Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 09-08-2020 SpecialCity Council 1 of 1 September 8, 2020 CITY OF PLYMOUTH AGENDA Special City Council September 8, 2020, 5:30 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 1.1 Instructions to participate in the Virtual Council Meeting 2. TOPICS 2.1 Discuss keeping of chickens and/or honeybees on residential properties Chicken Report Chicken Report Attachment Chanhassen Chicken Ordinance Minneapolis Chicken Ordinance St. Louis Park Chicken Ordinance Blaine Chicken Ordinance Research Paper on Fowl Honeybee Report Honeybee Report Attachment Research Paper on Bees Chanhassen Bee Ordinance Minneapolis Bee Ordinance New Hope Bee Ordinance 2.2 Set future Study Sessions September October November 3. ADJOURN 1 Special City Council September 8, 2020 Agenda Number:1.1 To:Dave Callister, City Manager Prepared by:Laurie Hokkanen, Administrative Services Director Reviewed by:Laurie Hokkanen, Administrative Services Director Item:Instructions to participate in the Virtual Council Meeting 1.Action Requested: The Mayor provides instructions for the public to observe the meeting by phone or online. 2.Background: Council meetings will be conducted virtually (via Zoom webinar/conference call) due to the state of local emergency for the COVID 19 pandemic. To observe/listen to the meeting, please register in advance at: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_pR0LmznqSiq4V54j2rQFqQ No public comments are taken at study sessions. Comments can be emailed to the Mayor and City Council at council@plymouthmn.gov or to the City Manager at dcallister@plymouthmn.gov. Contact City Clerk Sandy Engdahl at sengdahl@plymouthmn.gov with additional questions. 3.Budget Impact: N/A 4.Attachments: 2 Special City Council September 8, 2020 Agenda Number:2.1 To:Dave Callister, City Manager Prepared by:Steve Juetten Reviewed by: Item:Discuss keeping of chickens and/or honeybees on residential properties 1.Action Requested: Direct staff as to whether or not to prepare draft ordinances on the keeping of chickens and honeybees in residential zoning districts. 2.Background: Periodically Council and staff receive questions as to whether the keeping of chickens and/or honeybees are allowed on residential properties. Currently both chickens and honeybees are considered "farm animals" in the Zoning Ordinance and are prohibited in all districts except the FRD (future restricted development) District. In 2019, staff prepared separate reports on the keeping of chickens and honeybees (both reports are attached). Each report provides a sampling of 12 cities in the area and whether they allow chickens and/or honeybees. The reports and tables provide a high level overview of whether a city allows one or the other and, if they allow, what zoning districts they are allowed in and what requirements they place on the property owners. If the Council is interested in moving forward with draft ordinances, staff will prepare drafts and present them to the Planning Commission for public hearings. Some items that would be included in the ordinances are; what residential zoning districts are they allowed in, is fencing/structures required, is waste removal required, how many of each (chickens and/or colonies) are allowed, is notice of adjacent property owners required, and is training required. 3.Budget Impact: N/A 4.Attachments: Chicken Report Chicken Report Attachment Chanhassen Chicken Ordinance Minneapolis Chicken Ordinance St. Louis Park Chicken Ordinance 3 Blaine Chicken Ordinance Research Paper on Fowl Honeybee Report Honeybee Report Attachment Research Paper on Bees Chanhassen Bee Ordinance Minneapolis Bee Ordinance New Hope Bee Ordinance 4 1. ACTION REQUESTED: If the City Council chooses to pursue development of zoning ordinance text amendments that allow chickens, staff requests direction as to the specific standards/requirements that should be incorporated into draft ordinances. 2. BACKGROUND: Chickens and other animals defined as “farm animals” in the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance are currently prohibited in all districts except the FRD (future restricted development) district. The City Council heard from a citizen at the April 23, 2019, Plymouth Forum, requesting the City Council allow the keeping of chickens. Prior to and subsequent to the Plymouth Forum, the City Council received 20 e-mails supporting and opposing the keeping of chickens. The City Council requested staff to research how other communities regulate chickens. Staff reviewed ordinances and materials from the following cities:  Blaine  Chanhassen  Coon Rapids  Crystal  Maple Grove  Minneapolis  Minnetonka  New Hope  St. Louis Park  St. Paul The attached table outlines the requirements in each of the respective ordinances. While a number of the standards varied among the ten communities, there were commonalities. With only one exception, roosters are not allowed. Most cities required a permit to keep chickens. Most required some kind of notice to neighboring properties. All have a requirement for waste removal. All but one included specifications for both the chicken coop and run. Of the seven cities that specified districts where chickens are allowed, six only allow chickens in single family districts; one city also allows them in two family districts. Six of the cities prohibit on- Memorandum To:Steve Juetten From: Barbara Thomson Date:May 23, 2019 Item:Regulation of Chickens 5 site slaughtering. Although not noted in the table, most cities require owner approval if the party requesting the keeping of chickens is a renter of the subject property. Minneapolis was the only community requiring education on chicken keeping. Minneapolis’ ordinance requires anyone receiving a permit to complete a certification course within one year of the original permit application. 3. BUDGET IMPACT: Not applicable unless a permit would be required for the keeping of chickens. 4. ATTACHMENTS: Summary table of regulations of the listed cities For additional information if desired, please search: Urban Chickens Backyard Chickens 6 CHICKEN OPERATIONS IN SELECTED CITIES CITY NUMBER ALLOWED PERMIT REQ. DISTRICTS ALLOWED STRUCTURE/ FENCE WASTE REMOVAL SLAUGHTERING NOTICE REQUIRED? Blaine Max of 6 hens; no roosters Yes Accessory use in RE (Residential Estate, min. 2.5 ac), R-1 (Single Family, 10,000 sq. ft.), R-1AA (Single Family, 10,800 sq. ft.), R-1A (Single Family, 12,500 sq. ft.), R-1B (Single Family, 15,000 sq. ft.) Coop and covered run not more than 60 sq. ft. in rear yard only at least 5 feet from side or rear lot lines Must be removed from coop so as not to cause a nuisance. Off-site only If home within managed community with HOA, HOA management must sign off. Runs must be fenced unless entire yard fenced. Chanhassen 1-2.5 ac. 8 hens; 2.5-10 ac. 16 hens; over 10 ac. no limit Yes Lots one acre or larger where the principal use of the property is a single-family home Coop and attached run (at least 4 sq. ft. per chicken for each) must be located in rear yard and set back a minimum of 25 feet from all adjacent residences. Fence required Coop and run must be kept free from trash and accumulated manure. Manure must be kept in fully enclosed container and removed weekly. No outdoor butchering Notarized statement that all adjoining neighbors notified Coon Rapids Max of 4 hens; no roosters Yes LDR-1 (low density residential) and LDR-2 (low density residential) on lots over 5 ac. in size Total of coop and covered run (with overhead protective netting) limited to no more than 60 sq. ft. and must be located at least 10 ft. from side or rear lot lines and at least 30 feet from an adjacent property’s primary residence. Fence required All premises on which chickens kept shall be kept in clean, sanitary manner. All droppings and body excretions collected weekly On-site slaughtering prohibited If home within managed community with HOA, HOA management must sign off. 7 CHICKEN OPERATIONS IN SELECTED CITIES CITY NUMBER ALLOWED PERMIT REQ. DISTRICTS ALLOWED STRUCTURE/ FENCE WASTE REMOVAL SLAUGHTERING NOTICE REQUIRED? Crystal Max of 4 hens; no roosters Single and two-family residential lots Shelter of not more than 120 sq. ft. and not over 6 ft. in height required and not closer than 5 feet from lot line. Fenced area shall not exceed 20 sq. ft. per bird in area and 6 feet in height. Overhead netting required Shelter and enclosure shall be kept in a clean and sanitary manner. Feces regularly collected and stored in leak- proof container On-site slaughtering prohibited Nothing specified Maple Grove R-A zone over 10 acres: unlimited R-A zone under 10 acres: 25 per acre R-1 zone (1- 1.5 acres): 12 per acre R-1 zone (1.5+ acres): 50 per acre No R-A, Single Family Agricultural R-1, Single Family Residential (only on lots over 1 acre in size) In all situations in the R- A and R-1 zoning districts where animals of the hoofed variety or the fowl family are permitted to roam and/or graze about the property, a suitable fencing system shall be in place so as to restrain the animals roaming and/or grazing to the property of person keeping or maintain the animals. The premises on which any animal is kept or maintained shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and shall not be a harbor for rodents, flies, or insects. No specific requirements No specific requirements. Minneapolis Tier I: max. of 6 hens; Tier II:7-15 hens; Tier III: 16-30 hens; roosters allowed Yes Accessory use in residential districts Coops and runs must be in rear yard at least 20 feet from neighboring residential use and screened from habitable buildings on neighboring properties. Run must provide 10 sq. ft. for each chicken. Waste shall be removed often enough to prevent odors from emitting over property lines. Poop and litter may not be placed in City- provided organics recycling carts. Live slaughter prohibited. Must notify immediate neighbors. If applying for more than 6 chickens, must obtain written consent of at least 80% of neighbors within 100 feet of property. 8 CHICKEN OPERATIONS IN SELECTED CITIES CITY NUMBER ALLOWED PERMIT REQ. DISTRICTS ALLOWED STRUCTURE/ FENCE WASTE REMOVAL SLAUGHTERING NOTICE REQUIRED? Minnetonka 1 hen per 1/10 ac. of property; no roosters Must provide shelter of appropriate size no closer to lot line of adjacent occupied property than it is to principal structure on chicken owner’s property, but not less than 10 feet. Fence required Must manage feces and other bodily wastes in a timely and sanitary manner. Must keep area clean so no smell leaves the property. New Hope Max of 3 hens; no roosters Only when desiring to exceed limitations on keeping of chickens An enclosed or fenced shelter is required. Fecal material is not allowed to accumulate on subject property. St. Louis Pk.Max of 4 hens; no roosters Yes Single-family Coop and fenced run must be located in backyard area as far as reasonably possible from neighboring properties, with a minimum of 10 feet suggested. Must be kept in sanitary condition such that no noxious odors are carried to adjacent property. No butchering allowed. Nothing specified St. Paul Tier I: max. of 6 hens; Tier II:7-15 hens; no roosters Yes Construction and maintenance of holding facilities shall comply with all applicable rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes. Stored fecal matter shall be removed at least twice each week between April 1 and November 30. Written approval from 75% of owners and/or renters of real estate within 150 feet of the outer boundaries of the applicant’s premises or proof that the property lines are 150 feet or more from any structure 9 City of Chanhassen ARTICLE V. - CHICKENS Sec. 5-130. - Definitions. In this article, the following terms have the stated meanings: "Chickenor domesticated chicken"means a subspecies of the species Gallus domesticus. "Coop"means the structure for the keeping or housing of chickens. "Hen"means a female chicken. "Rooster"means a male chicken. "Run"means an enclosed and covered area attached to the coop where the chickens can roam unsupervised. (Ord. No. 639, § 2, 3-11-19) Sec. 5-131. - Purpose of ordinance. The purpose of this article is to provide minimum standards for the keeping of domesticated chickens. This article enables residents to keep chickens on a non-commercial basis as an accessory use to a residence, while limiting the adverse effects of the activity on surrounding properties. Such adverse effects can include noise, odors, unsanitary conditions, attraction of predators, chickens running at large, unsightly conditions, and similar adverse conditions. (Ord. No. 639, § 2, 3-11-19) Sec. 5-132. - Permit required. (a) No person shall maintain or keep domesticated chickens without a permit issued by the city. Properties exceeding ten acres where agriculture is a permitted use are exempt from the permit requirements of this article. (b) Application for a permit required by article shall be made to the city upon a form furnished by the city. A nonrefundable fee in the amount established by ordinance shall be paid to the city when the application if filed. (c) In order to be issued a permit the applicant must: (1) Have a lot one acre or larger. (2) Have as the principal use of the property a single-family residential structure. (3) Submit a notarized statement to the city stating that they have informed all adjoining neighbors that they intend to keep chickens. (4) Not have had a prior chicken permit revoked by the City of Chanhassen. (5) Meet the density and setback requirements listed in section 5-133. (Ord. No. 639, § 2, 3-11-19) Sec. 5-133. - Density and setbacks. 10 (a) No person is permitted to keep more than the following numbers of chickens on any lot within the city, based upon the size of the parcel: (1) Lots one acre or larger but smaller than 2½ acres: Eight chickens. (2) Lots 2½ acres or larger but smaller than ten acres: 16 chickens. (3) Lots larger than ten acres: No limit. (b) The coop and attached run must be located in the rear yard and must be set back a minimum of 25 feet from all adjacent residences that are not occupied by the applicant, and be set back a minimum of ten feet from any lot line. (1) On corner lots, coops and runs may not be located in any yard with street frontage. (2) On double frontage lots, coops and runs may not be located in any required front yard. (Ord. No. 639, § 2, 3-11-19) Sec. 5-134. - Standards of practice. The following standards of practice apply to all properties governed by this article: (1) No roosters or crowing hens are allowed. (2) No outdoor butchering of chickens is allowed. (3) Chickens must be kept in a coop or run whenever they are unsupervised; however when supervised they are allowed in a fenced area. (4) The coop must: a. Be maintained in good condition. b. Be enclosed and constructed of durable materials to prevent entry by predators or the escape of chickens. c. Be built to protect the chickens from extreme heat or cold. d. Provide at least four square feet per chicken. (5) The run must: a. Be maintained in good condition. b. Be attached to the coop. c. Be enclosed and constructed of durable materials to prevent entry by predators or the escape of chickens. d. Provide at least four square feet per chicken. (6) The chicken's living area must be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. (7) Odor shall not be perceptible at the lot line. (8) All stored manure shall be placed within a fully enclosed container. All manure not used for composting or fertilizing shall be removed weekly. The coop and run must be kept free from trash and accumulated manure. (9) Feed must be stored in a rodent-proof container inside of a structure. (10) No person may keep any chickens inside a house. (Ord. No. 639, § 2, 3-11-19) 11 Sec. 5-135. - Revocation of permit. A chicken permit issued under this article may be revoked by the community development director if it is determined after an inspection by city staff that the permit holder has not maintained the standards set forth in section 5-134 or that chickens are being kept in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance. (Ord. No. 639, § 2, 3-11-19) Secs. 5-136—5-160. - Reserved. 12 City of Minneapolis 63.90. - Fowl. (a) No person shall keep, harbor, or maintain care, custody, or control over any fowl such as a chicken, turkey, duck, or pigeon, without obtaining a permit. Any person desiring a permit shall make written application to MACC. Approval of application is subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by MACC. Failure to adhere to permit conditions shall constitute cause for adverse action against the permit and shall be a violation of this section. (b) MACC may grant a permit pursuant to this section only after the applicant has met any educational requirements as established and published by MACC and has provided evidence of notification to all immediately adjacent property owners, in a format supplied by or approved by and to the satisfaction of MACC. If the applicant is a renter, approval from the property owner shall be required. Neighbor notification will be the responsibility of the property owner, though it may be carried out by the applicant. (c) Fowl must be purchased or acquired in accordance with Minn. Statute Sections 70.40 and 74.100 and any other applicable law. (d) The requirements of this section shall not prohibit the adoption of fowl to the public by any releasing agency, private shelter, rescue group, or public sheltering agency provided the adoption contract specifies that the animal cannot be sold, transferred, or otherwise disposed of for a period of six (6) months following the adoption without written consent of the releasing agency, except for euthanization by a licensed veterinarian to prevent pain and suffering or disease transmission. (e) No person having the care, custody, and control of any fowl shall abandon said fowl or allow any fowl to run at large off the property of its owner or custodian. (f) All permits shall expire twelve (12) months from the date of issuance unless sooner revoked. The application fees for such permits shall be as established in the license fee schedule and shall be payable upon application. MACC may inspect the premises annually or as deemed necessary. (g) Permits shall be classified into three (3) tiers, with Tier I consisting of one (1) to six (6) hens, Tier II of seven (7) to fifteen (15) hens, and Tier III of sixteen (16) to thirty (30) hens, with associated fees as established in the license fee schedule. (h) Standards of care, practice, restrictions, and enclosure requirements include the following: (1) Residential coops, pens or other structures shall be limited to six (6) fowl of any kind per permit. Permits in excess of the allowable number shall need to be approved by MACC and may require additional conditions. (2) Location of coop, run, or pen must be in compliance with all zoning code requirements and enclosed to ensure fowl are confined to permittee's property. The enclosure must be of proper size for the number and type of fowl being housed as prescribed by MACC. (3) Residential coops, pens, or other structures shall be an allowed accessory to a dwelling subject to the following: a. The use shall be located not less than twenty (20) feet from any habitable building on an adjacent property. b. The use shall be visually screened from any adjacent residential use. c. The use shall be constructed of durable materials and shall be compatible with the principal structure and adjacent residential properties. d. The use shall be located entirely to the rear of the principal residential structure. 13 (4) Fecal waste or litter shall be removed at such reasonable times to prevent odors from emitting over property lines. Such waste or litter must be double bagged and disposed of in city garbage or composted provided the method used and the location does not present a public nuisance or health issue. (5) Slaughter of any kind shall be prohibited within the City of Minneapolis. (6) Roosters shall be prohibited without special permit. (7) A permit to keep more than six (6) fowl or to keep roosters shall require the written consent of at least eighty (80) percent of the occupants of the several descriptions of real estate situated within one hundred (100) feet of the applicant's real estate. Such written consent shall be required on the initial application and as often thereafter as MACC deems necessary. (8) Any coop found to be a public nuisance provided notice to abate the issues has failed to correct the issue within a reasonable time is prohibited and all permits associated with the coop may be revoked or denied. The coop and all fowl shall be removed by the property owner within forty-eight (48) hours of notice of the revoked or denied permit at the expense of the permit holder or applicant. (9) MACC may deny, suspend, revoke or take other authorized adverse action against any permit applied for or granted pursuant to this section if any condition or requirement is violated or if the keeping of fowl becomes a public nuisance or for other good cause. (10) Public nuisance for the purpose of coops includes, without limitation, any chicken coop that on three (3) or more occurrences in a twelve (12) month period receives complaints of noise, odor, or any other violation from more than one complainant, provided the complaints are founded and established by MACC. (11) No person, business, or entity shall maintain or cause to be maintained any commercial business related to the keeping of fowl on residential property unless otherwise permitted by the City of Minneapolis. If so permitted, commercial coops must: a. Maintain any applicable business license, health department permit, zoning permit, and permit issued by the MACC. b. Be limited to thirty (30) fowl of any kind with at least four (4) square feet provided for each fowl housed inside the physical coop and ten (10) square feet for each fowl while housed in outside run. c. Be maintained in such a manner as to prevent a public nuisance. d. Comply with all zoning and health regulations as well as any other applicable law. e. Be properly identified as required by MACC. f. Provide adequate care, as defined in this title. g. Provide adequate safeguards to protect the fowl from animals and to prevent unauthorized access to the fowl by general members of the public. h. Be kept in good repair, maintained in a clean and in a sanitary condition, and free of any vermin, obnoxious smells, and substances. ( Ord. No. 2016-009 , § 1, 2-12-16) 14 Chapter 4 ANIMALS* Article I. In General Sec. 4-1 Sec. 4-2. Regulating the keeping of domestic animals. Animal quarantine. Secs. 4-3--4-40. Reserved. Article II. Nondomesticated Animals Sec. 4-41. Purpose of article. Sec. 4-42. Prohibited animals. Sec. 4-43. Feeding of wild animals. Sec. 4-44. Exceptions. Sec. 4-45. Impounding. Secs. 4-46--4-80. Reserved. Article III. Dogs Sec. 4-81. Purpose. Sec. 4-82. Findings of the City Council. Sec. 4-83. Definitions. Sec. 4-84. General dog regulations. Sec. 4-85. Animal boarding facility. Sec. 4-86. Dog impoundment procedures. Sec. 4-87. Destruction of dogs in certain circumstances. Sec. 4-88. Regulations regarding dangerous dogs. Sec. 4-89. Regulations regarding potentially dangerous dogs. Sec. 4-90 Complaint procedure Secs. 4-91--4-130. Reserved. Article IV. Cats Sec. 4-131. Certain cats declared a nuisance. Sec. 4-132. Notice to owner. Sec. 4-133. Abatement of nuisance when owner is unknown. Sec. 4-134. Impounding, redemption and disposal of unredeemed cats. ________ *Cross reference(s)--Dog kennels, § 8-441 et seq.; environment and public health, ch. 12. State law reference(s)--Animals, stray animals and companion animals, M.S.A. ch. 346. Supp. No. 23 (01-13) 4:1 St. Louis Park City Code 15 City of St. Louis Park ANIMALS §4-2 ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 4-1. Regulating the keeping of domestic animals. No person shall keep or harbor any fowl, horses, cattle, sheep, goats or swine in the city, or permit the same to be done upon premises the person owns, occupies or controls without written permission from the city. (Code 1976, § 11-310) Sec. 4-2. Animal quarantine. (a) Whenever any person owning, possessing or harboring any dog or cat within the city shall learn that the dog or cat has potentially exposed any human being to rabies, the person shall immediately impound the dog or cat in a place of confinement where it cannot escape or have access to any human beings or other animals and shall also immediately notify the chief of police. Whenever the chief of police shall learn that any human being has been potentially exposed to rabies by any dog or cat within the city, the chief of police shall ascertain the identity of the dog or cat, and of the person owning, possessing or harboring it, and shall direct that person immediately to impound the dog or cat as required in this section. The chief of police shall notify the health authority of the place where the animal is impounded. Any dog or cat so impounded under this section shall be kept continuously so confined for a period of ten days from the day the dog or cat potentially exposed a human being to rabies. (b)The health authority shall have access at all reasonable times to the premises where a dog or cat is kept and may take possession of the dog or cat and confine it in the city pound or other suitable place at the expense of the animal's owner. The owner or person in possession or harboring the dog or cat shall immediately notify the health authority of any evidence of sickness or the death of the dog or cat during its period of confinement. If the dog or cat dies during that period, the owner or person possessing or harboring the dog or cat shall promptly deliver its carcass to the health authority. (c)It shall be the duty of the health authority to determine by inspection or telephone call if such dog or cat is alive and in good health at the end of the ten-day confinement period. (d)In lieu of quarantine, or at anytime during the quarantine period, the owner may voluntarily, in consultation with the health authority, release the dog or cat to a veterinarian to destroy the dog or cat and subject it to laboratory examination for evidence of the rabies virus. The owner shall be responsible for all veterinarian and laboratory costs. The veterinarian shall report the results of the laboratory examination to the health authority immediately upon receipt. (e)The health authority, in agreement with an attending physician or the state department of health, may confiscate, destroy and subject to laboratory examination a dog or cat which has potentially exposed a human being to rabies if such dog or cat exhibits signs of illness indicating the presence of rabies during the quarantine period. The health authority, in consultation with the state department of health, may confiscate, destroy and subject to laboratory examination any animal other than a dog or cat if such animal has potentially exposed any human being to rabies. The owner or other person in possession of any animal confiscated by the health authority shall be notified prior to such action if the owner or other person is available. (f)If one or more of the provisions contained in this section shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision of this section, and this chapter shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained in this section. (Code 1976, § 11-312) Secs. 4-3--4-40. Reserved. Supp. No. 23 (01-13) 4:3 St. Louis Park City Code 16 §4-41 ANIMALS ARTICLE II. NONDOMESTICATED ANIMALS Sec. 4-41. Purpose of article. The purpose of this article is to protect the public health from disease transmission, animal bites and public nuisances arising from the keeping or escape of nondomesticated animals. (Code 1976, § 11-314) Sec. 4-42. Prohibited animals. No person shall keep, maintain or harbor within the city the following animals: (1) Animal or species prohibited by state or federal law. (2) Any skunk, whether captured in the wild, domestically raised, descented or not descented, vaccinated against rabies or not vaccinated against rabies. (3) Any large cat of the family Felidae such as lions, tigers, jaguars, leopards, bobcats, lynx, cougars and ocelots, except commonly accepted domesticated house cats. (4) Any member of the family Canidae, such as wolves, fox, coyote, dingoes and jackals, except domesticated dogs. (5) Any hybrids such as wolf/dog and coyote/dog hybrids, but not including crossbred domesticated animals. (6) Venomous snakes of the Family Viperidae, such as adders, gabon vipers and pit vipers, venomous snakes of the Family Elapidae, such as cobras, coral snakes and sea snakes, three snakes of the Family Colubridae, the African twig snake (Thelotornis kirtland), the rear fanged boomslang (Disphoiidus typus) and the Asian tiger snake (Rhabdophis forinus); whether captured in the wild or domestically raised, defanged or not defanged, devenomed or not devenomed. (7) Any raccoon. (8) Any other animal not listed explicitly in subsections (1) to (8) of this section, but which is not naturally tame or gentle, but is of a wild nature or disposition and which, because of its size, vicious nature or other characteristics, would constitute a danger to human life or property. (Code 1976, § 11-316; Ord. No. 2416-12, 8-10-2012) Sec. 4-43. Feeding of wild animals. (a) No person shall feed deer, raccoons, wild turkeys, coyotes, opossum, Canada goose or any prohibited animal identified in Section 4-42 within the boundaries of the city. (b)No person shall place or permit to be placed on the ground, or within five feet (5’) of the ground surface any grain, fodder, salt licks, fruit, vegetables, nuts, hay or other edible materials (including feed for birds), which may reasonably be expected to result in deer, raccoon, wild turkey, coyote or Canada goose feeding, unless such items are screened or protected in a manner that prevents such feeding. The presence of living fruit trees and other live vegetation shall not be considered feeding. (c)The prohibitions in this section shall not apply to: (1) Veterinarians, city animal control officers or county, state or federal game officials who, in the course of their duties, have deer, raccoon, coyote, wild turkey or Canada goose in custody or under their management; Supp. No. 23 (01-13) 4:4 St. Louis Park City Code 17 ANIMALS § 4-45 (2) Persons authorized by the City of St. Louis Park to implement the Deer Management Program approved by the City Council; and (3) Any food placed upon the property for purposes of trapping or otherwise taking deer where such trapping or taking is pursuant to a permit issued by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. (d) In addition to being a violation subject to the general penalty provisions of the City Code, a violation of this section is declared to be a nuisance affecting public peace and safety subject to the abatement and assessment provisions of Section 12-35 of the City Code. (Ord. No. 2416-12, 8-10-2012) Sec. 4-44. Exceptions. Any person desiring to keep animals prohibited under section 4-42 shall obtain a temporary permit from the city manager or designee. The permit shall be issued for a period not to exceed 30 days and shall specify further conditions under which such animals shall be kept. This permit shall be issued only when such prohibited animal is brought into the city for entertainment, exhibition, show or promotional purposes. Before issuance of any temporary permit, the applicant shall provide the city manager with proof of insurance, including public liability insurance. The following are exempt from the provisions of this section and do not require a permit: (1) A public zoo or other institution engaged in a permanent display of animals, provided that applicable zoning requirements are met. (2) Nonvenomous snakes, birds kept indoors, hamsters, mice, rabbits, gerbils, white rats, guinea pigs, ferrets, chinchillas, lizards or similar animals capable of being maintained continuously in cages. (3) Persons keeping animals for a public zoo as volunteers, docents or otherwise, any bonafide research institutions and veterinary hospitals as long as protective devices adequate to prevent such animals from escaping or injuring the public are provided. (4) Persons with disabilities keeping monkeys trained as household helpers. (Code 1976, § 11-317; Ord. No. 2416-12, 8-10-2012) Sec. 4-45. Impounding. The city may impound any nondomesticated animal kept in violation of this article. If any such animal is impounded for five days without being reclaimed by the owner, the city may sell the animal or may follow the procedures set forth in section 4-88 for the redemption of dogs or, in an appropriate case, section 4-84 for the destruction of certain dogs. Any person reclaiming any such impounded animal shall pay the cost of impounding. (Code 1976, § 11-318; Ord. No. 2416-12, 8-10-2012) Secs. 4-46--4-80. Reserved. Supp. No. 23 (01-13) 4:5 St. Louis Park City Code 18 Standards for Backyard Chickens * Failure to comply with these standards will result in need for removal of birds and structure. a) All chicken operations must be registered by the property owner with the city prior to placement. The city council will establish a fee for the one-time registration. b) Registration process consists of a site and building plan with location and specifics of coop, pen or run, and coop setbacks. c) Not more than six (6) hens are allowed. No roosters are allowed. d) Coop (and covered run) is limited to not more than sixty (60) square feet. e) Shelters or coops shall be in the rear yard only and located at least five (5) feet from side or rear lot lines. f) Shelters or coops shall be at least thirty (30) feet from an adjacent home (living space). g) All runs must be fenced unless the entire rear yard is fenced. Chickens are not allowed to run free. h) Chicken waste must be removed from the coop so as not to cause a nuisance and be properly disposed of or composted. i) Slaughtering and processing of the chickens must be done off-site. j) Structure must be removed and site restored if keeping of chickens is discontinued for more than twelve (12) months. k) If the home is within a managed community and has a home ownership association, the association management must also sign off on the placement of the chickens. Note: Many neighborhood associations may prohibit the keeping of chickens or have more stringent standards. *Backyard chickens are allowed as an accessory use in the following zoning districts.  