• = � . •• PUBLIC ' v •REG # 7182093 •' n ; MY COMMISSION Q o EXPIRES •'•, 2/29/2016 ,•' �� a LTH.�F THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU. ALBANY LAW SCHOOL LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH PAPER SERIES NO. 46 of 2010-2011 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 Raymond and Ella Smith Distinguished Professor of Law; Associate Dean; Director, Government Law Center Copyright 02009. Posted with permission of the author. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1774023 ZvNING AND PLANNING LAW REPINT MARCH 201 1 1 Vol. 34 1 No. 3 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. "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- cavoresl 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.' 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.' Longmont, Colorado of- 41048326 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.' 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,' and changes have been proposed in other cities, including Lafayette, Colorado;' Batavia, Illinois;' Albany, New York;10 and North Salt Lake, Utah." 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," and Grand Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1774023 WEST® MARCH 2011 1 Vol. 34 1 No. 3 Zoning and Planning Law Report 2 LAW REPORT Feeding the Locavores, One Chicken at a Time: Regulating Backyard Chickens ..................1 I. Introduction ............................... .............................. 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 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, Si. 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. 0 2011 Thomson Reuters ISSN 0161=8113 Editorial Offices: 50 Broad Street East, Rochester, NY 14694 Tel.: 585-546-5530 Taxi 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. It you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or othe professional 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." 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." 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 .21 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. 1121 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. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1774023 © 2011 Thomson Reuters Zoning and Planning Law Report MARCH 2011 i Vol. 34 1 No. 3 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 .21 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 45° 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 © 2011 Thomson Reuters week. 12 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. 1135 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 '31 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 .31 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 4' a practice that is apparently popular to produce multi -colored chicks for Easter .41 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 .41 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 1 Vol. 34 1 No. 3 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. 1144 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[.]"46The 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 .41 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 .4' 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- 4 Zoning and Planning Law Report cedural grounds three convictions sustained by the defendant for keeping a rooster in violation of an animal nuisance ordinances' 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. 1152 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. 1113 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] rider circumstances where no noise, odor, or pollu- tion violation or nuisance is occasioned thereby, 1114 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. © 2011 Thomson Reuters Zoning and Planning Law Report 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." 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." 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. "I' 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 © 2011 Thomson Reuters MARCH 2011 1 Vol. 34 1 No. 3 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.6' 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." 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 .17 In addition to al- 'v MARCH 2011 1 Vol. 34 1 No. 3 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 '71 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 '71 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 6 Zoning and Planning Law Report 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," 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."" 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 .14 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. 16 The size of coops and fenced enclosures is often determined by the number of hens kept in the flock. In Knoxville 17 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,S9 0 2011 Thomson Reuters Zoning and Planning Law Report 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. 1112 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. 14 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 0 2011 Thomson Reuters MARCH 2011 1 Vol. 34 1 No. 3 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,1 ' pro- hibits chicken slaughtering in residential districts, while Chicago allows slaughtering only by licensed slaughtering establishments.10' 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 blogs"I 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 1 Vol. 34 1 No. 3 Washington Post, May 14, 2009, http://www.wash- ingtonp ost. com/wp-dyn/conten t/article/2 009/05/ 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-ch ick- 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). Mary MacVean, Victory Gardens Sprout Up Again, Los Angeles Times (January 10, 2009), available at: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/l 0/home/hm- victoryl 0/2 (visited February 2011). Amy Eddings, What the Cluck?! Backyard Chick- en -Keeping Booming in New York City, WNYC, Jul. 8, 2010, http://vrww.wnyc.org/articies/wnyc- news/20 1 0/jul/08/what-the-cluck-backyard-chick- en-keeping-booming-in-new-york-city/ (visited Feb- ruary 2011). 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. 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). Dan Flynn, Nations' Cities Debate Backyard Chick- ens, Food Safety News, http://www.foodsaferynews. 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/j ul/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. Zoning and Planning Law Report 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/3 671554- 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://v ww.clippertoday.com/view/full_sto- ry/ 11112756/article-NSL-pecks-a t-backyard-chick- en-idea?instance=secon dary_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.conVvancouver—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/foo d -2011 -01 -05 -how -to -get -your -city -to - allow -b ackyard-chickens. 1S. No Backyard Chickens for Springville Residents, Daily Herald (January 24, 2011), available at: http://www.heraidextra.com/news/state-and-re- gional/utah/article_2916f1 cl-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/2010/0 8/ 0 2011 Thomson Reuters It Zoning and Planning Law Report MARCH 2011 1 Vol. 34 1 No. 3 0 2011 Thomson Reuters 9 city_commissioner_james_white.html (visited Feb- 5 15.04.01.09(A)(3) (requiring registration of pack ruary 2011). ers who keep fewer than 3,000 chickens but exempt - 17. Cindy Schroeder, Cities Cry Fowl Over Residential ing them from registration and inspection fees); N.Y. Agr. & M. 5 90-c (requiring domestic animal health Chickens, Cincinnati.com (Feb. 12, 2011), available at: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110212/ permits only for chicken wholesalers and transport- NEWS0103/102130335/Cities-cry-fowl-over-resi- dential-chickens?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctcx 30. ers). See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. S 22-324 (specifically in- t%7CFRONTPAGE (visited February 2011). cluding poultry kept as pets); N.Y. Ag. & M. 5 73. 18. Devra First, Back to the Land, Boston Globe (May 31. Texas Dept. of State Health Services, Food Establish - 27, 2009), available at: http://www.boston.com/ ments Group Regulatory Clarifications, http:Hwww. lifestyle/green/articles/2009/05/27/back-to-the- dshs.state.tx.us/foodestablishments/pdf/RegClarifi- land/?page=2 (visited February 2011). cations/E23-13195_FEGRC_9.pdf (revised May 1, 19. Mary MacVean, Victory Gardens Sprout Up Again, 2009). See also http://agr.wa.gov/FoodAnimal/Eggs/ Licensing.aspx (visited February 2011). Los Angeles Times (January 109, 2009), available at: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/10/home/ 32. K.R.S. 55260.540 et seq. See also 2010-2011 Ken- hm-victoryl0 (visited February 2011). tucky Farmers' Market Manual, Kentucky Dept. of 20. J.E. Ikerd, Current Status and Future Trends in Agriculture, http://www.kyagr.com/marketing/farm- American Agriculture: Farming with Grass, avail- able at: http://web.missouri.edu/-ikerdj/papers/ market/documents/20102011KyFarmersMarketMa nualwCover.pdf 73-75. Oklahoma %20Farming%20with%20Grass%20 33. State of Alabama Farmers Market Authority, Guid- -%20Status%20%2OTrends.htm, p.6 (visited Feb- ance re: Sale of Farm Raised Eggs at Farmers Mar- ruary 2011). kets, Jan. 27, 2009, http://www.fma.alabama.gov/ 21. See Kathryn A. Peters, Creating a Sustainable Urban PDFs_NEW/Shell_Eggs.pdf. Agriculture Revolution, 25 Envtl. L. & Litig. 203, 34. M.C.L. S 289.333. A "first receiver" is a person who 214-215 (2010) (discussing the forces popularizing receives eggs from a producer at any place of business urban agriculture). where such eggs are to be candled, graded, sorted 22. http://www.cherokeega.com/departments/plannin- and packed or packaged. M.C.L. S 289.321(d). See gandzoning/uploads/File/OrdChanges/backyard_ also Michigan Department of Agriculture, Operat- chicken_ord_7.7-9_version_09-16.pdf (visited Feb- ing Policy for Egg Sales at Farmers' Markets, http:// ruary 2011). www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125--212367-- 23. See Sandra B. Eskin, Putting All Your Eggs in One Basket: Egg Safety and the Case for a Single Food- 35. ,00.html. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, Farm Direct: Specific Safety Agency, 59 Food Drug L.J. 441 (2004); http:H commodities: Eggs, http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/ www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/birdbiosecurity/ pub_fd_commodities.shtml#Eggs. (visited February 2011). 36. Michigan Department of Agriculture, Farmers' Mar - 24. 21 U.S.C.A. 55451 et seq. ket FAQ, http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7- 25. 21 U.S.C.A. 551031 et seq. 125-1568_2387_46671_46672-169336--,00.html. 26. 7 C.F.R. S 57.100 (egg products); 9 C.F.R. S 381.10 37. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, Farm Direct: Specific commodities: Meat and poultry, http://www.oregon. (poultry products); see also http://www.fsis.usda. gov/oppde/rdad/fsisnotices/poultry_slaughter_ex- gov/ODA/pub-fd-commodities.shtml#Meat-and- emption 0406.pdf at 5 (providing a flow chart to poultry. See also North Carolina Dept. of Agricul- ture & Consumer Services, Meat & Poultry Inspec- determine whether a poultry producer is exempt). See generally Geoffrey S. Becker, CRS Report for tion Information Statement, http://www.ncagr.gov/ Congress RL32922, Meat and Poultry Inspection: meatpoultry/info.htm. Background and Selected Issues, Mar. 22, 2010, 38. N.Y. Mult. D. S 12(2). available at http://www.nationalaglawcentCLorg/as- 39. MCL S 125.479 (prohibited uses); MCLS 125.401 sets/crs/RL32922.pdf (visited February 2011). (scope of act). 27. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oppde/rdad/fsisnotices/ 40. See Humane Society of the United States, Cockfight- poultry_slaughter_exemption_0406.pdf at 2 (visited ing: State Laws, http://www.humanesociety.org/as- February 2011). sets/pdfs/animal_fighting/cockfighting_statelaws.pdf 28. See http://www.cdc.gov/Features/SalmonellaPoultry/ (listing statutes) (last updated June 2010); Brandi and http://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/pdf/intown_ Grissom, Cockfighting Outfits Evade the Law, and flocks.pdf. Continue to Prosper, The New York Times, Dec. 29. See, e.g., Md. Agriculture Code Ann. S 4-217 (au- 23, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/ thorizing exemptions similar to those under the us/26ttcockfighting.html. (visited February 2011). federal Poultry Products Inspection Act); COMAR 41. See, e.g., D.C. Code 5 8-1808; Fla. Stat. 5 828.161. 0 2011 Thomson Reuters 9 MARCH 2011 1 Vol. 34 1 No. 3 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 S 20-015 (http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/code/data/ tl02Opl.htm). See also Code of Ordinances, City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Title 10 Chapter 1 S 10-114 (http://www.mtas.utk.cdu/public/municodesweb.ns f/Scde681dbdedc10f8525664000615fc4/aa36ab28 994d l l e585256faa006a8613/$FILE/Oakridge.tl0. 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.W2d 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.comlhtml/11743/ level3/COOR_CH4ANFO ARTIIOFREAN. html#COOR_CH4ANF0_ARTIIOFREAN_S4- 8FO (visited February 2011). 55. See, e.g., the codes of Fullerton, California (http:// www.cityoffullerton.com/depts/dev_sery/code_en- forcement/animal_regulations.asp) (visited February 2011); and Portland, Oregon (http://www.portland- Zoning and Planning Law Report 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_a dministration/City_Clerk/Docu- ments/Backyard%20Chickens%2OPermit%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/ NEW S/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://libraryl.municode. com:80/default/template.htm?view=browse&doc_ action=setdoc&doc_keytype=tocid&doc_key= lc56ab278fcac109f43fOa5468a9a640&infoba se=19970. 58. Code of Ordinances, City of Knoxville, Tennes- see, Part 2 Chapter 5 Article IV S 5-107 (http://Ii- brary.mun'code.com/'ndex.aspx?clientId=11098& stateld=42&stateName=Tennessee&customBann er=11098.jpg&imageclass=L&c1=11098.txt). 59. City of Salem, Oregon, Chicken License Applica- tion, see http://www.cityofsalem.net/Departments/ CommunityDevelopment/BAS/Documents/Chick- en%20License%2OApplication.pdf (visited Febru- ary 2011). 60. City of Adair Village Backyard Chicken Permit Ap- plication, available at: http://www.cityofadairvil- lage.org/Planning/2010 %2OBuilding %2OPermits/ Backyard -Ch icken-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/DocumentsBackyard %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.Iongmont.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. 10 © 2011 Thomson Reuters Zoning and Planning Law Report MARCH 2011 1 Vol. 34 1 No. 3 67. San Francisco Health Code, art. 1, S 37; see http:// 77. Pima County Code of Ordinances, S 18.25.010; http://library.municode.com/htmVl6ll9/leve]2/ library.municode.com/HTML/14136/levell/AR- T1AN.html#ARTIAN_S37KEFESMANPOGABI see TIT18Z0_CH18.25SIREZO.html (visited February 68. (visited February 2011). Houston, Code SS 6-34 (show chickens), 6-38 78. 2011). http://sterlingcodifiers.com/co debook/getBookData. (chicken hens); available at: http://library.municode. php?section_id=600663 (visited February 2011). com/index.aspx?clientld=10123&stateId=43&state 79. Little Rock City Code, Little Rock, Arkansas Chap- Name=Texas (visited February 2011). ter 6 Article 4(44); see http://Iibrary.municode.com/ 69. Windsor Heights, Iowa, City Code, Section 32.02, index. aspx?clientId=11170&stateId=4&stateName =Arkansas (visited February 2011). available at: http://www.windsorheights.org/ City %20Code/Ch%2032%20Animal%20Control. 80. Municipal Code of Topeka, Kansas Title 6 S40; see pdf (visited February 2011). http://www.codepublishing.com/KS/Topeka/ (visited 70. http://www.co.Iarimer.co.us/planning/planning/ land_use_code/amendmentsadopted111510back- 81. February 2011). Code of the City of Stamford, Connecticut 5111-6; yardchickens.pdf (visited February 2011). see http://Ilbrary2.municode.com/default-test/home. 71. Seattle Municipal Code 23.42.052, as amended htm?infobase=13324&doc_action=whatsnew (vis - ited February 2011). Aug. 23, 2010, available at http://clerk.ci.seattle. wa.us/%7Escripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s3=116907&s 82. Sacramento Code 59.44.340, http://www.gcode. 4=&s2=&s5=&Sect4=AND&1=20&Sect2=THESO us/codes/sacramento/view.php?topic=9-9_44-iii- N&Sect3=PLURON&Sect5=CBORY&Sect6=HIT 9_44_360&frames=on (visited February 2011). OFF&d=ORDF&p=1&u=%2F%7Epublic%2Fcbo 83. Lenexa Code S 3-2-H-1, http://www.cl.lenexa.ks.us/ ry.htm&r=1&f=G (visited February 2011). LenexaCode/codetext.asp?section= 003.002.008 72. See, e.g., Xi Yu, Chicken and Duck Owners in Cam- bridge Lose Appeal, The Harvard Crimson, Feb. 12, 84. (visited February 2011). City of Atlanta, GA Zoning Code, http:Hlibrary. 2010. municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10376&stateId 73. See, e.g., Simmons v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of New- =10&stateName=Georgia Art. II sec. 18-7 (visited buryport, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 5, 798 N.E.2d 1025 (2003) (stabling three horses found not to be "agri- 85. February 2011). Code of Ordinances, City of Knoxville, Tennes- cultural," but permitted as an accessory residential see, Part 2 Chapter 5 Article fV S 5-107 (http:Hli- use); Anderson v. Board of County Com'rs of Teton brary.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=11098& County, 2009 WY 122, 217 P.3d 401 (Wyo. 2009) stateId=42&stateName=Tennessee&customBann (upholding the board's determination that a barn/ er=11098.jpg&imageclass=L&c1=11098.txt). equestrian center was an accessory residential strut- 86. City of Atlanta, GA, Zoning Code, http:Hlibrary. ture). municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10376&stateId 74. See, e.g., De Benedetti v. River Vale Tp., Bergen =10&stateName=Georgia Art. H sec. 18-7 (visited County, 21 N.J. Super. 430, 91 A.2d 353 (App. Div. February 2011). 1952) ("Certainly, chicken houses could not be con- 87. Code of Ordinances, City of Knoxville, Tennes- sidered as accessory to, or complementary to, the see, Part 2 Chapter 5 Article IV S 5-107 (http://li- main building of plaintiffs' premises, which is the brary.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=11098& dwelling house."); Lawrence v. Zoning Bd. of Ap- stateId=42&stateName=Tennessee &customBann peals of Town of North Branford, 158 Conn. 509, er=11098.jpg&imageclass=L&cl=11098.txt) (vis - 264 A.2d 552 (1969) (holding that the board did ited February 2011). not act illegally or arbitrarily in determining that the 88. City of Atlanta, GA., Zoning Code, http:Hlibrary. raising of chickens and goats was not an accessory municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10376&stateId use to residential property located in the center of =10&stateName=Georgia Art. H sec. 18-7 (visited town under an ordinance permitting accessory uses February 2011). customarily incidental to uses in rural residential 89. http://search.municode.com/html/l1265/level4/ and agricultural districts). CICO _CH7ANF0_ARTIVLIPO_DIV2PO.html 75. Code of Ordinances, City of Concord, New Hamp- (visited February 2011). shire Title IV Chapter 28(4)(28); see http://library. 90. Code of Ordinances, City of Concord, New Hamp- municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10210&stateId shire Title IV Chapter 28(4)(28) (http://Iibrary.mu- =29&stateName=New%20Hampshire (visited Feb- nicode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10210&stateId=29 ruary 2011). &stateName=New%20Hampshire). 76. Grand Rapids, MN Code 5 10-72; see also 91. Baton Rouge Code 514:224 (c)(1) (http://library. h ttp://www.f a c e b o ok.com/note.p hp? note_ municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10107&stateId id=134300076826 (visited February 2011). = 18 &stateName=Louisiana). © 2011 Thomson Reuters 11 MARCH 2011 1 Vol. 34 1 No. 3 92. New York City Health Code S161.19, http://www. nvc.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://Iaw.opkan- sas.org/1pBin22/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. j amestownpress.com/news/2010-11-04/News/Zon- ing_Board_rej ects_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/201 0-1 t-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.ciryoflcadvilic.com/reports/PZMinut es/2010PZMinutes/20100706AppMinutes.pdf (vis- ited February 2011). 97. Rogers, Arkansas Ordinance No. 06-100, http:H www.rogersarkansas.com/clerk/chkordinance.asp (visited February 2011). 98. Buffalo Code S 341-11.3(D), http://www.ecode360. com/?custld=BU1237 (visited February 2011). 99. Madison, Wisconsin Code S 28.08(2)(b)8.j.11), http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?cllentld=5 0000&stateld=49&stateName=Wisconsin (visited February 2011). Zoning and Planning Law Report 100. Knoxvile Code Art. II S 5-107, http://library.muni- code.com/index.aspx?clientId=l 109 8 &stateld=42 &stateName=Tennessee&customBanner=11098. jpg&imageclass=L&cl=11098.txt (visited February 2011). 101. Chicago Code S 7-12-300, http://www.amle- gal.com/nxt/gateway.dil/Illinois/chicago_il/mu nicipalcodeofchicago?f=templates$fn=default. htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicago_il (visited February 2011). 102. San Francisco Code, http://Iibrary.municode.com/ index. aspx?clientId=14136&stateld=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 5 18:10 Zeigler, Rathkopf's The Law of Zoning and Plan- ning S 33:16 Keeping Poultry as Nuisance, 2 A.L.R.3d 965 12 0 2011 Thomson Reuters A Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELRO, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. 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.' 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 animalsz—many city -dwellers are taking it into their own hands to provide solutions.' 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.' 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 Author's Note: I would like to thank my research assistant Hannah Markel. I would alto like to thank Heidi Gorovitz Robertson and Carolyn Broering-facobs for their support and mentorship. 1. Kimberly Hodgson et al., Urban Agriculture. Growing Healthy Sustainable PGtces, American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service, Report No. 563 Uan. 2011); JANINE DE LA SALLE & MARK HOLLAND, AGRICUL- TURAL URBANISM, HANDBOOK FOR BUILDING SUSTAINABLE FOOD & AGRI- CULTURAL SYSTEMS IN 2IST 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. Eg., 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, Community Development Through Gardening.• State and Local Policies Transforming Urban Open Space, 3 N.Y.U. J. LEGIS. & PUB. POL'Y 315, 354 (1999-2000). 5. Hodgson, supra note 1, at 3-4. 42 ELR 10888 Electronic cEbpy avqllabl� at hit0/ SSrn Eor�i/abstact=2119494 9-2012 Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELRO, http://www.eii.org, 1-800-433-5120. more established channels like supermarkets and conve- nience stores. Part of the greater urban agriculture movement involves urban animal husbandry—raising livestock in an urban setting. While many cities have allowed for bees, goats, and other livestock in the City,' this Article will focus on how cities regulate chickens? 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." 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, Regional Foodsheds: Are Our Local Zoning and Land Use Regulations Healthy?, 22 FORDHAM ENvTL. L. REV. 599, 617 (2011); Brandon Baird, The Pending Farmers Market Fiasco: Small -Time Farmers, Part -Time Shoppers, and a Big -Time Problem, 1 KYJEANRL 49, 49- 50 (2008-2009). See also Kirk Johnson, Small Farmers Creating a New Busi- ness Model as Agriculture Goes Local, N.Y.TimEs, July 1, 2012, http://www. nytim es. com /2012 /07/ 02 /us/small-scale-farmers-creating-a-new-p rofi t- 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 WHISPERERS 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. Eg., Heather Wooten & Amy Ackerman, Seeding the City: Land Use Poli- cies to Promote Urban Agricultural, NATIONAL POLICY & LEGAL ANALYSIS NETWORK TO PREVENT CHILDHOOD OBESITY, 34 (2011); Kailee Neuner et al., Planning to Eat. Innovative Local Government Plans and Policies to Build Healthy Food Systems in the United States, FOOD SYSTEMS PLANNING AND HEALTHY COMMUNITIES LAB, UNIVERSITY OF BUFFALO, THE STATE UNrVER- SITY OF NEW YORK, 17 (2011). 