City Council

CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG, VIRGINIA HON. MARY KATHERINE GREENLAW, MAYOR HON. BRADFORD C. ELLIS, VICE MAYOR , WARD ONE CITY COUNCIL HON. KERRY P. DEVINE, AT-LARGE HON. MATTHEW J. KELLY, AT-LARGE HON. GEORGE C. SOLLEY, WARD TWO HON. FREDERIC N. HOWE , III, WARD THREE Council Chambers, 715 Princess Anne Street HON. BEATRICE R. PAOLUCCI, WARD FOUR Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 Council Work Session July 24, 2012 Review and Approval of 35% Design Build Plans for New Courthouse Keeping of Bees and Chickens in the City The Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, met in work session on Tuesday, July 24, 2012, beginning at 4:30 p.m. in the conference room of City Hall. Present. Mayor Mary Katherine Greenlaw, presiding. Vice-Mayor Bradford C. Ellis, Councilors Kerry P. Devine, Matthew J. Kelly, Frederic N. Howe, III, Beatrice R. Paolucci and George C. Solley. Also Present. City Manager Beverly R. Cameron, Assistant City Manager Mark Whitley, City Attorney Kathleen A. Dooley, Director of Parks, Recreation and Public Facilities Robert Antozzi, Downey and Scott Construction Manager Bill Downey, English Construction Vice-President Alan Hamblin, Moseley Architects Vice-President Jay Moore, Moseley Architects Project Manager Elliott Law, Police Captain Rick Pennock, Animal Control Officer Tom Worthy, City Attorney Intern Dori Martin, Virginia Municipal League Environmental Manager Joe Lurch, and Deputy Clerk of Council Brenda T. Martin. Courts Discussion – Ceiling Height Reduction. City Manager Cameron explained the objectives of the work session being to discuss the two additional concepts as they relate to value engineering and feasibility. The two topics for discussion are the courtroom ceiling height and how they affect the interior and exterior of building, and whether to finish the second general district courtroom. He introduced the architects present from First Choice and asked Jay Moore to review the ceiling heights designed in Page 1 of 6 the courtrooms and how reducing them by two feet impacts the building. Mr. Moore explained, by displaying the layout of a court room, how reducing each ceiling height from 14 to 12 feet would impact the space of mechanical wiring and duct work and would affect the subjective feel of the room. See attached diagrams. Office space as well, would be impacted with the lower ceiling heights. Mr. Downey clarified that roughly sixty percent of the courtroom ceiling height is at 12 feet, with the current design. Mayor Greenlaw asked if there was any other impact to the building by lowering the ceiling height. Mr. Moore explained that the outside of the building such as the portico, windows and columns proportions would change the overall look of the building. There are certain architectural guidelines by which classic designs follow and that would be altered with the ceiling height changes and six feet of reduced height of the building. The overall exterior façade design of the building would be altered slightly. Construction cost savings for reducing the ceiling heights would be $130,000- $140,000 but this would not offset the cost of redesigning the plans to incorporate the changes. Councilor Howe asked how reducing the ceiling heights would affect the overall life cost savings of the building. Even though the cost to make the changes would be greater now, in the long term it may be a cost savings. Mr. Downey stated that the lifecycle operational costs of the building, as it is currently designed, with be forthcoming in the next month. Councilor Paolucci stated that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) is not happy with the mass and scale of the building even though they approved it earlier in the year. Councilor Kelly asked if the ARB will be asked to approve the new mass and scale if Council reduces the overall height of the building. He stated at the ARB meeting, the night before, modulation of the building was discussed to break up the mass and scale design and was tabled. He asked how much input does Council have on changing the building. Is this a negotiated contract with First Choice? He said it seems like every time a change is asked for, First Choice states the redesign will cost more money. How much negotiation does Council really have? Councilor Kelly stated he thought this was supposed to be thirty-five percent design build review approval. Councilor Devine reviewed a 2008 Free Lance Star op-ed written by Councilor Page 2 of 6 Kelly that said there is a need for a court complex, and once Wegmans, the downtown Marriott and Eagle Village comes on line, the courthouse can move forward. She brought up a 2011 Free Lance Star editorial which recommended building a fully functional courthouse, which would be a prudent financial decision. Backtracking now is not wise; it seems as if this is meant to derail the project. Councilor Devine stated years have been spent discussing the building and wise spending; cutting corners by reducing the ceiling height is short-sided. Mayor Greenlaw stated look at the previous discussion surrounding the mass and scale of the Marriott and the parking deck and because they were designed properly, they fit in and look appropriate with the other downtown buildings. Councilor Paolucci stated she doesn’t feel the discussion to reduce the height of the building was meant to derail the courthouse project. Councilor Kelly stated the Courthouse Option for Princess Anne C option discussed back in 2006 would have been built by now. With the 384 feet square feet of space reduction due to the ceiling height reduction, in a total 78,000 square foot building First Choice told the ARB this will compromise the building’s interior workings. The columns are square up against the building. The downtown Marriott has been the new model for other hotels this size and the parking garage has been recognized and won awards. Councilor Kelly asked is this courthouse going to be award winning. Will