RE (Residential Estate)  R-1 (Single Family)  R-1AA (Single Family)  R-1A (Single Family)  R-1B (Single Family) Please contact the city to confirm the zoning district in which you reside. City of Blaine Planning Department 10801 Town Square Drive Blaine, Minnesota 55449 763-785-6180 Fax: 763-717-2634 19 42 ELR 10888 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 Illegal Fowl: A Survey of Municipal Laws Relating to Backyard Poultry and a Model Ordinance for Regulating City Chickens by Jaime Bouvier Jaime Bouvier is Visiting Legal Writing Professor, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. Summary As the movement toward keeping backyard chickens continues to grow, many cities are facing the decision of whether to allow residents to keep chickens and, if so, how to efectively 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 ofers lessons that may be applied to designing a model ordinance. his survey reveals that chickens are, perhaps surprisingly, legal in the vast majority of large cities. he survey also identiies regulatory norms and some efective and less efective 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 modiied to it 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. he movement toward bringing agricultural practices into the city has continued to expand during the last decade.1 As we learn more about the problems with our modern commercial agricultural practices—like keeping large numbers of animals crowded in small indoor facilities with little or no access to fresh air or sunlight and growing vast amounts of corn and soy in a monoculture environment to feed those animals2—many city-dwellers are taking it into their own hands to provide solutions.3 Community gardens are increasing in cities across the country.4 Mar- ket farms and even full-scale urban farms are popping up both in cities where the foreclosure epidemic has caused an abundance of abandoned properties and in cities where property has maintained or even increased in value.5 And, farmer’s markets have increased exponentially across the country—allowing smaller scale local farmers to directly link to consumers and sell their produce for far above the wholesale amounts they could get from selling through 1. Kimberly Hodgson et al., UrbanAgriculture:GrowingHealthySustainable Places, American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service, Report No. 563 (Jan. 2011); Janine de la Salle & Mark Holland, Agricul- tural Urbanism, Handbook for Building Sustainable Food & Agri- cultural Systems in 21st Century Cities, 9-12 (2010). 2. E.g., Food, Inc. (Magnolia Pictures 2009); Michael Pollan, The Om- nivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals (2006); Eric Schlosser, Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All American Meal (2002); Marion Nestle, Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health (2002). 3. E.g., Lisa Taylor, Your Farm in the City: An Urban Dweller’s Guide to Growing Food and Raising Livestock (2011); Thomas J. Fox, Ur- ban Farming: Sustainable City Living in Your Backyard, in Your Community, and in the World (2011); Kelly Coyne & Erik Knutzen, The Urban Homestead: Your Guide to Self-Sufficient Living in the Heart of the City (2010); Kurt B. Reighley, The United States of Americana: Backyard Chickens, Burlesque Beauties, and Homemade Bitters (2010). 4. Jane E. Schukoske, CommunityDevelopmenthroughGardening:Stateand LocalPoliciesTransformingUrbanOpenSpace, 3 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol’y 315, 354 (1999-2000). 5. Hodgson, supra note 1, at 3-4. Author’sNote:IwouldliketothankmyresearchassistantHannah Markel.IwouldalsoliketothankHeidiGorovitzRobertsonand CarolynBroering-Jacobsfortheirsupportand Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. mentorship. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 20 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10889 more established channels like supermarkets and conve- nience stores.6 Part of the greater urban agriculture movement involves urban animal husbandry—raising livestock in an urban setting.7 While many cities have allowed for bees, goats, and other livestock in the city,8 this Article will focus on how cities regulate chickens.9 Many people in urban envi- ronments are seeking to raise chickens to assert control over their food. his 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 afect the health of people who live near such farms, as well as anyone who eats the eggs or meat from those chickens.10 Many people view rais- ing chickens and other urban agricultural practices as a way to combat a broken food system and a way to assert individual political power against the large corporations that control much of our food.11 In response to a growing demand from city-dwellers to raise their own chickens, either as part of a community 6. Patricia E. Salkin & Amy Lavine, RegionalFoodsheds:AreOurLocalZoning andLandUseRegulationsHealthy?, 22 Fordham Envtl. L. Rev. 599, 617 (2011); Brandon Baird, hePendingFarmer’sMarketFiasco:Small-Time Farmers,Part-TimeShoppers,andaBig-TimeProblem, 1 KYJEANRL 49, 49- 50 (2008-2009). Seealso Kirk Johnson, SmallFarmersCreatingaNewBusi- nessModelasAgricultureGoesLocal, N.Y.Times, July 1, 2012, http://www. nytimes.com/2012/07/02/us/small-scale-farmers-creating-a-new-proit- model.html?_r=1&ref=agriculture. 7. Hogdson, supra note 1, at 17. See,e.g., Robert & Hannah Litt, A Chick- en in Every Yard (2011); Harvey Ussery, The Small-Scale Poultry Flock: An All-Natural Approach to Raising Backyard and Urban Chickens (2011); Andy Schneider, The Chicken Whisperer’s Guide to Keeping Chickens, Everything You Need to Know . . . and Didn’t Know You Needed to Know About Raising Chickens (2011); Tara Layman Williams, The Complete Guide to Raising Chickens: Ev- erything You Need to Know Explained Simply (2010); Jerome D. Belanger, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Raising Chickens (2010); Carlee Madigan, The Backyard Homestead (2009); Kimberly Willis & Rob Ludlow, Raising Chickens for Dummies (2009). 8. E.g., Heather Wooten & Amy Ackerman, SeedingtheCity:LandUsePoli- ciestoPromoteUrbanAgricultural, National Policy & Legal Analysis Network to Prevent Childhood Obesity, 34 (2011); Kailee Neuner et al., PlanningtoEat:InnovativeLocalGovernmentPlansandPoliciestoBuild HealthyFoodSystemsintheUnitedStates, Food Systems Planning and Healthy Communities Lab, University of Buffalo, The State Univer- sity of New York, 17 (2011). 9. Seealso Patricia Salkin, FeedingtheLocavores,OneChickenataTime:Regu- latingBackyardChickens, 34:3 Zoning & Plan. L. Rep. 1 (2011) (briely surveying chicken laws); Mary Wood et al., PromotingtheUrbanHomestead: ReformofLocalLandUseLawstoAllowMicroLivestockonResidentialLots, 37 Ecology L. Currents 68 (2010). 10. See,e.g., Nicholas D. Kristof, IsanEggforBreakfastWorthhis?, N.Y. Times, Apr. 11, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/opinion/kristof-is- an-egg-for-breakfast-worth-this.html; Nicholas D. Kristof, ArsenicinOur Chicken, N.Y. Times, Apr. 4, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/ opinion/kristof-arsenic-in-our-chicken.html. 11. Hugh Bartling, AChickenAin’tNothingbutaBird:LocalFoodProduc- tionandthePoliticsofLand-UseChange, Local Environment 17(a) (Jan. 2012). For a diferent take on the political reasons behind backyard chick- ens, see Shannon Hayes, RadicalHomemakers:ReclaimingDomesticityFrom aConsumerCulture (2005) (asserting that urban farming can be a feminist response to modern urbanization). garden, urban farm, or just in their own backyard, cities across the country are amending their ordinances to allow for and regulate backyard chickens.12 his Article will irst provide a primer on what a city-dweller should know about chickens. his is especially targeted to city-dwellers who serve as councilpersons, mayors, or law directors and know little or nothing about chickens. Because many municipal oicials 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 oicials believe that residents should be able to keep chick- ens, they may still feel unequipped to igure out how to properly regulate chickens to head of 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 hese chicks grew up to be egg-laying hens and family pets before she learned that her city outlawed chickens. he city told her that if she did not get rid of the chickens, she would be subject to continuing expensive citations for violating the city’s ordinance. Because both she and her children 12. Sarah Grieco, BackyardBees,Chickens,andGoatsApproved, NBCSanDi- ego, Feb. 1, 2012 http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Backyard- Bees-Chickens-Goats-Approved-138507104.html; Michael Cass, Backyard ChickensMakeGainsinNashville, The Tennessean, Jan. 5, 2012, http:// www.healthynashville.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&ile=a rticle&sid=20163; Peter Applebome, EnvisioningtheEndof“Don’tCluck, Don’tTell, N.Y. Times, Apr. 30, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/4/30/ nyregions/30town??; Jessica Bennet, heNewCoopdeVille,theCrazefor UrbanPoultryFarming, Newsweek, Nov. 16, 2008, http://www.thedaily- beast.com/newsweek/2008/11/16/the-new-coop-de-ville.img.jpg. And this movement is not just in the United States; Australia, Canada, and Europe also are experiencing a surge in the number of people keeping backyard hens. See,e.g., SurgeinBackyardPoultryNumbers, British Free Range Egg Producers Association (Jan. 9, 2011), http://www.theranger.co.uk/ news/Surge-in-backyard-poultry-numbers_21660.html (last visited Feb. 24, 2012); Backyard Chickens in Toronto, Ontario, http://torontoch- ickens.com/Toronto_Chickens/Blog/Blog.html (last visited Feb. 22, 2012) (advocacy group seeking to legalize chickens in Toronto); Chris Mayberry & Peter homson, KeepingChickensintheBackyard, Department of Ag- riculture and Food, Government of Western Australia (Aug. 2004), http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/content/aap/pou/man/gn2004_022.pdf (last visited Feb. 22, 2012); Andrea Gaynor, Harvest of the Suburbs: An Environmental History of Growing Food in Australian Cities (2006); Catharine Higginson, LivinginFrance-KeepingChickens, Living France, http://www.livingfrance.com/real-life-living-and-working-living- in-france-keeping-chickens–94936 (last visited Feb. 22, 2012). 13. See,e.g., WhereChickensAreOutlawedOnlyOutlawsWillHaveChickens, BackyardChickens.com,http://www.backyardchickens.com/t/616955/ where-chickens-are-outlawed-only-outlaws-will-have-chickens-t-shirt (last visited Feb. 15, 2012) (forum for people who own chickens illegally); Heather Cann et al., UrbanLivestock:BarriersandOpportunitiesFacesby HomesteadersintheCityofWaterloo, Dec. 6, 2011, http://www.wrfoodsys- tem.ca/studentresearch (last visited Feb. 22, 2012) (interviewing several people who own chickens illegally in the Waterloo region of Canada). 14. Not her real name. 15. Interview with Jennifer, July 18, 2011 (on ile with author) Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. . Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 21 42 ELR 10890 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 had grown close to the hens, they did not want to sim- ply dispose of them or give them away. Instead, Jennifer moved to a neighboring city that had recently passed an ordinance legalizing backyard hens and started a chicken cooperative.16 Now, a group of neighbors take turns car- ing for the chickens and share the eggs. Neither in the suburb where she started raising the chicks nor in the city where she started the cooperative did neighbors complain about odor, noise, or any other potential nuisance. And the suburb, by prohibiting chickens, lost the opportunity Jennifer was willing to provide to build strong commu- nity ties with her neighbors.17 Instead of moving away, others are seeking to change the law to raise chickens in the city where they already live. For instance, Cherise Walker has been advocating for a new ordinance in her community.18 Ms. Walker is a veteran of the Iraq war who became interested in hens when she read that keeping chickens can help relieve post-traumatic stress disorder.19 She subscribes to Back- yardPoultry—a magazine dedicated to backyard chick- ens20; she became certiied in hen-keeping by the Ohio State University Extension; and, she began assembling the materials to build a coop in her yard. But, she soon learned that her city outlaws hens as dangerous animals, placing them in the same category as lions, tigers, bears, and sharks.21 Unwilling to become an outlaw hen-keeper, she, like countless others across the country, is attempt- ing to lobby her mayor and city council-people to edu- cate them about chickens and encourage them to adopt a more chicken-friendly ordinance.22 Because of the growing popularity of keeping backyard chickens, cities can beneit from well-thought-out ordi- nances that avert possible nuisance and make it easy and clear for would-be chicken owners to ind out what they need to do to comply with the law. Changing these ordinances, however, is often a conten- tious issue.23 It has caused one mayor in Minnesota to say, “there is a lot of anger around this issue for some reason. 16. Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §§205.04, 347.02 (2011). 17. Seeinfra Part I.E. (discussing how participating in urban agriculture can increase social connections and civic responsibility). 18. Interview with Jennifer, July 18, 2011 (on ile with author). 19. Megan Zotterelli, VeteransFarming, The Leaflet: Newsletter of the Central Coast Chapter of California Rare Fruit Growers (July/ Aug. 2011), http://centralcoastfoodie.com/2011/08/veterans-farming/ (noting that the Farmer Veterans Coalition that seeks to link veterans with farming has done so not only to provide veterans with economic opportunities, but because “the nurturing environment of a greenhouse or a hatchery has helped these veterans make impressive strides in their recovery and transition”). 20. BackyardPoultryMagazine has been published since 2006 by Countryside Publications, Inc. It currently has a circulation of approximately 75,000 readers. See Advertising Information for Backyard Poultry, http:// www.backyardpoultrymag.com/advertise.html (last visited Feb. 22, 2012). 21. Lakewood Mun. Ordinance §505.18. 22. Interview with Cherise Walker, Mar. 18, 2012 (on ile with author). 23. Barak Y. Orbach & Frances R. Sjoberg, DebatingOverBackyardChickens, Arizona Legal Studies, Discussion Paper No. 11-02 (Feb. 2012) (listing con- licts in dozens of cities where people were seeking to change ordinances to either legalize or ban chickens); seealso Salkin, supra note 9, at 1 (describing criticism of eforts to allow chickens in neighborhoods as including “worry that property values will plummet, that chickens will create foul odors and noise, and that they will attract coyotes, foxes, and other pests”). More so than the war by far.”24 City leaders are understand- ably concerned that chickens may cause nuisances.25 hey have raised such concerns as decreasing property values26 and increasing greenhouse emissions,27 as well as concerns about excessive clucking and overwhelming odors bother- ing the neighbors.28 Some express the belief that chickens, and other agricultural practices, simply do not belong in cities.29 he 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 inlate the costs of processes related to legal change.30 In Part I, this Article will discuss the beneits of back- yard chickens. Part II will investigate concerns that many people have with keeping chickens in the city. Part III will provide some background about chickens and chicken behavior that municipalities should understand before crafting any ordinance. Part IV will survey ordinances related to keeping chickens in the 100 most populous cit- ies in the United States, identifying regulatory norms and particularly efective and inefective means of regulation. Finally, Part V will put forward a model ordinance that regulates keeping chickens in an urban setting while pro- viding suicient regulation to abate nuisance concerns. 24. Orbach & Sjoberg, supra note 23, at 24. 25. P.J. Hufstutter, BackyardChickensontheRise,DespitetheNeighbor’sClucks, L.A. Times, June 15, 2009, http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/15/ nation/na-chicken-economy15. 26. Tiara Hodges, Cary:NoChickensYet, IndyWeek.com, Feb. 10, 2012, http://www.indyweek.com/BigBite/archives/2012/02/10/cary-no-chickens yet (last visited Feb. 17, 2012); BackyardChickens:GoodorBadIdea, KVAL. com, Mar. 3, 2009, http://www.kval.com/news/40648802.html (last vis- ited Feb. 17, 2012). 27. Valerie Taylor, ChickensforMontgomery (2009), http://www.scribd.com/ doc/16509728/Changing-Your-Citys-Chicken-Laws (last visited Feb. 17, 2012) (addressing a concern that Montgomery council people voiced about greenhouse gases). 28. Josie Garthwaite, UrbanGarden?Check.Now,Chickens, N.Y. Times, Feb. 7, 2012, http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/urban-garden-check- now-chickens/. 29. Orbach & Sjoberg, supra note 23, at 19 (citing one mayor from Frankling- ton, Louisiana, as stating the “city has changed and grown so much since the original ordinance. We are trying to look to the future. You can’t raise animals or livestock (in the city).”); Barry Y. Orbach & Frances R. Sjoberg, ExcessiveSpeech,CivilityNorms,andtheCluckingheorem, 44 Conn. L. Rev. 1 (2011) (stating that an alderman in Chicago was seeking to ban chickens in part because, “[a]ll things considered, I think chickens should be raised on a farm”); Jerry Kaufman & Martin Bailkey, FarmingInsideCities, 13 Landlines 1 (2001). 30. See Orbach & Sjoberg, supra note 29 Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. . Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 22 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10891 I. The Beneits of Backyard Chickens In 1920, an elementary school textbook recommended that every family in America keep a small lock of back- yard chickens.31 he textbook provided that “every family is better of for having a few chickens, provided they are kept out of the garden and at a suitable distance from any house.”32 It noted that of the millions of dollars worth of eggs that were sold each year at that time, comparatively lit- tle came from large poultry farms, but came instead “from the hundreds and thousands of farms and town lots where a few chickens and other fowls are kept in order that they may turn to proit food materials that otherwise would be wasted.”33 he 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 locks because chickens eat insects and thus prevent the increase of insect pests.34 he U.S. government was in agreement with the text- book’s advice. During World War I, the United States exhorted every person in America to raise chickens. he U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued posters with titles like “Uncle Sam Expects You to Keep Hens and Raise Chickens.”35 One such poster encourages chicken ownership by exhorting that “even the smallest backyard has room for a lock large enough to supply the house with eggs.”36 he 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 hese 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 beneits of keeping domesticated chickens, many city-dwellers have lost touch with what 31. William Thompson Skilling, Nature-Study Agriculture (World Book Co. 1920). 32. Id. at 296. 33. Id. 34. Id. 35. Scott Doyon, Chickens:WWISolutiontoAlmostEverything, Better Cities & Towns, Nov. 4, 2011, http://bettercities.net/news-opinion/blogs/scott- doyon/15562/backyard-chickens-wwi-era-solution-almost-everything (last visited Feb. 15, 2012). 36. Id. 37. Id. 38. Hodgson, supra note 1, at 11-12. See,e.g., Robert M. Fogelson, Bour- geois Nightmares 168-81 (2005) (noting that backyard poultry-keeping went from being universal and encouraged to being banned as a nuisance when newly developed suburbs aimed toward attracting wealthy residents began instituting policies to ban all household pets in an efort to distin- guish themselves from both the urban and rural lower class). 39. Barbara West & Ben-Xiong Zhou, DidChickensGoNorth?NewEvidence forDomestication, 44 World’s Poultry Sci. J. 205-18 (1999). Christine Heinrichs, How to Raise Chickens: Everything You Need to Know (2007). 40. See,e.g., Andrea Gaynor, Harvest of the Suburbs 133 (2006); Janine De La Salle & Mark Holland, Agricultural Urbanism: Handbook for Building Sustainable Food & Agriculture Systems in 21st Cen- tury Cities 23 (2010). chickens have to ofer. here continue to be many beneits to raising hens. Some of the beneits are apparent—like getting fresh free eggs. Some are less apparent—like hen manure being a surprisingly pricey and efective fertilizer and research indings that urban agricultural practices in general raise property values and strengthen the social fab- ric of a community. he beneits of keeping hens will be discussed more thoroughly below. A. Chickens Are a Source of Fresh Nutritious Eggs he most obvious beneit of keeping chickens in the back- yard is the eggs. A hen will generally lay eggs for the irst ive to six years of her life, with peak production in the irst two years.41 Hens lay more during the spring and summer months when they are exposed to more light because of the longer days.42 Hens also lay far more eggs when they are younger, starting of with between 150 to 300 eggs per year depending on the breed and dwindling down by about 20% each year.43 Young hens or pullets often start out lay- 41. Litt, supranote 7, at 168-69. 42. Id. at 169. 43. Id. USDA Poster from Scott Doyon, Chickens: WWI Solution to Almost Everything, Better Cities & Towns, Nov. 4, 2011, http://bettercities.net/ news-opinion/blogs/scott-doyon/15562/backyard-chickens-wwi-era- solution-almost-everything (last visited Feb. 15, Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. 2012). Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 23 42 ELR 10892 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 they are kept in a more natural environment with exposure to sun, weather, and adequate companionship.57 Scientiic nutritional analyses have proven that eggs from hens that are kept in small locks and allowed to forage, when com- pared with store-bought eggs, have • 1/3 less cholesterol • 1/4 less saturated fat • 2/3 more vitamin A • 2 times more omega-3 fatty acids • 3 times more vitamin E • 7 times more beta-carotene.58 hus, 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 lock of chickens consider their chickens to be pets and a part of their family—just like a dog or a cat.59 Chickens have personalities, and many people and children bond with them just like any other pet.60 Several forums exist on the Internet where people can trade stories about hen antics61 or debate what breed of chicken is best for children.62 Chicken owners tend to name their hens, and many can easily describe each hen’s temperament and personality.63 Perhaps recognizing this, many cities, as shown below, actually regulate chickens as pets—and place no further burden on chicken owners than it would on dog or cat owners.64 C. Chicken Manure Is a Surprisingly Valuable Fertilizer Chicken manure is an excellent and surprisingly valuable fertilizer. Currently, 20-pound bags of organic chicken manure fertilizer can fetch a price of between $10 and 57. Id. 58. Litt, supra note 7, at 179. 59. Id. at 4-10. 60. See,e.g., Carolyn Bush, AChickenChristmasTale, Backyard Poultry Mag., Jan. 2010, http://www.backyardpoultrymag.com/issues/5/5-6/a_chicken_ christmas_tale.html (describing her pet chickens and mourning one of their deaths); Chickenvideo.com, http://www.chickenvideo.com/outlawchick- ens.html (last visited July 2, 2012) (collecting stories from people who keep chickens as pets despite their illegality). 61. Funny,FunnyChickenAntics, Backyardchickens.com, http://www.back- yardchickens.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=380593 (last visited July 2, 2012). 62. WhatBreedsAreBestforChildrentoShowin4-H?, Backyardchickens.com, http://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=5726813 (last visited July 2, 2012). 63. Litt, supra note 7, at 4. 64. See infra Part IV.C.1. ing abnormal-looking or even double-yolked eggs, but as they mature begin laying more uniform eggs.44 Although hens can live up to 15 or even 20 years, the average hen’s lifespan is between four to eight years, so most hens will lay eggs during most of their life—but production will drop of considerably as they age.45 Although some have argued that raising backyard chick- ens will save money that would have been used to buy eggs over time, this claim is dubious.46 It would take many years to recoup the cost of the chickens, the chicken feed, and the coops.47 But cost is only part of the equation. Eggs from backyard hens have been scientiically shown to taste better.48 First, they taste better because they are fresher.49 Most eggs bought in a grocery store are weeks if not months old before they reach the point of sale.50 Recent studies in agriculture science, moreover, demon- strate that if a chicken is allowed to forage for fresh clover and grass, eat insects, and is fed oyster shells for calcium, her eggs will have a deeper colored yolk, ranging from rich gold to bright orange, and the taste of the egg will be signiicantly fresher.51 Next, eggs from backyard hens are more nutritious.52 Poultry scientists have long known that a hen’s diet will afect the nutrient value of her eggs.53 hus, 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-lock pasture-raised hens actually have a remarkably diferent nutritional content than your typical store-bought egg—even those certiied organic.55 his is because backyard chickens can forage for fresh grass and other greens and get access to insects and other more nat- ural chicken food.56 he nutritional diferences may also be attributed to the fact that hens are less stressed because 44. Bernal R. Weimer, APeculiarEggAbnormality, 2-4:10 Poultry Sci. 78-79 (July 1918). 45. Litt, supra note 7, at 173. 46. Gail Damerow, Backyard Homestead Guide to Raising Chickens (2011). 47. Litt, supra note 7, at 16. William Neuman, KeepingheirEggsin heirBackyardNests, N.Y. Times, Aug. 3, 2009, http://www.nytimes. com/2009/08/04/business/04chickens.html?pagewanted=all (acknowledg- ing that backyard chicken enthusiasts do not typically save money by not buying eggs). 48. Klaus Horsted et al., EfectofGrassCloverForageandWhole-WheatFeeding ontheSensoryQualityofEggs, 90:2 J. Sci. Food & Agric. 343-48 (Jan. 2010). 49. Litt, supra note 7, at 17. 50. Id. 51. Horsted et al., supra note 48. 52. Litt, supra note 7, at 179 (citing Cheryl Long & Tabitha Alterman, Meet RealFree-RangeEggs, Mother Earth News, Oct./Nov. 2007, http://www. motherearthnews.com/Real-Food/2007-10-01/Tests-Reveal-Healthier-Eggs. aspx; Artemis P. Simopoulos & Norman Salem Jr., EggYolk:ASourceof Long-ChainPolyunsaturatedFatsinInfantFeeding, 4 Am. J. Clinical Nu- trition 411 (1992) (inding a signiicant increase in nutrition and signii- cant decrease in harmful fats in small-lock free-range eggs). 53. William J. Stadelman & Owen J. Cotterill, Egg Science & Technol- ogy 185 (1995). 54. Id. 55. Litt, supra note 7, at 17. 56. Id.; Simopoulos & Salem Jr., supra note 52 Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. . Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 24 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10893 $20.65 Poultry waste has long been used as a fertilizer—it provides necessary nutrients for plants and works well as an addition to compost.66 Large amounts of uncomposted chicken manure applied directly to a garden will over- whelm or burn the plants, because its nitrogen content is too high.67 But, the amount of manure that a backyard lock of four to six hens would produce is not enough to harm the plants and can be beneicial to a home garden, even without irst being composted.68 A small lock 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 conident 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, leas, slugs, roaches, and beetles.71 Chickens also occasionally eat worms, small snakes, and small mice.72 Insects provide protein that the chickens need to lay nutri- tionally dense eggs.73 Small locks of chickens are recom- mended as a way to eliminate weeds, although a chicken does not discriminate between weeds and plants and, if left in a garden for too long, will eat the garden plants as well.74 But, because chickens like to eat insects and other garden pests, allowing the chicken occasional and limited access 65. Black Gold Compost Chicken Fertilizer sold for $13.43 for 20 pounds on Amazon. Amazon.com, http://www.amazon.com/Black-Compost-Chick- Manure-60217/dp/B00292YAQC (last visited July 2, 2012). Chickety- doo-doo sold for $47.75 for 40 pounds on EBay. Ebay, http://www.ebay. com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260889160166&hlp=false (last visited Jan. 6, 2012). 66. Adam A. Hady & Ron Kean, PoultryforSmallFarmsandBackyard, UW Cooperative Extension, http://learning store.uwex.edu/assets/pdfs/ A3908-03. 67. Litt, supra note 7, at 9. 68. Id. 69. OhioLivestockManureManagementGuide, Ohio State University Ex- tension, Bulletin 604-06, p. 3, T. 1 2006, http://ohioline.osu.edu/b604/ (providing that a four-pound laying hen produces 0.26 of a pound per day of manure). 70. Leah Nemirof & Judith Patterson, Design,TestingandImplementationof aLarge-ScaleUrbanDogWasteCompostingProgram, 15:4 Compost Sci. & Utilization 237-42 (2007) (“On average, a dog produces 0.34 [kilograms (kg)] (0.75 lbs) of feces per day.”). 71. Simopoulos & Salem Jr., supra note 52, at 412. Schneider, supra note 8, at 15. 72. Id. 73. Id. 74. John P. Bishop, Chickens:ImprovingSmall-ScaleProduction, Echo technical note, echo.net, 1995, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s &source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww. echocommunity.org%2Fresource%2Fcollection%2FE66CDFDB-0A0D- 4DDE-8AB1-74D9D8C3EDD4%2FChickens.pdf&ei=39zxT41Sh7etAd SUmY8C&usg=AFQjCNHh0_bkG_5sVmlovgngOXD53AJagA&sig2=_ cgyLnv7jDV7hGIVZty89g (last visited July 2, 2012). to a garden can eliminate a need to use chemicals or other insecticides and prevent insect infestations.75 E. Chickens Help Build Community Several studies have found that urban agriculture can increase social connections and civic engagement in the community.76 Agricultural projects can provide a center- piece around which communities can organize and, by doing so, become more resilient.77 Building a sense of com- munity is often especially valuable for more marginalized groups—like recent immigrants and impoverished inner- city areas.78 Keeping chickens easily its into the community- building beneit 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 beneiciaries of the excess eggs. Because chickens are still seen as a novelty in many communities, many chicken owners help to educate their neighbors and their communities by inviting them over for a visit and let- ting neighbors see the coops and interact with the chick- ens.79 Finally, like the example of Jennifer above, keeping chickens can become a community endeavor; many peo- ple have formed chicken cooperatives where neighbors band together to share in the work of tending the hens and also share in the eggs.80 II. Cities’ Concerns With Backyard Hens Never mind what you think. he old man did not rush Recklessly into the coop at the last minute. he chickens hardly stirred For the easy way he sang to them. Bruce Weigl, KillingChickens, 1999. 75. Tara Layman Williams, The Complete Guide to Raising Chickens: Everything You Need to Know 95 (2011). 76. Hodgson, supra note 1, at 3 (citing Lorraine Johnson, City Farmer: Adventures in Urban Food Growing (2010), and Patricia Hynes, A Patch of Eden: America’s Inner City Gardeners (1996)). 77. Hodgson, supra note 1, at 94. 78. Id. SeealsoIowaConcentratedAnimalFeedingOperationsAirQualityStudy, FinalReport, Iowa State University and the University of Iowa Study Group 148, Feb. 2002, http://www.ehsrc.uiowa.edu/cafo_air_qual- ity_study.html (inding 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 afairs, 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., Jef S. Sharp & Molly B. Smith, Social CapitalandFarmingattheRural-UrbanInterface:heImportanceofNon- farmerandFarmerRelations, 76 Agric. Sys. 913-27 (2003) (inding that communities beneit and agricultural uses have more support when farmers develop social relationships with non-farmers). 