9. See also Patricia Salkin, Feeding the Locavores, One Chicken at a Time: Regu- lating Backyard Chickens, 34:3 ZONING & PLAN. L. REP. 1 (2011) (briefly surveying chicken laws); Mary Wood et al., Promoting the Urban Homestead. Reform of Local Land Use Laws to Allow MicroLivestock on Residential Lots, 37 ECOLOGY L. CURRENTS 68 (2010). 10. See, e.g., Nicholas D. Kristof, Is an Egg for Breakfast Worth This?, 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, Arsenic in Our Chicken, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 4, 2012, http://www.nyrimes.com/2012/04/05/ opinion/kristof-arsenic-in-our-chicken.html. 11. Hugh Battling, A Chicken Ain't Nothing but a Bird. Local Food Produc- tion and the Politics of Land -Use Change, LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 17(a) (Jan. 2012). For a different take on the political reasons behind backyard chick- ens, see Shannon Hayes, Radical Homemakers: Reclaiming Domesticity From a Consumer Culture (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, Backyard Bees, Chickens, and Goats Approved, NBCSANDI- EGO, Feb. 1, 2012 http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Backyard- Bees-Chickens-Goats-Approved-138507104.html; Michael Cass, Backyard Chickens Make Gains in Nashville, THE TENNESSEAN, Jan. 5, 2012, http:// www healthynashville.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=a rticle&sid=20163; Peter Applebome, Envisioning the End of `Don't Cluck, Don't Tell, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 30, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/4/30/ nyregions/30town??; Jessica Bennet, 7be New Coop de Ville, the Craze for Urban Poultry Fanning, 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., Surge in Backyard Poultry Numbers, BRITISH FREE RANGE EGG PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION Qan. 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_Chicken/Blog/Blog.html (last visited Feb. 22, 2012) (advocacy group seeking to legalize chickens in Toronto); Chris Mayberry & Peter Thomson, Keeping Chickens in the Backyard, DEPARTMENT OF AG- RICULTURE AND FOOD, GOVERNMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (Aug. 2004), http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/contentlaap/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, Living in France -Keeping Chickens, LIVING FRANCE, http://www.livingfrance.com/real-life-living-and-working-living- in-fiance-keeping-chickens-94936 (last visited Feb. 22, 2012). 13. See, e.g., Where Chickens Are Outlawed Only Outlaws Will Have Chickens, 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., Urban Livestock: Barriers and Opportunities Faces by Homesteaders in the City of Waterloo, Dec. 6, 2011, http://wwwwrfoodsys- 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). 9-2012 Electronic copy available at: itp 11ssrnN"rn/abstract=2119494 42 ELR 10889 yright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELRO, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. R 10890 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 naa 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." She subscribes to Back- yard Poultry—a magazine dedicated to backyard chick- ens 20; 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.zz 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. See infra 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, Veterans Farming, THE LEAFLET: NEWSLETTER OF THE CENTRAL COAST CHAPTER OF CALIFORNIA RARE FRUIT GROWERS (July/ Aug. 2011), http://centralcoastfoodic.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. Backyard Poultry Magazine 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 4505.18. 22. Interview with Chcrise Walker, Mar. 18, 2012 (on file with author). 23. Barak Y. Orbach & Frances R. Sjoberg, Debating Over Backyard Chickens, 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); see also Salkin, supra note 9, at I (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. 1121 City leaders are understand- ably concerned that chickens may cause nuisances .21 They have raised such concerns as decreasing property values26 and increasing greenhouse emissions '21 as well as concerns about excessive clucking and overwhelming odors bother- ing the neighbors .21 Some express the belief that chickens, and other agricultural practices, simply do not belong in cities.2' 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 ackyard 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, Backyard Chickens on the Rise, Despite the Neighbor's Clucks, L.A. TIMES, June 15, 2009, http://a-rticies.latimcs.com/2009/jun/15/ na tion/na-chicken-economy l 5. 26. Tiara Hodges, Cary: No Chickens Yet, INDYWEEK.COM, Feb. 10, 2012, http://www.indyweck.com/BigBite/archives/2012/02/ l0/cary-no-chickens yet (last visited Feb. 17, 2012); Backyard Chickens: Good or Bad Idea, KVAL. comt, Mar. 3, 2009, http://www.kval.com/news/40648802.html (last vis- ited Feb. 17, 2012). 27. Valerie Taylor, Chickens for Montgomery (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, Urban Garden? Check. Now, Chickens, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 7, 2012, http://green.blogs.nytimcs.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 arc trying to look to the future. You can't raise animals or livestock (in the city)."); Barry Y. Orbach & Frances R. Sjoberg, Excessive Speech, Civility Norms, and the Clucking Theorem, 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, Farming Inside Cities, 13 LANDLINES 1 (2001). 30. See Orbach & Sjoberg, supra note 29. Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http:/Avww.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. ' 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 ackyard 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:131 It noted that of the millions of dollars worth of eggs that were sold each year at that time, comparatively lit- tle ittle 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."" 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 1, 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."15 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."" 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: WWI Solution to Almost Everything, BETTER CITIES & TOWNS, Nov. 4, 2011, http://bettercities.nct/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- GEoes 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, Did Chickens Go North? New Evidence for Domestication, 44 WORLDS POULTRY SCI. J. 205-18 (1999). CHRISTINE HEINRICHS, How To RAISE CHICKENS: EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW (200'7). 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). Two Hens in the Baek Yard for Each Person In the House Wall Keep a Family In Fresh Eggs V f N the wastlest back yard has room for a flock tsrgs enough to supply the house with eggs. The east of mnin- talniag ouch a dock is small, Table and kitchen waste pro- vidc much of the feed for the hens. They require little attention— orgy a few mantes a day. An iatereated child. old enough to take a fink responsibility, can care fou a few fawis as well as a grown person. Every bKk yard in the United States shadd contribute its shote to a btanper crop of paltry and eggs in 1918, InTh" of peace a,prolffablt Recreation In Ttme of vicar a Purtosk 06ty P«w....thn.Mr ...tl.e. as..r• r.•,too.arlC.�s++a�+nrnr.�+l.«,rw,..r.�,.,ieel.+,,..,w YrziFF VWles Ye�wit of And t �t.......... Washington. G " USDA Poster from Scott Doyon, Chickens:VVWI Solution to Almost Everything, Better Cities & Towns, Nov. 4, 2011, http://bettercities.net/ news-opinion/blogs/scoff-doyon/ 15562/backyard-chickens-wwi-era- solution-almost-everything (last visited Feb. 15, 2012). 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 ackyard 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. ' Hens lay more during the spring and summer months when they are exposed to more light because of the longer days .4' 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. 13 Young hens or pullets often start out lay - 41. LITT, supra note 7, at 168-69. 42. Id. at 169. 43. Id. Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http:l/www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. 42 ELR 10892 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 ing abnormal-looking or even double -yolked eggs, but as they mature begin laying more uniform eggs .4' 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 age45 Although some have argued that raising backyard chick- ens hickens will save money that would have been used to buy eggs over time, this claim is dubious46 It would take many years to recoup the cost of the chickens, the chicken feed, and the coops47 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.5o 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." 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 .51 The nutritional differences may also be attributed to the fact that hens are less stressed because 44. Bernal R. Weimer, A Peculiar Egg Abnormality, 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, Keeping 7beir Eggs in 7beir Backyard Nests, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 3, 2009, http://www.nyrimes. 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., Effect of Grass Clover Forage and Wbole-Wheat Feeding on the Sensory Quality of Eggs, 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 Real Free -Range Eggs, 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., Egg Yolk: A Source of Long -Chain Polyunsaturated Fats in Infant Feeding, 4 AM. J. CLINICAL ND- 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. 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."' 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." 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.61 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, A Chicken Christmas Tale, BACKYARD POULTRY MAG., Jan. 2010, http://www.backyardpoultrymag.com/issues/5/5-6/a_chicken_ christmas_tale.hrml (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 Funny Chicken Antics, BACKYARDCHICKENS.COM, http://Nvww.back- yardchickens.com/forum/viewropic.php?id=380593 (last visited July 2, 2012). 62. What BreedrAre Best for Children to Show in 4-11, BACKYARDCHICKENS.COM, http://www.backyardchickcns.com/forum/vicwtopic.php?pid=57268 13 (last visited July 2, 2012). 63. LITT, supra note 7, at 4. 64. See infra Part IV. C.1. Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELRO, http://www.eii.org, 1-800-433-5120. 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 .61 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 .61 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." Chickens also occasionally eat worms, small snakes, and small mice.71 Insects provide protein that the chickens need to lay nutri- tionally dense eggs 71 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/BO0292YAQC (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?Viewltcm&itcm=260889160166&hlp=false (last visited Jan. 6, 2012). 66. Adam A. Hady & Ron Kean, Poultry for Small Farms and Backyard, UW COOPERATrvE ExTENsIoN, hap://learning store.uwcx.edu/assets/pctfs/ A3908-03. 67. LITT, supra note 7, at 9. 68. Id. 69. Ohio Livestock Manure Management Guide, (_OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY EX- TENSION, Bulletin 604-06, p. 3, T. 1 2006, http://ohioline.osu.cdu/b604/ (providing that a four -pound laying hen produces 0.26 of a pound per day of manure). 70. Leah Nemiroff & Judith Patterson, Design, Testing and Implementation of a Large -Scale Urban Dog Waste Comporting Program, 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: Improving Small -Scale Production, Echo technical note, ECHO.NET, 1995, http://www.googic.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s &source=wcb&cd=1 &ved=OCFMQFjAA&url=http %3A%2F%2Fwww. echocommunity. org%2Fresource%2Fcollection%2FE66CD FDB-OAOD- 4DDE-8AB I-74D9D8C3EDD4%2FChickens.pdf&ei=39zxT41 Sh7etAd S UmY8C&usg=AFQj CNHhO_bkG_5sVmlovgngOXD53AJagA&sig2=_ cgyLnv7jDV7hGIVZry89g (last visited July 2, 2012). to a garden can eliminate a need to use chemicals or other insecticides and prevent insect infestations .71 E. Chickens Help Build Community Several studies have found that urban agriculture can increase social connections and civic engagement in the community. 7' 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. 7' 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 11. 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, Killing Chickens, 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. See also Iowa Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Air Quality Study, Final Report, IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY AND THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA STUDY GROUP 148, Feb. 2002, http://www.ehsrc.uiowa.edu/cafo_air_qual- ity_scudy.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 Capital and Farming at the Rural -Urban Interface: 7he Importance of Non - farmer and Former Relations, 76 AGRie. Sys. 913-27 (2003) (finding char communities benefit and agricultural uses have more support when farmers develop social relationships with non -farmers). 80. E.g., Abby Quillen, How to Share a Chicken or Two, 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 ELRO, http:/twww.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. 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." Hens are not particularly noisy. While they will cluck, the clucking is neither loud nor frequent. 12 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 .15 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, 17 these operations often have hundreds of thousands of chickens in very small spaces." 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. Management of Noise on Poultry Farms, 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. Protecting Against Noise, NATIONAL AG SAFETY DATABASE, THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION, http://nasdonlinc.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., Noise in the Animal Shelter Environment: Building Design and the Effects of Daily Noise Exposure, 9(1) J. APPLIED ANIMAL WEL- FARE SCI. 1-7 (2006). 85. Williams, supra note 75, at 92. Robert Plamondon, Range Poultry Housing, ATTRA 11 (June 2003). 86. E.g., William Neuman, Clean Living in the Henhouse, 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, CAFOS Uncovered, 71re Untold Costs of Animal Feeding Operations, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, Apr. 2008, http:// www. ucsusa. o rg/assets/documents/food_and_agriculturc/cafos-uncovered. pdf, Iowa Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Air Quality Study, 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 ackyard 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 diseases9a 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., Raising Chickens in City Backyards: The Public Health Role, J. COMMUNITY HEALTH, DOI: 10-1007/s10900-011-9504-1 (2011) (finding that public health concerns about infectious diseases and ocher 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, supra note 23, at 29. 93. Avian Influenza, USDA, http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/docs.htm?docid= 11244 (last visited July 2, 2012). 94. Avian Influenza, Questions & Answers, FOOD AND AGRIc. ORG. OF THE UNITED NATIONS, http://wwwfao.org/avianfu/en/ganda.html (last visited July 26, 2012). 95. Id. 96. Michael Greger, Bird Flu, A Virus of Our Own Hatching, BsRDFLDBooK. Com (2006-2008), http://birdfubook.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 Global Risks oflnfectiousAnimal Diseases, 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.eii.org, 1-800-433-5120. 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 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." "0 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.'01 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.10' 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.10' 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. City Dwellers Flock to Raising Chickens, WORLDWATCH INSTI- TUTE, http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5900 (last visited Feb. 22, 2012); Fowl Pla3 the Poultry Industry's Central Role in the Bird Flu Crisis, 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); Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America, A REPORT OF THE PEW COMMISSION ON INDUSTRIAL FARM ANIMAL PRODUCTION (2006), http://www.ncifap.org/ (last visited Feb. 21, 2012). 102. Rachel Dennis, CAFOs and Public Health: Risks Associated With Welfare Friendly Farming, Purdue Univ. Extension, Aug. 2007, https://mdc.itap. purdue.edu/item.asp?itemI D=18335#.T_Hjd3CZOOU. 103. Backyard Biosecurity, 6 Ways to Prevent Poultry Disease, USDA, May 2004, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/birdbiosecuriry/biosecuriry/ba- sicspoultry.htm (last visited Feb. 21, 2012). 104. Keeping Live Poultry, CDC, http://www.cdc.gov/features/SalmonellaPoul- try/ (last visited Feb. 21, 2012). 105. See Shaohua Zhao, Characterization ofSalrnonella Enterica Serotype Newport Isolated From Humans and Food Animals, 41 J. CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, No. 12, 5367 (2003) (stating that dogs and pigeons, as well as chickens, can carry salmonella); J. Hidalgo -Villa, Salmonella in Free Living Terrestrial and / Aquatic Turtles, 119:2-4 VETERINARY MICROBIOLOGY 311-15 van. 2007). 106. Keeping Live Poultry, CDC, http://www.cdc.gov/features/SalmonellaPoul- try/ (last visited Feb. 21, 2012). 107. Sue L. Pollock et A, Raising Chickens in City Backyards: The Public Health Role, J. COMMUNITY HEALTH, DOI: 10.1007/s10900-011-9504-1 (2011). D. Property Values 42 ELR 10895 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.10 The property value continues to increase as the gardens become more integrated into the neighborhood."' The poorest neighbor- hoods, moreover, showed the greatest increase in property values.' 12 Studies have also found that rent increased and the rates of home ownership increased in areas surround- ing a newly opened community garden.1' Studies concerning pets, moreover, find that apart- ment owners can charge higher rent for concessions such as allowing pets.14 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.1' E. Slaughter Some people are concerned that chicken owners will kill chickens in the backyard.1' People are concerned that it may be harmful to children in the neighborhood to watch a chicken being killed and prepared for a meal.' 17 Others are concerned that backyard slaughtering may be unsanitary."' First, many who raise chickens keep the hens only for the eggs.19 Most egg -laying breeds do not make for tasty meat.12' 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, Rental Concessions and Property Values, 5:1 J. REAL ESTATE RES. 141-51(1990); C.A. Smith, Apartment Renu -Is There a "Complex" Effect, 66:3 APPRAISAL J. (1998) (finding that average apartment unit commands $50 more rent per unit by allowing pets). 115. Michael Broadway, Growing Urban Agriculture in North American Cities: The Example of Milwaukee, 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 ELRO, http:/twww.eii.org, 1-800-433-5120. 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.12' 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."' 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 .121 These animals produce a large amount of methane every year because of the way in which they digest carbohydrates .121 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."o 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, Urban Chickens, 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, The Butchers Back, CONN. MAG., Apr. 2011, http:// www.connecticuEmag.com/Connecticut-Magazine/April-2011 /,lbe-Butcher- 039s-Back/. 124. But see 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-Cirys-Chicken-Laws (last vis- ited July 2, 2012) (responding to city's concerns about increase in green- house gases). 126. See Methane, Sources, and Emissions, U.S. EPA, http://www.epa.gov/meth- ane/sources.html (last visited July 2, 2012). 127. Id. 128. Paul J. Cruwn et al., Methane Production by Domestic Animals, Wild Rumi- nants, Other Herbivorous Fauna and Humans, 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 .131 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 .113 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.1 ' 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 Necessary 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 TALEt35 131. Letter from Brian Woodruff, Environmental Planner Department of Natu- ral Resources, to Cameron Gloss (June 12, 2008), http://www.sr-ribd.com/ doc/ 16509728/Changing-Your-Cirys-Chicken-Laws. 132. LITT, supra note 7, at 119. 133. Id. 134. See infra Part IV.C.5.a. 135. Ronald Ecker trans., Hodge & Braddock Publishers 1993. Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELRO, http://www.eii.org, 1-500-433-5120. 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. 131 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.L3' In the wild, most flocks form sub- groups of between four to six chickens."' 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.14' 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. 14, Because chickens are flock animals, a chicken left alone generally will not thrive. 14' An isolated hen will often exhibit disturbed and self-destructive behaviors, like chas- ing its own tail and exhibiting excessive aggression.14' 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,"' 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, supra note 39, at 11 (2007). 137. Nicolas Lampkin, Organic Poultry Production, Welsh Inst. of Rural Studies 20 (Mar. 1997), available at http://orgprin[S.org/9975/l/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 arc 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 FT 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., Social Factors in the Facilitation of Feeding in Chick- ens: Effects of Imitation, Arousal, or Disinhibition?, 32 J. PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL. 510-18 (Sept. 1975). Martine Adret-Hausberger & Robin B. Cumming, Social Experience and Selection of Diet in Domestic Chickens, 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 " monsidering the barrenness of many husbandry systems, boredom would seem to be a good candidate for further studies") 146. See, e.g., Do Chickens Get Lonely, BACKYARD POULTRY FORUM (Friday, Feb. 13, 2009), http://forum.backyardpoultry.com/viewcopic.php?f=5&t= 7970419&start=0 (last visited Mar. 4, 2012). 147. Alphaeus M. Guhl, Social Behavior of the Domestic Fowl, 71 TRANSACTIONS KAN. ACAD. SCL (1968). Gladwyn K. Noble, The Role of Dominance in the 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. 1411 Studies have shown, however, that incidence of pecking is greatly reduced when hens are kept in lower densities .141 (Feather pecking is often a problem in large-scale chicken farms.)15" When densities were approximately six or fewer birds per 10 square feet, pecking behaviors abated or were significantly reduced.15' Because a new introduction into the flock will upset the pecking order, some farmers advocate for introducing at least two chicks at a time.1 '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. 113 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.15' Other predators, however, such as hawks and raccoons, are frequently found in the city."' 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.15' And most predators are more active at night when Social Life of Birds, 56 THE AUK 263 (July 1939). 148. LITT, supra note 7, at 122. Alphaeus M. Guhl et al., Mating Behavior and the Social Hierarchy in Small Flocks of White Leghorns, 18 PHYSIOLOGICAL ZOOLOGY 365-68 (Oct. 1945). 149. B. Huber -Eicher & L. Audige, Analysis of Rick Factors for the Occurrence of Feather Pecking Among Laying Hen Growers, 40 BRITISH POULTRY ScL 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., Home Range and Landscape Use of Coyotes in a Metropolitan Landscape: Conflict or Coexistence, J. MAMMALOGY, 1053-55 (2009); Seth P.D. Riley, Spatial Ecology of Bobcats and Gray Foxes in Urban and Rural Zones of a National Park, 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 ELRO, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. 