it be something the City can be proud of as a municipal building? He feels the current site is a mistake; it’s too small to build this size building in this small space. Councilor Kelly asked the Council to make these decisions discussed in the work session, public, in a regular council meeting. Building out the fourth General District Court Room. Councilor Ellis stated making the design changes to reduce the height of the ceiling is not cost effective but he supports saving the $248,200 by not building out the fourth court room to use the money for the Renwick Building. Councilor Howe stated he does not approve of moving forward with the thirty- five percent design approval because Council does not have the operational costs of the building, and it has not been determined how the project will be paid for, such as a tax increase. He will not be voting for this approval because this project has not been paid for Page 3 of 6 nor has a plan been put in place to pay for it, no funding mechanism. Mayor Greenlaw stated we should make a public decision in tonight’s meeting for the thirty-five percent design build review approval in order to direct the City Manager to approve the plans by August 1, 2012 deadline. Councilor Solley stated that decreasing the height of the ceilings does not save money now and that choosing to not build out the fourth court room now, will only cost more in the future. Mayor Greenlaw stated that determining the two decisions and to instruct the City Manager to move forward with approving the thirty-five percent design build review does not preclude the façade material changes or the changes discussed by the ARB. Councilor Kelly would prefer these items be placed on the next meeting so the public is aware that the vote is going to take place. City Manager Cameron stated the approval of the design build must take place before the August 1, 2012 deadline. Councilor Kelly stated he will not be participating in the straw poll now or the vote at the regular council meeting. Mayor Greenlaw asked the Council to participate in a straw poll by stating yes or no to the question of keeping the ceiling height in the court room at 14 feet. The majority (five) were in favor of keeping the ceiling height at 14 feet. Councilor Kelly abstained from voting. In completing the fourth courtroom, Mayor Greenlaw asked Council if they support building it out as designed now. The consensus was tied and therefore the build out would not be approved. Councilor Kelly abstained from voting. Mayor Greenlaw asked Council if they want to direct the City Manager to approve the thirty-five percent design build review of the courthouse. The majority (four) were in favor. Councilor Kelly abstained from voting. Chicken and Bees. City Attorney Dooley explained that in May of this year Council was presented with a petition to explore the keeping of chickens and bees. Council then directed the City Attorney to explore the concept and present her findings to the Council. City Attorney Dooley explained that she asked Council if she could wait until her summer intern came on board to fully examine, explore and compare with other localities the keeping of chickens and bees in the City. Intern Dori Martin provided the Page 4 of 6 detailed information and most common questions and key issues given to Council prior to the meeting. See attached documents. She gave a presentation based on this information. Roosters would not be permitted, only three to four chickens would be allowed, coop design would entail the most detailed guidelines. Education is the key to success and by involving the community with classes The Cooperative Extension has offered to teach classes on raising chickens. A twenty foot space between each side of the coop would regulate the size of the lot, in which chickens could be raised. Mayor Greenlaw asked if staff had a sense of how many people would be interested in keeping chickens or bees. The petition asked for support, so there is not a sense knowing how many citizens want to raise them. Councilor Howe asked how this would impact our Animal Control Officer Tom Worthy and suggested perhaps Council should pilot the project. Mr. Worthy stated he would like to see the permit be given for a year, for a pilot project to see how many people want to raise chickens or bees. A draft of an ordinance has been attached to the information given to Council for a review. Councilor Paolucci stated she would like to see a test pilot of this program with a limited number of permits issued at first. Then, if there was a problem those permits could be grandfathered and the ordinance could be changed. If residents were required to purchase only laying hens, then roster problems would be virtually eliminated. Officer Worthy stated Spotsylvania County Animal Shelter would take the rosters or chickens if they were forfeited. Councilor Solley asked if we could limit the number of licenses issued to raise chickens. City Attorney Dooley said she would explore this further. The keeping of bees is much less regulated in localities across the state. Many don’t regulate them at all. City Intern Martin stated she could not find any locality in Virginia that prohibits the keeping of bees. The proposed ordinance would allow two hives of bees, distance of property lines is not as important as elevation of flight path, to at least six feet. Water source is another important issue and therefore, it would be required within 20 feet of the hive. Officer Worthy stated that there could be up to 60,000 bees in a hive. He stated there has been a concern in the past of a new owner of a residence who didn’t know there Page 5 of 6 was a bee hive next door to him. He was allergic and was concerned about having the bees so close to his residence. Councilor Howe asked is it reasonable to ask for larger amount of space around the hives since Fredericksburg is in an urban setting. He asked could Council also have a one year licensing of this as well. Mayor Greenlaw