80. E.g., Abby Quillen, HowtoShareaChickenorTwo, Shareable: Cities (Nov. 22, 2009), http://shareable.net/blog/how-to-share-a-chicken (last vis- ited Feb. 12, 2012) Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. . Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 25 42 ELR 10894 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 A. Noise he most frequently expressed concern is that hens will be noisy. his may come from associating roosters with hens. Roosters are noisy.81 Hens are not particularly noisy. While they will cluck, the clucking is neither loud nor frequent.82 he clucking of hens is commonly compared to human conversation—both register around 65 decibels.83 By con- trast, the barking of a single dog can reach levels well over 100 decibels.84 It should also be noted that chickens have a homing instinct to roost and sleep at night. A hen will return to her coop at night and generally fall asleep before or at sun- down.85 hus, 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 afect the neighborhood. hese concerns may stem from pub- licized reports of odors from large poultry operations.86 While it is no doubt true that the odors coming from these intensive commercial-scale chicken farms is overwhelming and harmful,87 these operations often have hundreds of thousands of chickens in very small spaces.88 Most of the odor that people may associate with poul- try is actually ammonia. Ammonia, however, is a product of a poorly ventilated and moist coop.89 Coop designs for backyard hens should take this into account and allow for proper ventilation. And, if coops are regularly cleaned, there should be little to no odor associated with the hens.90 81. ManagementofNoiseonPoultryFarms, Poultry Fact Sheet, British Colum- bia, Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Aug. 1999), http://www.agf. gov.bc.ca/poultry/publications/documents/noise.pdf. 82. Id. 83. ProtectingAgainstNoise, National Ag Safety Database, The Ohio State University Extension, http://nasdonline.org/document/1744/d001721/ protecting-against-noise.html (last visited Feb. 22, 2012) (explaining that a chicken coop and human conversation are both about 65 decibels). 84. Crista L. Coppola et al., NoiseintheAnimalShelterEnvironment:Building DesignandtheEfectsofDailyNoiseExposure, 9(l) J. applied Animal Wel- fare Sci. 1-7 (2006). 85. Williams, supra note 75, at 92. Robert Plamondon, RangePoultryHousing, ATTRA 11 (June 2003). 86. E.g., William Neuman, CleanLivingintheHenhouse, N.Y. Times, Oct. 6, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/business/07eggfarm.html? scp=2&sq=large%20chicken%20farms%20and%20odor&st=cse. 87. Doug Gurian Sherman, CAFOSUncovered,heUntoldCostsofAnimal FeedingOperations, Union of Concerned Scientists, Apr. 2008, http:// www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/cafos-uncovered. pdf; IowaConcentratedAnimalFeedingOperationsandAirQualityStudy, Final Report, Iowa State University and the University of Iowa Study Group (Feb. 2002) (inding 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. hese problems are easily avoided by keeping litter dry, adding fresh litter as needed to absorb droppings, and periodically removing the old litter and replacing it with a fresh batch.”). C. Diseases Two diseases are frequently raised in discussions of back- yard hens: avian lu and salmonella. For diferent reasons, neither justiies a ban on backyard hens.91 First, with the attention that avian lu 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 lu, 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 diicult 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 lu link the increased risks of disease to the intensi- ication 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 intensiication of food-animal production” in part on the increasing threat.97 he 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 inding that modern intensive animal farming techniques increase the risk of new virulent diseases.98 he report stated “a major impact of modern intensive production systems is that they allow the rapid selection and ampliication of patho- gens that arise from a virulent ancestor (frequently by 91. Sue L. Pollock et al., RaisingChickensinCityBackyards:hePublicHealth Role, J. Community Health, DOI: 10.1007/s10900-011-9504-1 (2011) (inding that public health concerns about infectious diseases and other nui- sances that might be caused by keeping hens in an urban setting cannot be supported by literature speciic to the urban agriculture context and recom- mending that public health practitioners approach this issue in a manner analogous to concerns over keeping domestic pets). 92. E.g., Orbach & Sjoberg, supranote 23, at 29. 93. AvianInluenza, USDA, http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/docs.htm?docid= 11244 (last visited July 2, 2012). 94. AvianInluenza,Questions&Answers, Food and Agric. Org. of the United Nations, http://www.fao.org/avianlu/en/qanda.html (last visited July 26, 2012). 95. Id. 96. Michael Greger, BirdFlu, AVirusofOurOwnHatching, BirdFluBook. Com (2006-2008), http://birdlubook.com/a.php?id=50 (last visited Feb. 21, 2012) (inding that the Food and Agriculture Organization of the Unit- ed Nations, the World Health Organization, and the World Organization for Animal Health attribute risk factors for the emergence of new diseases from animals to the increasing demand for animal protein). 97. Id. 98. Id. (citing GlobalRisksofInfectiousAnimalDiseases, Council for Agric. Sci. and Tech., Issue Paper No. 28, 2005) Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. . Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 26 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10895 subtle mutation), thus, there is increasing risk for disease entrance and/or dissemination.”99 he report concludes by stating, “because of the Livestock Revolution, global risks of disease are increasing.”100 It is for this reason that many believe that the movement toward backyard chick- ens and diverse small-scale poultry farming, rather than being a problem, is a solution to concerns about mutating avian viruses.101 Another theory for how an avian lu mutation may occur is that it will irst occur in wild birds that could pass it on to domesticated birds.102 In this case, backyard hens could provide a transition point. For this reason the USDA, rather than advocating a ban on backyard hens, has instead ofered some simple-to-follow precautionary procedures for small lock owners: the USDA counsels backyard bird enthusiasts to separate domesticated birds from other birds by enclosing coops and runs, to clean the coops regularly, and to wash their hands before and after touching the birds.103 Another illness that causes concern because it can be transferred to humans is salmonella.104 Chickens, like other common household pets—including dogs, turtles, and caged birds—can carry salmonella.105 For this reason, the CDC counsels that people should wash their hands after touching poultry, should supervise young children around poultry, and make sure that young children wash their hands after touching chicks or other live poultry.106 Chickens, like other pets, can get sick and carry dis- ease. But public health scholars have found that there is no evidence that the incidence of disease in small locks of backyard hens merits banning hens in the city and counsel city oicials to regulate backyard hens like they would any other pet.107 99. Id. 100. Id. 101. Ben Block, U.S.CityDwellersFlocktoRaisingChickens, WorldWatch Insti- tute, http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5900 (last visited Feb. 22, 2012); FowlPlay,thePoultryIndustry’sCentralRoleintheBirdFluCrisis, GRAIN, http://www.grain.org/article/entries/22-fowl-play-the-poultry-industry-s- central-role-in-the-bird-lu-crisis (last visited Feb. 22, 2012); PuttingMeat ontheTable:IndustrialFarmAnimalProductioninAmerica, A Report of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (2006), http://www.ncifap.org/ (last visited Feb. 21, 2012). 102. Rachel Dennis, CAFOsandPublicHealth:RisksAssociatedWithWelfare FriendlyFarming, Purdue Univ. Extension, Aug. 2007, https://mdc.itap. purdue.edu/item.asp?itemID=18335#.T_Hjd3CZOOU. 103. BackyardBiosecurity,6WaystoPreventPoultryDisease, USDA, May 2004, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/birdbiosecurity/biosecurity/ba- sicspoultry.htm (last visited Feb. 21, 2012). 104. KeepingLivePoultry, CDC, http://www.cdc.gov/features/SalmonellaPoul- try/ (last visited Feb. 21, 2012). 105. See Shaohua Zhao, CharacterizationofSalmonellaEntericaSerotypeNewport IsolatedFromHumansandFoodAnimals, 41 J. Clinical Microbiology, No. 12, 5367 (2003) (stating that dogs and pigeons, as well as chickens, can carry salmonella); J. Hidalgo-Villa, SalmonellainFreeLivingTerrestrialand AquaticTurtles, 119:2-4 Veterinary Microbiology 311-15 (Jan. 2007). 106. KeepingLivePoultry, CDC, http://www.cdc.gov/features/SalmonellaPoul- try/ (last visited Feb. 21, 2012). 107. Sue L. Pollock et al., RaisingChickensinCityBackyards:hePublicHealth Role, J. Community Health, DOI: 10.1007/s10900-011-9504-1 (2011). D. Property Values Another common concern is that keeping backyard chick- ens will reduce surrounding property values.108 Several studies, however, have found that agricultural uses within the city actually increase property values.109 Community gardens increase neighboring property values by as much as 9.4% when the garden is irst implemented.110 he property value continues to increase as the gardens become more integrated into the neighborhood.111 he poorest neighbor- hoods, moreover, showed the greatest increase in property values.112 Studies have also found that rent increased and the rates of home ownership increased in areas surround- ing a newly opened community garden.113 Studies concerning pets, moreover, ind that apart- ment owners can charge higher rent for concessions such as allowing pets.114 hus, accommodating pets has been shown to raise property values. As of yet, no studies have been done on how backyard chickens in particular afect 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 afect them.115 E. Slaughter Some people are concerned that chicken owners will kill chickens in the backyard.116 People are concerned that it may be harmful to children in the neighborhood to watch a chicken being killed and prepared for a meal.117 Others are concerned that backyard slaughtering may be unsanitary.118 First, many who raise chickens keep the hens only for the eggs.119 Most egg-laying breeds do not make for tasty meat.120 Many people become attached to their chickens, as they would a cat or a dog, and treat a death 108. Salkin, supra note 9, at 1. 109. Hodgson, supra note 1, at 21. 110. Id. 111. Id. 112. Id. 113. Id. 114. G. Stacy Sirmans & C.F. Sirmans, RentalConcessionsandPropertyValues, 5:1 J. Real Estate Res. 141-51(1990); C.A. Smith, ApartmentRents—Is herea“Complex”Efect, 66:3 Appraisal J. (1998) (inding that average apartment unit commands $50 more rent per unit by allowing pets). 115. Michael Broadway, GrowingUrbanAgricultureinNorthAmericanCities: heExampleofMilwaukee, 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 ind it unsettling—if not outright upsetting—to consider eating them”). 120. Jay Rossier, Living With Chickens: Everything You Need to Know to Raise Your Own Backyard Flock 4 (2002) Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. . Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 27 42 ELR 10896 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 similarly.121 Veterinarians, moreover, have avenues for disposing of dead animals that are generally accepted in most communities.122 But, if a person did want to use her chickens for meat, there are other methods for butchering a chicken rather than doing so in the backyard. As part of the local food movement, small-scale butchers have made a comeback in the last few years, and many are particularly interested in locally raised animals.123 hus, legalizing backyard chick- ens does not necessarily mean that a city must also legalize backyard chicken slaughtering.124 F. Greenhouse Gases Although worries that chickens will increase greenhouse gases appears to be a bit over the top, at least one city raised this as a concern when contemplating allowing chickens. In Montgomery, Ohio, at least one city council member was fearful that allowing chickens to be raised in the city might contribute to global warming.125 While chickens do produce methane as a natural byproduct of digestion just like any other animal (includ- ing humans), the amount they produce is negligible in comparison to other livestock. Methane production is a concern largely conined to ruminant animals, such as cows, goats, and bufaloes.126 hese animals produce a large amount of methane every year because of the way in which they digest carbohydrates.127 Cows produce an average of 55 kilograms (kg) per year per cow.128 A goat will produce 5 kg per year, a pig 1.5, and a human 0.05.129 Chickens, because they are nonruminant animals, and because they are much smaller than humans, produce less than 0.05 kg per year per chicken.130 Finally, there is no reason to believe that an urban chicken would cause a net increase in the production of methane. A person who gets her eggs from her pet hen will likely be buying fewer eggs from the supermarket. hus, there is unlikely to be a net increase in egg consumption, so there is unlikely to be a net increase in chickens. hus, any 121. Jose Linares, UrbanChickens, Am. Veterinary Med. Ass’n Welfare Fo- cus, Apr. 2011, http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/AWFocus/ 110404/urban_chickens.asp. 122. Id. 123. Elizabeth Keyser, heButcher’sBack, Conn. Mag., Apr. 2011, http:// www.connecticutmag.com/Connecticut-Magazine/April-2011/he-Butcher- 039s-Back/. 124. Butsee Simon v. Cleveland Heights, 188 N.E. 308, 310 (Ohio Ct. App. 1933) (holding that a ban on poultry slaughtering applied to a small busi- ness butcher violated the Ohio Constitution because it prohibited the con- duct of a lawful business). 125. Valerie Taylor, Chickens for Montgomery (June 2009) http://www. scribd.com/doc/16509728/Changing-Your-Citys-Chicken-Laws (last vis- ited July 2, 2012) (responding to city’s concerns about increase in green- house gases). 126. See Methane,Sources,andEmissions, U.S. EPA, http://www.epa.gov/meth- ane/sources.html (last visited July 2, 2012). 127. Id. 128. Paul J. Crutzen et al., MethaneProductionbyDomesticAnimals,WildRumi- nants,OtherHerbivorousFaunaandHumans, 38B Tellus B. 271-74 (July- Sept. 1986). 129. Id. 130. Id. increase in methane production caused by urban chickens is not only negligible, but also likely ofset by a decrease in rural chickens.131 G. Winter Weather Northern cities may be concerned that their climate is not suitable for chickens. Chickens, however, were bred to thrive in certain climates. There are breeds of chicken that are more suited to warm or even hot cli- mates. And, there are chickens that were bred specifi- cally to thrive in colder weather, such as Rhode Island Reds or Plymouth Rocks.132 While even cold-hardy breeds can be susceptible to frostbite in extreme winter weather, a sturdy coop with some extra insulation and perhaps a hot water bottle on frigid nights can protect the birds from harm.133 H. Running Wild Of all of the chicken ordinances that this Article will later discuss, it appears that one of the most popular regula- tions is to prohibit chickens running wild in the streets.134 Chickens, like dogs and cats, sometimes escape their enclo- sures. While it would be irresponsible to presume that no chicken will ever escape its enclosure, city oicials can rest assured that chicken keepers do not want to see their hens escape any more than city oicials 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 inest coral red and tall, And battlemented like a castle wall. His bill was black and like the jet it glowed, His legs and toes like azure when he strode. His nails were whiter than the lilies bloom, Like burnished gold the color of his plume. Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales, The Nun’s Priest’s Tale135 131. Letter from Brian Woodruf, Environmental Planner Department of Natu- ral Resources, to Cameron Gloss (June 12, 2008), http://www.scribd.com/ doc/16509728/Changing-Your-Citys-Chicken-Laws. 132. Litt, supra note 7, at 119. 133. Id. 134. Seeinfra Part IV.C.5.a. 135. Ronald Ecker trans., Hodge & Braddock Publishers 1993 Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. . Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 28 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10897 A. Hens Are Social Animals Chickens are social animals and do better if they are kept in locks.136 Chickens can recognize one another and can remember up to 50 or 60 other chickens.137 Because of this, large locks of chickens, like those found in most inten- sive farming operations, are socially unstable and can cause aggressive behavior.138 In the wild, most locks form sub- groups of between four to six chickens.139 Chickens show ailiative behavior, eating together, preening together, gathering together in small groups if they are given space to do so, and sleeping at the same time.140 Chickens also learn behaviors from one another— for instance, chickens that watch another trained chicken peck a key to obtain food will learn this task more quickly than other chickens that are not exposed to the behavior.141 Because chickens are lock animals, a chicken left alone generally will not thrive.142 An isolated hen will often exhibit disturbed and self-destructive behaviors, like chas- ing its own tail and exhibiting excessive aggression.143 Because eating is social behavior, there are some reports that single chickens stop eating or eat less.144 While scien- tiic studies have yet to prove that a hen feels loneliness,145 backyard hen enthusiasts are well aware that an isolated hen will often appear depressed or ill.146 B. The Pecking Order We often use the term pecking order to describe a hierar- chy in a community. he term comes from the tendency for chickens to peck at one another and display aggressive behavior until a hierarchy is established.147 Once the hier- 136. Michael C. Appleby et al., Poultry Behavior and Welfare 35, 77-82 (2004); Heinrichs, supranote 39, at 11 (2007). 137. Nicolas Lampkin, OrganicPoultryProduction, Welsh Inst. of Rural Studies 20 (Mar. 1997), available at http://orgprints.org/9975/1/Organic_Poulty_ Production.pdf. 138. Appleby et al., supra note 136 (noting that chickens have increased ag- gression and increased growth of adrenal glands when they come in contact with other chickens they do not know and also noting that chickens are stressed by being kept in large locks because it is unlikely that birds in large locks can form a hierarchy: they are instead “in a constant state of trying to establish a hierarchy but never achieving it”). 139. Id. at 71; Lampkin, supra note 137, at 20. 140. Appleby et al., supra note 136, at 77-79. 141. Id. at 79. 142. Ian J.H. Duncan & Penny Hawkins, The Welfare of Domestic Fowl & Other Captive Birds 68-69 (2010). 143. D.G.M. Wood-Gush, The Behavior of the Domestic Fowl 124 (1971). 144. D.W. Rajecki et al., SocialFactorsintheFacilitationofFeedinginChick- ens:EfectsofImitation,Arousal,orDisinhibition?, 32 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 510-18 (Sept. 1975). Martine Adret-Hausberger & Robin B. Cumming, SocialExperienceandSelectionofDietinDomesticChickens, 7 Bird Behavior 37-43 (1987) (inding that isolated young broilers had lower growth rates than those placed with other birds). 145. Appleby et al., supra note 136, at 142 (suggesting that poultry may suf- fer from loneliness and boredom and that “[c]onsidering the barrenness of many husbandry systems, boredom would seem to be a good candidate for further studies”) 146. See,e.g., DoChickensGetLonely, Backyard Poultry Forum (Friday, Feb. 13, 2009), http://forum.backyardpoultry.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t= 7970419&start=0 (last visited Mar. 4, 2012). 147. Alphaeus M. Guhl, SocialBehavioroftheDomesticFowl, 71 Transactions Kan. Acad. Sci. (1968). Gladwyn K. Noble, heRoleofDominanceinthe archy is established, the aggressive behavior will lessen or even abate until new birds are added to the lock or until a hen mounts a challenge to someone above her in the peck- ing order.148 Studies have shown, however, that incidence of pecking is greatly reduced when hens are kept in lower densities.149 (Feather pecking is often a problem in large-scale chicken farms.)150 When densities were approximately six or fewer birds per 10 square feet, pecking behaviors abated or were signiicantly reduced.151 Because a new introduction into the lock will upset the pecking order, some farmers advocate for introducing at least two chicks at a time.152 his 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 ind a new hierarchy that will include the new birds instead of leaving one isolated hen at the bottom of the lock.153 For these reasons, chicken owners should always be allowed to keep, at a minimum, four chickens. his ensures that city regulations do not stand in the way of good lock management: if any hens are lost through injury, illness, or old age, the chicken owner can ensure that the lock never goes below two hens before seeking to add new hens. his will also allow the owner to introduce new hens into the lock 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. he more prevalent chicken predators in the United States— foxes, coyotes, and bobcats—are found less often in the city than they are in more rural areas.154 Other predators, however, such as hawks and raccoons, are frequently found in the city.155 hese predators are one reason why chickens must have sturdy coops that are designed to protect hens from assault. Chickens have an instinct to return to their coop each night.156 And most predators are more active at night when SocialLifeofBirds, 56 The Auk 263 (July 1939). 148. Litt, supra note 7, at 122. Alphaeus M. Guhl et al., MatingBehaviorand theSocialHierarchyinSmallFlocksofWhiteLeghorns, 18 Physiological Zoology 365-68 (Oct. 1945). 149. B. Huber-Eicher & L. Audigé, AnalysisofRiskFactorsfortheOccurrenceof FeatherPeckingAmongLayingHenGrowers, 40 British Poultry Sci. 599- 604 (1999) (demonstrating through a study of commercial hen farms in Switzerland that hens were far less likely to feather peck if they were kept in low-density environments and if they had access to elevated perches). 150. Id. 151. Id. 152. Litt, supra note 7, at 122-23. 153. Id. 154. See,e.g., Stanley D. Gehrt et al., HomeRangeandLandscapeUseofCoyotesin aMetropolitanLandscape:ConlictorCoexistence, J. Mammalogy, 1053-55 (2009); Seth P.D. Riley, SpatialEcologyofBobcatsandGrayFoxesinUrban andRuralZonesofaNationalPark, 70(5) J. Wildlife Mgmt. 1425-35 (2006). 155. Williams, supra note 75, at 88-89. 156. Litt, supra note 7, at 71 Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. . Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 29 42 ELR 10898 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 the chickens are sleeping in their coops.157 While there is no guarantee that predators will not ind a way to prey on chickens, ensuring that coops are sturdily built with the intention to keep out predators can help ameliorate con- cerns with predators.158 D. Roosters Like to Crow Even city-dwellers who have never met a rooster know that roosters crow. But the popular belief, passed on in chil- dren’s cartoons, that roosters crow in the morning like an alarm clock to welcome the rising sun is largely a myth. Roosters may crow in the morning, but they also crow in the afternoon or evening or, basically, whenever they feel like it.159 While the frequency of crowing depends on the breed and the individual rooster, many roosters crow a lot.160 In fact, because domestic roosters crow so much more frequently than their wild kin, one theory postulates that they were bred over many centuries for loud, long, and frequent crowing because such crowing played an impor- tant role in Zoroastrian religious ceremonies.161 Because roosters are noisy and frequently so, cities that have more dense urban environments should consider ban- ning them—at least on smaller lot sizes. Some cities have allowed an exception for “decrowed” roosters162: some veterinarians used to ofer a “decrowing” procedure that would remove the rooster’s voicebox. Because of its high mortality rate—over 50%—veterinarians no longer ofer 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. his is simply not true; hens do not need roosters to lay eggs.164 In fact, it is likely that every egg you have ever eaten was produced by a hen that never met a rooster.165 he 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 lock, rather than sending away for mail-order chicks, some chicken own- ers would like to keep a rooster around or at least allow it to visit. To address this concern, at least one city that bans roosters allows “conjugal visits.” Hopewell Town- 157. Gehrt, supra note 154, at 1053. 158. Williams, supra note 75, at 88-89. 159. Heinrichs, supra note 39, at 16. 160. Id. 161. Appleby et al., supra note 136, at 36-37. 162. See,e.g., Phoenix, Ariz., City Code §8-7(c) (2011). 163. SmallandBackyardFlocks, Ky. U. Ext., http://www.ca.uky.edu/smalllocks/ faq.html#Q31 (last visited Feb. 17, 2012). 164. SmallandBackyardFlocks, Ky. U. Ext., http://www.ca.uky.edu/smalllocks/ faq.html#Q11 (last visited Feb. 17, 2012). 165. Id. 166. Id. ship, New Jersey, allows roosters that are certiied disease- free to visit a hen lock for 10 days out of every year.167 Although news about the township’s policy garnered national attention for its quirkiness, it may work as a solu- tion for hen owners seeking to add to their lock without having to buy new chicks.168 IV. The Current State of Municipal Ordinances Governing Backyard Chickens Such a ine pullet ought to go All coifured to a winter show, And be exhibited, and win. he answer is this one has been— And come with all her honors home. Her golden leg, her coral comb, Her luf of plumage, white as chalk, Her style, were all the fancy’s talk Robert Frost, ABlueRibbonatAmesbury (1916). A. Introduction To determine the current state of chicken legislation in the United States, the laws of the top 100 cities by population, according to the 2000 census are surveyed in this Article.169 Currently, 94% of these cities allow for chickens in some manner.170 While many cities impose various restrictions 167. NJTownLimitsConjugalVisitsBetweenRoosters&Hens, Huffington Post, Apr. 27, 2011, http://www.huingtonpost.com/2011/04/28/nj-limits-chicken- mating_n_854404.html. 168. Because chick hatcheries have been a source of salmonella, some backyard hen keepers may prefer to propagate their own lock. See,e.g., Serena Gordon, hey’reCute,ButBabyChicksCanHarborSalmonella, U.S. News & World Re- port, May 30, 2012, http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/ 2012/05/30/theyre-cute-but-baby-chicks-can-harbor-salmonella. 169. CitiesWith100,000orMorePopulationin2000RankedbyPopulation,2000 inRankOrder, U.S. Census, http://www.census.gov/statab/ccdb/cit1020r. txt (last visited Jan. 26, 2012). 170. Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92-18 (2011); Albuquerque, N.M., Code of Ordinances §9-2-4-3 (2011); Anaheim, Cal., Mun. Code §18.38.030 (2011); Anchorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances tit. 17, 21 (2011); Arlington, Tex., Ordinances Governing Animals §5.02 (2010); Atlanta, Ga., Code of Ordinances §18-7 (2011); Augus- ta-Richmond, Ga., Code of Ordinances tit. 4, art. 2 (2007); Aurora, Colo., Code of Ordinances §14-8 (2011); Austin, Tex., Code of Ordi- nances tit. III, ch. 3.1.1 (2011); Baltimore, Md., Health Code §10-312 (2011); Bakersfield, Cal., Mun. Code §6.08.10 (2011); Baton Rouge, La., Code of Ordinances §14:224 (2011); Birmingham, Ala., Zoning Ordinance §2.4.1 (2007); Bos., Mass., Code of Ordinances §16-1.8A (2010); Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11 (2009); Charlotte, N.C., Code of Ordinances §3-102 (2010); Chesapeake, Va., Code of Ordi- nances ch. 10 (2011); id. Zoning art. 3; Chi., ill., Code of Ordinances §17-12-300 (2011); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances ch. 701 (2011); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §205.04, 347.02 (2011); Colorado Springs, Colo., City Code §6.7.106(D) (2011); Co- lumbus, Ohio, City Code tit. III, ch. 221 (2011); Corpus Christi, Tex., Code of Ordinances §§6-153, 6-154 (2011); Dallas, Tex., Code of Ordinances §7-1.1 (2011); Denver, Colo., Mun. Code §8-91 (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011); El Paso, Tex., Mun. Code §7.24.020 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex., Code of Ordinances §11A-22 (2011); Fremont, Cal., Mun. Code §3-5803 (2011); Fresno, Cal., Mun. Code §§10.201-10.205 (2011); Garland, Tex. Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. , Code of Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 30 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10899 on keeping chickens through zoning, setbacks, and per- mitting requirements, only three of the top 100 cities have ordinances that clearly ban the keeping of chickens within city limits: Detroit, Aurora, and Yonkers.171 hree others have unclear ordinances that city oicials have interpreted as banning backyard chickens: Grand Rapids, Fort Wayne, and Lubbock.172 An additional 10 cities, while allowing for chickens, restrict them to either very large lots or only to Ordinances §22.14 (2011); Glendale, Ariz., Code of Ordinances pt. II, art. 5 (2010); Glendale, Cal., Mun. Code §6.04.130 (2011); Greens- boro, N.C., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11.3 (2011); Hialeah, Fla., Code of Ordinances §§10.1, 10.2 (2011); Honolulu, Haw., Rev. Or- dinances §7-2.5(d) (1990); Houston, Tex., Code of Ordinances ch. 6, art. II (2010); Indianapolis, Ind., Rev. Code tit. III, ch. 531 (2011); Irving, Tex., Code of Ordinances 6-1 (2011) (not regulating chickens at all); Jacksonville, Fla., Ordinance Code tit. XIII, ch. 462, tit. XVII, ch. 656 (2011); Jersey City, N.J., Code of Ordinances §90-6 (2011); Kan- sas City, Mont., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev., Mun. Code §7.38.050 (2011); Lexington-Fayette, Ky., Code of Or- dinances §4-10 (2011); Lincoln, Neb., Mun. Code §6.04.040 (2011); Long Beach, Cal., Mun. Code §6.20.020 (2011); L.A., Cal., Mun. Code §§12.01, 12.05-12.09 (2011); Louisville, Ky., Metro Code ch. 91 (2011); Madison, Wis., Code of Ordinances ch. 28 (no date listed); id. §7.29; id. §9.52; Memphis, Tenn., Code of Ordinances §8-8-1 (2009); Mesa, Ariz., City Code §8-6-21 (2011); Miami, Fla., Code of Ordi- nances §6-1(b) (2011); Milwaukee, Wis., Code of Ordinances §78- 6.5 (2011); Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances §70.10 (2011); Mobile, Ala., Code of Ordinances §7-102 (2011); Montgomery, Ala., Code of Ordinances ch. 4, art. I (2011); id. app. C, art. VII; Nashville- Davidson, Tenn., Mun. Code §§8-12-020, 17-16-330 (2011); New Or- leans, La., Code of Ordinances pt. II, ch. 18, art. VI (2011); N.Y.C., Mun. Code §65-23 (1990); Newark, N.J., General Ordinances §6:2- 30 (2010); Norfolk, Va., Code of Ordinances §§4-05, 6.1-7 (2011); Oakland, Cal., Code of Ordinances §6-04-320 (2011); Oklahoma City, Okla., Mun. Code tit. 8, 59 (2011); Omaha, Neb., Code of Or- dinances §6-266 (2011); Phila., Pa., Code §10-112 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz., City Code §§8-7, 8-10 (2011); Pittsburgh, Pa., Code of Ordi- nances §§635.02, 911.04.A.2 (2011); Plano, Tex., Code of Ordinances §4-184 (2011); Portland, Or., City Code §13.05.015 (2011); Raleigh, N.C., Code of Ordinances §§12-3001, 12-3004 (2011); Richmond, Va., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011); Riverside, Cal., Code of Ordinances §6.04.20 (2011); id. tit. 17; Rochester, N.Y., City Ordi- nances §§30-12, 30-19 (no date listed); Sacremento, Cal., City Code §9-44-340 (2011); St. Louis, Mo., Code of Ordinances §10.20.015 (2010); St. Paul, Minn., §198.02 (2011); St. Petersburg, Fla., Code of Ordinances §4-31 (2011); San Antonio, Tex., Code of Ordinances §5-109 (2011); San Diego, Cal., Mun. Code §42.0709 (2011); San Francisco, Cal., Health Code §37 (2011); San Jose, Cal., Code of Ordinances tit. 7 (2007); Santa Ana, Cal., Code of Ordinances §5.6 (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz., Code of Ordinances §4-17 (2011); Seattle, Wash., Mun. Code §23.42.052 (2011); Shreveport, La., Code of Ordi- nances ch. 106 (2011); Spokane, Wash., Mun. Code §17C.310.010 (no date listed); Stockton, Cal., Mun. Code §§6.04.420, 16.80.060 (2011); Tacoma, Wash., Mun. Code §5.30.010 (2011); Tampa, Fla., Code of Ordinances §19.76 (2008); Tucson, Ariz., Code of Ordinances ch. 4, art. VI (2011); Toledo, Ohio, Mun. Code §§505.07(a)(4), 1705.07 (2011); Tulsa, Okla., Code of Ordinances §200(d)(e) (2011); Wash., D.C., Mun. Regulations for Animal Control §902.1 (no date listed); Wichita, Kan., Code of Ordinances §6.04.157 (2011). 171. Aurora, Colo., Code of Ordinances §14-8 (2011); Detroit, Mich., City Code §6-1-3 (2010); Yonkers, N.Y.C., Mun. Code §65-23 (1990). 