42 ELR 10898 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER the chickens are sleeping in their coops.15' 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.15" 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.i60 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" roosterst62: 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. 114 In fact, it is likely that every egg you have ever eaten was produced by a hen that never met a rooster.165 'Me 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. Small and Backyard Flocks, KY. U. ExT., http://www.ca.uky.edu/smallflocks/ faq.htm1#Q31 (last visited Feb. 17, 2012), 164. Small and Backyard Flocks, KY. U. EXT., htcp://www.ca.uky.edu/smallflocks/ faq.html#Ql l (last visited Feb. 17, 2012). 165. Id. 166. Id. 9-2012 ship, New Jersey, allows roosters that are certified disease- free to visit a hen flock for 10 days out of every year.t67 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 .161 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, A Blue Ribbon atAmesbury (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. 171 While many cities impose various restrictions 167. NJ Town Limits Conjugal Visits Between Roosters 6- Hens, HUFFINGTON POST, Apr. 27,2011, http://www.hufiingtonpost.corn/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, 7hey'reCute, ButBabyCbickrCan HarborSalmonella, U.S.NEws &WoRLDRE- PORT, May 30, 2012, hctp://hcalth.usncws.com/health-news/news/articles/ 2012/05/30/thcyre-cute-but-baby-chicks-can-harbor-salmonella. 169. Cities With 100, 000 or More Population in 2000 Ranked by Population, 2000 in Rank Order, U.S. CENSUS, http://www.census.gov/statab/ccdb/citl02Or. w (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, TFx., 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, IA., 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, TFx., MUN. CODE §7.24.020 (2011); FORT WORTH, TEx., CODE OF ORDINANCES §11A-22 (2011); FREMONT, CAL., Mux. 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 ELRO, hftp://www.eii.org, 1-800-433-5120. 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.17' Three others have unclear ordinances that city officials have interpreted as banning backyard chickens: Grand Rapids, Fort Wayne, and Lubbock."' 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); HLU-EAH, FLA., CODE OF ORDINANCES 5§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 514-15 (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. 1 (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 §I7C.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. 171 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,'76 and how often chickens must be fed and coops must be cleaned. 117 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.17x 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.17' Some cities simply define chickens as pets and provide no regula- tions at all.18' 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. I1, §4-0.5 (2011) (restricting chickens to properties of five acres or more); OKLAHOMA CITY,OKIA., 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., Mux. 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, Raising Chickens Legal in Chicago, and People Are Crowing About It, CHL SUN TIMES, Aug. 13, 2011, http://www. suntimes.com/news/metro/6942644-418/city-of-chicken-coops.hrml; IR- VING, TEX., CODE OF ORDINANCES 6-1 (2011) (not regulating chickens). 175. See infra V.0 2 176. See infra V.C.5.c. 177. See infra V.C.5.b. 178. See infra V.C.4. 179. See infra V.B. 180. See infra V.A. Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELRO, http://www.eii.org, 1-800-433-5120. 42 ELR 10900 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 veyed"' and the survey sizes were far smaller.18' 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.18' 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.18' Next, regulations based on space requirements, zoning require- ments, and setbacks will be examined.18' 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. 116 Then, the coop construction requirements, including how much space a city requires per chicken, will be examined."' Next, cities' use of per- mits to regulate chickens will be evaluated."' The Article will then discuss anti -slaughter laws."' Finally, the preva- lence of banning roosters will be discussed, while noting 181. See Orbach & Sjoberg, Debating Backyard Chickens; Sarah Schindler, Of Backyard Chickens and Front Yard Garden: The Conflict Between Local Gov- ernmentand Locavores, 87 TUL. L. REV. (forthcoming Nov. 2, 2012); Patricia Salkin, Feeding the Locavores; One Chicken at a Time: Regulating Backyard Chickens, 34:3 ZONING &c PLAN. L. REP. 1 (Mar. 2011); Kieran Miller, Backyard Chicken Policy: Lessons From Vancouver, Seattle, and Niagara Falls, QSPACE AT QUEENS U. (2011), http://gspace.library.queensu.ca/han- dle/1974/6521; Katherine T. Labadie, Residential Urban Keeping: An Exam- ination of25 Cities, U.N.M. RESEARCH PAPER (2008) http://www.google. com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&csrc=s&source=web&cd=l&ved=OCEOQFjAA &url=h ttp%3A%2F%2 F66.147.242.185 %2F-urbanch5 %2Fwp-content %2 Fup loads%2F2012%2F 02%2 F Ord i nance-research-paper. p df&ei= f T5T8j OLcrjggGP5NGKCQ&usg=AFOj CNE-ArE_uYe4XcKDfhMrwS a4mOLfQw&sig2=UcWfdUlsmpoifngTiE_wvA; Jennifer Blecha, Urban Life With Livestock: Performing Alternative Imaginaries Through Small Stock Urban Livestock Agriculture in the United States, PROQUEST INFORMATION AND LEARNING COMPANY (2007). See also Chicken L.O.R.EProject. Chicken Laws and Ordinances and Your Rights and Entitlements, 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. Poultry 2010, Reference of the Health and Management of Chicken Stocks in Urban Settings in Four U.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, Pittsburgh Urban Chicken Coop Tour to Be Held on Sunday, 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, San Diego City Council Approves Backyard Chickens, Goats, and Bees, KPBS, Feb. 1, 2012, http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/feb/O1/ san-diego-city-council-approves-backyard-chickens-/. These ordinances, however, have not yet been codified within the cities code and, thus, arc 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. 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.'' Of those top 10 cities, however, Philadel- phia has fairly strict zoning restrictions that only allows chickens in lots of three acres or larger.1' And, of the top 50 cities by population, only one city bans chickens outright: Detroit.19' But in the last 20 of the top 100 cities, four of them ban chickens: Yonkers, Grand Rapids, Fort Wayne, and Lubbock.i94 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. 11, 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. 1 (2011); td app. C, art. VII; SHREVEPORT, LA., CODE OF ORDINANCES eh. 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 W-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 lisred); AUGUSTA- Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELRO, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. 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.19' And in Pennsylvania, similarly, both of its most populated cit- ies, for the most part, ban chickens.19' Philadelphia only allows chickens on lots of three acres or more—far more than the average lot size in Philadelphia."' Pittsburgh, although it recently amended its ordinances,"' used to allow chickens only on parcels of five acres or more."' 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.20' 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, TFK., CODE OF ORDINANCES pt. 11, 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.); butteeANN 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. 510-112; PITTSBURGH, PA., CODE OF ORDINANCES §§635.02, 911.04.A.2 (2011). 197. Susan Wachter, The Determinants of Neighborhood Transformations in Philadelphia Identification and Analysis: The New Kensington Pilot Study, Spring 2005, THE WHARTON SCHOOL, http://www.googlc.com/url?sa=t &rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1 &ved=OCCMQFjAA&url=http %3A%2F%2Fkabaffiliates. org%2FuploadedFiles%2FKAB_Affiliates.org %2FWharton%252OStudy%252ONK%2520final.pdf&ei=X4OhT56_ OOjCsQLogpyhCQ&usg=AF Qj CNH-DY031mfVNsESWy6QZ9-79aW 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, Pittsburgh Urban Chicken Coop Tour to Be Held on Sunday, PITTSBURGH POST -GAZETTE, June 9, 2011, http://www.post- gazette.com/pg/II160/1152234-34.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.20' 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.2o2 In 2009, Cleveland passed a comprehensive ordinance legalizing chickens and bees.201 Cleveland allows for one chicken per 800 square feet, which would allow up to six chickens on a standard residential lot.201 Cleveland also has minimal setbacks and detailed coop requirements.211 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.20' 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. I1 §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 0 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELRO, http:/twww.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. 42 ELR 10902 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 I. 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, I— ., 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, TFx., 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 58.582 (2010); HIALEAH, FLA., CODE OF ORDINANCES §§10.1, 10.2 (2011); HONOLULU, HAW., REV. OR- DINANCES §7-2.5(d) (1990); HOUSTON, TF.x., CODE OF ORDINANCES Ch. 6, art. 11 (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, AIA., 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. 11, 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); PIANO, 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 56.04.157 (2011); YONKERS, N.Y., §65-23 (1990). 2. Zoning Regulations Fourteen cities regulate chickens primarily under their zoning laws .201 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,21 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.211 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, FIA., 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 cit. 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.3 10. 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. 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS chicken owners.�11 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 '211 the most sensible place for regulating chickens is within the animal code. 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 .211 Many of these, however, have a separate section concern- ing animals or animal -related businesses within the health code.211 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 .22' 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, Local Knowledge, Legal Knowledge, and Zoning Law, 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. Eg., 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 KEFPING (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. Eg., 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. 42 ELR 10903 under the property maintenance area of the code. 121 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 I . 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 .113 These cities' ordinances appear to be long-standing and were not recently modified in response to the backyard chicken movement.214 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 .221 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 .221, 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, TFx., 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, TFx., CODE OF ORDINANCES §4-184 (2011); SPOKANE, WASH., MUN. CODE § I7C.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 ELRO, http://www.eii.org, 1-800-433-5120. 42 ELR 10904 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 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 .210 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 .23' 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); PHOENDC, ARIZ., CITY CODE §8-10 (2011); PITTSBURGH, PA., CODE OF ORDINANCES §§635.02, 911.04A.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 W-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); LA., 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. G 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. Eg., 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., CODEOFORDINANCES 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. 1 (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, 911.04A.2 (2011); PHILA., PA., CODE §10-112 (2011); OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA., MUN. CODE §59- 9350 (2011); RICHMOND, VA., CODE OF ORDINANCES §10-88 (2011). 9-2012 Norfolk appears to allow for an exception to the five -acre minimum 212 by allowing a would-be chicken owner to procure a permit to keep hens,�33 but in practice, the city will not issue this permit to chicken hobbyists."' 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.�3' 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 .231 Pittsburgh, thus, would allow chicken keepers to seek a variance for raising chick ens on property of less than five acres .21" 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.24I 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 .241 232. 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, Backyard Chickens: Now You're Clucking, ALTDAILY. June 2, 2010, http://www.alidaily.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 517.16.330(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, Ordinance Changer Bother Keepers of Bees and Chickens, PITTSBURGH POST GAZETTE, Feb. 8, 2010, http://www.post-gazerce.com/ pg/ 10039/ 1034293-53.stm. 241. Diana Nelson Jones, Pittsburgh Urban Coop Tour to Be Held Sunday, 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 ELRO, http://www.eii.org, 1-800-433-5120. 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 1/2 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 .211 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 .211 Three more cities restrict chickens to agricultural or very low-density residential zones: Chesapeake, Jackson- ville, and Montgomery.251 "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 522.14 (2011); STOCKTON, CAL., MUN. CODE §16.80.060 (2011). 247. FREMONT, CAL., MUN. CODE 53-5803 (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. fir.); 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 §510.1 & 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. X111, ch. 462, tit. XVII, ch. 656 (2011); MONTGOMERY, ALA., CODE OF ORDINANCES app. C, art. VE (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 (20I 1) (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 .211 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."' 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."' 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. 157 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 1/2 acre, and 25 for more than one acre .25' 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 .251 Some cities decide the number of chickens based on zoning. El Paso allows for up to six chickens on land not zoned agricultural .2"' Tulsa allows up to six adults and 14 chicks under eight weeks of age on land not zoned agricul- residential districts including districts zoned Al, A2, RA, RE, RS Rl, 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., MON. 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., MON. 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 ELRO, http:l/www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. 42 ELR 10906 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 tural.26' 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 1/2 acre. For instance, Fort Worth allows for no more than 12 chickens on lots under 1/2 acre, no more than 20 on lots between 1/2 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 1/2 acre or less, and an additional 10 for each 1/2 acre, but no longer limits the number of chickens after 2 1/2 acres.264 Louisville allows for five chickens on property of less than 1/2 acre, and no limit above that .26' Arlington provides for four on less than 1/2 acre, 10 for lots between 1/2 and one acre, and 25 for lots over one acre.266 And, Charlotte requires a permit and restricts chickens to 20 per acre .26, 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 .261 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 .211 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 § I IA -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, TFx., 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.z74 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 fow1.271 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) & (c) (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 510.20.015 (2010) (four); SANTA ANA, CAL., CODE OF ORDINANCES 55.6 (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 (201 1) (Six); CORPUS CHRISTI, TEx., CODE OF ORDINANCES §6-154 (2011) (six); HOUSTON, TEx., CODE OF ORDINANCES ch. 6, art. 11 (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 ELRO, http://www.ell.org, 1-800-433-5120. 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.211 Miami allows up to 15 hens with a permit .215 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 '216 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 chick s,218 and Kansas City allows 50.289 Tulsa allows seven adults and 14 chicks .291 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. See supra note 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(4), (e) (2011). 291. COLORADO SPRINGS, COLO., CITY CODE §6.7.106(D) (2011). 292. GARLAND, TFx., CODE OF ORDINANCES §22.14 (2011). pertaining to said person's health .11291 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, TFx., 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 fr.); AUs- TIN, TEx., CODE OF ORDINANCES §3.2.16 (2011) (50 fr.); 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 518-4 (2011) (25 ft.); EL PASO, TEx., MUN. CODE §7.24.030 (2011) (30 ft.); FORT WORTH, TEx., CODE OF ORDINANCES §1 IA -22(b) & (0 (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 &. from dwelling or 100 ft. from school or hospital); GLENDALE, ARIZ., CODE OF ORDINANCES pt. 11, 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., Mux. CODE §6.04.040 (2011) (50 k.); 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)-(1) (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 R.); RICHMOND, VA., CODE OF ORDINANCES §10-88 (2011) (500 ft.); RIVERSIDE, CAL., CODE OF ORDINANCES §6.04.20 (2011); id. tit. 17 (50 &.); 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 fr. 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 fr.); SEATTLE, WASH., MUN. CODE §23.42.052(c)(3) (2011) (10 ft.); ST. PETERSBURG, FIA., 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 ELRO, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. 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 .291 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 1030. to 500 feet.30' The average of all of the setbacks is 80 feet, 102 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., MON. 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, I.A., CODE OF ORDINANCES §14-224(c)(1)(b) (2011) (10 fr. from property line); BIRMINGHAM, ALA., ZONING ORDINANCE §2.4.1 (2007) (100 fr. 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 fr. from side yard and 18 inches from rear yard); FRESNO, CAL., MON. CODE §12-206.1 (2011) (100 ft. from property line); GREENSBORO, N.C., CODE OF ORDINANCES §30-8-11.3 (2011) (25 fr. 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 fr. 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 fr., 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, AIA., ZONING ORDINANCE §2.4.1 (2007) (300 ft.); Bos., MASS., CODE OF ORDINANCES §16-1.8A, ZONING, art. 8, No. 75 (2010) 000 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, MS., 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. See supra note 295. 300. SEATTLE, WASH., MON. 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. See supra note 295. 303. PHOENIX, ARIZ., CITY CODE §8-10 (2011) (80 ft. unless have permission from neighbor). 304. See supra note 295. 305. BIRMINGHAM, ALA., ZONING ORDINANCE 52.4.1 (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.3lo 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 .311 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 .311 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 .311 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., MON. CODE §7.24.030 (2011) (30 fr., 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., �p CODE OF ORDINANCES ch. 28 (no date listed); MILWAUKEE, WS., 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 fr. 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), but see id. §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., Mux. CODE §7.38.050 (2011) (300 h. 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 ELRO, http:/twww.eii.org, 1-800-433-5120. 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.31' Several cities define the setback more broadly than a neighboring dwelling, and include schools, hospitals, and other businesses within the setback.32' Grand Rapids, Michigan, however, goes further; it has a 100 -foot setback from any "dwelling unit, well, spring, stream, drainage ditch or drain.11321 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 .321 The median set- 318. et 318. SAN ANTONIO, TEx., CODE OF ORDINANCES §5-109 (2011). 319. BUFFALO, NX, CITY CODE §341-11 (2009); SAN FRANCISCO, CAL., HEALTH CODE §37 (2011). 320. Eg., FORT WORTH, TEx., CODE OF ORDINANCES §I IA -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 h. 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. lO (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 h. 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(0 (2011) (25 ft. from property line); MONTGOMERY, ALA., CODE OF ORDINANCES ch. 4 art. 1 (2011); id. at app. C, art. VII (200 ft. from property line); PIANO, TEx., CODE OF ORDINANC- Es §3-204 (2011) (5 ft. from property line); PORTLAND, OR, CITY CODE §13.05.015(b) & (e) (201 1) (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(x) & (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. 31' 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 .317 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 .311 327. 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. See supra note 327. 330. WASH., D.C., MUN. REGULATIONS FOR ANIMAL CONTROL §902.7(6) (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)(1) (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 ELRO, http://www.eii.org, 1-800-433-5120. 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 .141 S. 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.34' 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(c) (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, TRX., CODE OF ORDINANCES §1 IA -22(0)(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 §736.030 (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(1) (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 5635.02 (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., MON. CODE §10.24 (no date listed); STOCKTON, CAL., MUN. CODE §6.04.130 (2011); TACOMA, WASH., MUN. CODE §530.020 (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 .314 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 §IIA -22(c)(3) (2011); FRESNO, CAL., MON. 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., MON. 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, MY, CITY CODE §341-11.3(C) (2009); CHARLOTTE, N.C., CODE OF ORDINANCES §3-102 (2010); CHICAGO, ILL., CODE OF ORDINANCES §7-12-290(6) (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 §I8 -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 511A -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., MON. 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., MON. 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); PHOENDI, ARIZ., CITY CODE §8-7(d) (2011); RICHMOND, VA., CODE OF ORDINANCES §10-88(d) (2011); SAN ANTONIO, TE)., 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 ORDIINANCES §§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. 