172. Fort Wayne, Ind., Code of Ordinances §157.104 (2011) (banning live- stock within the city, even though chickens are not listed in the deinition of livestock, the animal control department says that the city interprets chicken as livestock); Grand Rapids, Mich., Code of Ordinances §8.582 (2010) (“No farm animal shall be kept or allowed to be kept within any dwelling or dwelling unit or within one hundred (100) feet of any dwelling, dwell- ing unit, well, spring, stream, drainage ditch or drain.”); Lubbock, Tex., City Ordinance §4.07.001 (2011) (permitting chickens “in those areas appropriately permitted by the zoning ordinances of the city” when zoning ordinances are silent). agriculturally zoned land.173 Because such restrictions will exclude most people within the city from being able to keep hens, if such restrictions are interpreted to be a ban on chickens, then 84% of cities can be considered to allow for chickens. Within that 84%, there is a wide range of how cities reg- ulate chickens—ranging from no regulation174 to a great deal of very speciic ordinances governing where chickens can be located,175 how coops must be built,176 and how often chickens must be fed and coops must be cleaned.177 Some of these cities also have restrictive setbacks or other regulations that will prohibit some residents from owning chickens—especially residents in multi-family dwellings or who live on small lots in a dense area of the city.178 As described more fully below, there is no uniformity in the ways that cities regulate chickens; each city’s ordinance is unique. Regulations are placed in diferent areas of a city’s codiied ordinances. Some regulations are spread through- out the code, making it diicult for a chicken owner to determine how to comply with the city’s ordinances. Some cities regulate through zoning, others through animal regulations, and others through the health code.179 Some cities simply deine chickens as pets and provide no regula- tions at all.180 Each of these methods of regulation will be explored in more detail below. Although other surveys of urban chicken laws have been done, no basis was given for the choice of the cities sur- 173. Birmingham, Ala., Zoning Ordinance §2.4.1 (2007) (restricting chick- ens to land zoned for agricultural use); Chesapeake, Va., Code of Ordi- nances ch. 10 (2011); id. Zoning art. 3 (restricting to low-density zones and restricting to properties of one acre or more); Hialeah, Fla., Code of Ordinances §§10.1, 10.2 (2011) (restricting chickens to land zoned for agricultural use); Jacksonville, Fla., Ordinance Code tit. XIII, ch. 462, tit. XVII, ch. 656 (2011) (restricting chickens to agricultural or low- density residential zones); Montgomery, Ala., Code of Ordinances ch. 4 art. I (2011); id. app. C, art. VII (restricting chickens to agricultural or low-density residential zones); Norfolk, Va., Code of Ordinances, app. A, art. II, §4-0.5 (2011) (restricting chickens to properties of ive acres or more); Oklahoma City,Okla., Mun. Code tit. 8, 59 (2011) (restricting chickens to properties with one acre or more); Phila., Pa., Code of Ordi- nances §10-112 (2011) (restricting chickens to properties with three acres or more); Richmond, Va., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) (restrict- ing chickens to properties with one acre or more); Virginia Beach, Va., City Code §5-545, app. A (2011) (restricting chickens to land zoned for agricultural use). 174. E.g., N.Y.C., Mun. Code §65-23 (1990) (only regulating chickens if they are kept for sale: “A person who holds a permit to keep for sale or sell live rabbits or poultry shall keep them in coops and runwasy and prevent them from being at large.”); Chi., ill., Code of Ordinances §17-12-300 (2011) (“No person shall own keep, or otherwise possess, or slaughter any . . . poultry, rabbit, dog, cat, or any other animal intending to use such ani- mal for food purposes.”) Chicago’s ordinance has been interpreted to allow keeping chickens for eggs. Kara Spak, RaisingChickensLegalinChicago,and PeopleAreCrowingAboutIt, Chi. Sun Times, Aug. 13, 2011, http://www. suntimes.com/news/metro/6942644-418/city-of-chicken-coops.html; Ir- ving, Tex., Code of Ordinances 6-1 (2011) (not regulating chickens). 175. Seeinfra V.C.2 176. Seeinfra V.C.5.c. 177. Seeinfra V.C.5.b. 178. Seeinfra V.C.4. 179. Seeinfra V.B. 180. Seeinfra V.A Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. . Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 31 42 ELR 10900 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 veyed181 and the survey sizes were far smaller.182 By choos- ing the largest cities in the United States by population, this survey is meant to give a snapshot of what kind of laws govern the most densely populated urban areas. An understanding of how large cosmopolitan areas approach backyard chickens can help smaller cities determine the best way to fashion an ordinance.183 Several aspects of these ordinances will be examined. First, the area within the codiied ordinances that the city chooses to regulate chickens will be discussed.184 Next, regulations based on space requirements, zoning require- ments, and setbacks will be examined.185 After that, the diferent sorts of sanitation requirements that cities impose will be examined, including looking at how speciic or gen- eral those requirements are.186 hen, the coop construction requirements, including how much space a city requires per chicken, will be examined.187 Next, cities’ use of per- mits to regulate chickens will be evaluated.188 he Article will then discuss anti-slaughter laws.189 Finally, the preva- lence of banning roosters will be discussed, while noting 181. See Orbach & Sjoberg, DebatingBackyardChickens; Sarah Schindler, Of BackyardChickensandFrontYardGarden:heConlictBetweenLocalGov- ernmentandLocavores, 87 Tul. L. Rev. (forthcoming Nov. 2, 2012); Patricia Salkin, FeedingtheLocavores,OneChickenataTime:RegulatingBackyard Chickens, 34:3 Zoning & Plan. L. Rep. 1 (Mar. 2011); Kieran Miller, BackyardChickenPolicy:LessonsFromVancouver,Seattle,andNiagaraFalls, QSPACE at Queens U. (2011), http://qspace.library.queensu.ca/han- dle/1974/6521; Katherine T. Labadie, ResidentialUrbanKeeping:AnExam- inationof25Cities, U.N.M. Research Paper (2008) http://www.google. com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CE0QFjAA &url=http%3A%2F%2F66.147.242.185%2F~urbanch5%2Fwp-content %2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2FOrdinance-research-paper.pdf&ei=f_ T5T8jOLcrjqgGP5NGKCQ&usg=AFQjCNE-ArE_uYe4XcKDfhMrwS a4mOLfQw&sig2=UcWfdU1smpoifnqTiE_wvA; Jennifer Blecha, Urban LifeWithLivestock:PerformingAlternativeImaginarieshroughSmallStock UrbanLivestockAgricultureintheUnitedStates, Proquest Information and Learning Company (2007). Seealso ChickenL.O.R.EProject:Chicken LawsandOrdinancesandYourRightsandEntitlements, Backyard Chick- ens.com, http://www.backyardchickens.com/t/310268/chicken-lore- project-ind-submit-local-chicken-laws-ordinances (last visited Feb. 20, 2012) (providing an extensive community-created database of municipal chicken laws). 182. Poultry2010,ReferenceoftheHealthandManagementofChickenStocksin UrbanSettingsinFourU.S.Cities, USDA, May 2011 (studying the urban chicken population in Denver, Los Angeles, Miami, and New York City). 183. Also, this survey is necessarily frozen in time for publicly accessible ordi- nances as of December of 2011. his is because at least two cities have already changed their ordinances to allow for more comprehensive and permissive livestock regulations—Pittsburgh and San Diego. Diana Nel- son-Jones, PittsburghUrbanChickenCoopTourtoBeHeldonSunday, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 9, 2011, http://www.post-gazette.com/ pg/11160/1152234-34.stm (stating that Pittsburgh had amended its ordi- nances to allow for 3 chickens for every 2,000 square feet of property); Adrian Florino, SanDiegoCityCouncilApprovesBackyardChickens,Goats, andBees, KPBS, Feb. 1, 2012, http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/feb/01/ san-diego-city-council-approves-backyard-chickens-/. hese ordinances, however, have not yet been codiied within the cities code and, thus, are not yet publicly accessible. Although this Article intends to use the most recent ordinances, because of the size of the sample, and because of the scattered news coverage and the signiicant lag time in updating city codes, the author cannot be sure that other cities have not amended their ordinances. hus, 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 classiication of common concerns. hrough this review, regulatory norms will be identiied and especially efective, novel, or eccentric regulations will be noted. Norms and efective regulations will be taken into account in constructing a model ordinance. he most thoughtful, efective, and popular regulations from each of these ordinances will be incorporated into these recom- mendations. Also, data discussed in the irst 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. hese more general impressions will include identifying some themes in these regulations based on population size and region. 1. The More Populous the City, the More Likely It Is to Allow for Backyard Chickens When reviewing the overall results of the survey concern- ing whether a city allows chickens or bans them, a pat- tern emerges based on population size. At least among the top 100 cities by population, the smaller the city, the greater the chance that the city will ban chickens. Of the top 10 cities by population, all of them allow for chickens in some way.191 Of those top 10 cities, however, Philadel- phia has fairly strict zoning restrictions that only allows chickens in lots of three acres or larger.192 And, of the top 50 cities by population, only one city bans chickens outright: Detroit.193 But in the last 20 of the top 100 cities, four of them ban chickens: Yonkers, Grand Rapids, Fort Wayne, and Lubbock.194 So, within that subset, only 80% of the cit- 190. Infra V.C.8. 191. he 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. he last 20 of the top 100 cities from most populous to least populous: Glendale, Ariz., Code of Ordinances pt. II, art. 5 (2010); Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92-18 (2011); Garland, Tex., Code of Ordinances §22.14 (2011); Madison, Wis., Code of Ordinances ch. 28 (no date listed); id. §7.29; id. §9.52; Fort Wayne, Ind., Code of Or- dinances §157.104 (2011); Fremont, Cal., Mun. Code §3-5803 (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz., Code of Ordinances §4-17 (2011); Montgom- ery, Ala., Code of Ordinances ch. 4 art. I (2011); id. app. C, art. VII; Shreveport, La., Code of Ordinances ch. 106 (2011); Lubbock, Tex., City Code §4.07.001 (2011); Chesapeake, Va., Code of Ordinances ch. 10 (2011); id. Zoning art. 3; Mobile, Ala., Code of Ordinances §7-102 (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011); Grand Rapids, Mich., Code of Ordinances §8.582 (2010); Richmond, Va., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011); Yonkers, N.Y., §65-23 (1990); Spokane, Wash., Mun. Code §17C.310.100 (no date listed); Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Augusta- Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 32 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10901 ies allow for chickens. his 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 diicult to draw regional distinctions from a limited set of data, it does appear that the states in what is colloquially called the Rustbelt are more likely to ban chickens. In Michigan, both cities within the top 100, Detroit and Grand Rapids, ban chickens.195 And in Pennsylvania, similarly, both of its most populated cit- ies, for the most part, ban chickens.196 Philadelphia only allows chickens on lots of three acres or more—far more than the average lot size in Philadelphia.197 Pittsburgh, although it recently amended its ordinances,198 used to allow chickens only on parcels of ive acres or more.199 In either event, in both cities, keeping chickens is limited to property sizes that are far larger than the average for an urban area. Within the Rustbelt states, Ohio stands out for legaliz- ing chickens. All ive of its major cities currently allow for chickens: Akron, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Toledo.200 Columbus and Akron have far more restrictive Richmond, Ga., Code of Ordinances tit. 4, art. 2 (2007); Glendale, Cal., Mun. Code §6.04 (2011); Tacoma, Wash., Mun. Code §5.30.010 (2011); Irving, Tex., Code of Ordinances pt. II, ch. 6 (2011). 195. Detroit, Mich., City Code §6-1-3 (2010) (prohibits owning farm ani- mals and deines 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 oicials have interpreted this to ban chickens.); butsee Ann Arbor, Mich., Code of Ordinances tit. IX, ch. 107, §9:42 (allowing up to four chickens in single-family or two-family dwellings if a permit is secured and regula- tions are followed). 196. Phila. §10-112; Pittsburgh, Pa., Code of Ordinances §§635.02, 911.04.A.2 (2011). 197. Susan Wachter, heDeterminantsofNeighborhoodTransformationsin PhiladelphiaIdentiicationandAnalysis:heNewKensingtonPilotStudy, Spring 2005, The Wharton School, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t &rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http %3A%2F%2Fkabailiates.org%2FuploadedFiles%2FKAB_Ailiates.org %2FWharton%2520Study%2520NK%2520final.pdf&ei=X40hT56_ OOjCsQLogpyhCQ&usg=AFQjCNH-DYO3ImfVNsESWy6QZ9-79aW 87A&sig2=C2IvyXmR7twhy4K5RZYk-A (last visited Jan. 26, 2012) (ind- ing that the average lot size within the New Kensington area of Philadelphia was just over 1,000 square feet). 198. Diana Nelson-Jones, PittsburghUrbanChickenCoopTourtoBeHeldon Sunday, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 9, 2011, http://www.post- gazette.com/pg/11160/1152234-34.stm (stating that Pittsburgh had amended its ordinances to allow for three chickens for every 2,000 square feet of property). 199. Pittsburgh, Pa., Code of Ordinances §911.04(A)(2) (2011). 200. Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92-18 (2011); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances ch. 701 (2011); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Or- dinances §§205.04, 347.02 (2011); Columbus, Ohio, City Code tit. III, ch. 221 (2011); Toledo, Ohio, Mun. Code §§505.07(a)(4), 1705.07 (2011). ordinances, however. Columbus requires a permit to keep chickens and allows its Health Commissioner discretion over granting and revoking that permit.201 Akron requires chickens to be kept at least 100 feet from any dwelling, which will restrict owners of small parcels in densely popu- lated areas from raising chickens.202 In 2009, Cleveland passed a comprehensive ordinance legalizing chickens and bees.203 Cleveland allows for one chicken per 800 square feet, which would allow up to six chickens on a standard residential lot.204 Cleveland also has minimal setbacks and detailed coop requirements.205 And Cincinnati and Toledo have even more liberal ordi- nances, allowing for chickens as long as they do not create a nuisance.206 Virginia also stands out for restricting chickens. All four of Virginia’s cities within the top 100 cities by population—Chesapeake, Norfolk, Richmond, and Vir- ginia Beach—restrict chickens to large lots or to lands zoned agricultural.207 B. Where Regulations Concerning Chickens Are Placed Within a City’s Codiied Ordinances he survey reveals that there is little consistency in where cities choose to locate chicken regulations within their cod- iied 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 efective it is. 201. Columbus §221.05: he Health Commissioner may grant permission only after it is determined that the keeping of such animals: (1) creates no adverse environmental or health efects; (2) is in compliance with all other sections of this chapter; and (3)  in the judgment of the Health Commissioner, after consultation with the staf 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 inofensive. he 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 ofensive odors or unsanitary conditions which are a menace to the health, comfort or safety of the public.”). 207. Chesapeake, Va., Code of Ordinances ch. 10 (2011); id. Zoning art. 3 (restricting to low-density zones and restricting to properties of one acre or more); Norfolk, Va., Code of Ordinances, app. A, art. II §4-0.5 (2011) (restricting chickens to properties of ive acres or more); Richmond, Va., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) (restricting chickens to properties with one acre or more); Virginia Beach, Va., City Code §5-545, app. A (2011) (restricting chickens to land zoned for agricultural use) Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. . Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 33 42 ELR 10902 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 1. Animal Control Regulations Seventy-one of the cities regulate chickens under their ani- mal control ordinances.208 his makes sense, because chick- ens are animals and this is the natural place for would-be chicken owners to look to make sure that they won’t get into legal trouble. Regulating chickens under animal con- trol also leads to fairly easy-to-follow ordinances. Chickens are either allowed, or they are not. And, if there are further regulations concerning lot size, setbacks, or coop require- ments, they are usually all in one place. 208. Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92-18 (2011); Anchorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances tit. 17, 21 (2011); Augusta-Richmond, Ga., Code of Ordinances tit. 4, art. 2 (2007); Aurora, Colo., Code of Ordinances §14-8 (2011); Austin, Tex., Code of Ordinances tit. III, ch. 3.1.1 (2011); Atlanta, Ga., Code of Ordinances §18-7 (2011); Ba- kersfield, Cal., Mun. Code §6.08.10 (2011); Baltimore, Md., Health Code §10-312 (2011); Baton Rouge, La., Code of Ordinances §14:224 (2011); Charlotte, N.C., Code of Ordinances §3-102 (2010); Cincin- nati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances ch. 701 (2011); Colorado Springs, Colo., City Code §6.7.106(D) (2011); Corpus Christi, Tex., Code of Ordinances §§6-153, 6-154 (2011); Dallas, Tex., Code of Ordi- nances §7-1.1 (2011); Denver, Colo., Mun. Code §8-91 (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011); Detroit, Mich., City Code §6-1-3 (2010); El Paso, Tex., Mun. Code §7.24.020 (2011); Fremont, Cal., Mun. Code §3-5803 (2011); Garland, Tex., Code of Ordinances §22.14 (2011); Glendale, Ariz., Code of Ordinances pt. II, art. 5 (2010); Glendale, Cal., Mun. Code §6.04 (2011); Grand Rapids, Mich., Code of Ordinances §8.582 (2010); Hialeah, Fla., Code of Ordinances §§10.1, 10.2 (2011); Honolulu, Haw., Rev. Or- dinances §7-2.5(d) (1990); Houston, Tex., Code of Ordinances ch. 6, art. II (2010); Indianapolis, Ind., Rev. Code tit. III, ch. 531 (2011); Irving, Tex., Code of Ordinances 6-1 (2011); Jersey City, N.J., Code of Ordinances §90-6 (2011); Kansas City, Mo., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev., Mun. Code §7.38.050 (2011); Lex- ington-Fayette, Ky., Code of Ordinances §4-10 (2011); Lincoln, Neb., Mun. Code §6.04.040 (2011); Long Beach, Cal., Mun. Code §6.20.020 (2011); Louisville, Ky., Metro Code ch. 91 (2011); Mem- phis, Tenn., Code of Ordinances §8-8-1 (2009); Miami, Fla., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011); Milwaukee, Wis., Code of Ordinances §78-6.5 (2011); Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances §70.10 (2011); Mobile, Ala., Code of Ordinances §7-102 (2011); Mont- gomery, Ala., Code of Ordinances ch. 4, art. I (2011); id. app. C, art. VII; Newark, N.J., Gen. Ordinances §6:2-29 (2010); New Orleans, La., Code of Ordinances pt. II, ch. 18, art. VI (2011); N.Y.C., Mun. Code §65-23 (1990); Norfolk, Va., Code of Ordinances §§4-05, 6.1-7 (2011); Oakland, Cal., Code of Ordinances §6-04-320 (2011); Okla- homa City, Okla., Mun. Code tit. 8, 59 (2011); Omaha, Neb., Code of Ordinances §6-266 (2011); Phila., Pa., Code §10-112 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz., City Code §§8-7, 8-10 (2011); Pittsburgh, Pa., Code of Ordi- nances §§635.02, 911.04.A.2 (2011); Plano, Tex., Code of Ordinances §4-184 (2011); Portland, Or., City Code §13.05.015 (2011); Raleigh, N.C., Code of Ordinances §§12-3001, 12-3004 (2011); Richmond, Va., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011); Rochester, N.Y., City Or- dinances §30-12, 30-19 (no date listed); Sacremento, Cal., City Code §9-44-340 (2011); St. Louis, Mo., Code of Ordinances §10.20.015 (2010); St. Petersburg, Fla., Code of Ordinances §4-31 (2011); St. Paul, Minn., §198.02 (2011); San Antonio, Tex., Code of Ordinances §5-109 (2011); San Jose, Cal., Code of Ordinances tit. 7 (2007); Santa Ana, Cal., Code of Ordinances §5.6 (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz., Code of Ordinances §4-17 (2011); Stockton, Cal., Mun. Code §§6.04.420, 16.80.060 (2011); Toledo, Ohio, Mun. Code §505.07(a)(4); Tucson, Ariz., Code of Ordinances ch. 4, art. VI (2011); Tulsa, Okla., Code of Ordinances §200(d)(e) (2011); Virginia Beach, Va., City Code §5-545, app. A (2011); Wash., D.C., Mun. Regulations for Animal Control §902.1 (no date listed); Wichita, Kan., Code of Ordinances §6.04.157 (2011); Yonkers, N.Y., §65-23 (1990). 2. Zoning Regulations Fourteen cities regulate chickens primarily under their zoning laws.209 hese cities are much more likely to sub- stantially restrict raising hens.210 It also makes it much more diicult 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. hese laws also tend to sow unnecessary confusion. For instance, Lubbock Texas’ law on paper would seem to allow for hens, but the city has exploited its vagaries to ban backyard chickens. Lubbock creates a loop within its ordinances by providing within the animal section of its code that chickens are allowed if the zoning ordinance permits it,211 and then providing in its zoning ordinance that chickens are allowed if the animal code permits it.212 he Lubbock city clerk resolved the loop by stating that the city interprets these provisions to entirely ban chickens within the city.213 Finally, cities that regulate chickens primarily through zoning laws do so, presumptively, because they want to restrict raising chickens to certain zones. his, 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. his is not an eicient use of a city’s limited resources.214 In addition, other regulations pertaining to chickens, such as setbacks, coop construction, or sanitary require- ments, can get lost among the many building regulations within the zoning code. Zoning codes are generally written for an expert audience of businesses, builders, and devel- opers, and not for the lay audience that would comprise 209. Anaheim, Cal., Mun. Code §18.38.030 (2011); Birmingham, Ala., Zoning Ordinance §2.4.1 (2007); Chesapeake, Va., Code of Or- dinances ch. 10 (2011); id. Zoning art. 3; Fresno, Cal., Mun. Code §§12-205.1-12-207.5 (2011); Glendale, Cal., Mun. Code §6.04 (2011); Greensboro, N.C., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11.3 (2011); Jackson- ville, Fla., Ordinance Code tit. XIII, ch. 462, tit. XVII, ch. 656 (2011); L.A., Cal., Mun. Code §§12.01, 12.05-12.09 (2011); Lubbock, Tex., City Code §4.07.001 (2011); Madison, Wis., Code of Ordinances ch. 28 (no date listed); id. §7.29; Seattle, Wash., Mun. Code §23.42.052; Wash., Mun. Code of Ordinances §6.04.20 (2011); id. tit. 17; id. §9.52; Shreveport, La., Code of Ordinances ch. 106 (2011); Spokane, Wash., Mun. Code §17C.310.100. 210. Anaheim, Birmingham, Jacksonville, and Lubbock either ban hens alto- gether or restrict hens to certain zones. See Anaheim §18.38.030; Birming- ham §2.4.1; Jacksonville tit. XVIII, ch. 462, tit. XVII, ch. 656; Lubbock §4.07.001. 211. Lubbock §4.07.001. 212. Id. §40.03.3103. 213. See Interview with Lubbock city clerk (on ile with author). 214. E.g., Schindler, supra note 181, 68-71 (arguing that the movement toward urban agriculture should cause cities to reconsider Euclidean zoning because such zoning no longer serves the needs of the cities and its residents) Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. . Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 34 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10903 chicken owners.215 If cities are concerned about raising chickens too near businesses or neighbors, other regula- tions like setbacks from the street and neighboring proper- ties can ameliorate this concern without having to include the regulation in the zoning code. Regulations placed within the animal code, as described above, are generally in one place and often within a single ordinance. his leads to a better understanding of the law for chicken owners and, thus, easier enforcement for city oicials. Unless the zoning regulations have a subsection devoted speciically to animals, like the ones in Spokane216 or Greensboro,217 the most sensible place for regulating chickens is within the animal code. 3. Health Code Another popular place within a municipality’s code to regulate chickens is within the health code. Seven cit- ies regulate chickens primarily within the health code.218 Many of these, however, have a separate section concern- ing animals or animal-related businesses within the health code.219 Again, unless the code has such a separate section concerning animals, the better place to regulate is within the animal code. 4. Other Of the remaining cities, there is very little uniformity. Two, Boston and Columbus, regulate through permit sections within their codiied ordinances.220 Because these cities require permits to keep chickens and give a great deal of discretion to city oicials to grant or deny permits on a case-by-case basis, locating a chicken regulation within the permit section of the codiied 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. he only other pattern within these ordinances is that two other cities—Bufalo and Tampa—regulate chickens 215. See Lea S. VanderVelde, LocalKnowledge,LegalKnowledge,andZoningLaw, Iowa L. Rev., May 1990, at 1057 (describing zoning law as “arcane”). Also, the sheer number of law treatises for zoning laws demonstrates that zoning laws require expertise to navigate. E.g., Patricia Salkin, American Law of Zoning (5th ed. 2012); Julian Conrad Juergensmeyer & Thomas E. Roberts, Land Use Planning and Development Regulation Law (2d ed. 2003); Edward H. Ziegler Jr., Rathkopf ’s the Law of Zoning and Planning (4th ed. 2012). 216. Spokane, Wash., Mun. Code tit. 17C Land Use Standards, ch. 17C.310 Animal Keeping (no date listed). 217. Greensboro, N.C., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11.3 (2011). 218. Albuquerque, N.M., Code of Ordinances §9-2-4-3 (2011); Cleve- land, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §§205.04, 347.02 (2011); Co- lumbus, Ohio, City Code tit. III, ch. 221 (2011); Mesa, Ariz., City Code §8-6-21 (2011); San Diego, Cal., Mun. Code §42.0709 (2011); San Francisco, Cal., Health Code §37 (2011); Tacoma, Wash., Mun. Code §5.30.010 (2011). 219. E.g., San Diego §42.0709; Cleveland §§204.04, 347.02; Tacoma §5.3.010. 220. Bos., Mass., Code of Ordinances §16-1.8A (2010); Columbus tit. III, ch, 221. under the property maintenance area of the code.221 his is not an ideal place to locate such an ordinance, because potential chicken owners are unlikely to look for chicken regulations there. Finally, one city—Arlington, Texas—places its chicken regulations in a section of the code entitled sale and breed- ing of animals.222 Because backyard chicken owners gener- ally do not raise their chickens for sale, and also likely do not consider themselves to be breeders, this area of the code is not well-suited to this regulation. C. How Cities Regulate Chickens 1. Chickens Are Deined as Pets or Domestic Animals Seven cities—Dallas, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Plano, Raleigh, and Spokane—deine chickens as domestic animals or pets, and thus subject them to the same enclosure and nuisance regulations as other domes- tic animals like cats and dogs.223 hese cities’ ordinances appear to be long-standing and were not recently modiied in response to the backyard chicken movement.224 While many cities may want to more explicitly regulate chickens, this is a workable approach. General nuisance laws already regulate things like odor and noise.225 While many regula- tions particular to chickens duplicate nuisance ordinances, it is unclear whether such duplication actually reduces nui- sances. More precise requirements on sanitation, coop stan- dards, setbacks, and permits may signal to chicken owners that the city is serious about regulating chickens, protect- ing neighbors, and protecting the health and well-being of chickens. But, as chickens regain prevalence in urban areas, cities that regulate chickens as pets or domestic ani- mals may ind that—through inertia—they have taken the most eicient approach, both in terms of preserving city resources and curbing potential nuisances. 2. Space Requirements Of the 94 cities that allow for raising chickens, 31 of them impose restrictions based upon how big the property is, either explicitly through lot size requirements, or implicitly through zoning requirements.226 Of those, 16 cities restrict 221. Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11 (2009); Tampa, Fla., Code of Ordi- nances §19.76 (2008). 222. Arlington, Tex., Ordinances Governing Animals §5.02 (2010). 223. Dallas, Tex., Code of Ordinances §7-1.1 (2011); Indianapolis, Ind., Rev. Code tit. III, ch. 531.101 (2011); Jacksonville, Fla., Ordinance Code §656.1601 (2011); New Orleans, La., Code of Ordinances §18- 2.1 (2011); Raleigh, N.C., Code of Ordinances §12-3001 (2011); Pla- no, Tex., Code of Ordinances §4-184 (2011); Spokane, Wash., Mun. Code §17C.310.100 (no date listed). 224. Supra note 223. 225. Every city surveyed had general nuisance provisions in its code regulating odor and noise. 226. Cities that impose lot size requirements: Anaheim, Cleveland, Fort Wayne, Fremont, Garland, Greensboro, Nashville, Norfolk, Oklahoma, Philadel- phia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Richmond, Rochester, Stockton, and Tampa. Anaheim, Cal., Mun. Code §18.38.030 (2011); Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Cleveland, Ohio, Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 35 42 ELR 10904 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 based on lot size and 17 restrict based on zoning. his adds up to 33, rather than 31, because two cities restrict based on both lot size and zoning.227 hese restrictions range from draconian, practically banning chickens in most of the city by restricting chickens to extremely large lots,228 to extremely liberal, allowing up to 30 chickens per 240 square feet—or 30 chickens in an area approximately the size of a large bedroom.229 As discussed below, an addi- tional 10 cities should be considered unfriendly to keep- ing hens because, while they do allow chickens under some circumstances, those circumstances are restricted to very large lots or agriculturally zoned land.230 a. Lot Size Requirements Of the 15 cities that restrict based on lot size only, six of them restrict chickens to property that is one acre or more: Nashville, Norfolk, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Richmond.231 Nashville, Norfolk, and Pittsburgh appear to limit chickens to property of more than ive acres, which in any urban area is a practical ban. Codified Ordinances §347.02 (2011); Fort Wayne, Ind., Code of Ordinances §157.104 (2011); Fremont, Cal., Mun. Code §3-5803 (2011); Garland, Tex., Code of Ordinances §22.14 (2011); Greens- boro, N.C., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11.3 (2011); Nashville-Da- vidson, Tenn., Mun. Code §17-16-330 (2011); Norfolk, Va., Code of Ordinances §§4-05, 6.1-7 (2011); Oklahoma City, Okla., Mun. Code §59-9350(c) (2011); Phila., Pa., Code §10-112 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz., City Code §8-10 (2011); Pittsburgh, Pa., Code of Ordinances §§635.02, 911.04.A.2 (2011); Richmond, Va., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011); Rochester, N.Y., City Ordinances §§30-12, 30-19 (no date listed); Stockton, Cal., Mun. Code §16.80.060 (2011); Tampa, Fla., Code of Ordinances §19.76 (2008). Cities that impose zoning re- strictions: Bakersield, Birmingham, Chesapeake, Dallas, Fresno, Glendale, Arizona, Greensboro, Hialeah, Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Madison, Mem- phis, Montgomery, San Diego, Shreveport, Stockton, and Virginia Beach. Bakersfield, Cal., Mun. Code tit. 17 (2011); Birmingham, Ala., Zon- ing Ordinance §2.4.1 (2007); Chesapeake, Va., Code of Ordinances Zoning art. 3 (2011); Dallas, Tex., Code of Ordinances §7-1.1 (2011); Fresno, Cal., Mun. Code ch. 12 (2011); Glendale, Ariz., Code of Or- dinances §§5.132 & 5.212 (2011); Greensboro, N.C., Code of Ordi- nances §30-8-11.3 (2011); Hialeah, Fla., Code of Ordinances ch. 98 (2011); Jacksonville, Fla., Ordinance Code ch. 656 (2011); L.A., Cal., Mun. Code §§12.01, 12.05-12.09 (2011); Madison, Wis., Code of Or- dinances ch. 28 (no date listed); Memphis, Tenn., Code of Ordinances tit. 16 (2009); Montgomery, Ala., Code of Ordinances, app. C, art. VII (2011); San Diego, Cal., Mun. Code §42.0709 (2011); Shreveport, La., Code of Ordinances ch. 106 (2011); Stockton, Cal., Mun. Code §§6.04.420, 16.80.060 (2011); Virginia Beach, Va., City Code §5-545, app. A (2011). 227. Greensboro, N.C., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11.3 (2011); Stock- ton, Cal., Mun. Code §§6.04.420 & 16.80.060 (2011). 228. E.g., Nashville-Davidson, Tenn., Mun. Code §§8-12-020, 17-16-330 (2011); Phila., Pa., Code §10-112 (2011). 229. See Rochester, N.Y., City Ordinances §§30-12, 30-19 (no date listed). 230. Birmingham, Ala., Zoning Ordinance §2.4.1 (2007); Chesapeake, Va., Code of Ordinances ch. 10 (2011); Hialeah, Fla., Code of Or- dinances §§10.1, 10.2 (2011); Jacksonville, Fla., Ordinance Code §656.331(2011); Montgomery, Ala., Code of Ordinances ch. 4, art. I (2011); id. app. C, art. VII; Norfolk, Va., Code of Ordinances, app. A, art. II §4-0.5 (2011); Oklahoma City, Okla., Mun. Code §59-9350 (2011); Phila., Pa., Code §10-112 (2011); Richmond, Va., Code of Or- dinances §10-88 (2011); Virginia Beach, Va., City Code §5-545, app. A (2011). 231. Nashville-Davidson, Tenn., Mun. Code §17-16-330(b) (2011); Pitts- burgh, Pa., Code of Ordinances §§635.02, 911.04.A.2 (2011); Phila., Pa., Code §10-112 (2011); Oklahoma City, Okla., Mun. Code §59- 9350 (2011); Richmond, Va., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011). Norfolk appears to allow for an exception to the ive-acre minimum232 by allowing a would-be chicken owner to procure a permit to keep hens,233 but in practice, the city will not issue this permit to chicken hobbyists.234 But, as discussed below, Nashville and Pittsburgh have interpreted their restrictive ordinances to allow for chickens on much smaller parcels of property. In Nashville, the zoning code conlicts with the health code, and the health code apparently won out. he zoning ordinance limits “common domestic farm animals” to a lot size of ive acres or more, but the ordinance does not deine what qualiies as a common domestic farm animal.235 Nash- ville’s health code, by contrast, speciically 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 ive acres or more, like Nashville, the code did not speciically deine whether raising chickens was considered an agricultural use.239 Pittsburgh, thus, would allow chicken keepers to seek a variance for raising chick- ens on property of less than ive acres.240 Apparently, though it is not yet codiied, Pittsburgh recently made it much easier to raise chickens, and also bees, by allowing up to three hens and two beehives on property of 2,000 square feet or more.241 So, both Nashville and Pittsburgh, while appearing to ban chickens, have become chicken-friendly. he 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 speciically deines poultry as a farm animal,242 and only allows farm animals on a parcel of property of three acres or more.243 232. Norfolk, Va., Code of Ordinances, Zoning Ordinance, app. A, §4-05 (2011) (“Except as otherwise noted, there shall be no raising or keeping of . . . poultry, fowl, . . . on less than ive acres.”). 233. Norfolk, Va., Code of Ordinances §6.1-7 (2011) (allowing for a person wishing to raise poultry to procure a permit issued by the department of public health). 234. Amelia Baker, BackyardChickens:NowYou’reClucking, AltDaily, June 2, 2010, http://www.altdaily.com/features/food/backyard-chickens-now- youre-clucking.html (providing that the city will only issue permits for sentinel chickens that the city has on surveillance to check for mosquito- borne diseases). 235. Nashville-Davidson §17.16.330(b). 236. Id. §8.12.020. 237. Memo from John Cooper, Director Metropolitan Council Oice, to All Members of Metropolitan Council (Sept. 1, 2009) (on ile with author). 238. Id. 239. Pittsburgh §911.04. 240. Diana Nelson Jones, OrdinanceChangesBotherKeepersofBeesandChickens, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Feb. 8, 2010, http://www.post-gazette.com/ pg/10039/1034293-53.stm. 241. Diana Nelson Jones, PittsburghUrbanCoopTourtoBeHeldSunday, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, June 9, 2011, http://www.post-gazette.com/ pg/11160/1152234-34.stm. 242. Phila. §10-100. 243. Id. §10-112 Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. . Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 36 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10905 Oklahoma City and Richmond both require at least one acre. Oklahoma City restricts raising chickens to prop- erty that is at least one acre, but apparently if the property owner has one acre, there is no restriction on how many chickens can be kept on that acre.244 Richmond requires 50,000 square feet, or slightly more square footage than the 43,560 square feet in an acre.245 After these, the lot sizes are far more lenient. Two cities, Garland and Stockton, require at least ½ acre.246 hree cities, Fremont, Greensboro, and Phoenix, require between 6,000 and 10,000 square feet, or between a little less than 1/8 to a little less than 1/4 acre.247 And four cit- ies, Anaheim, Cleveland, Rochester, and Tampa, require between 240 to 1,800 square feet, or from not much larger than a shed to about the size of a modern master bedroom.248 So, out of the 15 cities that restrict based on lot size, the majority of them allow most residents to raise backyard chickens. b. Zoning Requirements Seventeen cities restrict chickens to certain zones. Of these, three of the cities restrict chickens only to land zoned for agricultural use: Birmingham, Hialeah, and Virginia Beach.249 hree more cities restrict chickens to agricultural or very low-density residential zones: Chesapeake, Jackson- ville, and Montgomery.250 hus, six of the 17 cities conine chickens to so few zones that it excludes the possibility of raising chickens for most families. he 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 (deinitions); id. §59-9350 (conining to one acre). 245. Richmond, Va., Code of Ordinances §10-88(b) (2011). 246. Garland, Tex., Code of Ordinances §22.14 (2011); Stockton, Cal., Mun. Code §16.80.060 (2011). 247. Fremont, Cal., Mun. Code §3-5803 (2011) (6,000 sq. ft.); Greensboro, N.C., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11.3 (2011) (7,000 sq. ft.); Phoenix, Ariz., City Code §8-7(b) (2011) (10,000 sq. ft.). 248. Anaheim, Cal., Mun. Code §18.38.030 (2011) (1,800 sq. ft); Cleve- land, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347.02 (2011) (800 sq. ft. for resi- dential, and 400 for commercial); Rochester, N.Y., City Ordinances §30-12, 30-19 (no date listed) (240 sq. ft.); Tampa, Fla., Code of Ordi- nances §19.76 (2008) (1,000 sq. ft.). 249. Birmingham, Ala., Zoning Ordinance §2.4.1 (2007); Hialeah, Fla., Code of Ordinances §§10.1 & 10.2 (2011); Virginia Beach, Va., City Code §5-545 app. A (2011). 250. Chesapeake, Va., Code of Ordinances ch. 10 (2011); id. Zoning art. 3; Jacksonville, Fla., Ordinance Code tit. XIII, ch. 462, tit. XVII, ch. 656 (2011); Montgomery, Ala., Code of Ordinances app. C, art. VII (2011). 251. Bakersfield, Cal., Mun. Code §§17.12.010-RS & 17.32.020 (2011) (permitting chickens in agriculture and residential suburban areas); Dal- las, Tex., Code of Ordinances §7-1.1 (2011) (requiring chickens that are raised for commercial purposes to be on agriculturally zoned land, otherwise chickens are regulated as pets); Fresno, Cal., Mun. Code §§12-204.11-12-207.5 (2011) (providing diferent setbacks depending on zone); Glendale, Ariz., Code of Ordinances §§5.132 & 5.212 (2011) (restricting poultry to rural residential and suburban residential zones); Greensboro, N.C., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11.3 (2011) (allowing chickens as an accessory on single-family detached dwellings on R-3, E-5, R-7, RM-9, RM-12, and RM-18 districts); L.A., Cal., Mun. Code §§12.01, 12.05-12.09 (2011) (allowing chickens in agricultural and requirements if chickens are being raised for commercial purposes.252 Memphis merely applies diferent building restrictions for coops depending on the zone.253 And two cities employ zoning laws to augment the area where chick- ens are allowed: Cleveland and Stockton speciically allow raising chickens in industrially zoned areas.254 c. Multi-Family Units Two cities, Minneapolis and Newark, speciically regulate multi-family dwellings such as apartments. Both of these cities require permits, but will not grant one to certain multi-family dwellings. Minneapolis will not grant a per- mit to someone who lives in a multi-family home with four or more dwelling units.255 Newark will not grant one to anyone living in any multi-family home.256 d. Using Lot Size to Determine the Number of Chickens Many other cities do not restrict chickens to certain lot sizes, but use lot size to determine how many chickens a property can have. here is no uniformity to these ordi- nances. Some ordinances set a maximum number of chickens for property of a certain size and under, and then allow for more chickens as the property size increases. For instance, Seattle allows up to eight chickens for lots under 10,000 square, and one more chicken for each additional 1,000 square feet.257 Fremont has an intricate step system, with four chickens for at least 6,000 square feet, six for at least 8,000 square feet, 10 for at least 10,000, 20 for at least ½ acre, and 25 for more than one acre.258 Riverside allows for up to four chickens on property between 7,200 and 40,000 square feet and up to 12 on property 40,000 square feet or more in residentially zoned areas.259 Some cities decide the number of chickens based on zoning. El Paso allows for up to six chickens on land not zoned agricultural.260 Tulsa allows up to six adults and 14 chicks under eight weeks of age on land not zoned agricul- residential districts including districts zoned A1, A2, RA, RE, RS R1, and RMP); Madison, Wis., Code of Ordinances ch. 28 (no date listed); id. §7.29; id. §9.52 (allowing chickens in both residential and commer- cial districts); Memphis, Tenn., Code of Ordinances tit. 16, app. A (2009) (applying complex zoning requirements for outbuildings to chicken coops); San Diego, Cal., Mun. Code §42.0709 (2011) (using zoning to deine diferent kinds of setbacks, but allowing chickens in most zones); Shreveport, La., Code of Ordinances ch. 106 (2011) (allowing poultry raising in residential and agricultural districts by right, and in most other zones through a special exception from the zoning board) Stockton, Cal., Mun. Code §§6.04.420, 16.80.060 (2011) (allowing chickens in residen- tial and industrially zoned areas). 252. Dallas, Tex., Code of Ordinances §7-1.1 (2011). 253. Memphis, Tenn., Code of Ordinances tit. 16 (2009). 254. Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347.02 (2011); Stockton, Cal., Mun. Code §16.80.060 (2011). 255. Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances §70.10(c) (2011). 256. Newark, N.J., General Ordinances §6:2-33 (2010). 257. Seattle, Wash., Mun. Code §23.42.052(C) (2011). 258. Fremont, Cal., Mun. Code §3-5803 (2011). 259. Riverside, Cal., Code of Ordinances §17.24 (2011). 260. El Paso, Tex., Mun. Code §7.24.020(B) (2011) Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. . Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 37 42 ELR 10906 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 tural.261 Neither city restricts the amount of chickens on agriculturally zoned land.262 Instead of using square footage or zoning, many cities divide by acre. hese ordinances range between four to 12 chickens for property under ½ acre. For instance, Fort Worth allows for no more than 12 chickens on lots under ½ acre, no more than 20 on lots between ½ and one acre, and no more than 50 on lots of one acre or more.263 Mesa City allows for 10 rodents or fowl on ½ acre or less, and an additional 10 for each ½ acre, but no longer limits the number of chickens after 2 ½ acres.264 Louisville allows for ive chickens on property of less than ½ acre, and no limit above that.265 Arlington provides for four on less than ½ acre, 10 for lots between ½ and one acre, and 25 for lots over one acre.266 And, Charlotte requires a permit and restricts chickens to 20 per acre.267 Des Moines’ ordinance employs a similar step system but provides for a mix of other livestock. It allows for no more than 30 of any two species for property less than one acre. For property greater than one acre, one can have a total of 50 animals divided among up to six species.268 Lincoln, Nebraska, has one of the more unique chicken ordinances when it comes to limiting the number, in that it not only provides for a maximum number of chickens, but also a minimum. It also speciies 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 ive pounds, and two to ive chickens between ive and 20 pounds.269 It allows chicken owners to double the number for each additional acre. Lincoln’s ordinance should be applauded for recog- nizing that chickens are lock animals and thus require, at least, a minimum of two. It should also be applauded for not penalizing an owner for keeping less than two and only making it unlawful to keep numbers greater than the maximum.270 After all, if it penalized keeping less than a minimum number of chickens, Lincoln might be unique among cities for making it unlawful not to keep chickens. More problematic are cities that do not allow owners to own a minimum number of four chickens. Several cities allow one chicken per a certain square footage area. Greens- boro provides for one chicken for every 3,000 square feet, as long as the area is greater than 7,000 square feet.271 Ana- heim allows one chicken for each 1,800 square feet, but it does provide that if the calculation results in more than half an animal, the owner can round up to the next whole 261. Tulsa, Okla., Code of Ordinances §200(E) (2011). 262. El Paso, Tex., Mun. Code §7.24.020(B); Tulsa, Okla., Code of Ordi- nances §200(A). 263. Fort Worth, Tex., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(c), (d), (e) (2011). 264. Mesa, Ariz., City Code §8-6-21(A) (2011). 265. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Code §91.011 Restraint (8) (2011). 266. Arlington, Tex., Ordinances Governing Animals §5.02 (2010). 267. Charlotte, N.C., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c)(1), (g) (2010). 268. Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011). Des Moines also allows up to two fowl to be kept as pets. Id. §18-136. 269. Lincoln, Neb., Mun. Code tbl. 6.04.040 (2011). 270. Id. §6.04.040(b)(1). 271. Greensboro, N.C., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11.3(B) (2011). animal.272 Tampa provides ive 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 lock 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. hirty cities place a simple limit on the number of chickens.274 Of those cities that simply limit the number of chickens, the average number they allow is 12, the median number is nine, and the most popular number is a tie between four and 25.275 he lowest number is Garland and Honolulu with two.276 Somewhat surprisingly, the highest number comes from Jersey City—with 50.277 Jersey City collapses ducks and pigeons within the restriction of 50 fowl.278 Jer- sey City also requires a permit to keep chickens.279 At least four cities set a maximum number of chickens that can be owned before it is necessary to procure a per- 272. Anaheim, Cal., Mun. Code §18.38.030.050 (2011). 273. Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347.02(b)(2) (2011). 274. From lowest to highest: Honolulu, Haw., Rev. Ordinances §7-2.5(d) (1990) (two); Garland, Tex., Code of Ordinances §22.14 (2011) (two); Portland, Or., City Code §13.05.015(b) & (e) (2011) (three); Sacramento, Cal., City Code §9.44.860(A)(1) (2011) (three); Wichita, Kan., Code of Ordinances §6.04.157 (2011) (three); San Francisco, Cal., Health Code §37 (2011) (four); Milwaukee, Wis., Code of Ordi- nances §78-6.5(3) (2011) (four); St. Louis, Mo., Code of Ordinances §10.20.015 (2010) (four); Santa Ana, Cal., Code of Ordinances §5.6 (2011) (four); Madison, Wis., Code of Ordinances ch. 28 (no date listed); id. §7.29; id. §9.52 (four); Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11 (2009) (ive); San Jose, Cal., Code of Ordinances §7.60.815 (2007) (six); El Paso, Tex., Mun. Code §7.24.020 (2011) (six); Corpus Christi, Tex., Code of Ordinances §6-154 (2011) (six); Houston, Tex., Code of Ordinances ch. 6, art. II (2010) (seven); Austin, Tex., Code of Ordi- nances tit. III, ch. 3.1.1 (2011) (nine); Colorado Springs, Colo., City Code §6.7.106(D) (2011) (10); Plano, Tex., Code of Ordinances §4- 184 (2011) (10); Glendale, Cal., Mun. Code §6.04.130 (2011) (12); Albuquerque, N.M., Code of Ordinances §9-2-4-3 (2011) (15); Kan- sas City, Mo., Code of Ordinances §14-15(f ) (2011) (15); Miami, Fla., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011) (15); Long Beach, Cal., Mun. Code §6.20.020 (2011) (20); Tucson, Ariz., Code of Ordinances §4- 56 (2011) (24); Fremont, Cal., Mun. Code §3-5803 (2011) (25); San Diego, Cal., Mun. Code §42.0708 (2011) (25); Bos., Mass., Code of Ordinances §16-1.8A (2010) (25); Birmingham, Ala., Zoning Ordi- nance §2.4.1 (2007) (25); Mobile, Ala., Code of Ordinances §7-103 (2011) (25); Jersey City, N.J., Code of Ordinances §90-6 (2011) (50). 275. Supra note 274 and accompanying text. 276. Garland, Tex., Code of Ordinances §22.14 (2011) (two); Honolulu, Haw., Rev. Ordinances §7-2.5(d) (1990) (two). 277. Jersey City, N.J., Code of Ordinances §90-6 (2011). 278. Id. 279. Id Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. . Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 38 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 his appears to be the most workable system, because it takes into account that there are diferent levels of chicken-keep- ing in an urban agriculture context. It provides a bright- line rule for people who want small backyard locks, 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 lock, the city can rely on its nuisance laws, or other setback or coop requirements within the statute to resolve the problem. Some cities always require a permit, but set a relatively high number of chickens allowed. As noted earlier, with a permit, Jersey City allows up to 50,282 and Boston and Mobile allow up to 25.283 According to several Bostonians who want chickens, however, Boston does not easily grant this permit.284 Miami allows up to 15 hens with a permit.285 Some cities take a belt-and-suspenders approach and require both a permit and restrict hens to a small number. With a permit, Milwaukee only allows four,286 and Sacra- mento, three.287 Several other cities, perhaps understanding that the hens may occasionally be used to produce more chickens, allow considerably more chicks than full-grown chickens. Both Miami and Kansas City allow only 15 grown hens, but Miami allows 30 chicks,288 and Kansas City allows 50.289 Tulsa allows seven adults and 14 chicks.290 Colo- rado Springs allows 10 hens and an unlimited number of chicks.291 And Garland, even though it allows only two hens, does not limit the number of chicks less than one- month old.292 And for pure eccentricity, Houston has the most inter- esting restriction on the number of chickens. Houston allows up to seven hens if a person can present a written certiication from a licensed physician that the person needs “fresh unfertilized chicken eggs for serious reasons 280. Wichita, Kan., Code of Ordinances §6.04.157(a) (2011); Santa Ana, Cal., Code of Ordinances §5.6 (2011); San Jose, Cal., Code of Ordi- nances tit. 7 (2007); El Paso, Tex., Mun. Code §7.24.020 (2011). 281. Seesupranote 280. 282. Jersey City, N.J., Code of Ordinances §90-7 (2011). 283. Bos., Mass., Code of Ordinances §16-1.8A, Zoning art. 8 No. 75 (2010); Mobile, Ala., Code of Ordinances §7-103 (2011). 284. See,e.g., Legalize Chickens in Boston, http://legalizechickensinboston. org/ (last visited July 5, 2012) (stating that the city of Boston denies chicken permits and seeking a more reasonable legislative solution to regulate chick- ens in Boston). 285. Miami, Fla., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011). 286. Milwaukee, Wis., Code of Ordinances §78-6.5 (2011). 287. Sacramento, Cal., City Code §9.44.860(a)(1) (2011). 288. Miami, Fla., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011). 289. Kansas City, Mo., Code of Ordinances §14-15(f ) (2011). 290. Tulsa, Okla., Code of Ordinances §200(d), (e) (2011). 291. Colorado Springs, Colo., City Code §6.7.106(D) (2011). 292. Garland, Tex., Code of Ordinances §22.14 (2011). pertaining to said person’s health.”293 his 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. he 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 he next most popular is a setback 293. Houston, Tex., Code of Ordinances §6-38 (2010). 294. Id. 295. Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92-18 (2011) (100 ft.); Anaheim, Cal., Mun. Code §18.38.030.0202 (2011) (50 ft.); Anchorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §§21.40.060 & 21.40.080 (2011) (25-100 ft); Arlington, Tex., Ordinances Governing Animals §5.02 (2010) (50 ft.); Atlanta, Ga., Code of Ordinances §18-7 (2011) (50 ft.); Aus- tin, Tex., Code of Ordinances §3.2.16 (2011) (50 ft.); Bakersfield, Cal., Mun. Code §17.12.010 R-S (2011) (50 ft.); Baton Rouge, La., Code of Ordinances §14-224 (c)(1)(b) (2011) (50 ft.); Birmingham, Ala., Zoning Ordinance §2.4.1 (2007) (300 ft. from residence or 100 ft. from any residential structure); Bos., Mass., Code of Ordinances §16-1.8A, Zoning, art. 8, No. 75 (2010) (100 ft.); Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.3 (2009) (20 ft. from door or window); Corpus Christi, Tex., Code of Ordinances §6-154 (2011) (100 ft. if not enclosed); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011) (25 ft.); El Paso, Tex., Mun. Code §7.24.030 (2011) (30 ft.); Fort Worth, Tex., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(b) & (f ) (2011) (50 ft.); Fresno, Cal., Mun. Code §12.207.5 (2011) (40 ft.); Garland, Tex., Code of Ordinances §22.14 (2011) (30 ft.); Glendale, Cal., Mun. Code §6.04.030 (2011) (50 ft. from dwelling or 100 ft. from school or hospital); Glendale, Ariz., Code of Ordinances pt. II, art. 5 (2010) (100 ft.); Grand Rapids, Mich., Code of Ordinances §8.582 (2010) (100 ft. from any dwelling unit, well, spring, stream, drainage ditch, or drain); Greensboro, N.C., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11.3(B) (2011) (50 ft.); Hialeah, Fla., Code of Ordinances §10.4 (2011) (100 ft.); Honolulu, Haw., Rev. Ordinances §7-2.5(d) (1990) (300 ft.); Houston, Tex., Code of Ordinances §6-31 (2010) (100 ft.); Jersey City, N.J., Code of Ordinances §90-6 (2011) (25 ft.); Kansas City, Mo., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011) (100 ft.); Lincoln, Neb., Mun. Code §6.04.040 (2011) (50 ft.); Long Beach, Cal., Mun. Code §6.20.030 (2011) (50 ft.); L.A., Cal., Mun. Code §§53.58 & 53.59 (2011) (Department of Animal Services promulgated regulations that require chicken coops to be 35 ft. from neighbor’s dwelling and 20 ft. from owner’s dwelling); Madison, Wis., Code of Ordinances ch. 28 (no date listed) (25 ft.); Mesa, Ariz., City Code §8-6-21(g) & (h) (2011) (40 ft.); Miami, Fla., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011) (100 ft.); Milwaukee, Wis., Code of Ordinances §78-6.5(3)(g)-(j) (2011) (25 ft.); Mobile, Ala., Code of Ordinances §§7-88 & 7-103 (2011) (150 ft. if not grandfathered in); Nashville-Davidson, Tenn., Mun. Code §17-16-330(B) (2011) (250 ft.); N.Y.C., Mun. Code §161.09 (1990) (25 ft.); Newark, N.J., General Ordinances §6:2-35 (2010) (20 ft.); Oak- land, Cal., Code of Ordinances §6-04-320 (2011) (20 ft.); Oklahoma City, Okla., Mun. Code 59-9350 (2011) (200 ft.); Phoenix, Ariz., City Code §8-7 (2011) (80 ft.); Richmond, Va., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) (500 ft.); Riverside, Cal., Code of Ordinances §6.04.20 (2011); id. tit. 17 (50 ft.); Rochester, N.Y., City Ordinances §30-19(H) (no date listed) (25 ft.); Sacramento, Cal., City Code §9.44.860 (2011) (20 ft.); San Antonio, Tex., Code of Ordinances §5-109(c) (2011) (100 ft. or 50 ft. with permit); San Diego, Cal., Mun. Code §42.0709 (2011) (50 ft.); San Francisco, Cal., Health Code §37(b) (2011) (20 ft. from door or window); San Jose, Cal., Code of Ordinances §7.60.815 (2007) (20 ft. but more if have more chickens); Santa Ana, Cal., Code of Ordinanc- es §5-18 (2011) (100 ft.); Seattle, Wash., Mun. Code §23.42.052(c)(3) (2011) (10 ft.); St. Petersburg, Fla., Code of Ordinances §4-31 (2011) (100 ft. unless have permission from neighbors); Stockton, Cal., Mun. Code §§6.04.420, 16.80.060 (2011) (50 ft.); Tacoma, Wash., Mun. Code §5.30.010 (2011) (50 ft. unless have permission from neighbors); Tampa, Fla., Code of Ordinances §19.76 (2008) (200 ft.); Tucson, Ariz. Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. , Code Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 39 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 hree cities require a setback from the street.297 Six cities ban chickens from the front yard.298 his adds up to more than 63, because sev- eral cities employ more than one kind of setback. Finally, several cities have unique setback requirements that will be discussed later. a. Setbacks From Neighboring Buildings Of the 56 cities that require that chickens be kept a cer- tain distance away from neighboring residences,299 the set- backs range from 10300 to 500 feet.301 he average of all of the setbacks is 80 feet,302 although only one city, Phoenix, actually has a setback of 80 feet.303 he median and the mode are both 50 feet.304 he 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 he mode, the most common set- of Ordinances §4-57 (2011) (50 ft.); Wash., D.C., Mun. Regulations for Animal Control §902.7(a) & (b) (no date listed) (50 ft.). 296. Anaheim, Cal., Mun. Code §18.38.030.0202 (2011) (20 ft. from property line); Baton Rouge, La., Code of Ordinances §14-224(c)(1)(b) (2011) (10 ft. from property line); Birmingham, Ala., Zoning Ordinance §2.4.1 (2007) (100 ft. from property line); Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.3 (2009) (18 inches from rear lot); Charlotte, N.C., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010) (25 ft. from property line); Chesapeake, Va., Code of Ordinances ch. 10 (2011) (20 ft. from property line); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347.02(b)(1)(B) (2011) (5 ft. from side yard and 18 inches from rear yard); Fresno, Cal., Mun. Code §12-206.1 (2011) (100 ft. from property line); Greensboro, N.C., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11.3 (2011) (25 ft. from property line); Jacksonville, Fla., Ordi- nance Code §656.401 (2011) (50 ft. from property line); Kansas City, Mo., Code of Ordinances §14-15(f ) (2011) (25 ft. from property line); Montgomery, Ala., Code of Ordinances ch. 4 art. I (2011); id. app. C, art. VII (200 ft. from property line); Plano, Tex., Code of Ordinances §3-204 (2011) (5 ft. from property line); Portland, Or., City Code §13.05.015(b) & (e) (2011) (50 ft. from residence or business where food is prepared); Riverside, Cal., Code of Ordinances §6.04.20 (2011) (20 ft. from property line); Seattle, Wash., Mun. Code §23.42.052(c)(3) (2011) (10 ft. from property line); Tampa, Fla., Code of Ordinances §19.76 (2008) (200 ft. from property line); Tulsa, Okla., Code of Ordinances §200(d) & (e) (2011) (50 ft., but 100 ft. if zoned agricultural); Wash., D.C., Mun. Regulations for Animal Control §902.7(a) & (b) (no date listed) (250 ft. unless have neighbor’s consent). 297. Bakersfield, Cal., Mun. Code §17.12.010-RS (2011) (100 ft.); Bir- mingham, Ala., Zoning Ordinance §2.4.1 (2007) (300 ft.); Bos., Mass., Code of Ordinances §16-1.8A, Zoning, art. 8, No. 75 (2010) (100 ft.). 298. Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.3 (2009); Cleveland, Ohio, Codi- fied Ordinances §347.02(b)(1)(B) (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011); Milwaukee, Wis., Code of Ordinances §78-6.5(3)(g)-(j) (2011); Phoenix, Ariz., City Code §8-7 (2011); Sacra- mento, Cal., City Code §9.44.860 (2011). 299. Seesupranote 295. 300. Seattle, Wash., Mun. Code §23.42.052(c)(3) (2011). 301. Richmond, Va., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011). Since Richmond also requires an acre of land to even own chickens, this setback doesn’t ex- clude any additional would-be chicken owners. 302. Seesupra note 295. 303. Phoenix, Ariz., City Code §8-10 (2011) (80 ft. unless have permission from neighbor). 304. Seesupra note 295. 305. Birmingham, Ala., Zoning Ordinance §2.4.1 (2007) (300 ft.); Hono- lulu, Haw., Rev. Ordinances §7-2.5(d) (1990) (300 ft.); and Richmond, Va., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) (500 ft.). back, comprises 17 cities.306 After that, the most popular setbacks are the following: • Fifteen cities have setbacks of less than 30 feet, with two at 30 feet,307 seven at 25 feet,308 six at 20 feet,309 and one at 10 feet.310 • hirteen cities have setbacks of 100 feet.311 Of those, three of them allow for smaller setback under certain conditions: St. Petersburg will allow for a smaller set- back if the owner seeks permission from neighboring property owners; San Antonio will allow for a smaller setback with a permit; and Corpus Christi will allow for a smaller setback if the coop is enclosed.312 • Seven cities have setbacks of more than 100 feet.313 Of those, Mobile, Alabama, has a 150-foot setback, but allows chicken coops that were built before the ordi- nance passed to be grandfathered in.314 Oklahoma City has a 200-foot setback and, puzzlingly, will waive these setbacks from horses, mules, donkeys, and pigs, but not for chickens.315 Oklahoma City also has an additional 400-foot setback for roosters.316 Several cities will shrink their setbacks under certain conditions. In what appears to be a thoughtful approach to requiring a neighbor’s consent, four cities provide a standard setback, but provide relief from the setback if the owner gets permission from his neighbors to keep chickens.317 And one city, San Antonio, as mentioned 306. Anaheim; Arlington; Austin; Bakersield; Baton Rouge; Fort Worth; Glendale, California; Greensboro; Lincoln; Long Beach (but 20 if just had one chicken); Portland; Riverside; San Diego; Stockton; Tacoma; Tucson; Washington. 307. El Paso, Tex., Mun. Code §7.24.030 (2011) (30 ft., but only 20 ft. if separated by a fence that is at least six ft.); Garland, Tex., Code of Ordi- nances §22.14(A) (2011). 308. Anchorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §§21.40.060 & 21.40.080 (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4(h)(1) (2011); Jersey City, N.J., Code of Ordinances §90-6 (2011); Madison, Wis., Code of Ordinances ch. 28 (no date listed); Milwaukee, Wis., Code of Ordinances §78-6.5 (2011); N.Y.C., Mun. Code §161.09 (1990) (for poultry market coops only—poultry not intended for sale is not regulated); Rochester, N.Y., City Ordinances §30-19(H) (no date listed). 309. Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.3 (2009); Newark, N.J., General Ordinances §6:2-35 (2010); Oakland, Cal., Code of Ordinances §6- 04-320 (2011); Sacramento, Cal., City Code §9.44.860 (2011); San Francisco, Cal., Health Code §37 (2011); San Jose, Cal., Code of Ordinances §7.60.815 (2007) (applying setback to all small animals, not just chickens). 310. Seattle, Wash., Mun. Code §23.42.052(C) (2011). 311. Akron, Atlanta, Boston, Corpus Christi, Glendale, Grand Rapids, Hialeah, Houston, Kansas City, Miami, San Antonio, Santa Ana, St. Petersburg. 312. St. Petersburg, Fla., Code of Ordinances §4-31 (2011) (100 ft. un- less have permission from neighbors); San Antonio, Tex., Code of Ordi- nances §5-109(c) (2011) (100 ft. or 50 ft. with permit); Corpus Christi, Tex., Code of Ordinances §6-154 (2011) (100 ft. if not enclosed). 313. Mobile, Oklahoma, Tampa, Nashville, Birmingham, Honolulu, Richmond. 314. Mobile, Ala., Code of Ordinances §7-88(d) (2011) (150 ft. if not grandfathered in), butseeid. §7-103(d) (allowing for 20 ft. from the prop- erty line in a residential area). 315. Oklahoma City, Okla., Mun. Code §59-9350(F) & (I) (2011). 316. Id. §59-9350(H). 317. Las Vegas, Nev., Mun. Code §7.38.050 (2011) (300 ft. without per- mission); Phoenix, Ariz., City Code §8-10 (2011) (80 ft. without per- mission); St. Petersburg, Fla., Code of Ordinances §4-31(d) (2011) (100 ft. without permission); Tacoma, Wash., Mun. Code §§5.30.010 & 5.30.030 (2011) (50 ft. without permission) Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. . Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 40 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 speciically to a door or a window of the building. Both Bufalo and San Fran- cisco have a 20-foot setback from any door or window of a building.319 Several cities deine the setback more broadly than a neighboring dwelling, and include schools, hospitals, and other businesses within the setback.320 Grand Rapids, Michigan, however, goes further; it has a 100-foot setback from any “dwelling unit, well, spring, stream, drainage ditch or drain.”321 his, in efect, 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 he average setback is 59 feet, but no city actually has such a setback. he closest are Jacksonville and Tulsa, which both have a setback of 50 feet.325 Again, a few cities with very large setbacks are raising the average.326 he median set- 318. San Antonio, Tex., Code of Ordinances §5-109 (2011). 319. Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11 (2009); San Francisco, Cal., Health Code §37 (2011). 