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10911 tary.347 Most cities also expressly prohibit odors or offen- sive odors.3 ' 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 .311 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.""' The next two most fastidious cities, Des Moines and Santa Ana, require that the coop be cleaned at least every other day. 113 Seven cities require that the coop be cleaned at least twice a week .314 And another four cities require that the coop be cleaned at least once a week .311 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 .316 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. &g., AUSTIN, TEx., CODE OF ORDINANCES §10-5-21 (2011); CINCINNATI, OHIO, CODE OF ORDINANCES §701-35 (2011); DALLAS, Tm, CODE OF ORDINANCES §7-3.2 (2011); FORT WAYNE, IND., CODE OF ORDINANCES §91.017 (2011); FRESNO, CAL., MUN. CODE §10.203 (2011); GARLAND, Tm, 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); 1Rv[NG, 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 §I IA -22(h) (2011); GARLAND, TEx., CODE OF OR- DINANCES §22.17 (2011); GLENDALE, CAL., Mux. CODE §6.04.040 (2011); HOUSTON, TEx., CODE OF ORDINANCES §6-36 (2010); KANSAS CITY, MO., CODE OF ORDINANCES §14-19 (2011); LAS VEGAS, NFv., 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); SAD' JOSE, CAL., CODE OF ORDINANCES §7.60.755 (2007); SANTA ANA, CAL., CODE OF ORDINANCES §5.6(h) (2011); SCOTTSDALE, within their ordinances are congregated mostly in the South or the Southwest.35' Several mandate that chicken feed or chicken waste be kept in fly -tight containers."' Miami requires that a chicken's droppings be treated to destroy fly maggots before it can be used as fertilizer.36' 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.1361 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 .11362 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 .314 Of these cities, several are concerned about both flies and rats. 161 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. See supra 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(h) (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. &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 §IIA -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®, hftp://www.eii.org, 1-800-433-5120. 42 ELR 10912 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER within a rat -proof container. 167 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.11368 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 .170 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 §I8 -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 § 17.05.01 0 (2011); ARLINGTON, TEX., ORDINANCES GOVERNING ANIMALS §1.01 SECURE ENCLOSURE (2010); AT- LANTA, GA., CODE OF ORDINANCES §I8-7 (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, Tm, CODE OF ORDINANCES §64 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 56.1-2 (2011); OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA., MUN. CODE §8-96(c) & (e) (2011); PIANO, TEX., CODE OF ORDINANCES §44 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 59-2-2-2 (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). 9-2012 be secure .171 Some further require that the enclosure keep animals protected from inclement weather. 172 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 .17' 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 .371 Instead of regulating coop size so specifically, some cit- ies require that the coops not be cramped or overcrowd- ed.3S0 Others state that the coop should be big enough for the chicken to move about freely,38' 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 §I8 -3(h) (2011); GLENDALE, CAL., MUN. CODE §6.04.040 (2011); IRVING, TEK., 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 56.1-2 (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(6)(3) (2011) (2.5 sq. ft.). 374. See supra 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 §18-70)(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 ELRO, http://www.eii.org, 1-800-433-5120. 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10913 turn around, and lie down."' 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 .11383 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.38' Finally, Charlotte is the only city that provides for a minimum height by requiring the coops to be at least 18 inches high.3 ' Other requirements that turn up in more than one city is that the coop's floor be impervious '311 the coop be ade- quately ventilated '118and the coop be kept dry or allow for drainage 389 Some cities mandate that the enclosure protect the chickens from predators390 And, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Colorado Springs require that the chickens have access to an outdoor run.39' 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,39' 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, I -A., 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)(e) (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 518-2.1(a)(1) (2011); PLANO, TEX., CODE OF ORDINANCES §4-1 SECURE ENCLOSURE & SHELTER (2011); SANTAANA, CAL., CODE OF ORDINANCES §5.6(6)(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. &g., JERSEY CITY, N.J., CODE OF ORDINANCES §90-8 (2011); NEW OR- LEANS, LA., CODE OF ORDINANCES §18-2.1(a)(1) (2011); SANTAANA, CAL., CODE OF ORDINANCES §5.6(6)(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, Thx., 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.40' 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 water404 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 4115 Memphis and Omaha require that the chickens not only be given sufficient food but also "wholesome" food and water.40' 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(6) (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(6) (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); LA., 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®, hftp://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. 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. 4" Like all of the other regulations, there is very little consistency. Eleven cities require permits for more than a maximum number of chickens .401 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."' 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 six411 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) & (i) (2011); COLUMBUS, OHIO, CITY CODE §221.05 (2011); DENVER, COLO., MUN. CODE §8-91 (2011); DES MOINES, IOWA, CODE OF ORDINANCES §18-4(i), (i) (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 5§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 57.24.020 (2011); SAN JOSE, CAL., CODE OF ORDINANCES §7.60.700(A) (2007). 412. PORTLAND, OR., CITY CODE §I3.05.015(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 hickens under all circumstances.411 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."' Mobile allows for the permit to remain valid until revoked by the health officer.41' 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 Operator 4�1; Tacoma 413. KANSAS CITY, MO., CODE OF ORDINANCES §14-15(h) (2011) (requir- ing permit if want to be within setback); TACOMA, WASH., Mux. CODE §5.30.010 (2011) (requiring permission from city clerk to put coop with- in setback). 414. RIVERSIDE, CAL., CODE OF ORDINANCES 517.206.020 (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), O) (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, FIA., 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 FORANI- 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., Mux. 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 56-271 (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 ELRO, http://www.eii.org, 1-800-433-5120. 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10915 to the City Clerk 121; and Boston to the Inspectional Ser- vices Department.421 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. 117 Las Vegas requires written consent of neighbors within 350 feet.42' 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:131 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. Eg., 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. 132 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 431 Three of the 14 charged an initial fee, Mil- waukee charged a $25 initial fee, Minneapolis $50, and St. Paul $72437 Thirteen cities, including Minneapolis and St. Paul, charged annual fees .431 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 14' 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.dcnvcrgov.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 570.10(f) (2011) ($50 initial fee and $40 annual fee); MOBILE, ALA., CODE OF ORDINANCES W-102 (2011) (specifies that permits are free); NEWARK, N.J., GENERAL ORDINANCES 56:2-31 (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. Supra note 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 ELRO, http://www.eii.org, 1-800-433-5120. 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."' 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 .117 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. 49 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 chicken45o 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); �p MADISON, WIS., CODE OF ORDINANCES §2809(9)(6)(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. CHL, 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)(6)(6) (no date listed) ("No person shall slaughter any chickens."); MILWAUKEE, WIS., CODE OF ORDINANCES §78-6.5(3)(6) (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(4)(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 .1151 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 .41 8. Roosters Many cities that allow for hens ban roosters. Twenty-six cities prohibit roosters .414 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.451 Fort Wayne does not say anything about roosters, but its ordinance effectively bans them by defining poultry only as "laying hens." " 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 etbacks for roosters: Cleveland requires 100 -foot setback S411. Kansas City, 300 feet460; Oklahoma City, 400 fee 061; 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. CHL, 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, TFx., 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)(x) (2011); N.Y.C., HEALTH CODE §§161.19(a) tiC 161.01(b)(I 1) (1990); NEWARK, NJ., 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. PHOENrx, 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 Small and Backyard Flocks, Kr. 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. 11, 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 ELRO, http://www.eii.org, 1-800-433-5120. 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10917 acreage for roosters: Cleveland requires at least one acre 464; Baton Rouge requires two acres 4G5; and Fremont California allows one rooster for 1/z acre, and two roosters for more than one acre. 166 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 roosters469 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. 41' El Paso allows for up to three roosters with a permit47' And Riverside allows up to six and only requires a permit to keep seven or more roost- ers473 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. 74 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, 01110, CODIFIED ORDINANCES §347.02(b) (1) (c) (2011). 465. BATON ROUGE, LA., CODE OF ORDINANCES §14-224(6) (2011). 466. FREMONT, CAL., Mux. CODE §3-5803 (2011). 467. ANAHEIM, CAL., MUN. CODE §18.38.030.050 (2011); ARLINGTON, TM, 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 §I IA - 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, TFx., 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. NJ Town Limits Conjugal Visits Between Roosters &Hens, HUFFINGTON POST, Apr. 27,201 l,http: //www.huffrngtonpost.com/2011 /04 /28/nj-limits-chicken- mating_n_854404.htm1 (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. 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. `Ibis 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 Ieave 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®, hftp://www.eii.org, 1-800-433-5120. 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. hickens. 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 471 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 1/2 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, When the Problems Come Horne to Roost, N.Y. TWEs, Oct. 22, 2009, htrp://wwcv.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. 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 ELRO, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. 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. 'Me -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., Say Hello to the Brand New Eglu Go, OMLET, http://www.omlet.us/products—services/products—services. php?cat=Eglu+Go (Iasi visted July 25, 2012) (offering a plastic portable chick- en coop and run designed for two chickens); Chicken Coapr, SHEDS UNLIM ITED, http://www.shedsunlimited.net/portable-chicken-runs-and-coops-for- sale.html?gciid=CKXzvd2ruLECFeEDQAodcClAkw (last visited July 25, 2012) (offering Amish -built chicken coops and runs); CHICKENSALOON. coM, http://chickensaloon.com/?gchd=COLs7gysuLFCFYS6KgodGBAAsw (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 multifam- 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. 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 fo\r 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. 42 ELR 10920 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 18.C. Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Lease of Real Property at the Softball Complexes at Harry G. Daniel Park at Ironbridge and Warbro Athletic Complex County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board of Supervisors is requested to consider the lease of real property at the softball complexes at Harry G. Daniel Park at Ironbridge and Warbro Athletic Complex. Summary of Information: The Board of Supervisors set this Public Hearing at its November 20, 2013 meeting. The current lease which provides for operation of the facilities will expire on December 31, 2013. Staff advertised a request for proposals for operation of the softball facilities. Staff recommends award of a lease to David Tiller and Associates in accordance with the attached lease. Mr. Tiller was the only one who responded to the County's RFP. Preparer: Michael S. Golden Title: Director, Parks and Recreation Attachments: E Yes F-1No DRAFr 12/04,113 LEASE AGREEMENT "n ns LEASE AGREEMENT, dated ..........._........_> 2013, by and between the COUN'ry OLLUESTERVIE1,A), VIRGINIA, a political subdivision ofthe Commortweallh of Virginia, Lessor, herein referred to as "(.7ount and DAVID TILLER & ASS00ATES, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company(t/aa SportsNation/Softball Nation/Baseball Nation), located at 210 Huddersfield Dri ve, Richmond, Virginia 23236, Lessee, herein refert-ed -to as "Lessee". WITNESSETH: . .......... �m ................. — THATin consideration ol'the 1-nUtUal covenants contained herein, the (.."ounty and Lessee hereby agree as fiollow: 1. PREMISES, County hereby rents and leases to Lessee, upon the conditions hereinafter set f6rtli, the following real property, herein refxred to as "Prernises," to -wit: the softball facilities located at Harry G. Daniel Park at Iron Bridge ("Daniel Park") located at 6600 Whitepine Road, Richniond, Virginia 23237 (six (6) lighted fields and as concession/restroom stand) and at the Warbro Athletic Cornplex located at 3204 Warbro Road, Midlothian, Virginia 2311.2 (three (3) lighted fields and an concession/restroom stand) all as depicted in Attachment A 1 TERM OF LEASE, The initial term of tine lease, shall be live (5) years from January 1, 2014 until 'December 31, 2018, The lease May be renewed for an additional term of three (3) ye,11-S Upon such ternis as the parties agree, which agreement may Occur at any thne during tile initial terni, If Lessee decides to terminate the lease upon expiration of the initial terni, written notice shall be provided to tfie County at least one hundred eighty (l 111 clays prior to the end of the tern 3. REN'r. ARent for the initial terin shall be Thirty Thousand Doflars ($30,(l00,00) per year payable in two (2) installments of f,111een Thousand Dollars ($15,00(l,00) due June 30 incl. Decernber 31 of each year, B. Notwithstanding the provisions of'3,A, above, the rent shall be filereased. by Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.0(1) in any year Lessee has not complied Nvith at least an average of eighty percent (8(y%) of all maintenance stanchird checklist items specilied in Attachment B daring the course of the year, Lessee shall be sulaject to weekly audits by the County during the softball season to measure compliance with the checklist, Any rent increase shaH be applied on December 31 of tire applicable year, 4. PROGRAM SERVICES, PUrSUant to this agreement, Lessee shall have the right and the obligation to provide sollball program services on the Premises SUbJect to the following terms and conditions: DRAFT 12/014/13 A, Tbe prograrn services shall provide as rnix ol'softba.11 programs and tournaments utilizing various softball governing bodies. Tbe programs shall 1.)e primarily for adults. K The hours of operation cal, the Prennises shall be within the operating hours ofthe parks which are 7:00 a.rn. to 11:00 prn- Monday through Sunday. An)( other use of the Premises outside of'operating hours shall require prior al,,)proval fermi the Parks and Recreation Department. C Opening and closing dates fcr season and tournarnew play shall be at Lessee's discretion in eonsultation with the Parks and Recreation Departinent, D� I, agues andtournament play shall utilize certified unipires, El. The Lessee shall 1`611ow and enforee all C'hesterfield County regulations as they relate to the athletic complexes. The regulations are attached as Attachment C and are incorporated by reference. f'. Lessee shall provide adequate personnel during hours of' operation and provide participants, Clounly staff and police with as point of contact, G. Lessee shall have a minirnuin participation level of 651Y(w Chesterfield County residents in the softball league l.)rograrn for IeIgLWS operated by Lessee. I -I. Lessee shall submit league rosters within lbar weeks after the first gaine ofeach season. Rosters shall contain the narne, address, and phone number of' each player. I,essee shall collect and remit to the County =aeon g witli the rosters a $15 fee f(,)r each non-resident participant per season. Lessee shall provide the County with an accounting o"Notal County residents verSUs non-residents per season. I 1. [.,essee shall provide to the ( ounty and the public a system of providing infim-nation concerning mectings, deadlines, fees, and registration and field closure for adverse weather. lessee shall also provide C. I ounty with as schedule of" league ganies and tournaments including any changes as they occur. J. When requested by, the C'ounty, Lessee shall attend ineetings of the Parks and Recreations A,dvisory Cbmrnittec ("PRA.C."') and provide reports as may be requested by the C,ounty regarding operations of the Premises., K. Lessee shall niake reasonable efforts to increase adult softball particil.)ation for each year of the term, The rent owed by Lessee shall be reduced by Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500,00) in any year Lessee increases adult part ici pati on by at least Iive percent (5%) ftoni the prior year. 0623 M8X � 2 DRAIF'T 12/014/13 5, TOURISAI. A. 'rhe Lessee shafl provide comprehensive weekend prograrruning Which includes softball or basebafltournarnents that are reasonably designed to draw participants frorn fitly (50) miles or, more away. The Lessee shall encourage participants to utifize Chesterfield (,ounty hoteliers arid restaurants. Assistance with travel int'cinnation and economic development opportUllities are available -to Lessee through the CountyDepartnient of Economic Developrneirt, the Metropolitan Richmond Sports Backers and Richmond Region Tourisin. 13. The Lessee sliall report data to the Parks and Recreation Department trorn all events that draw participants ftoni fifty (50) rniles or more away. The data shall be reported within ninety (9 0) clays and shall include the followirig and such other inforination the County may reasonably request: "I'lie number (,&tearns in attendance, 2. "I."catal number of part ic i pantsl- 3, Estimated nUmber of spectators; 4Number of pailicipants and estimated spectators ftoni 50 miles or more away; 5. Total nurnber of hotel room nights associated with each event; and 6. The percentage of the event that was played in (.'hesterfield County, 6."ONCESSION SERVICES. AThe lessee shall provide all necessary labor, services, arid supplies to keep for sage to the PUblic (luring scheduled garnes: cold so -Ft drinks (no glass bottles are perrnifted), food and snacks such as hamburgers, barbecue, hot, dogs, popcorn, nachos, ice creant, chips and candy, A variety of selection -With colnpetilivC pricing is encouraged. Prices for all iterns offered fi,�)r sale ShOUld be posted in as conspicuous place, The Lessee shall not be permitted to sell any product or seii,ice which the ('ounty determines is not compatible with the authotized activities or creates unreasonable problems in cleanup of the facilities. Lessee shall not be permitted to sell alcoholic beverages or tobacco products. BThe concessions operations shall be conducted in as clean and orderly manner and in strict conformity with all applicable rules, laws, codes, arid regulations, T'he operations rriust pass all Health Department inspections, Lessee shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary licenses, pernifts and inspections related to the facilities and Lessee's employees, 1,.,essee shall provide a copy ofall, licenses, pennits and inspections to the (.",,ounty, be serving area shOUld be prollessional in 062 3:908 30t @ 3 DRAFT12/04/13 appearance and proper working at -tire should be worn by Lessee's employees and VOILInteers, if' any, at all times, The Lessee shall provide all pest eontrol as needed, The Lessee shall provide adequate trash receptacles for the public and be responsible For trash disposal. The Lessee shall be responsible for collecting, reporting and paying all applicable federal, state an(] local taxes and shall secure and pay R.H.- all permits, licenses and fees required for operations. 11 All advertisement posters, banners or other promotional materials are restricted to the inimediate area OCCLIPied by the Lessee and must be approved by the County, prior to display. Items deemed objectionable, undesirable, or offensive will be prohibited. No noisy canvassing 6or sale shall be permitted on the Premises, -the infia-mation on the use and disposal of cooking oil, Lessee shall comply with operation of tine, athletic lighting, and proper thunderstom'i procedures, provided in Attachment 1), T MAtNTENANCE SERVWES, A. The L,essee shall be responsible for providing all labor, equipment, inaterials and supplies necessary for the daily, and routine maintenance and Upkeep of' the 1)remises as specified in Attachment E. B. All pesticide applications shall be made by a. Certitfied Pesticide Applicator, VA Category 313, All pesticide applications shall be in accordance to nianufacturers" label, docuniented, and copied to Parks and Recreation. CI The County will be responsible for rnajot structural repair to the infirastructure of the Prernises including repairs to arid replacement of athletic field lighting, parking lot lighting and paverrient, fencing, ina, or tree rernoval, painting of' J exterior and restroorn interior, regulatory signs, and Warbro Entrance sign. DExcept for repair or maintenance responsibilities of the County provided in Section 7.C., the Lessee shall be responsible for prorript repair to any darnages to the Premises caused by the Lessee's use of the premises including the cost, of' system repairs and maintenance for pluni.bing, electrical (excluding athletic field and parking lot lighting), fIVAC,, and irrigation, Such repairs shall be approved by the County, prior to repair, Afterations to the building or grounds shall not be perrytitted without the prior approval of the ( ' - 'oun 'ty. Any SUh a clteran tios permitted sliall be at the Lessee's expense and shall corriply with. all Chesterfield County building codes, F", Lessee shall limit fuel storage on the Prenrises to no more than 5 gallons per site-, and will not, maintain bulk storage offertilizer greater than 20lbs per site. ill/"pmt: 830,1 DRAFT12/04/13 8FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS. A. Lessee shall be permitted to make improvements to the Premises subject to prior approval firoin the Count),. In addition, for each year of the term. or renewal terni, L,essee shall inatch dollar for dollar up to l"ifleenThousand Dollars $15,000) any C."ounty fUnding for capital improvements to lighting, fencing, or infield improvements or other renovations on the Prenrises, IfLessee expends more than Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) for capital iniprovernents to the Premises in any year of the terni, any aniount over Fiffeen Thonsand Dollars ($15,(00) shall be credited toward Lessee"s obligation to match C,ounty funding in the following lease year,, if any, BIn Heu of playground and irrigation improvements Lessee agreed to complete on the Prernises under the previous lease agreement between the parties, Lessee shall make infield iinprovenients to fields, 95 and 46 at Harry GI, Daniel Park at Ironbridge and to fields ff1, #2, and 0'. gat the Warl)ro Complex, including adding infield inix an d. grading In iproveinents all to the (.