320. E.g., Fort Worth, Tex., Code of Ordinances §11A-22 (2011); Glen- dale, Cal., Mun. Code §6.04.130 (2011). 321. Grand Rapids, Mich., Code of Ordinances §8.582(2) (2010). 322. Anaheim, Cal., Mun. Code §18.38.030.0202 (2011) (20 ft. from property line); Baton Rouge, La., Code of Ordinances §14-224(c)(1)(b) (2011) (10 ft. from property line); Birmingham, Ala., Zoning Ordinance §2.4.1 (2007) (100 ft. from property line); Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.3 (2009) (18 inches from rear lot); Charlotte, N.C., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010) (25 ft. from property line); Chesapeake, Va., Code of Ordinances ch. 10 (2011) (20 ft. from property line); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347.02(b)(1)(B) (2011) (5 ft. from side yard and 18 inches from rear yard); Fresno, Cal., Mun. Code §12-206.1 (2011) (100 ft. from property line); Greensboro, N.C., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11.3 (2011) (25 ft. from property line); Jacksonville, Fla., Ordi- nance Code §656.401 (2011) (50 ft. from property line); Kansas City, Mo., Code of Ordinances §14-15(f ) (2011) (25 ft. from property line); Montgomery, Ala., Code of Ordinances ch. 4 art. I (2011); id. at app. C, art. VII (200 ft. from property line); Plano, Tex., Code of Ordinanc- es §3-204 (2011) (5 ft. from property line); Portland, Or., City Code §13.05.015(b) & (e) (2011) (50 ft. from residence or business where food is prepared); Riverside, Cal., Code of Ordinances §6.04.20 (2011) (20 ft. from property line); Seattle, Wash., Mun. Code §23.42.052(c)(3) (2011) (10 ft. from property line); Tampa, Fla., Code of Ordinances §19.76 (2008) (200 ft. from property line); Tulsa, Okla., Code of Ordinances §200(d) & (e) (2011) (50 ft., but 100 ft. if zoned agricultural); Wash., D.C., Mun. Regulations for Animal Control §902.7(a) & (b) (no date listed) (250 ft. unless have neighbor’s consent). 323. Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347.02 (2011); Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.3 (2009). 324. Wash., D.C., Mun. Regulations for Animal Control §902.7 (no date listed) (250 ft. setback without consent of neighbors). 325. Jacksonville, Fla., Ordinance Code §656.401 (2011) (50 ft. from prop- erty line); Tulsa, Okla., Code of Ordinances §200(d), (e) (2011). 326. Tulsa, Okla., Code of Ordinances §200(d), (e) (2011) (200 ft.); Tam- pa, Fla., Code of Ordinances §19.76 (2008) (200 ft.); Wash., D.C., Mun. Regulations for Animal Control §902.7(a) & (b) (no date listed) (250 ft.). back is 25 feet.327 And the mode, or most popular, setback is tied at either 20328 or 25 feet.329 Washington, D.C., which has the largest setback at 250 feet, allows relief from this setback if the owner has his neighbor’s consent to keep chickens.330 c. Setbacks From the Street hree cities require chickens to be kept away from the street: Bakersield, Birmingham, and Boston.331 All of these setbacks are relatively large, ranging from 100 to 300 feet. Presumably, this is to stop chickens from being kept in the front yard or on a corner lot from a vantage point where passersby can easily see the coop. Bakersield, provides a speciic 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 efectively, 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 deinition 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 ive 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 hree cities do not provide for explicit setbacks, but leave each setback up to some city oicial’s discretion. In Wichita, the chief of police can examine the property and determine the setback.337 In St. Paul, it is up to the Health Inspector’s discretion.338 And, in Fremont, it is the Animal Services Supervisor who has discretion.339 327. Charlotte, N.C., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c)(1), (f ) (2010); Greensboro, N.C., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11.3 (2011); Kansas City, Mo., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011). 328. Anaheim, Cal., Mun. Code §18.38.030.0202 (2011); Chesapeake, Va., Code of Ordinances ch. 10 (2011); Riverside, Cal., Code of Ordi- nances §6.04.20 & tit. 17(2011). 329. Seesupra note 327. 330. Wash., D.C., Mun. Regulations for Animal Control §902.7(b) (no date listed). 331. Bos., Mass., Code of Ordinances §16-1.8A, Zoning, art. 8, No. 75 (2010); Bakersfield, Cal., Mun. Code §17.12.010-RS (2011); Birming- ham, Ala., Zoning Ordinance §2.4.1 (2007). 332. Bakersfield, Cal., Mun. Code §17.12.010-RS (2011). 333. Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.3 (2009); Cleveland, Ohio, Codi- fied Ordinances §347.02(b)(1)(B) (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011); Milwaukee, Wis., Code of Ordinances §78- 6.5(3)(i) (2011); Phoenix, Ariz., City Code §8-7 (2011); Sacramento, Cal., City Code §9.44.860 (2011). 334. E.g., Austin, Tex., Code of Ordinances §3.2.16 (2011) (50 ft); Ana- heim, Cal., Mun. Code §18.38.030.0202 (2011). 335. Atlanta, Ga., Code of Ordinances §18-7 (2011). 336. L.A., Cal., Mun. Code §§53.58 & 53.59 (2011) (Department of Ani- mal Services promulgated regulations requiring coops to be 20 ft. from owner’s dwelling). 337. Wichita, Kan., Code of Ordinances §6.04.173(c) (2011). 338. St. Paul, Minn., §198.05 (2011). 339. Fremont, Cal., Mun. Code §3-5803 (2011) Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. . Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 41 42 ELR 10910 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 Finally, St. Louis wins for the most eccentric setback. It doesn’t have any setbacks for neighboring buildings, or the property line, but it does require that chickens be kept out of the milking barn.340 5. Coop Requirements Many cities regulate how the chicken coop should be built and maintained. here 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 of 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. hen, more unique elements will be discussed. a. No Running at Large First, 33 cities prohibit chickens particularly or animals in general from running at large.341 Most of those cit- ies simply prohibit chickens from running at large, but some provide for a little more nuance. For instance, Cincinnati does not allow chickens to run at large “so as to do damage to gardens, lawns, shrubbery or other private property.”342 So, presumably, a chicken could run free, as long as it didn’t damage anything. Five cities, instead of making it unlawful to run at large, provide that the chicken must be kept enclosed in the coop and 340. St. Louis, Mo., Code of Ordinances §11.46.410 (2010). 341. Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92.01 (2011); Albuquerque, N.M., Code of Ordinances §9-2-4-3(D) (2011); Arlington, Tex., Ordinances Governing Animals §5.02(e) (2010); Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.3 (2009); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §701- 33 (2011); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §603.01 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(c)(3) (2011); Fresno, Cal., Mun. Code §10.205 (2011); Garland, Tex., Code of Ordinances §22.03 (2011); Indianapolis, Ind., Rev. Code §531.102 (2011); Irving, Tex., Code of Ordinances §6-2 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev., Mun. Code §7.36.030 (2011); Lexington-Fayette, Ky., Code of Ordinances §4- 10 (2011); Long Beach, Cal., Mun. Code §6.20.080 (2011); Louis- ville, Ky., Metro Code ch. 91.001 Nuisance (2011); Memphis, Tenn., Code of Ordinances §8-8-2 (2009); Mesa, Ariz., City Code §8-6- 21(I) (2011); Miami, Fla., Code of Ordinances §6-2 (2011); Newark, N.J., General Ordinances §6:2-34 (2010); Oakland, Cal., Code of Ordinances §6-04-200 (2011); Norfolk, Va., Code of Ordinances §6.1-7 (2011); Omaha, Neb., Code of Ordinances §6-263 (2011); Pittsburgh, Pa., Code of Ordinances §635.02 (2011); Raleigh, N.C., Code of Ordinances §12-3004 (2011); Richmond, Va., Code of Or- dinances §10-88 (2011); St. Petersburg, Fla., Code of Ordinances §4-31(b) (2011); San Jose, Cal., Code of Ordinances §7.60.750 (2007); Spokane, Wash., Mun. Code §10.24 (no date listed); Stockton, Cal., Mun. Code §6.04.130 (2011); Tacoma, Wash., Mun. Code §5.30.020 (2011); Toledo, Ohio, Mun. Code §505.10 (2011); Tucson, Ariz., Code of Ordinances §4-55 (2011); Wichita, Kan., Code of Ordi- nances §6.04.173 (2011). 342. Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §701-33 (2011). not allowed to escape.343 And two cities, Richmond and Stockton, frame it in terms of trespass and do not allow chicken trespassers.344 In any event, all of these statutes imply that a coop, minimally, must be constructed so that the birds cannot escape. b. Coops Must Be Clean and Sanitary Forty-six cities impose some sort of cleaning requirements on chicken owners.345 While many cities have cleaning requirements that apply to any animal,346 these cities ordi- nances are, for the most part, speciic to chickens. Nearly all of these ordinances mandate that the chicken coop be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and free from ofensive odors. he degree to which each city reg- ulates this, however, varies. Most cities have a variation on a general requirement that the coop be clean or sani- 343. Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.3 (2009); Cleveland, Ohio, Codi- fied Ordinances §603.01 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex., Code of Or- dinances §11A-22(c)(3) (2011); Fresno, Cal., Mun. Code §10.205 (2011); Louisville, Ky., Metro Code §91.001 Nuisance (2011). 344. Richmond, Va., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) (providing that fowl may not trespass); Stockton, Cal., Mun. Code §6.04.130 (2011) (fowl [shall not] to run or go upon the public or private premises of any other person, irm, or corporation; or upon any park or public street or highway within the city). 345. Albuquerque, N.M., Code of Ordinances §9-2-2-2 (2011); Austin, Tex., Code of Ordinances §10-5-21 (2011); Baton Rouge, La., Code of Ordinances §14:224(c)(1)(c) & (d) (2011); Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.3(C) (2009); Charlotte, N.C., Code of Ordinances §3-102 (2010); Chicago, Ill., Code of Ordinances §7-12-290(b) (2011); Cin- cinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances ch. 701-35 (2011); Dallas, Tex., Code of Ordinances §7-3.2 (2011); Denver, Colo., Mun. Code §8-92 (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4(h) (2011); El Paso, Tex., Mun. Code §7.24.030 (2011); Fort Wayne, Ind., Code of Ordinances §91.017 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(h) (2011); Fresno, Cal., Mun. Code §10.203 (2011); Gar- land, Tex., Code of Ordinances §22.17 (2011); Glendale, Ariz. Mun. Code §25-24 (2010); Glendale, Cal., Mun. Code §6.04.020 (2011); Houston, Tex., Code of Ordinances §6-36 (2010); Irving, Tex., Code of Ordinances §6-6 (2011); Jersey City, N.J., Code of Ordinances §90-8 (2011); Kansas City, Mo., Code of Ordinances §§14-18 & 14-19 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev., Mun. Code §7.36.050 (2011); Lin- coln, Neb., Mun. Code §6.04.050 (2011); Long Beach, Cal., Mun. Code §6.20.070 (2011); Memphis, Tenn., Code of Ordinances §8-8-1 (2009); Mesa, Ariz., City Code §8-6-22 (2011); Miami, Fla., Code of Ordinances §6-1 (2011); Milwaukee, Wis., Code of Ordinances §78- 6.5 (2011); Mobile, Ala., Code of Ordinances §7-103 (2011); New Orleans, La., Code of Ordinances §18-2.1 (2011); Newark, N.J., Gen- eral Ordinances §6:2-35 (2010); Omaha, Neb., Code of Ordinances §6-261 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz., City Code §8-7(d) (2011); Richmond, Va., Code of Ordinances §10-88(d) (2011); San Antonio, Tex., Code of Ordinances §5-109 (2011); San Diego, Cal., Mun. Code §42.0709 (2011); San Jose, Cal., Code of Ordinances §7.60.755 (2007); Santa Ana, Cal., Code of Ordinances §5.6(b) (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz., Code of Ordinances §4-18 (2011); St. Paul, Minn., §198.04-05 (2011); St. Petersburg, Fla., Code of Ordinances §4-31(c) (2011); To- ledo, Ohio, Mun. Code §1705.07 (2011); Tucson, Ariz., Code of Or- dinances §4-58 (2011); Tulsa, Okla., Code of Ordinances §§200(d), (e) & 406 (2011); Wash., D.C., Mun. Regulations for Animal Con- trol §902.10-13 (no date listed); Wichita, Kan., Code of Ordinances §6.04.174 (2011). 346. E.g., Anchorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §17.10.030 (2011); At- lanta, Ga., Code of Ordinances §18-8 (2011); Fremont, Cal., Mun. Code §3-5600 (2011); Montgomery, Ala., Code of Ordinances §4-3 (2011); Norfolk, Va., Code of Ordinances §6.1-2 Adequate Shelter (2011); Plano, Tex., Code of Ordinances §4-51 (2011); Tampa, Fla., Code of Ordinances §19.77 (2008) Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. . Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 42 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10911 tary.347 Most cities also expressly prohibit odors or ofen- sive odors.348 Some cities are a little more explicit and require that the coop be cleaned regularly or routinely.349 Some cities go further and require the coop to be clean at all times.350 And some cities regulate precisely how often the coop must be cleaned. Houston is the most fastidious. In Houston, the coop must be cleaned once per day, limed once every other day, and all containers containing chicken manure must be properly disposed of once per week.351 Milwaukee also requires coops to be cleaned daily and additionally “as is necessary.”352 he next two most fastidious cities, Des Moines and Santa Ana, require that the coop be cleaned at least every other day.353 Seven cities require that the coop be cleaned at least twice a week.354 And another four cities require that the coop be cleaned at least once a week.355 And, splitting the diference, Jersey City requires the coop to be cleaned once a week from November to May, and twice a week from May to November.356 Many cities also have a particular concern with either lies or rodents. Fourteen cities specify that attracting lies will be a nuisance.357 Cities that speciically mention lies 347. E.g., Austin, Tex., Code of Ordinances §10-5-21 (2011); Fresno, Cal., Mun. Code §10.203 (2011); Long Beach, Cal., Mun. Code §6.20.070 (2011); Omaha, Neb., Code of Ordinances §6-261 (2011); San Anto- nio, Tex., Code of Ordinances §5-109 (2011); San Jose, Cal., Code of Ordinances §7.60.755 (2007); Toledo, Ohio, Mun. Code §1706.07 (2011); Wichita, Kan., Code of Ordinances §6.04.174 (2011). 348. E.g., Austin, Tex., Code of Ordinances §10-5-21 (2011); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §701-35 (2011); Dallas, Tex., Code of Ordinances §7-3.2 (2011); Fort Wayne, Ind., Code of Ordinances §91.017 (2011); Fresno, Cal., Mun. Code §10.203 (2011); Garland, Tex., Code of Ordinances §22.17 (2011); Kansas City, Mo., Code of Ordinances §§14-18 & 14-19 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev., Mun. Code §7.36.050 (2011); Lincoln, Neb., Mun. Code §6.04.050 (2011); Miami, Fla., Code of Ordinances §6-1 (2011); New Orleans, La., Code of Ordinances §18-2.1 (2011); Omaha, Neb., Code of Ordinances §6- 261 (2011); St. Petersburg, Fla., Code of Ordinances §4-31(c) (2011); Toledo, Ohio, Mun. Code §1705.07 (2011); Wichita, Kan., Code of Ordinances §6.04.174 (2011). 349. E.g., Baton Rouge, La., Code of Ordinances §14:224(c)(1)(c) & (d) (2011); New Orleans, La., Code of Ordinances §18-2.1 (2011); Tulsa, Okla., Code of Ordinances §§200(d), (e) & 406 (2011). 350. E.g., Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.3 (2009); Charlotte, N.C., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010). 351. Houston, Tex., Code of Ordinances §6-36 (2010). 352. Milwaukee, Wis., Code of Ordinances §78-6.5 (2011). 353. Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-137 (2011); Santa Ana, Cal., Code of Ordinances §5.6(b) (2011). 354. Garland, Tex., Code of Ordinances §22.17 (2011); Glendale, Ariz. Mun. Code §25-24(h) (2010); Irving, Tex., Code of Ordinances §6-6 (2011); Mesa, Ariz., City Code §8-6-22 (2011); Miami, Fla., Code of Ordinances §6-1 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz., City Code §8-7(d) (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz., Code of Ordinances §4-18 (2011). 355. Albuquerque, N.M., Code of Ordinances §9-2-2-2(B)(1) (2011); Lincoln, Neb., Mun. Code §6.04.050 (2011); Newark, N.J., General Ordinances §6:2-35 (2010); San Diego, Cal., Mun. Code §42.0709 (2011). 356. Jersey City, N.J., Code of Ordinances §90-8(C) (2011). 357. Austin, Tex., Code of Ordinances §10-5-21 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(h) (2011); Garland, Tex., Code of Or- dinances §22.17 (2011); Glendale, Cal., Mun. Code §6.04.040 (2011); Houston, Tex., Code of Ordinances §6-36 (2010); Kansas City, Mo., Code of Ordinances §14-19 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev., Mun. Code §7.36.050 (2011); Lincoln, Neb., Mun. Code §6.04.050 (2011); Mesa, Ariz., City Code §8-6-23 (2011); Miami, Fla., Code of Ordinances §6-1 (2011); San Jose, Cal., Code of Ordinances §7.60.755 (2007); Santa Ana, Cal., Code of Ordinances §5.6(b) (2011); Scottsdale, within their ordinances are congregated mostly in the South or the Southwest.358 Several mandate that chicken feed or chicken waste be kept in ly-tight containers.359 Miami requires that a chicken’s droppings be treated to destroy ly maggots before it can be used as fertilizer.360 Mesa has four cleaning requirements all designed to keep lies away: (1)  droppings must be removed twice weekly; (2)  “fowl excreta” must be stored in ly-tight containers; (3)  water and feed troughs must be kept sanitary; and (4) food and food waste must be kept in a ly-proof con- tainer—all explicitly “to prevent the breeding of lies.”361 Kansas City’s concern with lies will stand in the way of keeping hens for eggs that would meet organic standards; it mandates the use of insecticide by providing that “all struc- tures, pens or coops wherein fowl are kept or permitted to be shall be sprayed with such substances as will eliminate such insects.”362 Because chickens eat insects, and because the protein they gain from eating those insects has a ben- eicial efect 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 lies, going so far as to mandate that the owner adhere to impossible building requirements. Glendale requires chickens to be kept in a ly-proof enclosure; it deines ly- proof quite speciically as “a structure or cage of a design which prevents the entry therein or the escape therefrom of any bee, moth or ly.”363 Because a chicken must enter into and exit from its enclosure, and because one would want the chicken to have access to fresh air and sunlight, such a structure presents itself as an architectural impossibility. Ten cities are particularly concerned with rats.364 Of these cities, several are concerned about both lies and rats.365 Most of these cities simply mandate that the coop be free of rats,366 but three cities require that food be kept Ariz., Code of Ordinances §§4-17 & 4-18 (2011); Wash., D.C., Mun. Regulations for Animal Control §902.11-13 (no date listed). 358. Seesupra note 357. 359. Houston, Tex., Code of Ordinances §6-36 (2010); Mesa, Ariz., City Code §8-6-23 (2011); Santa Ana, Cal., Code of Ordinances §5.6(b) (2011). 360. Miami, Fla., Code of Ordinances §6-1 (2011). 361. Mesa, Ariz., City Code §8-6-23 (2011). 362. Kansas City, Mo., Code of Ordinances §14-15(d) (2011). 363. Glendale, Cal., Mun. Code §6.04.040 (2011). 364. Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.13(B)(8) (2009); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §§604.17 & 00053-11 (2011); Denver, Colo., Mun. Code §8-92 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(h) (2011); Kansas City, Mo., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev., Mun. Code §7.36.050 (2011); Mobile, Ala., Code of Ordinances §7-103 (2011); New Orleans, La., Code of Or- dinances §18-2.1 (2011); Richmond, Va., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz., Code of Ordinances §4-17 (2011); Wash., D.C., Mun. Regulations for Animal Control §§902.12 & 902.13 (no date listed). 365. E.g., Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §§604.17 & 00053-11 (2011); Kansas City, Mo., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Las Ve- gas, Nev., Mun. Code §7.36.050 (2011); Mobile, Ala., Code of Ordi- nances §7-102 (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz., Code of Ordinances §§4-17 & 4-18 (2011); Wash., D.C., Mun. Regulations for Animal Control §902.12 (no date listed). 366. Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §00053-11 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(d) (2011); Kansas City, Mo., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev., Mun. Code Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 43 42 ELR 10912 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 within a rat-proof container.367 Denver appears to have the same antipathy toward rats as Glendale does toward lies. Denver requires that chickens be kept in a rat-proof building. A rat-proof building is one that is made with no “potential openings that rats could exploit and built with “material impervious to rat-gnawing.”368 While an open- ing for a rat would necessarily be bigger than an opening for a ly, because chickens will still have to enter and exit the structure, Denver appears to demand similarly impos- sible architecture. c. Coop Construction Requirements hirty-seven cities regulate the construction of the chicken coop.369 Like the cleaning regulations, many of these cities’ ordinances are not particular to chickens, but cover any structure meant to house an animal.370 But, as demonstrated below, most speciically regulate chicken coops. Most of these ordinances require that chickens be kept within an enclosure, and many add that the enclosure must §7.36.050 (2011); New Orleans, La., Code of Ordinances §18-2.1 (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz., Code of Ordinances §4-17 (2011); Wash., D.C., Mun. Regulations for Animal Control §§902.12 & 902.13 (no date listed). 367. Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.3 (2009); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4(h) (2011); Richmond, Va., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011). 368. Denver, Colo., Mun. Code §§40.41 & 40.51 (2011). 369. Albuquerque, N.M., Code of Ordinances §9-2-2-2 (2011); Anchor- age, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §17.05.010 (2011); Arlington, Tex., Ordinances Governing Animals §1.01 Secure Enclosure (2010); At- lanta, Ga., Code of Ordinances §18-7 (2011); Austin, Tex., Code of Ordinances §3-2-11 (2011); Baltimore, Md., Health Code §10-409 (2011); Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.3 (2009); Charlotte, N.C., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Or- dinances §00053-11 (2011); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347.02(a)(1)(D) & (E) (2011); Colorado Springs, Colo., City Code §6.7.106(D) (2011); Corpus Christi, Tex., Code of Ordinances §6- 154 (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-3(h) (2011); Fresno, Cal., Mun. Code §10.205 (2011); Glendale, Cal., Mun. Code §6.04.040 (2011); Houston, Tex., Code of Ordinances §6-36 (2010); Irving, Tex., Code of Ordinances §6-1 Shelter (2011); Jersey City, N.J., Code of Ordinances §90-8 (2011); Kansas City, Mo., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Lincoln, Neb., Mun. Code §6.04.050 (2011); Long Beach, Cal., Mun. Code §6.20.100 (2011); Louisville, Ky., Metro Code §91.001 Restraint (2011); Madison, Wis., Code of Ordinances §28.08 (no date listed); Mobile, Ala., Code of Ordinances §7-88 (2011); Montgomery, Ala., Code of Ordinances §4-161 (2011); New Orleans, La., Code of Ordinances §18-2.1 (2011); Norfolk, Va., Code of Ordinances §6.1-2 (2011); Oklahoma City, Okla., Mun. Code §8-96(c) & (e) (2011); Plano, Tex., Code of Ordinances §4-1 Se- cure Enclosure & Shelter (2011); Rochester, N.Y., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed); San Antonio, Tex., Code of Ordinances §5-9 (2011); San Jose, Cal., Code of Ordinances §§7.20.020 & 7.60.760 (2007); Santa Ana, Cal., Code of Ordinances §5.6(b) (2011); Seattle, Wash., Mun. Code §23.42.052(c)(3) (2011); Tacoma, Wash., Mun. Code §17.01.010 (2011); Tucson, Ariz., Code of Ordinances §4-3(2) (c) (2011); Tulsa, Okla., Code of Ordinances §406 (2011). 370. Albuquerque, N.M., Code of Ordinances §9-2-2-2 (2011); Anchor- age, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §17.05.010 (2011); Arlington, Tex., Ordinances Governing Animals §1.01 Secure Enclosures (2010); Baltimore, Md., Health Code §10-409 (2011); Irving, Tex., Code of Ordinances §6-1 (2011); Mobile, Ala., Code of Ordinances §7- 15 (2011); Montgomery, Ala., Code of Ordinances §4-161 (2011); New Orleans, La., Code of Ordinances §18-2.1 (2011); Norfolk, Va., Code of Ordinances §6.1-2 (2011); Plano, Tex., Code of Ordinances §4-1 (2011); Tucson, Ariz., Code of Ordinances §4-3(2)(c) (2011). be secure.371 Some further require that the enclosure keep animals protected from inclement weather.372 Outside of this, however, there is no consistency to these statutes. Of the cities that have promulgated shelter require- ments speciic to chickens, nine of them mandate that each chicken be given a speciic amount of space.373 Of these cities, the average amount of space per chicken is ive square feet, although no city actually mandates that.374 he median amount of space per chicken is four square feet. he mode, or most popular amount, is also four square feet.375 he next most popular is between two and two- and-one-half square feet.376 Cleveland requires 10 square feet per chicken, but speciies that this is for the outdoor run, not for the enclosed coop.377 Rochester also takes the diference between a chicken coop and a chicken run into account and requires at least four square feet per chicken in both the coop and the run.378 Long Beach does not give a particular square footage per chicken, but requires that each coop be at least twice as big as the bird.379 Instead of regulating coop size so speciically, some cit- ies require that the coops not be cramped or overcrowd- ed.380 Others state that the coop should be big enough for the chicken to move about freely,381 or have space to stand, 371. E.g., Albuquerque, N.M., Code of Ordinances §9-2-2-2 (2011); An- chorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §17.05.010 (2011); Arling- ton, Tex., Ordinances Governing Animals §1.01 Secure Enclosures (2010); Atlanta, Ga., Code of Ordinances §18-7 (2011); Austin, Tex., Code of Ordinances §3-2-11 (2011); Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341- 11.3 (2009); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-3(h) (2011); Glendale, Cal., Mun. Code §6.04.040 (2011); Irving, Tex., Code of Ordinances §6-1 (2011); Kansas City, Mo., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Louisville, Ky., Metro Code §91.001 (2011); Madi- son, Wis., Code of Ordinances §28.08 (no date listed); Montgomery, Ala., Code of Ordinances §4-161 (2011); Norfolk, Va., Code of Or- dinances §6.1-2 (2011); Plano, Tex., Code of Ordinances §4-1 (2011); Tacoma, Wash., Mun. Code §17.01.010 (2011). 372. E.g., Norfolk, Va., Code of Ordinances §6.1-2 (2011) (providing that a shelter must protect “each animal from injury, rain, sleet, snow, hail, direct sunlight”); Plano, Tex., Code of Ordinances §4-1 (2011) (providing that fowl should be housed in a “structure that is capable of providing cover and protection from the weather”); Tulsa, Okla., Code of Ordinances §406 (2011) (“Natural or artiicial shelters appropriate to the local climactic conditions for the particular species of animal or fowl shall be provided for all animals or fowl kept outdoors.”). 373. Atlanta, Ga., Code of Ordinances §18-7(1)(d) (2011) (2 sq. ft.); Buf- falo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.3(B)(3) (2009) (2 sq. ft.); Charlotte, N.C., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010) (4 sq. ft.); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347.02(b)(1)(D) & (E) (2011) (10 sq. ft.); Colorado Springs, Colo., City Code §6.7.106(D) (2011) (4 sq. ft.); Long Beach, Cal., Mun. Code §6.20.100 (2011) (twice the size of the fowl); Mobile, Ala., Code of Ordinances §7-88 (2011) (15 sq. ft.); Rochester, N.Y., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed) (4 sq. ft.); Santa Ana, Cal., Code of Ordinances §5.6(b)(3) (2011) (2.5 sq. ft.). 374. Seesupra note 373. 375. Charlotte, N.C., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010); Colorado Springs, Colo., City Code §6.7.106(D) (2011); Rochester, N.Y., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed). 376. Atlanta, Ga., Code of Ordinances §18-7(1)(d) (2011); Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.3(B)(3) (2009); Santa Ana, Cal., Code of Ordi- nances §5.6(b)(3) (2011). 377. Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347.02(b)(1)(D) & (E) (2011). 378. Rochester, N.Y., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed). 379. Long Beach, Cal., Mun. Code §6.20.100 (2011). 380. E.g., Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §701-35 (2011). 381. Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347.02(b)(1)(D) (2011) Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. . Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 44 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10913 turn around, and lie down.382 Des Moines is unique, in that it looks to state or national standards for the coop size, providing that “such enclosures shall be of suicient size to house the number of animals or fowl permitted by state or national standards.”383 Some cities also mandate how large the coop can be. he coop sizes also lack uniformity—both Bufalo 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 Bufalo caps height at seven feet.384 Seattle allows for up to 1,000 square feet and caps the height at 12 feet.385 Finally, Charlotte is the only city that provides for a minimum height by requiring the coops to be at least 18 inches high.386 Other requirements that turn up in more than one city is that the coop’s loor be impervious,387 the coop be ade- quately ventilated,388and the coop be kept dry or allow for drainage.389 Some cities mandate that the enclosure protect the chickens from predators.390 And, Bufalo, Cleveland, and Colorado Springs require that the chickens have access to an outdoor run.391 Two cities stand at odds on the issue of keeping chickens within solid walls. Baltimore prohibits chickens from being conined in a cage entirely of solid walls,392 while Corpus Christi, to avoid large setbacks, requires that chickens be conined entirely within solid walls.393 And some cities have entirely unique ordinances. Irving is concerned with protecting chickens from inclement weather; it requires protection from the direct rays of the 382. Long Beach, Cal., Mun. Code §6.20.100 (2011) (providing that ani- mals must have enough space to stand in a naturally erect position); New Orleans, La., Code of Ordinances §18-2.1(a)(2) (2011); Plano, Tex., Code of Ordinances §4-1 Secure Enclosure & Shelter (2011); Tuc- son, Ariz., Code of Ordinances §4-3(2)(c) (2011). 383. Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-3(h) (2011). 384. Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347.02(b)(1)(D) (2011); Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.3(B)(7) (2009). 385. Seattle, Wash., Mun. Code §23.42.052(c)(3) (2011). 386. Charlotte, N.C., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010). 387. E.g., Arlington, Tex., Ordinances Governing Animals §1.01 Secure Enclosure (2010); Glendale, Cal., Mun. Code §6.04.040 (2011); Lin- coln, Neb., Mun. Code §6.04.050 (2011) (requiring that, if a coop is less than 7,500 square feet, that the looring be made of hard surface material); New Orleans, La., Code of Ordinances §18-2.1(a)(1) (2011); Plano, Tex., Code of Ordinances §4-1 Secure Enclosure & Shelter (2011); Santa Ana, Cal., Code of Ordinances §5.6(b)(2) (2010) (providing that the “loors of every such building shall be smooth and tight”). 388. E.g., Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.3(B)(7) (2009); Charlotte, N.C., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010); Jersey City, N.J., Code of Ordinances §90-8 (2011); New Orleans, La., Code of Ordinances §18-2.1(a)(1) (2011); Plano, Tex., Code of Ordinances §4-1 Secure Enclosure & Shelter (2011). 389. E.g., Jersey City, N.J., Code of Ordinances §90-8 (2011); New Or- leans, La., Code of Ordinances §18-2.1(a)(1) (2011); Santa Ana, Cal., Code of Ordinances §5.6(b)(2) (2011). 390. Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.3(B)(3) & (4) (2009); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347.02(b)(1)(D). Seealso Nashville-David- son, Memo from John Cooper, Director Metropolitan Council Oice, to All Members of Metropolitan Council (Sept. 1, 2009) (on ile with author) (providing that coops must be kept in a predator-proof enclosure). 391. Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.3(B)(1) (2009); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347.02(b)(1)(D) & (E) (2011); Colorado Springs, Colo., City Code §6.7.106(D) (2011). 392. Baltimore, Md., Health Code §10-409 (2011). 