-,'ounty's reasonaffle satisfaction and by April 1, 2014. 9. 'FE RMINATION, Either party may terininate this agreenient in the event of the other party's deffirtIt ofany provision of" this Lease which is not CUred Nvithin 10 days after receiving Nvritten notice of such defbUlt; provided, however, that if SLIch defmilt cannot 'be cured. in such 10 day period, this Lease shall not be terminated if the defiaulting party commences cure of'such defiatilt and proceeds with diligence to cure such defaUlt within 30 days after the initial 10 day eure period, In the eventof cancellation or upon termination ol' t1iis Lease, Lessee agrees to vacate the Premises immediately'. Ifthe Lessee fbifs to vacate the Premises upon such notice, the County tnay rernovc any of I....essee's property remaining on the Premises and shall not be responsible for any datriage that inay, occur dije to removing Lessee's propert,Y from the Premises, I 0� LJIIJIIIIIJES� A., Lessee shall Inc responsible f all electrie tise at both fficilities, The Lessee shall contact Dominion Virginia Power to have the electric accourn estal.)lished in the narne of the Lessee, B. The Parks and Recreation Department will bill the L,essee for Lessee's actual use ('4"water and sewer at botti facilities every two (2) moilths at then -current rates, 11, SIGNAGE, All signage and scoreboards InUst be approved by the Parks and Recreation Director or designee. 0623,90830.1 5 DRAFT12/014/13 11 GENERALTERMS, AND CONDITIONS. AInsurance: The Lessee shall purchaseand maintain in force, at his own expense, such insurance as will protect itself and the, County troni clairris Nvirich rria y anse mut of or result from the Lessee's execution of the lease, whether such execution Inc by Lessee, its employees, agents or sublessees. Should any of the policies be cancelled bef'ore the expiration date, the iSSUiIIg coryipanY will mail 30 day's written notice to the certificate holder, The Lessee shall furnish insurance in satisfiactory limits, and on forms and of companies which are acceptable to the (',',0LMty'S Risk. Manager, The following irASUrance requirements are the miniminn that will be acceptatfle: Worker's Cornpensation Insurance with statutory limits and Employers' L,iabiliry Insurance of $100,000 each accident or aggregate disease-, $100,000 each employee-, and $500,000 policy limit. I Cornniercial General Liability $2,000,000 each occurrence, combined single lityiit,- $5,000,000 aggregate; and narning the C,ounty as an additional insured, I Hired and Non-( wtied Automobile Liability 1,000,000 each. occurrence combined single finrit, 4. Environmental 4ripain-nent Liability --- Lessee shall require any pesticide contractor or subcontractor to obtain $1,000,000 commercial general liability, coverage corribined single linlit to include environniental in'tpairment liability of not less than $100,000, to include sudden and accidental losses, Lessee's corartactors' policy, shall be endorsed to add County and Lessee as additional insureds, The Lessee shall be responsible t'or inairitainin.g current certificates of" insurance on file with the County lor itselfand any contractors working on the Premises; and all insurance conapanies shall Inc: responsible for notifying time ( "otinty thirty (30) days pri(.ir to the cancellation, non -renewal, or imaterial change in any coverage. B� Drug Free Workplace: During the performance cal" this lease, the Lessee agreesto: (i) provide an drug-ftee workplace f'or the Lessee's ernployecs; (ii) post in conspicuous places, availal-fle to employees and al)plicants for ernployment, an statement notifying employees that the unlawful, inanulactare, sale, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of as controlled substance or inarU"tiana is prohibited in the Lessee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against eniployces for violations of such prohibition; (iii) state in all solicitations or advertiserrients for employees placed by or on behalf of the Lessee that the 0623:90830 1 6 DRAIFT12/04/13 Lessee maintains an drug-ftee workplace; and (iv) include the provisions of" the foregoing clauses in every subcontract or purchase order ofover $ 10,000, so that the provisions will be bindilIg Upon each, contractor or vendor, For the Purposes of this section, "drug -lice workplace" means as site for the perl'orrnance of work done in connection with as specific contract awarded to a Lessee in accordance with this chapter, the employees of whom are prohibited firornengaging in the unlawful rnanufacture, sale, distribution, dispensation, possession or use of any controlled substance or n1,111JUana during the perf'orrnance of the 1_,ease. C, EInviroriniental Management: Lessee shall be responsible For coniplying 'with all applicable federal, state, and local environrnental regLdatiOnS, if any, Additionally, Ilie L.,essee rmist ineet all ( ' I ' I hesterfield C.ounty Environmental Management Systern (F'.MS) requirements, For questions or additional informalion, contact the Office ofEnvironmental Managerne nt at (804) 717-6531 m 'Notwithstanding time fbregoing, Lessee shall not be liable fior any violation of environmental regulations solely caUsed by or resuldrig frorn the ("'ounty's use, improvement or operation of the Premises. D� Illegal ABerns: fri accordance with the (;'Ode ql'T'7,n giht, Section 2.2-4:111.1, the lessee hereby agrees that he does not and shall not, during the performance of this contract, knowingly employ. unaUthorized aliens as defined in the federal I Immigration Refonn and Control Act or 1986. f ", Employment Discrimination: During the peribrinance of this contract, the Lessee agrees as follows: The Lessee will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of' race, religion, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, or other basis prohibited by state law relating to discrimination in employment, except where there is as bona fide OCCUpational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the I-essee, "Hie Lessee agrees to post in conspicucms places, available to employees and applicat-fts 1'(.)r employment, notices setting fiorth the provisions ofthis nondiscriniination clause. 2. 'r,he 1,essee, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the lessee, will state that such Lessee is an equal opportunity employer, 3, Notices, advertisements and solicitations placed in accordance with federal law, rule or regulation shall be deemed sufficient fior the purpose of'meeting the requirements of this section. 0623-90830,1 7 DRAFT' 12/04/13 4. The Lessee will ifICILide the provisions of the foregoing paragraphs a, b and c in every subcontract or pUrchase order oil' over $10,000, so that the provisions will be binding upon each contractor or vendor, R The Lessee shall perform services Under this ]ease as an independent contractor and not, as an ernployee of Cliesterfield Cbtnily. is herein shall be construed as placing the Lessee in the category ofeither a classified or other type of employee cif` Chesi er field Cbunty, G. The Lessee shoidd initiate prompt repairs to the Premises due to darnage caused by the Lessee"s operations, Such repairs shall be approved by the County prior to repair, Alterations to the premises shall riot be permitted WithOUt the prior approval ot"the County, II' cept as otherwise provided herein, any such alterations pen�nitted shall. be at, the Lessee's expense and shall comply with all Chesterfield County building codes, 11-1. Lessee should directly supervise use of -the Premises at, all times during prograrn operations, The County and/or its rcpresentatives shall have the right to inspect the Premises and. to supervise the manner Lessee is exercising the privilege hereby granted, and the conduct ofthe Lessee and the Lessee's ernployees. In the event the Lessee, its agents, representatives, employees or volunteers are found violating any law, ordinance or provision of this Lease, or become okajectionable and off"ensive to the good order and use of the Premises, Ihe Lessee shall remove any such person from the Prernises at, once. The County may', in addition thereto, terminate this Lease at its option and have all Lessee's property removed fi,orfi the Premises, L Lessee represents that, it is and shall remain for the term ofthis Lease as litnited liability company validly existing under the laws of, and authorized to conduct business in the Coinrnonwealth of'Virginia. Lessee's operation of the Premises shall be consistent with tire County's organizational values of" custorner service, ethical behavior, tearnwork, and continuous improvement. Lessee agrees to strive for excellence in custorner service. 11 INDEMNIFICATION. Lessee shall indernnif; and hold harmless the Co unty, its officials, officers, agents, servants and employees from any claims, costs, expenses'damages, liabilities, losses, orjudgments arising out, of, or in connection with, any, claim, demand or action made by an third party, if such are sustained as a direct or in consequence of. Lessee's use of the Premises and are a direct or indirect r,esult of1he acts or ornissions of the Lessee or its agents, Lessees, employees, members, or guests. 14, NOTICIES, Notices may be served upon the Lessee in person or by certified inail addressed to the address listed above. Written notice to the Clounty must be presented in person or mailed to the Department of' Parhs and Recreation, 6801 Mirnms 1,,00p, P.O. Box 40, DRAFT12/04/13 (7.hesterfield, Virginia, 23832, or at such other place as the (.,ouirty rnay ftoni thne to thrie designate in writing to the Lessee. 15. ENFORCEMENT, Any action brought to enf6rce any, provision of this agreernent shall excl 'd (,ounty to the express usion of any otherwise be brought in the Circuit ('Iourt -for (Iheslerfiel permissible forum, This agreement shall be construed. in accordance with the law's of the (_"ornmonwealth ol"Virginia excepting the law goveming conflicts of laws, 16, AUDIT, Upon the written request of' the ounty, Lessee shall provide County within five (5) business days of such request clocurnentation, including, but not, limited to, invoices, receipts contracts, policies, procedures or other supporting evidence satisfactory to the County in its sole reasonable discretion wliich substantiates compliance with I-essee's perf'orniance obligations under this lease, 17. BACK ('PROU N 1) OJECK. ("onsistent with the ('ounty's policy ofconducting criminal background checks on individuals who work with juveniles, this lease shall be contingent upon Lessee's officers and ern ployees SUbinitting to and passing as CHtTlinal background check to be administrated by the (Iounty's Human Resources Department prior to the cominencernent of"the lease tern'i. .,e see shall insure that all of' Lessee's ernployees who have contact With Juveniles during the ternn of"the lease shall submit 'to an criniinal backgl'OUnd clieck, M ASSICON MEel T/SUB1,EASE, Lessee may not assign or sublease its rights or responsibilities hereunder without the prior written consent oftfwC`ounty. M ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This lease and any exhibits and docunlents incorporated by reference herein represent, the entire understanding between the parties andno other docurnents, agreements, oral or written, between the parties shall be binding. This lease shall not be modified, altered., changed or amended unless done so in writing and. signed by both parties, 20. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, Lessee shall insure that use of' the Premises sliall comply with all applicable f.'ederal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations, Witness the following signatures and seals� 0623,90830 1 9 DRAFT 12/014/13 DAV I DTIL LF R ot ASSOCIAIT'S, LLC Its: Manager Commonwealth of Virginia, (It y/County to -wit: ...._.v_.........__.._... ... ............ . _._n .. a Notar)(Public in and for thCit e ylCounty and State aforesaid., do hereby certify that this day personally appeared before me hi my jUrisdiction aforesaid --------- ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- - - -- -- whose narne is signed to the foregoing writing and acno kwledsa ged the me before me, Given Under My I land 20 My cominission expires: Registration NUrnber: - - - - - -- ----- --- ------------------------------- ., Notary Public 0623M830A 10 DRAFT12/04/13 ATTr!,s,r. C 01 INTY01,'CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA M for COLJNTY ADMINIS"TRA"TOR (.1Nally AN BOARD 01,' SUPI-IRVISORS APPROVED AS TO FORM: ASSIS'T'AN'I'COLJN'[')'A'I"I"ORNI-,',Y Cbmmoriwealth of Virginia, Cotint,Y of Chesterfield, to -wit: I as NotarY Public in and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that this day personally appeared beftwe ease in my Jurisdiction a1bresaid CHAIRMAN OF ,l"111.; BOARD OFSLTERVISORS, andt'or COUNTY ADMINIST'RA"I .'OR, wfiose narnes are i - ------ ------------------- sgned to the foregoing writing and acknowledged the same bef'bre me. Given under my hand MY' COTTITnission expres: Registration Number: E Notary Public VwMk I 069 11 a I a Is E C14 to 401 BASEBALL/SOFTBALL MAINTENANCE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES ATTACHMENT B Dragging: Skinned in -fields should be dragged prior to each game day and weekly during the off season, weather permitting to maintain a level surface. Infields can be dragged by pulling a mat or chain link drag with a utility vehicle or infield groomer. The field should be first dragged in a circular motion starting from the outside and working in. Only two (2) passes are needed. Start this pattern two feet away from the outfield grass to avoid building a ridge where the infield and the outfield meet. Next, starting from home plate, drag towards 2nd base in an oval fashion. The pitching mound, if one exists, should not be dragged over but raked by hand. Continue dragging in this fashion until the drag pattern overlaps the first drag pattern. Complete the dragging with a circular pattern to cover any missed areas. Alternate the drag pattern each time, home to 2nd then let to 3rd. Before dragging make sure base pegs and anchors are even with or below ground level. The chain link drag is best used when the infield is very dry or wet; this reduces the amount of dust when dry and builds up on the drag when wet. It is important to drag the field slowly regardless of the dragging pattern used. When the dragging is completed, stop the drag on the infield preferably in front of either dugout or on a low area of the field. Do not pull drag off the field through the gate or onto the outfield grass. Specialized Drafxing: A nail drag should be used as often as possible to help prevent infield compaction. When the infields become compacted a nail drag is to be used when sufficient moisture is available. This process helps maintain the top x/4 to 1X2 inch loose and friable, which is the desired playing conditioner of an infield. An infield groomer should be used no less than monthly to remove a high spot and fill in low areas in maintaining a uniform playing surface. On high use fields this process should be done weekly. Utilization of this process will reduce the need for frequent restoration and improve the drainage of the infield. 1. Linin Infields should be lined prior to each game day and outfields lined by painting weekly. A non -caustic dry line should be used; marble dust will work, but is not as visible as the lime. Line is the recommended substance to be used on a dirt surface. The outfield can be lined by using a non -caustic lime or a field marking paint. When applying lime to the grass outfield it's best to cut the grass low for better visibility of the lime. Using lime in the outfield will require re -lining every two or three days. A ridge or hump will appear after constant use of lime for outfield lines. The use of paint will not produce a ridge or build up. 0623:91584.1 BASEBALL/SOFTBALL MAINTENANCE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES ATTACHMENT B Lines are put down by the use of a dry line marker for lime and a sprayer or paint machine for paint. A string line is run from the back corner of home plate down the foul line to the foul pole. String should be used each time the infield is lined. Make sure string is straight and taut. The string should pass on the outside of the base and foul pole with the marking on the inside of the string. Infield lines should be put down light because they are dragged out daily. Outfield lines should be put down heavier to last longer and increase visibility. Outfield lines can be touched up without running string as long as it's still visible. In some cases a growth retardant can be used on the foul line to help maintain a painted line longer. Bases,, Home Plates, Pitching_ Rubbers: Bases, home plates and pitching rubbers should be in good condition and installed properly and level with the ground. Replace any item showing signs of cracking, tears or warping. 2. Hollywood -Type Base: The underside of the base has a square male stanchion, which fits into a square female ground stake. The ground stake is permanently installed into the ground with the top on the stake 1 inch below the surface grade. When the base is not installed a stake plug should be installed into the ground stake for safety. 3. Home and Pitching Plates: When installing a home plate or pitching rubber, make sure it is level with the ground and properly aligned. The use of strings will help in making sure that the plate or rubber is positioned properly. Use the solid home plates on all fields and pitching plates for high quality facilities. They will last longer than the flat type. If supply allows, use the solid types whenever possible. Flat pitching plates can be used on fields for short term uses, such as tournaments. 4. Filling Holes: All holes and low areas in the infield including ones developed away from bases, home and pitching plates are to be filled and leveled prior to each game day. Bases are to be removed when filling holes. Soil for high spots are raked or shoveled into the low area and tamped to create firm footing. Add water to this process if soil is too dry to pack. Monthly, homes and low spots around home and pitching areas are to be dug out to a depth of two inches and re -packed with new packing clay. 0623:91580.1 BASEBALL/SOFTBALL MAINTENANCE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES ATTACHMENT B 5. Removing Ebccess Water: The e=best and easiest way to remove standing water from a field is to let Mother Nature's sunshine do the work for you. But, this process often takes too much time and the games must be played. The one thing to remember about removing water is - applying sand is not always the best way. Over a period of time sand accumulation will make those areas too soft and loose, causing the ball to take bad bounces and possibly causing injury. It is best to let the field dry as much as possible naturally. When the soil turns from a darker to a lighter shade, indicated that the field is drying. When removing water, use a sweep broom or squeegee to push the water to dry areas. Try to push mostly water (not soil) and spread the water over a large area. When the field is completely dry, replace the soil removed from the wet areas. A preventive measure for reducing standing water is to keep holes and low areas filled and level. If a field is too wet, it should be closed to play. When closing a field, these are the points to consider: Do not push water onto the outfield areas How fast is the field drying? Will there be enough time to prepare the field by game time? Will playing on the field cause damage to the field or injury to the players? Base Distances: Between Bases: Home to Second: 55' 77'09" 60' 84'10" 65' 91'11" 70' 99'00" 80' 113'02" 90' 127'03" NOTE: Distance from lst to 3,d is the same as form home to 2nd. Recommended Equipment and Materials: Square point shovel Tamper Iron tooth and/or landscape rake Drag Line Machine Paint Machine 0623:91580.1 3 BASEBALL/SOFTBALL MAINTENANCE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES ATTACHMENT B Dig -out tool Hammer Tape measure (100-300 foot) String line Push Broom Anchor Plugs Gloves Lime Packing Clay 6. Mowing: The turf on the ball fields is to be maintained to maximum vigor and health and provide a playable surface. The grass should be mowed at least weekly or more often as needed. The industry recommendation is to not remove more than 1/3 of the grass blade per cut. Mower blades should be kept sharp to maintain a high quality cut. Turf should be cut 1" to 2" for warm season grass and 2" to 3" for cools season grass. 7. Fertilization: Turf should be fertilized at a minimum of two times per year for warm season grass and once a year for cool season grass. Nitrogen application should not exceed 4 pounds per 1000 square feet for warm season grass and 3.5 pounds per 1000 square feet for cool season grass. Applications to be a minimum of 30 days apart. S. Seeding: All bare spots on field turf should be seeded, sodded or sprigged to maintain 95% coverage. All other turf areas should be maintained at 75% coverage. 9. Weed Control: Control weeds to allow no more than 10% infestation in athletic field turf. All pesticide applications shall be performed by a Certified Pesticide Applicator in categories 3-A and 3-B. All pesticides shall be stores, used and disposed per manufacturer's label, including use of proper Personal Protection Equipment (PPE's). 10.Aerating: Field turf should be core aerated one to two times during the growing season to reduce compaction and encourage soil drainage. 0623:91580.1 4 x x x 0 ------------ tD (D 0 Z-- Z> 0 ---+ --- — — — — — — — — — — (D 10 x 0 tx t x x Q o U, z x x x 0 Q 0 12 M — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- x x x x 0 Q 0 a X UA x x U. �311 — — — — — — -- — — — — — — — rL 06 ho w Q Z 0 C> M up V- 2 w to . -7 x ,S W Ttlo w C� cu 0 Z W) bo '0 0 4d w cc 0 bi, w m 41 0. oj oj !L-- M am, *I w_ t4 :o pcc u E3 'o u IN 2 M z i LIZ Fm------------ ul ------------ 2 5 x x 3: 3 311 3 � :> - - - --- - - - - - - ujp 1u f—I es U _5 3C CD a+ aj m 9 E c c c d d O d - 't u X 1.� Co Z 0 z sf� in z uj ig z W 0 U w :0- c c d N cm 82 v m i PARK REGUL.ATIaNs. TTACHMENT_ C Section 1. Application. This chapter shall apply to all park and recreational property owned, maintained, or operated by Chesterfield County, Virginia. Section 2. Definitions. The following terms, when used in this chapter, shall have the following meanings, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning, or there is an expressed provision to the contrary: (a) Park Property. Any property, whether real or personal, owned, operated or established by the Chesterfield County Department of Parks and Recreation. (b) Director. The Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation or his designee. (c) County. The County of Chesterfield, Virginia. Section 3. Hours of Operation. No person, except a bonafide camper with prior written approval from the Director, or a law enforcement officer or County employee in the course of his respective employment, shall enter or remain in any park except during such hours aslshall be designated and posted by the County as hours of operation. Section 4. Facility and Activity Permits. Persons with permits issued by the Director shall have priority in the use of facilities. Failure to relinquish facilities to a person with such a permit shall be unlawful and shall constitute trespassing. Section 5. Restricted Areas. No person shall enter any area which is designated and posted by the Department of Parks and Recreation as an area where persons are prohibited from going. Section 6. Permissible Roadways, Operation of motorized vehicles is allowed only on designated roadways. Section 7. Enforcement. All state and county laws shall be observed when operating motorized vehicles on park property. Any traffic directive from any member of the Virginia State Police or Chesterfield County Police shall supersede written or posted laws and regulations. Section 8. Speed Limit. No person shall operate any motorized vehicle in excess of fifteen (15) miles per hour, unless otherwise posted or directed. Section 9. Parking. No person shall park a motor vehicle or motor -assisted bicycle in areas of any park other than those designated and posted by the County as parking areas. 0623;91584.1 1 PARK REGULATIONS PAGE 2 ATTACHMENT C Section 10. Certain Vehicles Prohibited. Except by the express authorization of the Board of Supervisors, the County Administrator, or the County Administrator's designee: (a) No person shall operate within any park a motorized vehicle of a type not licensable by the Commonwealth of Virginia for regular use upon public highways. (b) No person shall operate with any park a farm tractor, other farm machinery, or any type of vehicle used primarily for earth -mowing operations, whether or not licensable by the Commonwealth of Virginia for regular use upon public highways. Section 11. Restriction of Animals. No person shall have within the park any animal unless it is caged, securely penned or on a leash of not more than 10 feet in length and no person shall ride a horse in any park except in areas designated and posted by the County for horseback riding. Section 12. Animals Protected. No person shall capture, pursue, molest, injure, attempt to injure, kill or attempt to kill, any animal in any park. Section 13, Automobile Service. No person may service any automobile on park property, except in cases of an emergency. Section 14. Destruction or Interference with Park Propertv. No person may climb upon, deface, destroy, injure in any way, misuse, remove, or waste any park property. Permission for collecting items for scientific and/or educational purposes must be obtained in writing from the Director or his designee. Section 15. Employees: Interference with Rules. (a) No person may interfere with any Department of Parks and Recreation employee acting in the course of his or her duties or falsely represent or impersonate a park employee. (b) No person shall fail or refuse to obey the lawful order of a uniformed or properly identified park employee or police officer. Section 16. Littering and Dumping. (a) No person may deposit or leave refuse or other substance on park property other than in receptacles provided for this purpose. (b) No person may deposit refuse from private premises in park trash receptacles. 0623:91584.1 2 ir' ° PARK REGULATIONS PAGE 3 ATTACHMENT C Section 17. Pollution of Waters. No person shall in the streams, lakes or other waters of any park, bathe dogs or other animals, wash vehicles or clothing, or throw, cast, lay, drip, or discharge into or leave in the streams, lakes or other waters of the parks or in any storm sewer or drains flowing into said water, any substance matter or thing, liquid or solid, which may or shall result in the pollution of said water. Section 18. Dangerous Devices Prohibited. No person, other than any law enforcement officer, fire fighter, or County security guard, in the course of his/her respective employment, shall have in his/her possession in any park, any firearm or other gun, including an air or gas powered gun, slingshot, bow and arrow, crossbow, dart device, boomerang, or any other device for high-speed missile projection, except in areas designated and posted by the County as areas in which one or more of these devices are permitted for recreational use. Section 19. Fires Restricted. No person shall kindle, build, maintain, or use a fire other than (1) in grills and (2) in places provided and/or designated by the County for such purposes, except by prior written permission from the Director or his designee. Section 20. Control of Fire Required. Any fire within the confines of any park shall be continuously under the care and supervision of a competent person 16 years of age or older from the time such fire is kindled until the time it is extinguished. Section 21. Fires Must Be Extinguished. No person shall throw away or discard a lighted match, cigarette, cigar, or other burning object, in any park, without first extinguishing it. Section 22. Swimming Restricted. No person shall swim, wade, or bathe in any park except at such times and at such places as the Director may designate. Section 23. Sales of Goods and Services. No person may sell or advertise for sales of goods or services on Park property without written permission from the Director or his designee. Section 24. Applicability to Certain Persons. Notwithstanding any other provision in this chapter to the contrary, it shall not be a violation of this chapter if a person engaging in an otherwise prohibited activity is either an employee of the County acting within the scope of his/her employment, or if the person engaging in the otherwise prohibited activity is an agent or an independent contractor to the County acting within and pursuant to the scope of his/her duties. Section 25. Penalty. Any person who violates any of the provision of the chapter shall be deemed to be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars ($100.00). Section 26. Severability. If any section of this ordinance or portion thereof is declared invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall be regarded as severed and remaining sections and portions shall continue in full force and effect. 0623:91584.1 3't -G �� AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING SECTION 15.1-31 RELATING TO DRINKING IN COUNTY PARKS ATTACHMENT C BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Chapter 14 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, is amended and reenacted by adding the following section: Sec. 14.1-23. Drinking alcoholic beverages, or tendering same to another, in a county park. (a) No person shall possess opened alcoholic beverage containers or drink an alcoholic beverage or tender a drink of an alcoholic beverage to another in a county park, except at sl2ecific locations aggrovedd as conditionedthe board of sugervisors, and after obtainin a valid banguet license is -sued by the Vic inia Degartment.,of Alcohol Beverage Control and agreeing to comply with the terms of a special hermit issued by the county administrator. The county department of parks and recreation shall promulgate regulations for the issuance of permits authorized by this section. (b) No person shall possess opened alcoholic beverage containers on any county property used for a school or on any street. road, or highway located in the county. (c) Violation of this section shall constitute a Class 4 misdemeanor up to $250 fine. (2) This section shall become effective upon passage. cd11368:85C CIO IJ.�. C1. 0623:415$4.1 4 ATTACHMENT D INSTRUCTIONS FOR OPERATION OF ATHLETIC FIEND LIGHTING All athletic lighting recently installed by the Parks and Recreation Department should be operated as follows; A time clock allows operation of the lights only during preset hours, usually dusk to 11:30 p.m. 2. On/Off push buttons may be used to operate the lights during the preset periods. Some sites do not have off buttons; timers will turn off lights at a preset time. 3. The lights require a cool down/warm up period of approximately 15 minutes each time they are shut off. 4. Nearly all of the lighting systems have a delay timer which keeps a few lights on for approximately 10 minutes; after that, lights are shut off so that everyone can see to leave the area. If the lights are shut off accidently such as during a ballgame, this delay cycle must take place before all of the lights can be fully activated. 110 -volt duplex receptacles are available for concession hook-ups or other uses independent of timers, i.e., they can be used for afternoon games. These receptacles may be turned on upon appropriate requests. 6. In cases where assistance is needed, on duty Park staff can be reached by calling the night facility Supervisor at 748-1624 in your District. Refer to the prefix of this manual for day and evening phone numbers. 0623:91586.1 1 ATTACHMENT D Chesterfield County ,.i Department of Parks and Recreatton/Parks Division Originator Revised by Approved b JLC 03!02106 EMS Team Ofi/19/13 EMS Team 06/19113 Standard Operational Procedure Used Cooking Oil Management (SOP 19) persons responsible: Asst. Director, Parks Division EMS Team Supervisors areas of application: Parks Division Warningl Earlier versions of this document may be obsolete and should be removed from points of use. Document Location: Parks Central Maintenance Office Revision Schedule Rev. No. Original Document Review Document Added Consequences and Benefits Review Document — No changes Review Document — No changes Review Document— No changes Review Document — No changes Worksheet index 1.0 Purpose 2.0 Scope 3.0 Responsibility 4.0 Definitions 5.0 Process 6.0 References / Related Documents Description 1 of 3 Revision No. 006 Date of issue: 06/19/13 Effective until date: 06119115 0623:91586.1 2 Date Original 03/02/06 001 06/29/07 002 09/10/07 003 06/11/08 004 07/14/10 005 06/01/11 006 06/19/13 Original Document Review Document Added Consequences and Benefits Review Document — No changes Review Document — No changes Review Document— No changes Review Document — No changes Worksheet index 1.0 Purpose 2.0 Scope 3.0 Responsibility 4.0 Definitions 5.0 Process 6.0 References / Related Documents Description 1 of 3 Revision No. 006 Date of issue: 06/19/13 Effective until date: 06119115 0623:91586.1 2 Chesterfield County Department of Parks and Recreation/Parks Division Originator Revised by Approved b JLC 03/02/06 EMS Team 06/19/13 EMS Team 06/19/13 ATTACHMENT D 1.0 Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this Standard Operation Procedure (SOP) is to outline the proper handling for used cooking oil. This SOP addresses significant aspect #003 2 of 3 Revision No. 006 2.0 Scope 2.1 This SOP applies to all Chesterfield County Parks Division personnel, and athletic league personnel who handle used cooking oil to ensure proper disposal methods. Chesterfield County Department of Parks and Recreation is concerned with the safety of its employees and citizens who use our facilities. 2.2 The benefits of this SOP include the prevention of hazardous substances from entering the environment by insuring that all cooking grease is properly disposed of. The consequences of not following this SOP could adversely effect the environment. Consequences include pollution of ground water and potential damage to the Chesapeake Say water shed. 3.0 Responsibility 3.1 EMS Team 3.2 Chesterfield County Department of Parks Division Personnel 3.3 Athletic League Personnel 4.0 Definitions 4.9 Refer to 4. 1.60 EMS Related Definitions 5.0 Process 5.1 Parks and Recreation will provide each concession or concession area with two 5 gallon containers for used oil and a 5 gallon container spill kit. 5.1.1 Each concession or concession area will be required to have on hand at all times: Two — 5 gallon red labeled cans One — 5 gallon spill kit in labeled white bucket 5.1.2 Spill Kits shall include at a minimum: Absorbent 1 pair Safety Goggles 1 pair Safety Glasses 2 pair nitrile gloves 1 set of Nitri-Solve Gloves 2 spill pads (perforated) 3 spill socks 2 dust mask 2 trash bags MSDS for spill kit contents 5.2 Once the cooking oil has cooled, pour it into the properly labeled container. The used cooking oil must be collected in the approved red labeled container provided by Parks and Recreation at each site where a fryer is being used. Place the red labeled container in the job box provided. 5.3 The athletic league designee within the concession area will notify Park Maintenance within 1 business day when containers are full to schedule pick up. Park Maintenance can be contacted at 804745-1624. 5.4 Parks Division personnel will collect full containers and dispose of oil at collection sites at Date of issue: 06/19/13 Effective until date: 08/99/15 0623:91586.1 3° Chesterfield County Department of Parks and 16) Recreation/Parks Division bd inator Revised by_ Approved b JLC 03102/06 EARS Team 06119713 EMS Team 06/19113 ATTACHMENT D the Chesterfield County Fairgrounds or at Rockwood Park. 5.5 Containers must be secured in bed of vehicle to eliminate spillage during transport. 5.5.1 Drips, leaks and small spills will be cleaned up using the "Waste Cooking Oil' spill kit. The used absorbent and pad or socks must be discarded in approved white 5 gallon bucket that is with the spill kit. Once the used items are placed in the bucket, the bucket must be labeled "Waste Cooking Or The absorbent and other clean up items will be collected in drums provided and labeled at each district shop. 5.5.2 For larger spills that are more than 25 gallons, immediately contain the spill, and call 911. 5,6 Parks Division personnel will contact an authorized contractor to remove and recycle used cooking oil and oil dry when containers at Fairgrounds or district shops are 90% full. 6>0 References ! Related Documents 6.1 MSDS for spill kit contents 6.2 Chesterfield County Fairgrounds Oil Spill flan 6.3 Chesterfield County Sports Manual 6.4 Used cooking oil disposal instructions Date of Issue: 06119113 3 of 3 Revision No. 006 Effective unbi date: 06119/15 0623:91586.1 4 KAREN RUSSELL Warkfng ivisfi emp�wandcftrrm to m4nVe ths ris(( artriq aga of Director gmarmunt andpJ& xho*(qweWow THIINDERSTORMS AND LIGITTNING SAFErY ATTACHMENT ID J=C 2ODS 1OOfX) un omTview Ln Phonc 318,4800 Fam 7`48-2*fin Recognize the dna zard posed by lightning and know what to do to minimize the risk of setious iqjury or dcath during outdoor activities. A. ldentifySafe Shelters Determine the closest safe s=tures in advance of aqy acdvhyo Safe, sftctures hrolude the neamt school building, a cornplete enclosure, or a fully unclosed inetal vehicle with windows tightly closed, Pre&s boxes,, sheds, storage buildings, or dugouts will riot prov�de adequate protection. B. Determine flow Clase the Lightning Is Practice the fiasb-to-bang method of measuring of fightning fttat= as itaper oaches, Using this thad, one counts the seconds from seeing the stroke to heanng the td:under. For each 5-secand count, lightning is I mile away, (Bxample: At 25 secands:, the strike is 5 miles away.) C Participant and Speetator Notitleation Inform participants and spcetatorswhan a thundewtorm watch is in effbot Tell them that play will be suspended as fighWng approaches, what the clear -the -area signal is, where Ox) go for safe, Shelter, and what routes to take as they evacuate the area. Prior to outdoor compedtions, this should include a fomal announcemerit over the public address system. Select a distinctive, recognizabe method to aurin ice or sipWthe lightning waming and clow - the -area order, SUCh as blasts of a whistle and a shouted command, D, Designate: a Weather Mouitor One person should be responsibie for inanitoring rhe weather forecasts, watching fbr the developing Nveather conditions accompanied bly lightening, and timing die flash -to -bang intervals at the first sound of thunder.The use of an inexpensive radio tuned to the all weather or 01 -news radio station isrecommended (bursts of'static on the Radio indicate lightning in the area), This person should have the authority to orderthat the Blear -glee -area signal be given or be in constant contact with the person who does have the authority, E. Know When to Take Immediate Action At a count ofl 5 saoonds (3 infles) there is hnniinent danger;, and Immediate defenshee action must be taken, When lightning strikes this close, participants and spectators are in immediate danger. It is strongly recommended that the LIM-AUM*4 w 1AMA1 t! Vee fts -ka- M ect ids ll s espeebtfly when small childrcm or a largo number of spcctatom are at risk, Fbete lee How Long to Stay Sheltered Follow the "30/30 Rule", Remain in the safer,and' a shelter for a rninimum of 30 rninutes from the last ncarjry lightning strike (flash -to -bang count no less than 30 seconds) befbre resuming activities, 0623�91686,1 5 14 ATTACHMENT E Equipment, tools, materials and supplies provided by Lessee for daily and routinemaintenance per Section 7.A of the Lease may, include but not limited to: E '[C,FIEI,D MENT . . . .......... OTHER ITEMS -------- ..... ..... ...... - _.-Cleanin _g u _S Power Broom Toilet.Pa------ ............. .. �ririnrner '-Elow els �.,P B q�.Blower Broonis Push Mower Trash Cans UtTty Tractor .. . . . ..................... So Infield Conditioner . . . .............................. .... . . . . . Fertilizer and Mulch ...... . ..... I.Rility Vehicle ------ Lirne Front -End Loader . . . . ................ . . . . . . ................. . . Herbicides . . .............. . ... ... .... ... � n e s Nail fle�stroorn S' Broadcast T.HLETIC FIELD TOOLS . .... .. ..... __'""'_' -------- - - ATHLETIC FIELD ACCES SORIES . ....... ...... . . ...... Ball Field Rake . ...... ........... __...___ Bases " . ....... Garden Rake _11-1111 . . ...... . ........ ...... . . . ....... . Home Plates Leaf RakePitching . . . ...... . ... ------- ... ...... . Rubbers Fence Ties Point Shovel_ . ....... . . ........ . ......... .. - — ------------- .... . . ......... ... ......... - --- _&CI ------ . ...... Round Point Shov,el Distance S' Stiff Bristle Broorn .... . ..... Field Number S' Base, S1eev'e_Di&,,0ut Tool ...... ...... ... . ................ Hand mater Bucked Can. . .... . ... .......... ....... .. ot'r-ing_ .. . ...... . . ..... Trash PicfSkers . . ... . ........ . ............ ............ .......... . ',MA!:!��jgj.ime Liner 0623.91578.1 Your Communil Newspaper Siru'e 1995es� e eObseiver,y P.O. Box 1616, Midlothian, Virginia 23113 • Phone: (804) 545-7500 Fax: (804) 744-3269 - Email: news@chesterfieldobserveccom • Internet: wwW.chesterfieldob.%mer.com ADVERTISING AFFIDAVIT Client Description Ad Size Cost (per issue) Chesterfield County LN: Softball -Complexes 12-4 1/20P +.83 in. $258.82 Board of Supervisors TAKE NOTICE Take notice that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, at an adjourned meeting on December 11, 2013, at 6:30 p.m. in the County Public Meeting Room at the. Chesterfield Administration Building, Rt. 10 and Lori Road, Chesterfield, Virginia will hold a public hearing where persons may appear and present their views concerning: The lease of real property at the softball complexes at Harry G. Daniel Park at Iron Bridge and Warbro Athletic Complex. The Observer, Inc. Publisher of CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER This is to certify that the attached legal notice was published by Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia, on the following date(s): 12/4/2013 Sworn to and subscribed before me this Information regarding the proposed lease is on file in the Department of Parks and Recreation, 6801 Mimms Loop, Chesterfield, Virginia, for public 1;44 examination between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. of each regular business d�4 day. Legal Af 1ant The hearing is held at a public facility designed to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Any persons with questions on the accessibility of the facility or need for reasonable accommodations should contact Janice Blakley, Clerk to the Board, at 748-1200. Persons needing interpreter services for the deaf must notify the Clerk to the Board no later than Friday, December 6, 2013. 2013. day of James T, Grooms Jr., Notary Public My commission expires: February 29, 2016 Commission I.D. 7182093 (SEAL) `,°� oti9E;taep®oOD�er,� #" •NOTARY PUBLIC ,••'.`gyp REG # 7182093 ; MY COMMISSION o EXPIRES ;�� •'• 2J29/2016 (3z 100,6.ALTH.�F THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU. BRENDA L. STEWART 5911 Woodpecker Rd Chesterfield, VA 23838 Phone: 804-590-2309 E-mail: bl-stewart@comcast.net December 11, 2013 COMMENTS AT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC HEARING ON SOFTBALL FACILITIES LEASE I am here tonight to ask you to protect the county taxpayers' interests in the softball facilities that a private firm will use as its capital facilities to enable it to make hundreds of thousands per year in revenue. Please be sure that the county staff has made and documented a proper analysis and business case for the proposed lease considering all the factors encompassed by this transaction, keeping in mind the lease is supposed to focus on adult softball. After many hours of reviewing all available related documents (the latest request for proposal, the purchasing file documentation, the offeror's proposal and related correspondence, the proposal evaluation documentation, the latest proposed lease, and the audit with management's comments), I have concluded that the document before you tonight remains a flawed document with inadequate protections for taxpayers' considerable investment in these facilities and inadequate compensation for lessee's use of these capital facilities in his business. In three minutes I can only begin to address the important issues. Please be sure to read the e-mail from a potential offeror detailing some of the issues surrounding the solicitation process. The appearance of impropriety remains. While the RFP specified $500,000 Employers' Liability Insurance each accident, the proposed lease specifies only $100,000. While the RFP specified $100,000 Environmental Impairment Liability coverage, the proposed lease eliminated that requirement. Proposed lessee wrote to county that environmental insurance is very expensive to get" and "not in our insurance." I was told that the cost of insurance was a deterrent to some potential offerors. Audit concluded that lessee's insurance under the current lease "does not meet the minimum standards required by the lease." The proposed rent of $30,000 annually for the next five years is unlikely to cover the costs of administering the contract. County established a negotiation objective of $55,000 annually. No available document explains the basis for that or why $30,000 is now considered reasonable when lessee is paying $65,000 this year. No available documentation records consideration of lessee's past performance. The audit performed with an objective to verify whether lessor and lessee complied with requirements concluded that compliance with only 31 of 67 requirements or fewer than 50% could be verified. If past performance was considered when evaluators scored lessee's proposal, then the process was obviously deficient. Without explanation, two of four evaluators gave this offeror 100% of the points for "expertise in performance." The other two gave 95% and 90%. No probationary term or requirement for deposit is included in the lease despite audited poor performance and failure to complete improvements required under the current lease. Lease specifies an initial five-year term with no requirement for an audit prior to renewal for the second year. Lessee is being relieved of responsibility to complete some improvements required th by current lease and allowed to delay other current lease requirements to e proposed lease without any consideration flowing to the county. Written comments from lessee included: "Doing this work at the end of the contract takes away any value that I and my program could've enjoyed since the season is over and the contract is coming to an end" and "I will not agree to pay the county any additional compensation:' just think about those comments from the one responsible for doing the work in the first place. In that light, the proposed terms permitting the lessee to fail to perform 20% of the duties on the checklist before any supposed "penalty" is applied appear-Vill advised. No relationship between the work left undone and the amount of the penalty was documented. Why aren't taxpayers entitled to performance of all required work? The four evaluators assigned scores of 50, 60, 70 and 85% for the "Nature