393. Corpus Christi, Tex., Code of Ordinances §6-154 (2011). sun when the temperature is over 90 degrees and protec- tion from direct exposure to wind when the temperature is below 50 degrees.394 Jersey City’s ordinance stands out for its thoughtfulness.395 It requires that the coop contain win- dows if possible, that the coop be white-washed or painted, and that the coop contain removable perches and nests, so that they can be cleaned on a regular basis.396 Rochester does not allow fowl to be kept in a cellar.397 And San Anto- nio requires that the coop be built so that the chicken’s feet do not fall through the loor.398 d. Giving Authority Over Coop Requirements to a City Oficial Instead of legislating coop requirements through City Council, four cities delegate to some other city oicial. San Francisco requires the coop structure to be approved by the Department of Health399; Washington, D.C., assigns it to the Director of the Department of Human Services.400 Columbus requires its Health Commissioner to approve the structure.401 St. Louis allows its Animal Health Com- missioner to set standards for coop construction.402 And inally, Rochester mandates that the coop will, at all times, be subject to inspection and subject to the orders of its Chief of Police.403 e. Feed and Water Requirements Eleven cities are concerned that chickens receive enough food and water.404 Most of these simply mandate that chickens receive adequate or sanitary food and water, but three of the cities show special concern with the chicken’s welfare. Long Beach and Los Angeles require chickens to be given water every 12 hours.405 Memphis and Omaha require that the chickens not only be given suicient food but also “wholesome” food and water.406 And Bufalo requires that chickens be fed only through an approved 394. Irving, Tex., Code of Ordinances §6-1 Shelter (2011). 395. Jersey City, N.J., Code of Ordinances §90-8 (2011). 396. Id. 397. Rochester, N.Y., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed). 398. San Antonio, Tex., Code of Ordinances §5-9 (2011). 399. San Francisco, Cal., Health Code §37(b) (2011). 400. Wash., D.C., Mun. Regulations for Animal Control §902.7(c) (no date listed). 401. Columbus, Ohio, City Code §221.05(b) (2011). 402. St. Louis, Mo., Code of Ordinances §10.20.016 (2010). 403. Rochester, N.Y., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed). 404. Baton Rouge, La., Code of Ordinances §14:224(c)(1)(d) (2011); Buf- falo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.3(B)(9) (2009); Chicago, Ill., Code of Ordinances §7-12-290(b) (2011); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Or- dinances §701-35 (2011); Long Beach, Cal., Mun. Code §6.20.090 (2011); L.A., Cal., Mun. Code §53.46 (2011); Memphis, Tenn., Code of Ordinances §8-8-1 (2009); Mesa, Ariz., City Code §8-6-23(C) (2011); Milwaukee, Wis., Code of Ordinances §78-6.5 (2011); Mont- gomery, Ala., Code of Ordinances §4-161 (2011); Omaha, Neb., Code of Ordinances §6-261 (2011). 405. Long Beach, Cal., Mun. Code §6.20.090 (2011); L.A., Cal., Mun. Code §53.46 (2011). 406. Memphis, Tenn., Code of Ordinances §8-8-1 (2009); Omaha, Neb., Code of Ordinances §6-261 (2011) Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. . Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 45 42 ELR 10914 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 trough and prohibits feeding them through scattering food on the ground.407 6. Permit Requirements hirty-eight cities require a permit to keep chickens under certain circumstances.408 Like all of the other regulations, there is very little consistency. Eleven cities require permits for more than a maximum number of chickens.409 he average number the city allows before requiring a permit is seven. he average is high because San Diego allows up to 20 chickens before seeking a permit.410 he median is ive and the mode, with three cities, Saint Louis, Santa Ana and Spokane, is four. Two cities, El Paso and San Jose, allow for six.411 And, two cities, Portland and Witchita allow for three.412 Two cities require a permit if one seeks 407. Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.3(B)(9) (2009). 408. Baltimore, Md., Health Code §10-312 (2011); Bos., Mass., Code of Ordinances §16-1.8A (2010); Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.4 (2009); Charlotte, N.C., Code of Ordinances §3-102 (2010); Cleve- land, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347.02(i) & (j) (2011); Columbus, Ohio, City Code §221.05 (2011); Denver, Colo., Mun. Code §8-91 (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4(i), (j) (2011); El Paso, Tex., Mun. Code §§7.24.020 & 7.24.050 (2011); Fremont, Cal., Mun. Code §3-5803 (2011); Houston, Tex., Code of Ordinances §6- 38 (2010); Jersey City, N.J., Code of Ordinances §90-7 (2011); Kan- sas City, Mo., Code of Ordinances §14-15(h) (2011); Lincoln, Neb., Mun. Code §6.04.070 (2011); Madison, Wis., Code of Ordinances §9.52 (no date listed); Miami, Fla., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011); Milwaukee, Wis., Code of Ordinances §78-6.5 (2011); Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances §70.10 (2011); Mobile, Ala., Code of Ordinances §7-102 (2011); Newark, N.J., General Ordinances §6:2- 30 (2010); Norfolk, Va., Code of Ordinances §6.1-7 (2011); Omaha, Neb., Code of Ordinances §6-266 (2011); Phila Plano, Tex., Code of Ordinances §4-81 (2011); Portland, Or., City Code §13.05.015 (2011); Riverside, Cal., Code of Ordinances §17.206.020 (2011); Rochester, N.Y., City Ordinances §§30-12 & 30-15 (no date listed); Sacramento, Cal., City Code §§9.44.870 & 9.44.880 (2011); San An- tonio, Tex., Code of Ordinances §5-109(c) (2011); San Diego, Cal., Mun. Code §42.0713 (2011); San Francisco, Cal., Health Code §37(d) (2011); San Jose, Cal., Code of Ordinances §7.60.700 (2007); Santa Ana, Cal., Code of Ordinances §§5.6 & 23.42.051(B) (2011); Spokane, Wash., Mun. Code §17C.310.100 (no date listed); St. Lou- is, Mo., Code of Ordinances §10.20.015(c) (2010); St. Paul, Minn., §198.02 (2011); Tacoma, Wash., Mun. Code §5.30.010 (2011); Wash., D.C., Mun. Regulations for Animal Control §§902.1 & 902.3-4 (no date listed); Wichita, Kan., Code of Ordinances §6.04.157 (2011). 409. El Paso, Tex., Mun. Code §7.24.020 (2011) (requiring permit if more than six); Lincoln, Neb., Mun. Code §6.04.040 (2011) (requiring permit if more than 5, if fowl weigh over ive pounds and more than 20 for fowl between three and ive 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 ive); San Diego, Cal., Mun. Code §42.0713 (2011) (requiring per- mit if more than 25); San Jose, Cal., Code of Ordinances §7.60.700(A) (2007) (requiring permit if more than six); Santa Ana, Cal., Code of Ordinances §5.6 (2011) (requiring permit if more than four); Spokane, Wash., Mun. Code §§17C.310.100 & 10.20.015(c) (no date listed) (re- quiring permit if more than four); St. Louis, Mo., Code of Ordinances §10.20.015(c) (2010) (requiring permit if more than four ); Wichita, Kan., Code of Ordinances §6.04.157 (2011) (requiring permit if more than three). 410. San Diego, Cal., Mun. Code §42.0713 (2011). 411. El Paso, Tex., Mun. Code §7.24.020 (2011); San Jose, Cal., Code of Ordinances §7.60.700(A) (2007). 412. Portland, Or., City Code §13.05.015(E) (2011); Wichita, Kan., Code of Ordinances §6.04.157 (2011). to place the chickens within the legislated setbacks.413 And one city, Riverside, only requires a permit if one wants to keep roosters.414 he remaining 24 cities require a permit to keep chick- ens under all circumstances.415 Permit renewal periods and fees also difer 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 ive-year permits after that.417 Cleveland has a biennial permit.418 Mobile allows for the permit to remain valid until revoked by the health oicer.419 And several simply don’t specify how long the permit will last.420 here is also a lot of variety among cities in where to go to get the permit. Cleveland, Columbus, Omaha, and Norfolk grant the public health departments the authority to grant permits421; Newark gives it to the Director of the Department of Child and Family Well-Being422; Sacra- mento to the Animal Care Services Operator423; Tacoma 413. Kansas City, Mo., Code of Ordinances §14-15(h) (2011) (requir- ing permit if want to be within setback); Tacoma, Wash., Mun. Code §5.30.010 (2011) (requiring permission from city clerk to put coop with- in setback). 414. Riverside, Cal., Code of Ordinances §17.206.020 (2011). 415. Baltimore, Md., Health Code §10-312 (2011); Bos., Mass., Code of Ordinances §16-1.8A (2010); Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.4 (2009); Charlotte, N.C., Code of Ordinances §3-102 (2010); Cleve- land, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347.02(i) & (j) (2011); Columbus, Ohio, City Code §221.05 (2011); Denver, Colo., Mun. Code §8-91 (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4(i), (j) (2011); Fremont, Cal., Mun. Code §3-5803 (2011); Houston, Tex., Code of Ordinances §6-38 (2010); Jersey City, N.J., Code of Ordinances §90- 7 (2011); Madison, Wis., Code of Ordinances §9.52 (no date listed); Miami, Fla., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011); Milwaukee, Wis., Code of Ordinances §78-6.5 (2011); Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances §70.10 (2011); Mobile, Ala., Code of Ordinances §7-102 (2011); Newark, N.J., General Ordinances §6:2-30 (2010); Norfolk, Va., Code of Ordinances §6.1-7 (2011); Omaha, Neb., Code of Or- dinances §6-266 (2011); Rochester, N.Y., City Ordinances §§30-12 & 30-15 (no date listed); Sacramento, Cal., City Code §§9.44.870 & 9.44.880 (2011); San Francisco, Cal., Health Code §37(d) (2011); St. Paul, Minn., §198.02 (2011); Wash., D.C., Mun. Regulations for Ani- mal Control §§902.1 & 902.3-4 (no date listed). 416. Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.4 (2009); Charlotte, N.C., Code of Ordinances §3-102(a) (2010); Fremont, Cal., Mun. Code §3-5906 (2011); Jersey City, N.J., Code of Ordinances §90-7 (2011); Lincoln, Neb., Mun. Code §6.04.110 (2011); Madison, Wis., Code of Ordi- nances §9.52 (no date listed); Newark, N.J., General Ordinances §6:2- 30 (2010); Omaha, Neb., Code of Ordinances §6-271 (2011); Roch- ester, N.Y., City Ordinances §30-15 (no date listed); St. Paul, Minn., §198.04 (2011); Wash., D.C., Mun. Regulations for Animal Control §902.3 (no date listed). 417. Kansas City, Mo., Code of Ordinances §14-15(h) (2011); Minneapo- lis, Minn., Code of Ordinances §70.10 (2011) (ive-year period ofered as a choice). 418. Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §205.04 (2011). 419. Mobile, Ala., Code of Ordinances §7-102 (2011). 420. E.g., Norfolk, Va., Code of Ordinances §6.1-7 (2011); Plano, Tex., Code of Ordinances §4-81 (2011); Santa Ana, Cal., Code of Ordi- nances §5.6 (2011); Tacoma, Wash., Mun. Code §5.30.010 (2011). 421. Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §205.04 (2011); Columbus, Ohio, City Code §221.05 (2011); Omaha, Neb., Code of Ordinances §6-266 (2011); Norfolk, Va., Code of Ordinances §6.1-7 (2011). 422. Newark, N.J., General Ordinances §6:2-30 (2010). 423. Sacramento, Cal., City Code §9-44-870 (2011) Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. . Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 46 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10915 to the City Clerk424; and Boston to the Inspectional Ser- vices Department.425 Most cities, however, do not state in the ordinance by what means a person actually procures a permit.426 hree cities use the permit process to make sure that would-be chicken owners have the consent of their neigh- bors. St. Paul, Minnesota, requires that an applicant show, through written consent, that 75% of the owners or occu- pants of property within 150 feet have given permission for the chickens.427 Las Vegas requires written consent of neighbors within 350 feet.428 Bufalo 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, Bufalo has set forth a labyrinthine process for securing a “chicken license.”431 It requires the license seeker to provide his name, address, number of chickens sought, and the location of the coop. he city then notiies neighboring landowners with property within 50 feet of the applicant’s property of the application and allows them to provide written comments. he city also notiies the mayor and City Council. If the city clerk does not receive any comments, the clerk can issue a license for up to ive hens. But if anyone lodges a negative comment, then the permit goes to City Council and Council must determine, after taking in the entire record before it, if the city will grant the license. If the Council approves it, it goes to the mayor, who has the power to veto it; if he does so—it would require a 2/3 majority at the following Council meeting to 424. Tacoma, Wash., Mun. Code §5.30.010 (2011). 425. Bos., Mass., Code of Ordinances §16-1.8A (2010). 426. E.g., Charlotte, N.C., Code of Ordinances §3-102(a) (2010) (provid- ing that the “bureau” will issue the permit.); Jersey City, N.J., Code of Ordinances §90-7 (2011) (providing that the “licensing issuing authority” will grant the permit). 427. St. Paul, Minn., §198.04(b) (2011): he applicant for any permit required under the provisions of sec- tion 198.02 shall provide with the application the written consent of seventy-ive (75) percent of the owners or occupants of privately or publicly owned real estate within one hundred ifty (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 ifty (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 ifty (150) feet consists of a multiple dwelling, the applicant need obtain only the written consent of the owner or manager, or other person in charge of the building. 428. Las Vegas, Nev., Mun. Code §7.38.050 (2011). 429. Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.2 (2009) (“No chicken hens shall be allowed without the express written consent of all residents residing on property adjacent to that of the applicant.”); Milwaukee, Wis., Code of Ordinances §78-6.5 (2011) (Before a permit is issued for the keeping of chickens, the applicant shall obtain the written consent of the owner of the property where the chickens shall be kept and owners of all directly or diagonally abutting properties, including those across an alley.”) 430. Riverside, Cal., Code of Ordinances §6.05.020 (2011). 431. Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.4 (2009). pass.432 If the permit is granted, then the Animal Control Oicer must inspect the coop before the licensee is actu- ally allowed to get chickens.433 hen, the licensee has to procure a separate license from the building department to build the chicken coop.434 And then Bufalo 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. he City Council is to consider all of these comments and any rebuttals to them before deciding whether to renew the license. he City Council can also revoke the license at any time if it hears any complaints about the licensee.435 his 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 diicult to draw strong conclusions on the norm for how much a city charges. But, 14 cities’ fees were identiied.436 hree of the 14 charged an initial fee, Mil- waukee charged a $25 initial fee, Minneapolis $50, and St. Paul $72.437 hirteen cities, including Minneapolis and St. Paul, charged annual fees.438 he fees ranged from specifying that the permit would be free to $50 per year. he average annual fee was $29, although no city charged that amount. he median fee and the mode are both $25 per year. Two cities legislated late charges into the statute, Lincoln has a $25 late fee,439 and Madison charges $5 if a permit is renewed late.440 Finally, Minneapolis gives a $50 discount from the annual fee if a licensee renews for ive years, instead of paying $40 a year, one can pay $150 for a ive-year period.441 432. Buffalo, N.Y., City Charter §3-19. 433. Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.4 (2009). 434. Id. 435. Id. 436. Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.1(G) (2009) ($25 annual fee); Char- lotte, N.C., Code of Ordinances §3-102(a) (2010) ($50 annual fee); Denver, Colo., Mun. Code §8-91 (2011) ($50 annual fees as listed on city website at http://www.denvergov.org/FrequentlyAskedQuestionsan- dRelatedLinks/tabid/434759/Default.aspx); Jersey City, N.J., Code of Ordinances §90-7 (2011) ($25 annual fee); Lincoln, Neb., Mun. Code §6.04.090 (2011) ($50 annual fee with a $25 late fee); Madison, Wis., Code of Ordinances §9.52 (no date listed) ($10 annual fee with a $5 late fee); Milwaukee, Wis., Code of Ordinances §60-7 (2011) ($35 ini- tial fee); Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances §70.10(f ) (2011) ($50 initial fee and $40 annual fee); Mobile, Ala., Code of Ordinances §7-102 (2011) (speciies that permits are free); Newark, N.J., General Ordinances §6:2-31 (2010) ($10 annual fee); Rochester, N.Y., City Or- dinances §30-16 (no date listed) ($37 annual fee); St. Louis, Mo., Code of Ordinances §10.20.013(f ) (2010) ($40 annual fee); St. Paul, Minn., §198.04(c) (2011) ($72 initial fee and $25 annual fee); Wichita, Kan., Code of Ordinances §6.04.157 (2011) ($25 annual fee). 437. Supranote 436 and accompanying text. 438. Id. 439. Lincoln, Neb., Mun. Code §6.04.090 (2011). 440. Madison, Wis., Code of Ordinances §9.52 (no date listed). 441. Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances §70.10(g) (2011) Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. . Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 47 42 ELR 10916 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 7. Slaughtering hirteen cities regulate slaughtering 442; however, of those, only six ban slaughtering altogether.443 hree cities, Bufalo, Charlotte, and Pittsburgh, allow chickens to be slaugh- tered, but require that it not occur outdoors or in a public place.444 Cleveland allows a chicken to be slaughtered on site, but only if it is meant to be consumed on the occu- pant’s premises.445 San Francisco requires that any slaugh- ter occur in an “entirely separate” room than the one that fowl occupy.446 Rochester requires a poulterer’s license to both keep chickens and slaughter them.447 And, Glendale, in keeping with its aversion to rats described above, only allows for slaughter if it occurs in a rat-proof structure.448 Several other cities only ban slaughter if a person is kill- ing another’s chickens without permission.449 Chesapeake is particularly concerned with dogs killing chickens. Ches- apeake mandates compensation of no more than $10 per fowl, if a dog or hybrid dog kills a chicken.450 Finally, several cities stand directly opposed concern- ing the killing of chickens for animal sacriice. Chicago’s ordinance banning the slaughter of chickens is directed toward chickens killed for animal sacriice; it provides in the ordinance that this “section is applicable to any cult that kills (sacriices) animals for any type of ritual, regard- 442. Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.3(d) (2009); Charlotte, N.C., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c)(4) (2010); Chi., ill., Code of Ordi- nances §17-12-300 (2011); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347.02(h) (2011); Glendale, Cal., Mun. Code §8.48.020 (2011); Madison, Wis., Code of Ordinances §2809(9)(b)(6) (no date listed); Milwaukee, Wis., Code of Ordinances §78-6.5(3)(b) (2011); Nashville- Davidson, Tenn. Memo from John Cooper, Director Metropolitan Coun- cil Oice, to All Members of Metropolitan Council (Sept. 1, 2009) (on ile with author); Pittsburgh, Pa., Code of Ordinances §911.04.A.2 (2011); Rochester, N.Y., City Ordinances §30-12 (no date listed); Sacramento, Cal., City Code §9.44.860 (2011); San Francisco, Cal., Health Code §37(d)(5) (2011); Wichita, Kan., Code of Ordinances §6.04.175(p) (2011). 443. Chi., ill., Code of Ordinances §17-12-300 (2011) (“No person shall own, keep or otherwise possess, or slaughter any sheep, goat, pig, cow or the young of such species, poultry, rabbit, dog, cat, or any other animal, intending to use such animal for food purposes.”); Madison, Wis., Code of Ordinances §2809(9)(b)(6) (no date listed) (“No person shall slaughter any chickens.”); Milwaukee, Wis., Code of Ordinances §78-6.5(3)(b) (2011); (“No person shall slaughter any chickens.”); Nashville-Davidson, Tenn. Memo from John Cooper, Director Metropolitan Council Oice, to All Members of Metropolitan Council (Sept. 1, 2009) (on ile 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) (“here shall be no out- door slaughtering of chicken hens.”); Charlotte, N.C., Code of Ordi- nances §3-102(c)(4) (2010); (providing that any slaughter “shall be done only in a humane and sanitary manner and shall not be done open to the view of any public area or adjacent property owned by another”); Pitts- burgh, Pa., Code of Ordinances §911.04.A.2 (2011) (“Killing or dress- ing of poultry raised on the premises shall be permitted if conducted entirely within an enclosed building.”). 445. Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347.02(h) (2011). 446. San Francisco, Cal., Health Code §37(d)(5) (2011). 447. Rochester, N.Y., City Ordinances §30-12 (no date listed). 448. Glendale, Cal., Mun. Code §8.48.020 (2011). 449. Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92.03 (2011); Austin, Tex., Code of Ordinances §3-2-61 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz., City Code §8-3 (2011). 450. Chesapeake, Va., Code of Ordinances §10-19 (2011). less of whether or not the lesh or blood of the animal is to be consumed.”451 Witchita, however, while banning the slaughter of chickens, states that the ordinance does not apply “to the slaughter of animals as part of religious practices.”452 And, Los Angeles expressly allows slaughter both for food and religious purposes.453 8. Roosters Many cities that allow for hens ban roosters. Twenty-six cities prohibit roosters.454 Of these cities, four have excep- tions: Phoenix will allow a rooster only if it is incapable of making vocal noises455; Rochester and San Jose will allow roosters under four months of age456; and Sacramento only prohibits roosters on developed lots used exclusively for residential purposes.457 Fort Wayne does not say anything about roosters, but its ordinance efectively bans them by deining poultry only as “laying hens.”458 Many cities, instead of banning roosters altogether impose very large setbacks for roosters, require a larger property size for roosters, or relegate roosters to agricul- turally zoned land. Four cities require relatively large set- backs for roosters: Cleveland requires 100-foot setbacks459; Kansas City, 300 feet460; Oklahoma City, 400 feet461; and Glendale, California, requires 500 feet.462 Wichita will also allow for roosters if they are more than 500 feet from any residentially zoned lot.463 hree cities require greater 451. Chi., ill., Code of Ordinances §17-12-300 (2011) (but exempting Ko- sher slaughtering from this ordinance). 452. Wichita, Kan., Code of Ordinances §6.04.175(p) (2011). 453. L.A., Cal., Mun. Code §53.67 (2011). 454. Buffalo, N.Y., City Code §341-11.1(d) (2009); Colorado Springs, Colo., City Code §6.7.110(A) (2011); Fort Wayne, Ind., Code of Ordinances ch. 157 (2011); Fresno, Cal., Mun. Code §§12-204.11 & 12-205.1 & 12-206.1 (2011); Garland, Tex., Code of Ordinances §22.14 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev., Mun. Code §7.38.050(a)(2) (2011); Lincoln, Neb., Mun. Code §6.04.041 (2011); Long Beach, Cal., Mun. Code §6.20.050 (2011); Miami, Fla., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b)(2) (2011); Madison, Wis., Code of Ordinances ch. 28 (no date listed); Milwaukee, Wis., Code of Ordinances §78-6.5(3)(a) (2011); N.Y.C., Health Code §§161.19(a) & 161.01(b)(11) (1990); Newark, N.J., Gen- eral Ordinances §6:2-36 (2010); Oakland, Cal., Code of Ordinances §6.04.320 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz., City Code §8-7(c) (2011); Portland, Or., City Code §13.10.010 (2011); Rochester, N.Y., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed); Sacramento, Cal., City Code §9.44.860(B) (2011); St. Paul, Minn., §198.03 (2011); St. Petersburg, Fla., Code of Ordinances §4-31(e) (2011); San Jose, Cal., Code of Ordinances §7.60.820 (2007); Santa Ana, Cal., Code of Ordinances §5-6.5 (2011); Seattle, Wash., Mun. Code §23.42.052(c)(2) (2011); Stockton, Cal., Mun. Code §6.04.440 (2011); Tucson, Ariz., Code of Ordinances §4- 59 (2011); Wichita, Kan., Code of Ordinances §6.04.171 (2011). 455. Phoenix, Ariz., City Code §8-7(c) (2011). Removing a roosters vocal chords was routinely done by vets many years ago. But because of the ex- tremely high mortality rate (over 50%) most vets will no longer perform this procedure. See SmallandBackyardFlocks, Ky. U. Ext., http://www.ca.uky. edu/smalllocks/faq.html#Q31 (last visited July 8, 2012). 456. Rochester, N.Y., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed); San Jose, Cal., Code of Ordinances §7.60.820 (2007). 457. Sacramento, Cal., City Code §9.44.860(B) (2011). 458. Fort Wayne, Ind., Code of Ordinances ch. 157 (2011). 459. Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347.02(b)(1)(c) (2011). 460. Kansas City, Mo., Code of Ordinances §14-15(f ) (2011). 461. Oklahoma City, Okla., Mun. Code §59-9350(c), (d) (2011). 462. Glendale, Ariz., Code of Ordinances pt. II, art. 5 (2010) (multiple provisions in zoning code relating to roosters). 463. Wichita, Kan., Code of Ordinances §6.04.171 (2011) Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. . Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 48 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10917 acreage for roosters: Cleveland requires at least one acre464; Baton Rouge requires two acres465; and Fremont California allows one rooster for ½ acre, and two roosters for more than one acre.466 hree 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 efectively cause any rooster to be a nui- sance, at least a rooster that crows.468 Finally, nine cities expressly allow for roosters.469 Most of these cities, however, limit the number of roosters allowed. hree cities allow for only one rooster.470 Two cit- ies allow for two roosters.471 El Paso allows for up to three roosters with a permit.472 And Riverside allows up to six and only requires a permit to keep seven or more roost- ers.473 San Diego and San Francisco allow for unlimited roosters; however, San Francisco animal control authorities stated that they do not recommend that San Franciscans keep roosters due to the number of complaints they have received concerning roosters.474 And, winning the award for most eccentric rooster ordi- nance is the city that allows roosters conjugal visits. While this city is not within the top 100 surveyed, Hopewell Township, New Jersey, as discussed above, allows roosters that are certiied disease-free to visit a hen lock for 10 days out of every year.475 464. Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347.02(b)(1)(c) (2011). 465. Baton Rouge, La., Code of Ordinances §14-224(b) (2011). 466. Fremont, Cal., Mun. Code §3-5803 (2011). 467. Anaheim, Cal., Mun. Code §18.38.030.050 (2011); Arlington, Tex., Ordinances Governing Animals §5.02(f ) (2010); Dallas, Tex., Code of Ordinances §7-7.3 (2011). 468. E.g., Anchorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §17.10.015 (2011); Ba- kersfield, Cal., Mun. Code §6.04.230 (2011); Columbus, Ohio, City Code §2327.14(A) (2011) (“No person shall keep or harbor any animal which howls, barks, or emits audible sounds that are unreasonably loud or disturbing and which are of such character, intensity and duration as to disturb the peace and quiet of the neighborhood or to be detrimental to life and health of any individual.”); Corpus Christi, Tex., Code of Ordi- nances §31-2 (2011); Greensboro, N.C., Code of Ordinances §30-8- 11.3(B) (2011) (“No poultry animals that make sounds clearly audible of- site are permitted.”); Lexington-Fayette, Ky., Code of Ordinances §4- 12 (2011); Nashville-Davidson, Tenn., Mun. Code §8.12.010 (2011) (“It is unlawful for any person to keep any animal, dog, bird or fowl which, by causing frequent or loud continued noise, disturbs the comfort or repose of any person in the vicinity.”); Raleigh, N.C., Code of Ordinances §12- 5007 (2011); St. Louis, Mo., Code of Ordinances §15.50.040 (2010). 469. Albuquerque, N.M., Code of Ordinances §9-2-4-3 (2011); Birming- ham, Ala., Zoning Ordinance §2.4.1 (2007); El Paso, Tex., Mun. Code §7.24.020(B)(1) (2011); Fort Worth, Tex., Code of Ordinances §11A- 22(c)(2) (2011); L.A., Cal., Mun. Code §53.71 (2011); Louisville, Ky., Metro Code §91.001 (2011); Riverside, Cal., Code of Ordinances §6.05.010 (2011); San Diego, Cal., Mun. Code §42.0708 (2011); San Francisco, Cal., Health Code §37 (2011). 470. Albuquerque, N.M., Code of Ordinances §9-2-4-3 (2011); L.A., Cal., Mun. Code §53.71 (2011); Louisville, Ky., Metro Code §91.001 (2011). 471. Fort Worth, Tex., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(c)(2) (2011); Bir- mingham, Ala., Zoning Ordinance §2.4.1 (2007). 472. El Paso, Tex., Mun. Code §7.24.020(B)(1) (2011). 473. Riverside, Cal., Code of Ordinances §§6.05.010 & 6.05.020 (2011). 474. San Diego, Cal., Mun. Code §42.0708 (2011); San Francisco, Cal., Health Code §37 (2011); Interview with San Francisco animal control (on ile with author). 475. NJTownLimitsConjugalVisitsBetweenRoosters&Hens, Huffington Post, Apr. 27, 2011, http://www.huingtonpost.com/2011/04/28/nj-limits-chicken- mating_n_854404.html (last visited July 8, 2012). V. Model Ordinance A. Reasons Behind the Choices in the Model Ordinance Because many cities are recognizing that keeping chick- ens in the city should be allowed, but would like to regu- late it properly so that the city can stop any nuisances before they arise, a model ordinance is provided below. hrough surveying the ordinances of the most populous American cities, many types of regulatory schemes have already been identiied and discussed. While diferent regulatory schemes may work better for diferent 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. hen, the model ordinance will be set out in full. 1. Chickens Should Be Regulated in a Uniied Ordinance Within the Section Concerning Animals Most cities regulate chickens within the animal code. his also appears to be the best option for where to place regula- tions afecting chickens within a city’s codiied ordinances. his 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 afect- ing chickens to be in one place. his will help a chicken owner to more easily ind 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 uniied 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 uniied ordinance. 2. Chickens Should Be Limited to a Small Flock A chicken ordinance should allow for at least four chick- ens. Because chickens are lock 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 lock. By allow- ing a minimum of four chickens, the city does not leave a chicken owner in a position of having to leave a hen in a solitary environment if another chicken dies. It also allows the chicken owner to introduce at least two new chicks to an existing lock of two. he model ordinance sets out a maximum of six chick- ens. his number is still below the average number of chickens allowed in most cities, but is suicient to keep a balanced backyard lock. Six hens will allow plenty of eggs Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. for the hen-keepers, while still allowing an owner to keep Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 49 42 ELR 10918 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 hens that no longer produce many eggs but are still valued by the owner for their companionship. Cities may want to consider allowing even more chick- ens. Allowing more chickens will allow owners to keep chickens that are no longer producing eggs. Chicken own- ers who raise hens for eggs may feel pressured to rid them- selves of older hens when they are faced with limitations on their lock.476 his has raised concerns in some areas that those chickens will burden animal shelters.477 Allowing a slightly larger lock may help to alleviate any burden. 3. Lot Size Should Not Be Restricted he majority of cities do not require a speciic 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. he 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. he city, for instance, can legislate a maximum num- ber of chickens for lot sizes of ½ acre or below, and then increase the number of chickens for larger lot sizes. 