and extent of proposed site improvements" under the proposed lease even though this offeror proposed no specific improvements, but referred to "general improvements." The only specific improvements listed were made under the current lease. Proposed lease includes no real protections for the adult softball program. Lucrative revenue opportunities from youth sports naturally encourage a businessman to maximize that component of the program. There is no provision for prioritizing use of the fields to ensure a certain level of support for adult softball. The questionable "incentive" of $2500 is ill advised and not well thought out. I can provide more details later. I spent considerable time on the phone this morning with Sarah Snead sharing many of the issues I identified. I am willing to sit down with whomever you choose to go over these and other issues. This proposed lease is not in the best interests of Chesterfield taxpayers and should not be approved at this time From : Rich Carlyle (Virginia USSSA) <rich@vausssa.com> Tue, Dec 10, 2013 10:14 PM Subject: RE: Proposed New Chesterfield County Softball Lease Concerns To: Steve' 'Elswick <ElswickS@chesterfield.gov> Cc : Dorothy' 'Jaeclde <laecldeD@chesterfield.gov>, Jay' 'Stegmaier <StegmaierJay@chesterfield.gov>, Sarah' 'Snead <SneadS@chesterfield.gov> Reply To: rich@vausssa.com Mr. Elswick, First, let me start off by thanking you for your response. I would have sent the email out earlier as you suggested, if I knew that the new softball lease meeting was happening this week. I just found out about the proposed lease last week from a friend and that Mr. Tiller was the only organization that submitted a bid. I actually received a copy of the proposed lease agreement last Friday and did not get a chance to review the proposed agreement until yesterday. I was out of town for a few days. After reviewing the proposed lease, I decided to send out an email expressing concerns about what was happening behind the scenes with the game of softball in Chesterfield County. At this point, all I am doing is venting on the rumors/issues as a citizen and registered business owner of Chesterfield County. I am not asking for anything from the county and don't expect the county to change anything that is already in the works. As for the contact names request, I believe this information would not help the situation at this time. Some of these individuals may have been victims of the so-called bullying and may not be open to the idea of discussing the rumors/issues with the county. I know for a fact that some of these individuals were told directly or indirectly not to attend softball lease meetings in Chesterfield and not to go head to head with Butch Tiller. Bottom line, I just hope things improve for the Chesterfield County residents that love to play the game of softball. No bullying, cheaper entry fees, cheaper rental fees, well maintained facilities, open communications, quality customer service and quality over site of the new lease agreement by the county would be a good start. Again, thank you for your time. Rich Carlyle Virginia USSSA Sports Slow Pitch State Director 804-731-3854 Virginia USSSA Slow Pitch The Athletic Connection From: Elswick, Steve[mailto:ElswickS@chesterfield.gov] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 6:53 PM To: rich@vausssa.com Cc: laecide, Dorothy; Stegmaier, lay; Snead, Sarah Subject: RE: Proposed New Chesterfield County Softball Lease Concerns Mr. Carlyle: Thank you for your email and for expressing your concerns with the proposed Softball Lease. It is disappointing to receive your comments one day before this matter comes before the Board. It would have been very helpful to the County and this process if someone from your staff would have taken the initiative to advise us of the comments being made concerning the $1o00,000.00 and that Mr. Tiller had the inside track to get the lease. I would ask you to consider giving us the contact names of those informing your staff of these comments so the County can investigate it. I will ask Mr. Golden, Director of Parks and Recreation to have someone from his staff contact you reference the procedures and contact person for renting ball fields in Chesterfield County. Thank you for all you do to make softball available to residents in the Metro area. Sincerely, Steve Elswick m: Rich Carlyle (Virginia USSSA) Lmailto:richvausssa.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 1:55 PM To: Jaeckle, Dorothy; Gecker, Dan; Holland, James; Elswick, Steve; Warren, Art; Snead, Sarah; County Administrator, Subject: Proposed New Chesterfield County Softball Lease Concerns To Whom It May Concern,- My oncern; My name is Rich Carlyle and I am the Virginia USSSA Slow Pitch State Director. I provide tournament and league softball services for the USSSA National organization. I received and reviewed the new softball complex RPF several weeks back and I also have reviewed the Proposed Softball Complex Lease Agreement and have many concerns that I would like to address to the county. I. While reviewing the new RFP for a potential bid, my Virginia USSSA staff was told by various sources that the new lease would require at least $100,000 a year and that Butch Tiller had the inside track to get the new lease agreement. This information was one of the major reasons why Virginia USSSA did not provide a bid on the proposal. This information may have been a rumor to keep other organizations from bidding. My organization thought the minimum bid rumor of $100,000 was too much for the complexes in the proposal since the complexes are deteriorating and not currently being well maintained. In the last 3 years, my organization has not received any tournament dates from the existing lessee. In the first year of the existing agreement, my organization did request a few tournament dates via email since there was no established field request procedures in place by the current lessee to request fields. This request went unnoticed until I elevated my request to Bill Carlson. I have emails to back this. My request was eventually disapproved by the lessee. After the first year of this agreement, my organization did not request tournament dates due to the lessee stronghold on the complexes. We did not want to waste our time on requesting tournament dates that we knew would not be approved by the lessee. My organization did use the complexes on two occasions in the last 3 years. a. My organization did use Warbro Park on one occasion when I contacted Butch Tiller on Saturday morning to request fields since the fields I was going to use were under water. Butch did give my organization the fields to start and complete my event. b. My organization did use Ironbridge Park on one occasion when my organization ran a team fund raiser event. The manager of the team requested and paid for the fields and my organization ran the event for the team. NOTE: Prior to the current lease agreement, my organization rented the fields from Chesterfield County an average of 4-5 times a year. 3. Over the past 3 years, my organization has been contacted by many players and managers about running a USSSA league for them in another locality since the cost to play softball in Chesterfield County was skyrocketing. My organization made many attempts to find facilities outside Chesterfield County to run a league for these teams. Due to lack of field availability in other localities, my organization was not successful. Some of these teams moved their teams to another locality based on my advice. Some teams stayed in Chesterfield. 4. Over the last year or so, my organization has been contacted by individuals who are concerned about the so-called bullying tactics from individuals in the existing lessee organization. This type of behavior should be looked into by the county prior to signing this agreement. This type of behavior is unacceptable. 5. Last year, my organization was looking for additional fields for the Ft Lee Armed Forces tournament. My staff contacted and left a message for Chesterfield County about the Ettrick fields. My organization did not received a phone call back from the County. A week later, my staff was told that Butch Tiller was responsible for Ettrick Park and we should have contacted him for this request. Again, another rumor. Chesterfield County needs to establish who is responsible for the fields not in the current lease agreement and make it know to the Chesterfield County residents who they need to contact to rent the field(s) not in the currenttfuture lease agreement. My organization has many concerns about the existing and proposed lease agreements. I have been a resident in Chesterfield County for over 10 years and have seen the game of adult softball in Chesterfield County deteriorate over the last 4-5 years. It is a shame that there are many county residents who would love to play the game of softball in their county, but are looking at other localities to play the game and would not have to worry about the so-called bullying and the increase cost of playing softball in Chesterfield County. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your time. Rich Carlyle Virginia USSSA Sports Slow Pitch State Director 804-731-3854 Virginia USSSA Slow Pit& The Athletic Connection CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 AGENDA 41749 --) Meeting Date: December 11, 2413 Item Number: 18.D. Subiect: Public Hearing to Consider Code Amendments Relative to Tree Canopy Requirements in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed Area County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Rei ed: Following a public hearing, approve amendments to Sections 19-240 through 19- 240.4. Summary of Information: On September 24, 2008, the Board of Supervisors adopted Sections 19-240 through 19-240.4 which specify tree planting, replacement and preservation requirements during development of single-family residential projects located within the Upper Swift Creek Watershed area. Staff and the development community, during the recent surge in residential development activity, discovered that the ordinance would be more effective if the requirement was shifted from a subdivision section basis to an entire project. By unanimous vote at their October 15, 2013 public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments as presented by staff. There was only one person who spoke during the Public Hearing. He was seeking confirmation, and was reassured, that the standards were not being reduced. Preparer: Kirkland A. Turner Title: Director of Planning Attachments: 0 Yes FINo # CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA Summary of Information (Continued) In response to concerns identified by staff and the development community, amendments to this ordinance are proposed in order to: A. Provide for compliance on an overall subdivision development basis, B. Establish tree canopy area credits for planted trees. A. This amendment proposes to allow subdivision tree canopy requirements to be calculated on an overall project basis. Currently, Section 19-240.2 requires compliance with tree canopy requirements at the time of each subdivision construction plan review. Each construction plan typically represents only a portion of the overall development. This results in an ordinance that is not sufficiently flexible to allow for compliance on an overall development basis. B. The ordinance requires planting of trees to provide tree canopy coverage at maturity of twenty years. The development community has requested information for standards of tree canopy areas of planted trees. Staff recommends this information be based on documentation established by the Virginia Nursery and Landscape Association. Tree canopy area information for individual trees will be included in the Chesterfield County Plant Material List. This amendment also proposes to: assign oversight responsibilities to the planning department and to update referenced names of professional associations. The proposed amendment is attached for your review and consideration. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 19-240 THROUGH 19-240.4 RELATING TO THE PRESERVATION OF TREES DURING DEVELOPMENT IN THE UPPER SWIFT CREEK WATERSHED BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 19-240 through 19-240.4 of the Code of the Countyof Chester geld, 1997, as amended, are amended and re-enacted to read as,follows: CHAPTER 19 ZONING Sec. 19-240. Tree planting, replacement and preservation in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed. The purpose of Sections 19-240 through 19-240.4 is to promulgate regulations for the planting and replacement of trees destroyed or damaged during the development or redevelopment process for single-family residential projects, pursuant to Section 15.2-961 of the Code of Virginia, including the preservation of trees during development in appropriate instances. Sec. 19-240.1. General Standards. (a) All trees to be planted shall meet the specifications of the American Nursery and Landscape Association Nufser-yfaen. e (b) The planting of trees shall be done in accordance with either the standardized landscape specifications jointly adopted by the Virginia'`Tursef'men!s Nursery and Landscape Association, the Virginia Society of Landscape Designers and the Virginia Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects, or the road and bridge specifications of the Virginia Department of Transportation. The county shall maintain current copies of these specifications available to the public. (c) The minimum size standards for trees shall be in accordance with Section 19-518 the ...�m.m height vr-m1r-cvcrgiccirtrees shall bc- six (6) feet. . tQ The canopy area of planted trees shall be in accordance with the Chesterfield County Plant Materials List as maintained by the planning department. Canopy credit for trees not included on the Chesterfield County Plant Materials List may 1 ..t 1928.90822.2 be approved by the planning department based on credible published documentation. Sec. 19-240.2. Canopy Requirements. (a) Construction plans. All construction plans for subdivision plats shall include detailed landscape plans prepared in accordance with Section 19-517 to provide for the planting and replacement of trees on site to the extent that, at maturity of twenty (20) years, the minimum tree canopy shall be as follows: (1) Fifteen (15) percent tree canopy for sites zoned single family residential, with densities between ten (10) and twenty (20) units per acre. (2) Twenty (20) percent tree canopy for sites zoned single family residential, with densities of ten (10) units or less per acre. Upon written request, the director of planning mayrg ant approval for any residential project to comply with tree canopy requirements of Sections 19-240 through 19-240.4 on an overall project basis. Compliance on an overall basis will require review and approval of a tree canopy master plan in accordance with Section 19-240.2 (b) (2) Tree Canopy Master Plan. All preliminary subdivision plats submitted after <insert adoption date of this amendment> shall include a tree canopy master plan for review and a prp oval. Q The tree canopy master plan shall serve as a izuide to be followed for each construction plan, and shall be updated during the development of the overall residential project. Any revision must be submitted for review and approval by the director of planning._The plan shall show in graphic format all areas set aside to satisfy tree canopy requirements and the means by which such requirements will be satisfied (b)LcExclusions. For the purpose of calculating the area of a site for tree canopy coverage requirements, the following areas shall be excluded: (1) Ponds and uaweeded nonwooded wetlands. 2 1928.90822.2 (2) Properties reserved or dedicated for school sites, playing fields and other nonwooded recreation areas, and other facilities and areas of a similar nature. (3) Portions of a site which contain existing structures that are not the subject of a pending application. (e)_(d) Credits for Preservation of Existing Trees. Existing trees which are to be preserved may be included in the calculation of the canopy requirements, and may include wooded preserves, if the construction plans identify such trees and the trees meet standards of desirability and life -year expectancy as established by the director of environmentalenginee planning. Sec. 19-240.3. Exceptions to Requirements. Upon written request of the developer, the director of enVir-e =-rier*al eilgineeFi" planning may approve reasonable exceptions to, or deviations from, the requirements of Sections 19-240 through 19-240.2 in order to allow for the reasonable development of farmland or other areas devoid of healthy or suitable woody materials, for the preservation of wetlands, or when the strict application of requirements would result in unnecessary or unreasonable hardship to the developer. In such instances, the director of eiwironmeRtal engi ,00,:^^planning may approve satisfaction of a portion of a development's tree canopy requirement through use of a tree canopy bank or off-site planting or replacement of trees provided that the canopy thereby substituted is located within the Upper Swift Creek Watershed. Sec. 19-240.4. Enforcement. Penalties for violations of the requirements of Sections 19-240 through 19-240.3 shall be the same as those applicable to other violations of this chapter as set forth in Section 19-5. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this section shall apply only to tree canopy areas that (i) have been included in open space maintained by a home owners' association, (ii) are subject to a perpetual conservation easement, or (iii) are included on individual lots which have not received a certificate of occupancy. (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption n. .-a}IZ 11 ` 3 1928.90822.2 .Chea-lau-'rf-mield obseivrer YourCy Newspaperommunit • Since 1995 P.O. Box 1616, Midlothian, Virginia 23113 • Phone: (804) 545-7500 • Fax: (804) 744-3269 • Email: news@chesterfieldobstrver.com • Internet: www.chesterfieldobserver.com ADVERTISING AFFIDAVIT Client Description Ad Size Cost (per issue) Chesterfield County LN:Tree-Canopy-Reqs 11-27, 12-4 MOP -.74 in. $374.91 Board of Supervisors TAKE NOTICE Take notice that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, at an adjourned meeting on Wednesday, December 11, 2013, at 6:30 p.m. in the County Public Meeting Room at the Chesterfield Administration Building, Route 10 and Lori Road, Chesterfield, Virginia, will hold a public hearing where persons may appear and present their views concerning: Ordinances to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, by amending and reenacting Sections 19-240 through 19-240.4 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to the preservation of trees during development of single family residential projects in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed. Among other things, these amendments allow for compliance with tree canopy area requirements on an overall project basis; provide tree canopy area standards for new plantings per the Chesterfield County Plan Materials List; revise minimum size standards to conform to Sec. 19-518; clarify that construction plans shall include landscape plans prepared in accordance with Sec. 19-517; require a tree canopy master plan to be submitted with new preliminary plats and for any subdivision requesting compliance on an overall project basis; and assign oversight responsibilities to the planning department. A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of Suvervisors and the County Administrators Office, Room 504, 9901 Lori Road, Chesterfield County, Virginia and may be examined by all interested persons between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. If further information is desired, please contact the Planning Department at 748- 1050, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The hearing is held at a public facility des'gned to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Any persons with questions on the accessibility of the facility or the need for reasonable accommodations should contact Janice Blakley, Clerk to the Board, at 748-1200. Persons needing interpreter services for the deaf must notify the Clerk to the Board no later than December 6, 2013. The Observer, Inc. Publisher of CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER This is to certify that the attached legal notice was published by Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia, on the following date(s): 11/27/2013 & 12/4/2013 i Sworn to and subscribed before me this ',; ' day of 2013. Legal Affiant James T, Grooms Jr., Notary Public My commission expires: February 29, 2016 Commission I.D. 7182093 G R O° NOTARY O�0'd tri •• PUBLIC • •:`�� REG # 7182093 MY COMMISSION: Q O EXPIRES z a �r �'•, 2/2912016 6 THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY y BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 y 1740 Z AGENDA Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 18.E. Subiect: Public Hearing to Consider Technical Amendments to Sections 9-60 and 9-141 of the County Code, and to Repeal Section 9-171 of the County Code Relating to Tangible Personal Property Exemptions (Sec. 9-60), the E-911 System Tax (Sec. 9-141), and the Consumer Utility Tax on Telephone Service (Sec. 9-171) County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Public hearing to consider technical amendments to Sections 9-60 and 9-141, and to repeal Section 9-171 of the County Code. Summary of Information: A recent review of the taxation chapter of the County Code revealed that the section on personal property tax exemptions for bicycles and mopeds and the section on the E-911 system tax contained an outdated definition (Sec. 9-60) and citation (Sec. 9-141) to the Code of Virginia. The proposed amendments to these sections will conform the definition to the Code of Virginia and correct the citation. With respect to the consumer utility tax on telephone service, that tax is no longer collected pursuant to County ordinance. Instead, the tax has been Preparer: Jeffrey L. MinckS Title: County Attorney 1305:90956.2(90958.1) Attachments: ■ Yes No # CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA collected by the Commonwealth pursuant to state law for years with the County's share allocated under a state administered formula. Accordingly, this section of the County Code is obsolete. The Commissioner of Revenue has been properly administering this tax program in accordance with current state law and repeal of this section in the County Code will have no effect on taxpayers, on the revenue which is allocated to the County, or on the day-to- day operations of the Commissioner's office. Staff recommends that the Board adopt these amendments after the public hearing. 1305:90956.2(90958.1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 9-60 AND 9-141, AND BY REPEALING SECTION 9-171 RELATING TO TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY EXEMPTIONS, E-911 SYSTEM TAX, AND TAX ON TELEPHONE UTILITY SERVICE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 9-60 and 9-141 of the Code of the County of Chester zeld, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted, to read as follows: Sec. 9-60. General provisions. The following household goods and personal effects of county residents are hereby exempt from taxation as tangible personal property: (a) Bicycles and mopeds as defined by Code of Virginia & 46.2-100. (b) Household and kitchen furniture, including gold and silver plates, plated ware, watches and clocks, sewing machines, refrigerators, automatic refrigerating machinery of any type, vacuum cleaners and all other household machinery, books, firearms and weapons of all kinds. (c) Pianos, organs, phonographs, record players and records to be used therewith, musical instruments of whatever kind, radio, television and other home entertainment equipment. (d) Oil paintings, pictures, statuary, curios, articles of virtue and works of art. (e) Diamonds, cameos or other precious stones and all precious metals used as ornaments or jewelry. (f) Sporting and photographic equipment. (g) Clothing and objects of apparel. (h) Computers and accompanying equipment not used in a business. (i) All other tangible personal property used by an individual or a family or household incident to maintaining an abode. 1305:90958.1 Sec. 9-141. Amount of tax. Pursuant to the authority set forth in Code of Virginia, § 58.1 3813 58.1-1730, the county hereby imposes a tax to be used by the county to pay the capital, installation and maintenance costs and recurring maintenance, repair, system upgrade, and overhead costs of its E-911 system. The tax shall be levied upon each purchaser of telephone service from a corporation coming within the provisions of Code of Virginia, § 58.1-2600 et seq. The tax shall be in the amount of $2.00 per telephone line per month. i ONFATAWATA ii (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 1305:90958.1 2 rf Id!" Ch obserrver Your Community Newspaper Since 1995 P.O. Box 1616, Midlothian, Virginia 23113 • Phone: (804) .545-7500'• Fax: (804) 744-3269 • Email: newschesterfieldobserver.com • Internet: www.chestertieldob%mer.com ADVERTISING AFFIDAVIT Client Description Ad Size Cost (per issue) Chesterfield County LN:E911 Tax 11-27,12-4 MOP -.95 in. $298.26 Board of Supervisors TAKE NOTICE Take notice that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, at an adjourned meeting on Wednesday, December 11, 2013, at 6:30 p.m. in the County Public Meeting Room at the Chesterfield Administration Building, Route 10 and Lori Road, Chesterfield, Virginia, will hold a public hearing where persons may appear and present their views concerning: An ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, by amending and re-enacting Section 9-60 relating to' a technical correction of the tangible personal property tax exemption for bicycles and mopeds, by amending and re-enacting Section 9-141 relating to a technical correction to the E-911 system tax, and by repealing Section 9-171 relating to the consumer utility tax on telephone service. A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrators Office, Room 504, 9901 Lori Road, Chesterfield County, Virginia and may be examined by all interested persons between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. If further information is desired, please contact the County Attorney's Office at 748-1491, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The hearing is held at a public facility designed to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Any persons with questions on the accessibility of the facility or the need for reasonable accommodations should contact Janice Blakley, Clerk to the Board, at 748-1200. Persons needing interpreter services for the deaf must notify the Clerk to the Board no later than December 6, 2013. The Observer, Inc. Publisher of CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER This is to certify that the attached legal notice was published by Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia, on the following date(s): 11/27/2013 & 12/4/2013 Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of 2013. Leia Legal Affiant James T, Grooms Jr., Notary Public My commission expires: February 29, 2016 Commission I.D. 7182093 (SEAL) '"' grt0g11146,00p'' t � GRO '. tea; 'NOTARY ' v PUBLIC � REG # 7182093 n:MY EO�IESION;= 212912016 �F'F�g;eEA LTH THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 18.F. Subject: Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinance Granting the Real Estate Tax Exemption Request of Chesterfield Alternatives, Incorporated County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board of Supervisors is requested to consider the attached ordinance granting the real estate tax exemption request of Chesterfield Alternatives, Inc. Summary of Information: Under Virginia law, real and personal property used for benevolent purposes may be classified as exempt from taxation by the Board of Supervisors. This year, Chesterfield Alternatives, Inc ("CAI") a benevolent, non-profit organization has requested a tax exemption for a 1.241 -acre parcel (Parcel No. 777683034100000) located at 5117 Coghill Road. A map of the parcel is attached. CAI uses the property as a group home for adults with intellectual disabilities. The home is licensed by the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services. Residential support services are provided by the County's Community Services Board. Preparer: Jeffrey L. Mincks Title: County Attorney 0505:91409.2(91576.1) Attachments: 0 Yes F No # N CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA The parcel is assessed at $278,300, leading to an annual real estate tax of $2,643.85. This is below the $5,000 maximum amount permitted by the Board's policy. Staff has reviewed the information which state law requires the Board to consider before granting an exemption and finds that the information is consistent with CAI's status as a benevolent, non-profit organization that is eligible for the tax exemption. The criteria which the Board must consider under state law are attached. 0505:91409.2 CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING TAX EXEMPTION REQUESTS UNDER STATE LAW 1. CAI is exempt from taxation pursuant to §501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code; 2. CAI does not possess a current annual alcoholic beverage license for serving alcoholic beverages for use on the property; 3. No director of CAI is paid any compensation for service to the corporation and its salaries are not in excess of reasonable salaries for services performed by the employees; 4. No part of the net earnings of CAI inures to the benefit of any individual; 5. CAI provides services for the common good of the public; and 6. CAI does not attempt to influence legislation or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office. 0505:91409.1 AN ORDINANCE TO DESIGNATE REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY CHESTERFIELD ALTERNATIVES, INC. TO BE EXEMPT FROM PROPERTY TAXATION WHEREAS, subsection 6(A)(6) of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia, on and after January 1, 2003, authorizes localities to designate as exempt from local taxation the real or personal property, or both, owned by a non-profit organization that uses such property for religious, charitable, patriotic, historical, benevolent, cultural, or public park and playground purposes; and WHEREAS, the County has received a request from Chesterfield Alternatives, Inc. to consider granting it a tax exemption for a specific piece of real property owned by it in Chesterfield County and described as County Property Tax Parcel ID No. 777683034100000; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Va. Code, §58.1-3651 the Board has conducted a public hearing and considered each of the questions required to be considered before adopting an ordinance granting any such exemption; and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that Chesterfield Alternatives, Inc. meets the requirement for the real property tax exemption that it has requested by reason of its being a non-profit organization which uses the real property for which it is requesting the exemption for benevolent purposes. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: 1. Chesterfield Alternatives, Inc. is hereby designated a benevolent, non-profit organization within the context of Section 6(A)(6) of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia. 2. The Real Property is used by Chesterfield Alternatives, Inc. exclusively for benevolent purposes on a non-profit basis as set forth in Section 1 of this ordinance and is hereby determined to be exempt from local taxation up to a maximum amount of $5,000. This exemption shall be contingent on the continued use of the Real Property in accordance with the purpose for which the organization is designated as exempt in Section 1. 3. This Real Property tax exemption shall be effective as of January 1, 2014. 4. This ordinance shall not be set out in the County Code but shall be kept on file in the office of the real estate assessor. 5. This ordinance shall be in effect immediately upon its adoption. i "', VICINITY SKETCH IN OTPotgr6aki County R�ghf oV'VVay CWbe Novembet 1, 2013 s re prZ - 21 al u W 4D server ubluriield YourCommunity NeH'spuper Since 1995 , P.O. Box 1616, Midlothian, Virginia 23113 • Phone: (804) 545-7500 • Fax: (804) 744-3269 • Email: news(o)chesterfieldobserver.com • Intetnet: www.chestertieldobserver.com ADVERTISING AFFIDAVIT Client Description Ad Size Cost (per issue) Chesterfield County LN: Chesterfield -Alternatives 12-4 1/20P + 1.04' $264.67 Board of Supervisors TAKE NOTICE Take notice that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, at an adjourned meeting on December 11, 2013, at 6:30 p.m. in the County Public Meeting Room at the Chesterfield Administration "Building, Rt. 10 and Lori Road, Chesterfield, Virginia will hold a public hearing where persons may appear and present their views concerning: The adoption of an ordinance granting a real estate tax exemption for Chesterfield Alternatives, Inc. This organization is seeking a tax exemption on a 1.241 -acre parcel (Parcel No. 777683034100000), located at 5117 Coghill Road, which has an assessed value of $278,300, leading to an annual tax of approximately $2,643.85. If further information is desired, please contact the County Attorney's Office at 748-1491, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The hearing is held at a public facility designed to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Any persons with questions on the accessibility of the facility or need for reasonable accommodations should contact Janice Blakley, Clerk to the Board, at 748-1200. Persons needing interpreter services for the deaf must notify the Clerk to the Board no later than Friday, December 6, 2013. The Observer, Inc. Publisher of CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER This is to certify that the attached legal notice was published by Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia, on the following date(s): 12/4/2013 Sworn to and subscribed before me this C C�/ 2013. Legal Affiant day of James T, Grooms Jr., Notary Public My commission expires: February 29, 2016 Commission I.D. 7182093 u° ea pOO ° < NOTARY S' �� •. • PUBLIC REG # 7182093 ' n ; MY COMMISSION 0 EXPIRES 2/29/2016 ° ALTH 0 THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY &&.)' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 18.G. Subiect: PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance to Vacate a Portion of a Sixteen -Foot Easement Across Lot 11, Tarrington, Section 9 County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Adopt an ordinance to vacate a portion of a 16' easement across Lot 11, Tarrington, Section 9. Summary of Information: Charles A. Gibbens, Jr. and JoAnn Lindstrom -Clark have submitted an application requesting the vacation of a portion of a 16' easement across Lot 11, Tarrington, Section 9. This request has been reviewed by county staff, Comcast Cablevision and Verizon. A relocated easement will be dedicated. Approval is recommended. District: Midlothian Preparer: John W. Harmon Title: Real Property Manager Attachments: Yes � No 1,a d2 �' VICINITY SKETCH PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance to Vacate a Portion of a Sixteen Foot Easement Across Lot 11, Tarrington, Section 9 iy Chesterfield County Department of Utilities 1110 - -Y56.67 *f t THIS PROPERTY APPEARS TO FALL WITHIN ZONE ' ROTE:IMPROVEMENTS NOT SHOWN EASEMENT DATA y Ei)S3'31'9'E E2)S63'25'28.57'9"E 8.57' E3)NO7'40'23"W 102.61' E4) SO3'31'49'E 96.34' r ES)S63'25'29'E 6.42' / E6)N07'40'23"K 100.83' S'EASEMENT P.8.174 PG.49 SPIN: 733-725-7532 TARRINGTON 10 6 11 LLC FUTURE DEVELOPMENT S53'34' 16'E 16.56' IA TIE Tt FFEMENT EXIST. .74 PG.49 Ems' 6'PRIVATE SIDEWALK EASEMENT P.B.174 PG.49. AS SHOWN ON FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP. HETES AND SOUNDS DESCRIPTION EASEMENT RELOCATION LOT 11 SECTION 9 TARRINGTON BEGINNING AT A POINT 3.55'SOUTH OF AN EXISTING 16' EASEMENT:THENCE ALONG AN EXISTING i6'EASEMENT S03'31'49'E 98.05'T0 A POINT; THEME S63'25'29'E 8.57*TO A POINT ON A 16'fE:LOCATED EASEMENT: THENCE N07'40'23'W 102.81'TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 363 SF. METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION EASEMENT RELOCATION LOT 13 SECTION 9 TARRINsTON BEGINNING AT A POINT 10.44'SOUTiEAST THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 11 SECTION 9 TARRINGTON;THENCE ALONG AN EXISTING 16'EASEMENf 903'31'49'E 96.34'TO A POINT; THEME S63'25'29'E 8,42'T4 A POINT ON A 16'RELOCATEO EASEMENT; THENCE N07'40'03'W 100.83'70 THE POINT OF sEamNINB. CONTAINING 381 SF. 10.44' TIE TO 14 EXIST. ESNT. lM13724821.117 RELOCATED EASEMENT E4 ti S03'31'49'E 13 109.97' E6 EAGLE CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED OF VA.,LLC RELOCATED GPIN 733-724-8293 EASEMENT DB.9872.PG.116 El LINE 3808 EOENFIELD RO. E3 E5 8.42• TIE TO NEW MMT. E2 EASEMENT _ P.B.174 PST .49 11 CHARLES GIBBONS.JR.9 JOANN LINDSTAOM-CLARK GKN 733-724-7370 D8.1O355 PG.552 12808 YATE§BURY LN. YA 4e�r .ANE ftim No, 763" EASEMENT P.B.174 PG.49 PLAT SHOVING THE RELOCATION OF 16' EASEMENT ON LOTS 11 AND 13 OF TARRINGTOK SECTION 9 MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA OT F. NEI SOA`III�' A"V LANE=APE ATlCHITECT S. j` No. CO2{tf40 t/+f C MG aS I C O P.O. SOX 50087 RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 23250 (904) 238 DAM- NOVEMBER M2013 rSULE. 1'- 30' 1 "- No: 08239_11-9E :H1 I =A� 11 Your Cummunity Ne%'Waper Since 1995 PO lion 1616, %ii(flothian. Vire in1,1 _ 11 + • 1'honc: i80-4 1 t35.7itNt • Fay Istkti 744 1269 • Ema& newsfa�cheiterticldohservercom • Intchtce www.chc%lertieldobsmcr.com ADVERTISING AFFIDAVIT Client Description Ad Size Cost (per issue) Chesterfield County Right of Way TAKE NOTICE That on December 11, 2013, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as may be heard, the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County at its regular meeting place in the Public Meeting Room of Chesterfield County, Virginia, will consider the followinngg ordinance for adoption: AN ORI?INANCE to vacate a portion of a 16' easement across Lot 11, Tarringtorii Section 9, as shown on a plat by E. D. Lewis & Associates, P.C., dated January 7, 2007, recorded January 25, 2007, in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court, Chesterfield County, Virginia, in Plat Book 174, at Pages 47 through 50. Information regarding the prop�d ordinance is on file in the Right of Way Office in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and may be examined by all interested parties between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p m.. Monday through Friday. The hearing is held at a public facility designed to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Any persons with questions on the accessibility of the facility or need for reasonable accommodations should contact Janice B. Blakley. Clerk to the Board, at 748.1200. Persons needing interpreter services for the deaf must notity the Clerk to the Board no later than December rz. 2013 I_N:Tarrington VAC JD 1 1-27, 12- 1/20P + .71 in. $254.72 The Observer, Inc. Publisher of CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER This is to certify that the attached legal notice was published by Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia, on the following date(s): 11/27/2013 & 12/4/2013 Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of 2013. � 1 Legal Affiant James T. Grooms Jr., Notary Public My commission expires: February 29, 2016 Commission I.D. 7182093 (SEAL) R .. i1b2t913 Vv � vmiGSiJN C ' ¢ /� �tnT•• / T �0 THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 1�4AGENDA h Z111CR111`. Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 18.1-1. Subiect: PUBLIC HEARING: To Consider Easements to the Commonwealth of for the Genito Road/Route 604 Projects County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Rei ed: the Conveyance of Rights of Way and Virginia, Department of Transportation and Coalfield Road/Route 754 Sidewalk Approve the conveyance of rights of way and easements to the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Transportation for the Genito Road/Route 604 and Coalfield Road/Route 754 Sidewalk Projects, and authorize the Chairman of the Board and County Administrator to execute the deed. Summary of Information: The Virginia Department of Transportation is requiring that the county convey rights of way and easements for the Genito Road/Route 604 Sidewalk Project which runs from Stigall Drive to Price Club Boulevard and Coalfield Road/Route 754 Sidewalk Project which runs from Watkins Elementary School to Sycamore Village Drive. A public hearing is required to convey county property. Approval is recommended. District: Dale/Midlothian Preparer: John W. Harmon Title: Real Property Manager Attachments: E Yes 1-1 No #'a&a1Z3 Conveyance of Right of Way and Easment to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the Genito �Road Sidewalk Prolect N Cheste,(*,W CA7urqtj Da"PaIrtnirewt Of Utgkfias, El T VrOM -175 pip'll VICINITY SKETCH Conveyance of Right of Way anVii, 'Temporary Slope Easement to the Commonwealth of Virginia fbr the Coalfield Road Sidewalk ........................ . ........ . ........ . . ................... . ....... Www . .......... .. . . N ChfB hu FWAd (kwnty DeqzWtIverut id&&dN_�..�.�_____.„.�„..,.m..,„ s I Owl, %01 . .... ...... . . � O atJl� up�p Y' poz G Igo g Up }pis N o O00* o N aaUS aa� Loll`� ag W mZ N o N. 17 zoo fl �a �k WE 8 a � � •� �O w ��. d W Q +y \ CC E b g C\ age OC8 rot �o+ W O got M g o-0 �iyw,F11�� 8d$y 2i4,�NNG�4Y n z got od qct $ a a W �' n as33 g 23 \ CC E b g C\ age OC8 rot �o+ W O got M g o-0 �iyw,F11�� 8d$y 2i4,�NNG�4Y n z got od qct $ a a W �' n ao cG 2 - Zol O �a 23 101 :: \ \ CC E b g C\ age OC8 rot �o+ W O got M g o-0 �iyw,F11�� 8d$y 2i4,�NNG�4Y n cG 2 - Zol �a 23 101 :: \ `\ f. L� 8 r0o•ooi ad a � N o a J � 8 rho R C 901 Opp 6GS 00"�'// �M 0V�S UOUGU17 z x 09S x u PC 113-77.91* zoo ap V. it Ui IZ I it I. Ott all lit PT 11093.43 -5 �j L OR 0/1 !Olt - Is i n Q o Q ts 601 601 ca 901 09S 2 0 o � = U m a: Lu Z 0 emu cc LU Lu cn r- a Q z J X z Ld¢a wom� ¢ LL i i j2E plc:€ w � Q M �.W � a =x IgM N sso O�. 5 � 2 0 o � = U m a: Lu Z 0 emu cc LU Lu cn r- a Q z J X z Ld¢a wom� ¢ LL i i j2E plc:€ w � Q M �.W � a =x IgM N N h O O�. u � p�6/� •9��r9 m N y �O Ula/�t131S3HJ -40 ,41NnOJ I -- LE W�aty�h y Uy '^ 611, Q --_ z „ prs ccLl ¢ 9 aJQz .205.2228_ � A _ w $ N Q M �.W � a =x � N h O O�. Y U , p�6/� •9��r9 Ss7 a �v Ssi21n A r 11 2�a� A! WH 25� as zee - g a� O W �v�4 ppq n v Vpmo lmevm�N� OOOO�n ti O i I E e a Z w � Chniurlield bseryer Your Communis.v Nrics aSince 1W.5 PU. Box 1016. Midlothian. ✓,riga 2 31 I3 • Phimc. iSO-1 i ,4; -191 • 1 ., 804, T 4-112W) • V,n„I. ncu.Grchc,icrfieldohserveceom • Intcmd: v%ww.chestertieldobscrvcr torn ADVERTISING AFFIDAVIT ('tient Description Ad Size Cost (per issue) Chesterfield County LN: Genito Road Sidewalk 12-4 1/20P +.25 in. $239.43 Right of Way The Observer, Inc. Publisher of 1,AKV..-N,M-1 CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER That on December 11, 2013, at @:30 p.m or as soon thereafter as may be heard. This is to certifythat the attached legal notice was published b g p Y the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County at its regular meeting place inChesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia, on the Public Meeting Room of Chesterfield County, Virginia, will consider the the following date(s): 12/4/2013 conveyance of rights of way and easements to the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Transportation for the Genito Road/Route 604 and Coalfield Road/Route 754 sidewalk Projects. ti -,torn to and subscribed before me this day of Information regarding the proposed conveyances are on file in the Right of Way Office in Chesterfield County Virginia, 2013. and may be examined by all interested _ �, s parties between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00m., Monday through Friday. held The hearing is at a public facility desi d to he accessible W persons with dila . Any persons with questions - �J on the accessibility of the facility or need for rrasonabk accommodations should contact ►an1ce B. Blakkey, Clerk to the Legal Affiant James T, Grooms Jr., Notary Public Board, at 748 1200. Persons needing uuerp rater servicrs tar the deaf must naUfy the Clerk to the Board no later than December 6. 2011 My commission expires: February 29, 2016 Commission I.D. 7182093 �. (SM)” �•. �s O4 it PUBLIC ' REG # 118X93 MY CpMNiISS10N p EXPIRES ; 212912016 Q� '*""�'F'A LTN OF .•• THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY � BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA Etmcrnv Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 18.1. Subject: PUBLIC HEARING: Amend a Lease of County Property at Bellwood Water Tank County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Approve an amendment to the lease of county property at Bellwood Water Tank with New Cingular Wireless. Summary of Information: In 1999, the Board approved the leasing of space on the Bellwood Water Tank to Triton PCS (now New Cingular Wireless) for the installation and maintenance of cell antennae. The lease agreement prohibits the installation of a permanent generator but allows the operation of portable generating equipment during power outages. New Cingular Wireless desires to install a permanent generator at the site. In consideration of this amendment, Cingular will install a 20 amp service and two plug outlet to provide power to the county during an outage. Approval is recommended. District: Bermuda Preparer: John W. Harmon Title: Real Property Manager Attachments: ■ Yes F] No # r1; VICINITY SKETCH PUBLIC HEARING: Amend a Lease of County Property at Bellwood Water Tank ---------- ....... ..................................................................................... Amend a Lease of County Property at Bellwood Water Tank ............. .......... .................... ................. .......... . .... - ............. ...... ................ UP) cr) 4MP. ip k0k IP Chesterfield County Department of Utilities Adzmnlllb� 1 *tt (�'QG"`4J2 u psi cm Joe co z 6 $ $ nrateav Naux++o�3us m��rbs3a awais�arsj�oda a�av3 3uu��s �rrw�s st ` i 1 chniorlield server K,w C'ornmunily News er Since 1 FwP 995 PO. Boa 1616, Midlothian, Virginia 231 13 • Phone: 181141 545-75W • Fax: (804• 744-3209 • Finad n",(h hc,icnccldoh.erver.com • Internet: www.chestertieidobservercorrt ADVERTISING AFFIDAVIT Client Description Ad Size Cost (per issue) Chesterfield County LN: Bellwood Water Tank 124 1/20P -.07 in. $225.62 Right of Way The Observer, Inc. Publisher of CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER TAKE NOTICE This is to certify that the attached legal notice was published by That on December 11, 2013, at 6:30 p.m. Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia, on or as soon thereafter as may be heard, the Board of supervisors of Chesterfield the following date(s): 12/4/2013 County at its regular meeting place in the Public Meeting Room of Chesterfield County, Virginia, will consider amending a lease of county property at Bellwood Water Tank, 2400 Nord, Road. Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of Information regarding the lease is on file in the Right of Way Office in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and may be examined by all interested parties between the hours of .2013. 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. facility The hearing is held at a public designed to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Any with (i persons questions on the accessibility of the facility or need; for reasonable accommodations should contact Janice B. Blakley. Clerk to the Legal Affiant James T, Grooms Jr., Notary Public Board, at 748-1200. Persons needing interpreter services for the deaf must notify the Clerk to the Board no later than December 6. 2013. My commission expires: February 29, 2016 Commission I.D. 718209.3 •NO'ARY• = �xZ.� PUBLIC •;`�� REG f/ 7182093 Cz MY COMMISSION ' D EXPIRES 2/29/2016 _•'•, ,•' �� ALTH 0 .+ 10,000, 011/11++ THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA 7749 Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 Item Number: 21. Subject: Adjournment and Notice of Next Scheduled Meeting of the Board of Supervisors County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: Motion of adjournment and notice of the Board of Supervisors' organizational meeting to be held on January 8, 2014, at 3:00 p.m. in the Public Meeting Room. Preparer: Janice Blakley Attachments: ❑ Yes Title: Clerk to the Board