4. Setbacks Because there is a universal concern with keeping chickens too close to neighbors, a setback, rather than lot size, pro- vides the best solution for this concern. A setback actually ensures that the chickens will be kept at an appropriate distance from neighbors without unduly restricting people who own smaller properties from owning chickens. he 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. his 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. he addi- tion of requiring the setback to be from doors or windows also allows more lexibility for where a coop can be placed, while still ensuring that it will not annoy neighbors. Setbacks from a neighboring residence make sense because it can be assumed that no one wants someone keep- ing any pet, including chickens, very close to their house. A setback from the property line, however, may make less sense depending on where on the property chickens are kept. While a neighbor may be concerned that his neigh- 476. E.g., Kim Severson, WhentheProblemsComeHometoRoost, N.Y. Times, Oct. 22, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/dining/23sfdine. html. 477. Id. bor does not build a coop abutting his property that is also right next to a frequently used patio or deck, these sorts of setbacks may also overreach. For instance, these setbacks may require a coop to be located far from a little-used or overgrown part of a neighbor’s property. It may also require the coop to be located far from an area of the neighbor’s property where a garage or shed already provides a bar- rier. For these reasons, setbacks from property lines should be employed with care. But, it is understandable that a neighbor would not want a coop built directly next to a frequently used area of the yard, nor does a neighbor want to be responsible for cleaning errant droppings. For this reason, the model ordinance proposes minimal setbacks from property lines along the lines of the newly passed ordinances in Cleveland and Bufalo, of ive 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 justiiably 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 eicient and more clear to simply ban chickens from the front yard. 5. Sanitation Requirements he model ordinance requires that the coop and outdoor enclosure be kept in a sanitary condition and free from ofensive odors. It also requires that the coop and out- door enclosure be cleaned on a regular basis to prevent the accumulation of animal waste. he model ordinance does not go into further detail because more stringent cleaning requirements will be diicult 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 diferent 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 ei- cient, more sanitary, and more attractive cleaning options. he city’s concern is with sanitation and odor. hus, the city should address its regulations to these concerns, rather than to more speciic cleaning methods. Concerns with lies will also be taken care of through requiring clean and odor-free coops and enclosures. As lies are attracted to waste, any problem with lies 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. Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. But this regulation appears Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 50 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. here 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 of following Bufalo’s lead by prohibiting feed from being scattered on the ground and requiring chickens to be fed from a trough. 6. Enclosures he model ordinance provides speciic 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. his 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. he 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. he 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 speciic dimension, or will waive a building permit for coops under a speciic dimension that are not permanent structures, the city can easily insert such a provision here. he model ordinance also provides that chickens should not be allowed out of their coops, except when supervised by an adult. his 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 briely roam the yard or garden to forage for fresh greens. 478. Many companies sell commercially made coops, runs, and chicken tractors (portable enclosed structures that allow the owner to move the chickens around the yard) with novel designs. See,e.g., SayHellototheBrandNew EgluGo, Omlet, http://www.omlet.us/products_services/products_services. php?cat=Eglu+Go (last visted July 25, 2012) (ofering a plastic portable chick- en coop and run designed for two chickens); ChickenCoops, Sheds Unlim ited, http://www.shedsunlimited.net/portable-chicken-runs-and-coops-for- sale.html?gclid=CKXzvd2ruLECFeEDQAodcCIAkw (last visited July 25, 2012) (ofering Amish-built chicken coops and runs); ChickenSaloon. com, http://chickensaloon.com/?gclid=COLs7qysuLECFYS6KgodGBAAsw (last visited July 25, 2012); The Green Chicken Coop, http://www.gre- enchickencoop.com/ (last visited July 25, 2012). 7. Slaughtering he 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 he 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 lock, 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 efects of banning roosters. Most hen owners, however, are willing to add to their locks through other means where they can be better assured of procuring only female fowl. 9. Permits he 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 oicials naturally want to closely monitor how well owners are maintaining their locks. But, regulat- ing through a permitting or licensing process, dedicating a city oicial to overseeing it, and maintaining the records that such a process will require appears to be an ineicient 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. he fees that some cities charge, over $50 annually, efec- tively prohibit poorer people from owning chickens. he 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, ineicient, and expensive layer to the process of legalizing hens. he model ordinance does require a permit, however, if the chicken owner puts forth a proposal for why she should not have to comply with the city’s regulations—for instance if the owner wishes to keep more than the maxi- mum amount of hens, wishes to keep hens in a multi-fam- ily dwelling, wishes to keep hens on a parcel of land that is unconnected to a dwelling, or wishes to keep a rooster. Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 51 42 ELR 10920 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 his 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. he permit process is designed to allow for more lexibility within the ordinance, while still laying down irm 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. he 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-ive (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 ive (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. he 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. he coop and outdoor enclosure must be kept in a sanitary condition and free from ofensive odors. he coop and outdoor enclosure must be cleaned on a regular basis to prevent the accumulation of waste. e. Slaughtering. here shall be no outdoor slaugh- tering of chickens. f. Roosters. It is unlawful for any person to keep roosters. (b) Permit. A permit shall not be required if the above regulations are followed. If a person wishes to keep more than the maximum allowed number of hens, wishes to keep hens within the setback required, wishes to keep hens in a multi-family dwelling, wishes to keep hens on a parcel of land that is uncon- nected to a dwelling, or wishes to keep a rooster, a permit will be required. An application for a permit must contain the following items: a. he name, phone number, and address of the applicant. b. he size and location of the subject property. c. A proposal containing the following information. i. he 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. he 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 afected 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. he 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 inds that the permit holder has not maintained the chickens, coops, or outdoor enclosures in a clean and sani- tary condition Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. . Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 52 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Should the City Council choose to pursue development of zoning ordinance text amendments that allow the keeping of bees, staff requests direction as to the specific standards/requirements that should be incorporated into draft ordinances. 2. BACKGROUND: The Plymouth Zoning Ordinance currently defines bees as a farm animal. Farm animals are prohibited in all zoning districts except the FRD (future restricted development) district. City staff spoke with a resident at the City Sampler about the potential for beekeeping in Plymouth. The City Council has not discussed beekeeping for several years. To provide the council with background similar to what was recently prepared for chickens, staff researched how other communities regulate bees. Staff reviewed ordinances and materials from the following cities:  Blaine  Chanhassen  Coon Rapids  Crystal  Maple Grove  Minneapolis  Minnetonka  New Hope  St. Louis Park  St. Paul The attached table outlines the requirements in each of the respective ordinances. Of the ten cities surveyed, five allow beekeeping and five do not. Both central cities allow it with the issuance of a permit and documentation of completed training through specified organizations. In both central cities, bees can be kept in any zoning district with notice required (mailed notice in Minneapolis, sign posted in St. Paul). The most frequently cited permit regulations include limiting the number of colonies based on lot size. Of the directly abutting communities that regulate beekeeping, Maple Grove and New Hope allow the keeping of bees. St. Louis Park does not. New Hope has no Memorandum To:Steve Juetten From: Barbara Thomson Date:August 13, 2019 Item:Beekeeping Regulations 53 restrictions on which districts beekeeping is allowed. Maple Grove only allows beekeeping in its residential-agriculture district, which is similar to Plymouth’s FRD district. 3. BUDGET IMPACT: Not applicable unless a permit would be required for the keeping of bees. 4. ATTACHMENTS: Summary table of regulations of the listed cities 54 HONEYBEE OPERATIONS IN SELECTED CITIES CITY ALLOWED PERMIT REQ. ZONING DISTRICTS ALLOWED NOTICE REQUIRED TRAINING REQUIRED Blaine No Chanhassen Yes Yes (1) Lots one-third acre or larger but smaller than one acre: Two colonies. (2) Lots one acre or larger but smaller than 2 ½ acres: four colonies (3) Lots 2 ½ acres or larger but smaller than ten acres: Eight colonies (4) Lots larger than ten acres: No limit No Restrictions Yes Adjoining Neighbors Yes Through University of Minnesota of similar reputable organization Coon Rapids No Crystal No Maple Grove Yes No Code Allowed in R-A (Residential-Ag) Prohibited in R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-5 No Code No Code Minneapolis Yes Yes Permit issued by Minneapolis Animal Care and Control (MACC) a. One-half (1/2) acre or smaller lot: Two (2) colonies; No Restrictions Yes Adjoining Neighbors Yes Through University of Minnesota Century college or Three Rivers 55 HONEYBEE OPERATIONS IN SELECTED CITIES b. Larger than one-half (1/2) acre but smaller than three-quarter (3/4) acre lot: Four (4) colonies; c. Larger than three- quarter (3/4) acre lot but smaller than one (1) acre lot: Six (6) colonies; d. One (1) acre but smaller than five (5) acres: Eight (8) colonies; and e. Larger than five (5) acres: As determined as appropriate by MACC. Minnetonka No New Hope Yes Yes Hives may not be located within 500 feet of any property. No Restrictions Yes Properties within 350 feet by mail No St. Louis Pk. No St. Paul Yes Yes No more than 2 colonies for every 2000 sq. ft. of property area. No more than 4 colonies on any property. Not in front yard. No closer than 25 feet to an occupied building or another lot. Fencing required except yard not bordering a public ROW may request an exemption. No Restrictions Sign Posted Yes Through MN Hobby Beekeepers Association 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 City of Chanhassen ARTICLE IV. - HONEY BEES Sec. 5-120. - Definitions. In this article, the following terms have the stated meanings: "Apiary"means the assembly of one or more colonies of bees at a single location. "Beekeeper"means a person who owns or has charge of one or more colonies of bees. "Beekeeping equipment"means anything used in the operation of an apiary, such as hive bodies, supers, frames, top and bottom boards and extractors. "Colony"means an aggregate of bees consisting principally of workers, but having, when perfect, one queen and at times drones, brood, combs, and honey. "Hive"means the receptacle inhabited by a colony that is manufactured for that purpose. "Honey bee"means all life stages of the common domestic honey bee, apis mellifera species. "Lot"means a contiguous parcel of land under common ownership. "Undeveloped property"means any idle land that is not improved or actually in the process of being improved with residential, commercial, industrial, church, park, school or governmental facilities or other structures or improvements intended for human use or occupancy and the grounds maintained in associations therewith. The term shall be deemed to include property developed exclusively as a street or highway or property used for commercial agricultural purposes. (Ord. No. 634, § 2, 6-25-18) Sec. 5-121. - Purpose of ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance from which this article derives is to establish certain requirements for beekeeping within the city, to avoid issues which might otherwise be associated with beekeeping in populated areas. (1) Compliance with this article shall not be a defense to a proceeding alleging that a given colony constitutes a nuisance, but such compliance may be offered as evidence of the beekeeper's efforts to abate any proven nuisance. (2) Compliance with this article shall not be a defense to a proceeding alleging that a given colony violates applicable ordinances regarding public health, but such compliance may be offered as evidence of the beekeeper's compliance with acceptable standards of practice among hobby beekeepers in the State of Minnesota. (Ord. No. 634, § 2, 6-25-18) Sec. 5-122. - Permit required. (a) No person shall maintain or keep honey bees without a permit issued by the city. (b) Application for the permit required by this article shall be made to the city upon a form furnished by the city. A nonrefundable fee in the amount established by resolutions shall be paid to the city when the application if filed. (c) In order to be issued a permit the applicant must: 77 (1) Provide proof of having successfully completed 16 hours of training in beekeeping through the University of Minnesota, or similarly reputable organization. (2) Have a lot of one-third acre or larger. (3) Submit a notarized statement to city stating that they have informed all adjoining neighbors that they intend to keep honey bees. (4) Not have had a prior beekeeping permit revoked by the City of Chanhassen. (5) Meet the colony density and setback requirements listed in section 5-123. (Ord. No. 634, § 2, 6-25-18) Sec. 5-123. - Colony density and setbacks. (a) No person is permitted to keep more than the following numbers of colonies on any lot within the city, based upon the size of the apiary lot: (1) Lots one-third acre or larger but smaller than one acre: Two colonies. (2) Lots one acre or larger but smaller than 2½ acres: Four colonies. (3) Lots 2½ acres or larger but smaller than ten acres: Eight colonies. (4) Lots larger than ten acres: No limit. (b) Colonies must be located in the rear yard and must be setback from the property lines a minimum of 25 feet. (1) On lots with multiple street frontages, colonies may not be located in any yard with street frontage. (2) On lots directly adjacent to undeveloped property colonies may be setback a minimum of ten feet from lot lines dividing the property from the undeveloped property. The colonies must still be setback a minimum of 25 feet from any lot line dividing the property from any parcel that is not undeveloped property. If the undeveloped property is later improved so as to no longer meet the definition of undeveloped property, the colonies' location shall not be considered vested and it must be removed or relocated to comply with the 25-foot minimum setback. (Ord. No. 634, § 2, 6-25-18) Sec. 5-124. - Standards of practice. The following standards of practice apply to all properties in the city: (1) Beekeepers must select queens from European stock bred for gentleness and non-swarming characteristics. (2) Honey bee colonies shall be kept in hives with removable frames, which must be kept in sound and usable conditions. (3) Each beekeeper must ensure that a convenient source of water is available within ten feet of each colony at all times that the colonies remain active outside the hive. (4) Each beekeeper must ensure that no wax comb or other material that might encourage robbing by other bees that are left upon the grounds of the apiary lot. Such materials once removed from the site shall be handled and stored in sealed containers, or placed within a building or other vermin-proof container. 78 (5) Each beekeeper shall maintain their beekeeping equipment in good condition, including keeping the hives painted if they have been painted but are peeling or flaking, and securing unused equipment from weather, potential theft or vandalism and occupancy by swarms. (6) Honey bee colonies may not be kept on a lot with a multi-tenant building. (7) Beekeepers in districts zoned for residential use are allowed to sell honey as a home occupation in accordance with chapter 20, article XXIII, division 3, sections 20-976 through 20- 1000, with the understanding that the apiary and hives shall not be considered to violate section 20-979. (Ord. No. 634, § 2, 6-25-18) Sec. 5-125. - Revocation of permit. A beekeeping permit issued under this article may be revoked by the community development director if it is determined after an inspection by city staff that the permit holder has not maintained the standards set forth in section 5-124 or that bees are being kept in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance. (Ord. No. 634, § 2, 6-25-18) Secs. 5-126—129. - Reserved. 79 City of Minneapolis 63.100. - Honeybees. (a) No person shall keep, maintain, or allow to be kept any hive or other facility for the housing of honeybees on or in any property in the City of Minneapolis without a permit. (b) The number and location of hives, colonies, and/or facilities for the housing of honeybees permitted by this section shall be determined by a permit issued by MACC. The permit shall specify any restrictions, limitations, conditions, or prohibitions required by MACC as necessary to safeguard public health and the general welfare. Subject to a hearing to be held by a committee of the council or other designated hearing examiner, if requested within five (5) days of the notification, MACC may deny, suspend, or revoke any permit applied for or granted pursuant to this section if any condition or requirement is violated or if the keeping of honeybees becomes a public nuisance. (c) MACC may grant a permit pursuant to this section only after the applicant has met any educational requirements as established and published by MACC and has provided evidence of notification to all immediately adjacent property owners in a format supplied by or approved by and to the satisfaction of MACC. If the applicant is a renter, approval from the property owner shall be required. Neighbor notification shall be the responsibility of the property owner, though it may be carried out by the applicant. (d) Any person desiring a permit for the keeping of honeybees shall make application to MACC. Approval of the application is subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by MACC. All permits issued shall expire on January 31 of the year following issuance unless sooner revoked. The application fee for such permit shall be as established in the license fee schedule and shall be paid at the time of application. There shall be no fee for annual renewal, but the permit must be renewed annually for administrative tracking and notification purposes in a format supplied by or approved by MACC. Failure to provide such renewal shall constitute a violation of this section and may result in revocation of permit. MACC shall inspect the premises as deemed necessary. Should the permit be refused, denied, or revoked, the fee paid with the application shall be retained by MACC. (e) Standards of care and practice.Any person obtaining a permit pursuant to this section shall comply with the following standards of practice: (1) Honeybee colonies shall be kept in hives with removable frames, which shall be kept in sound and usable condition. (2) Each beekeeper shall ensure that a convenient source of water is available to the colony prior to and so long as colonies remain active outside of the hive. (3) Each beekeeper shall ensure that no wax comb or other material that might encourage robbing by other bees are left upon the grounds of the apiary lot. Such materials, once removed from the site, shall be handled and stored in sealed containers, or placed within a building or other insect-proof container. (4) For each colony permitted to be maintained under this section, there may also be maintained upon the same apiary lot one (1) nucleus colony in a hive structure not to exceed one (1) standard nine and five-eighths (9 5/8 ) inch depth ten (10) frame hive body with no supers. (5) Each beekeeper shall maintain beekeeping equipment in good condition, including keeping the hives painted, and securing unused equipment from weather, potential theft or vandalism, and occupancy by swarms. It shall be a violation of this section for any beekeeper's unused equipment to attract a swarm even if the beekeeper is not intentionally keeping honeybees. (6) Each beekeeper shall enclose their property and/or the apiary with a latching fence. A fence shall not be required if the hives are approved to be located on a rooftop so as to be 80 inaccessible to the general public so that bee movements to and from the hive do not interfere with the ordinary movements of persons on adjacent properties or the public right-of-way. (7) Each beekeeper shall, if unable or unwilling to continue to maintain their permitted hives, promptly notify MACC so that the hives may be made available to an approved honeybee rescue entity, or, if necessary, disposed of by MACC. There shall be a fee as established in the license fee schedule for disposal of hives. (f) Colony density. Any person obtaining a permit pursuant to this section shall comply with the following restrictions on colony density: (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, in each instance where a colony is kept less than twenty-five (25) feet from a property line of the lot upon which the apiary is located, as measured from the nearest point on the hive to the property line, and any entrances to the hive faces that lot line, the beekeeper shall establish and maintain a flyway barrier at least six (6) feet in height. The flyway barrier may consist of a wall, fence, dense vegetation, or a combination thereof, such that honeybees will fly over rather than through the material to reach the colony. If a flyway barrier of dense vegetation is used, the initial planting may be four (4) feet in height, so long as the vegetation normally reaches six (6) feet in height or higher. The flyway barrier must continue parallel to the apiary lot line for ten (10) feet in either direction from the hive. All other sides of the area encompassing the colonies shall consist of fencing, a wall, dense vegetation, or combination of at least four (4) feet tall. The area encompassing the colonies need not entail the entire property. A flyway barrier is not required if the property adjoining the apiary lot line is undeveloped, or is zoned agricultural or industrial, or is a wildlife management area or naturalistic park land with no horse or foot trails located within twenty-five (25) feet of the apiary lot line. A flyway barrier is not required if the hives are located on the roof of a structure containing at least one (1) full story if all hives are located at least five (5) feet from the side of the structure and at least fifteen (15) feet from any adjacent and occupied structure. (2) No person is permitted to keep more than the following numbers of colonies on any lot within the city, based upon the size or configuration of the apiary lot: a. One-half (½) acre or smaller lot: Two (2) colonies; b. Larger than one-half (½) acre but smaller than three-quarter (¾) acre lot: Four (4) colonies; c. Larger than three-quarter (¾) acre lot but smaller than one (1) acre lot: Six (6) colonies; d. One (1) acre but smaller than five (5) acres: Eight (8) colonies; e. Larger than five (5) acres: As determined as appropriate by MACC. (3) Regardless of lot size, so long as all lots within a radius of at least two hundred (200) feet from any hive, measured from any point on the front of the hive, remain undeveloped, the maximum number of colonies may be increased by MACC. No grandfathering rights shall accrue under this subsection. If a beekeeper serves the community by removing a swarm or swarms of honeybees from locations where they are not desired, a beekeeper shall not be considered in violation of the portion of this section limiting the number of colonies while temporarily housing the swarm on the apiary lot in compliance with the standards of practice established pursuant to this section if the swarm is so housed for no more than thirty (30) days from the date acquired. (g) Pursuant to section 244.2000(a) of this Code, any rental dwelling license holder notified by an immediately adjacent property owner of the intent to house beehives on the immediately adjacent owner's property shall post said notice in a common area of the rental property or, if a single-family home, the rental license holder shall provide said notice to the tenant by means of mail, hand delivery, or posting. Said notice shall be provided by the rental license holder to each new tenant thereafter for as long as the adjacent property continues to house beehives. ( Ord. No. 2016-009 , § 1, 2-12-16) 81 City of New Hope Sec. 7-6. - Number of domestic animals allowed. It shall be a public nuisance and unlawful to allow, permit, keep, maintain, sell or harbor animals within the city, in violation of the following regulations or without a city permit as provided for in subsection (8): (1) Dogs.No more than three dogs over six months old, up to a limit of ten dogs if the additional dogs are puppies under six months old, unless a kennel license is obtained. (2) Cats.No more than three cats over six months old, up to a limit of ten cats if the additional cats are kittens under six months old, unless a kennel license is obtained. (3) Other household pets.No more than three other domesticated household pets of any kind or combination thereof kept for companionship and pleasure, including, but not limited to, small caged animals in the rodent family, members of the lagomorph family, domesticated ferrets, caged birds in the parrot or finch families, non-venomous reptiles less than six feet in length and non-poisonous amphibians. This limitation shall not apply to non-game fish sold at retail in pet shops for the purpose of being kept in an aquarium. (4) Fowl.No more than three fowl of any kind or combination thereof. "Fowl" means chickens, ducks, geese, pheasants, turkeys or other domestic, agricultural or wild fowl. "Fowl" does not mean roosters and no roosters of any kind are permitted within the city by this section. (5) Wild animals. No live wild animals of any kind. (6) Hoofed animals.No horses, cows, sheep, goats, pigs or any kind of other hoofed animals with the exception of one pot-bellied pig. (7) [ Nuisance animals.] No combination of animals and/or fowl of any age referred to in subsections (1) through (6) above kept in such numbers or under such conditions which unreasonably annoy, injure, or endanger the health, safety, comfort, repose or welfare of the public or of said animals or fowl. (8) Permit to exceed limitations.Any person desiring to exceed the limitations on the keeping of animals as set out in subsections (1) through (7) above may do so only by permit granted by the city council after submitting an appropriate application for a public hearing on the permit as provided in this section. a. Application. An application for a permit must contain the following information: (i) the name and address of the applicant, (ii) the address of the premises upon which the animal or animals are to be kept, (iii) the number, species and, except in the case of bees, the sex of such animal or animals, and (iv) a statement regarding any property damage or physical injuries caused by such animal or animals in the past. The council may also require submission of such additional information or material as it deems necessary or convenient. The applicant must pay to the city clerk such initial permit fee and renewal permit fee as shall be established from time to time by council resolution. Upon submission of the initial application, the city clerk must set a date for a hearing on the application before the city council and must notify the owners of all properties located within 350 feet of the subject premises of the date and time of the hearing. b. Hearing. At the hearing the city council may take such testimony or receive such documents or information as it deems appropriate. A permit will not be issued if the city council finds that such animal or animals, because of their number, size, proximity to other properties, history of vicious or destructive actions, or inherent characteristics, are or are likely to become either a nuisance or a hazard to the public health or safety. In the case of bees, a permit will not be issued unless the hive or hives are to be located at least 500 feet from any other property. 82 c. Term. Permits are valid until December 31 of the year of issuance and may be renewed annually by the council. The council may revoke a permit prior to its expiration if the council finds that the terms or conditions of the permit have been violated or if the animal or animals have become either a public nuisance or a hazard to the public health or safety. Nothing herein in this subsection is to be construed to prohibit or constrain any action allowed by law designated to prevent the spread of disease or the imminent damage to persons or property caused by such animal or animals. (Ord. No. 15-23, § 2, 10-26-2015) 83 Special City Council September 8, 2020 Agenda Number:2.2 To:Dave Callister, City Manager Prepared by:Sandy Engdahl, City Clerk Reviewed by:Laurie Hokkanen, Administrative Services Director Item:Set future Study Sessions 1.Action Requested: Schedule Study Sessions and/or add topics as desired. Calendars are attached to assist with scheduling. 2.Background: Pending Study Session Topics (at least three Council members have approved the following study items on the list): None at this time Other Council requests for Study Session Topics: None at this time Staff requests for Study Session Topics: - Solar options for City facilities (suggest September 22 at 5:30 p.m.) 3.Budget Impact: N/A 4.Attachments: September October November 84 SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 September 2020 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 OFFICIAL CITY CALENDAR 763-509-5080 plymouthmn.gov 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers SUN TUES MON WED THUR FRI SAT CHANGES ARE MADE IN RED LABOR DAY CITY OFFICES CLOSED 5:30 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Chickens and Honeybees Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers 7:00 PM HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM PARK & REC ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers 3 7:00 PM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE MEETING Medicine Lake Room ABSENTEE VOTING BEGINS FOR GENERAL ELECTION 85 SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 October 2020 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 OFFICIAL CITY CALENDAR 763-509-5080 plymouthmn.gov 5:00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Utility Study and other funds budget review Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers 5:00 PM JOINT COUNCIL-HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT MEETING HRA Strategic Plan Council Chambers 7:00 PM HRA MEETING Council Chambers SUN TUES MON WED THUR FRI SAT 8:00 AM-4:30 PM ABSENTEE/DIRECT BALLOTING 5:00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Utility Study/other funds if needed Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers CHANGES ARE NOTED IN RED 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers CHA 7:00 PM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE MEETING Council Chambers 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers 8:00 AM-4:30 PM ABSENTEE/DIRECT BALLOTING 8:00 AM-4:30 PM ABSENTEE/DIRECT BALLOTING 8:00 AM-4:30 PM ABSENTEE/DIRECT BALLOTING 10:00 AM-3:00 PM ABSENTEE/DIRECT BALLOTING 6:00 PM-9:00 PM Halloween at the Creek Plymouth Creek Center 86 SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 November 2020 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 OFFICIAL CITY CALENDAR 763-509-5080 plymouthmn.gov 5:00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Budget if needed Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers SUN TUES MON THUR FRI SAT THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY CITY OFFICES CLOSED CITY OFFICES CLOSED VETERANS DAY CITY OFFICES CLOSED 7:00 PM PARK & REC ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers 7:00 PM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE MEETING Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers 8:00 AM-5:00 PM ABSENTEE/DIRECT BALLOTING GENERAL ELECTION Polls open 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM 7:00 PM HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING Medicine Lake Room Times Vary Plymouth Arts Fair Plymouth Creek Center Times Vary Plymouth Arts Fair Plymouth Creek Center 87