stated since beekeeping is an expensive endeavor having a one-year permit may discourage residents from owning bees because of the chance it would be revoked. City Attorney Dooley was instructed to further develop ordinances incorporating the issues discussed in this work session and to place them on a Council agenda to be voted on at a regular meeting. Adjournment. There being no further business to come before Council at this time, Mayor Greenlaw declared the work session officially adjourned at 6:44 p.m. Brenda T. Martin Brenda T. Martin Deputy Clerk of Council City of Fredericksburg Page 6 of 6  MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Kathleen Dooley, City Attorney DATE: July 13, 2012 RE: Chickens and Bees ISSUE: How shall Council proceed with the request to amend the City Code to permit keeping of chickens and beekeeping? RECOMMENDATION: Summer intern Dori Martin, a rising 3L at University of Richmond Law School, will present her research to you in work session for your consideration. If Council does wish to permit these uses, then she and I recommend that the City regulate them via a permit process and well-defined parameters for acceptable practices. Ms. Martin has drafted an ordinance, which is intended as a starting-point for Council discussion and decision-making. BACKGROUND: City Council received a petition seeking a change in the City Code to permit keeping of chickens and bees, at its May 8, 2012 regular meeting. Council asked the City Attorney to research ordinances in other Virginia jurisdictions and nationwide, and return with a report and draft ordinance for Council’s consideration. This project waited for the arrival of the summer intern, who was able to devote considerable time and attention to it. Ms. Martin reviewed ordinances from such Virginia jurisdictions as Fairfax County, Newport News, Yorktown, Norfolk, Alexandria, Petersburg, Charlottesville, Lynchburg, and Virginia Beach, as well as out-of-state ordinances in Madison, Wisconsin, and Dover, Delaware. She interviewed Fredericksburg Animal Control Officer Thomas Worthy, Cooperative Extension Agent John Howe, petition organizer Jennifer Gron, and she conducted an extensive telephone interview with the animal control officer in Madison, Wisconsin. Ms. Martin solicited position papers from the Virginia Department of Health, and she studied newspaper and legal articles, as well as online resources, in preparing her report to City Council. The attached Frequently Asked Questions summarizes her research, and forms the basis for the draft ordinance, also attached. Joe Lerch, Director of Environmental Policy for the Virginia Municipal League, is also expected to join the Council work session as an additional resource. Cooperative Extension Agent Howe is not able to attend due to a scheduling conflict, but is available in the future as needed.  MEMORANDUM TO: Kathleen Dooley, City Attorney FROM: Dori Martin, Summer Intern DATE: July 16, 2012 SUBJECT: Information on Urban Keeping of Chickens and Bees for Council’s Consideration ISSUE: What are the important elements to consider regarding the regulation of chicken and beekeeping in an urban setting? How have other local governments addressed the issue of urban farming, and what have been their experiences? What are the keys to success and potential pitfalls to avoid? CURRENT LAW: Currently, the Fredericksburg City Code prohibits residents from keeping chickens, bees, and other domestic fowl in all areas of the city. 1 RECOMMENDATION: We have identified several key issues to address when contemplating permissive ordinances for chickens and bees. These issues form the basis for the draft ordinances provided for Council’s consideration. Also attached for further reference is a matrix summarizing some of the key provisions in other local ordinances which permit urban chicken or beekeeping, and other reading materials. This memo will address frequently asked questions regarding the two subjects separately. CHICKENS: 1 Fredericksburg City Code § 14-184. Page 2 of 10 How would we propose to define a “chicken?” Local ordinances do not often define the word “chicken,” presumably because it is a word that has a common, ordinary meaning that is not likely to confuse a reader. However, “chicken” could conceivably be used to describe a variety of domestic fowl, such as guinea hens or other game birds. To avoid confusion, the city may choose to be more specific in its definition. For instance, the ordinance may specify that only “domestic laying hens” will be permitted for “non- commercial egg production.” The city could go so far as to enumerate the chicken breeds that will be allowed; however, after researching the issue, it became clear that breed possibilities for egg-laying chickens are immense, and a number of rare and heritage breeds are gaining in popularity. Thus, while it may be instructive to provide examples of acceptable breeds (e.g., Araucanas/Americanas, Rhode Island Reds, Leghorns), either in the ordinance itself or at some point during the application process, an exhaustive list of allowed breeds, would likely be too cumbersome and difficult to enforce. What types of fowl would continue to be prohibited? Everything else, including roosters, guinea hens, peacocks, ducks, geese, turkeys, pheasants, partridges, etc. Keeping these fowl—or keeping chickens or bees without the permit or in violation of the other proposed requirements—would continue to constitute a class 4 misdemeanor, punishable by a fine up to $250. How many chickens would we propose to permit to be kept? Local ordinances vary greatly in nearly every aspect of urban chicken keeping, and the number of chickens permitted is no exception. In Virginia, laws range from one chicken (which is not advised, due to sub-optimal egg production and the chickens’ social nature) to an unlimited number. 2 Generally, in urban settings nationwide, the most common number allowed is three to four birds, which will supply between one and two dozen eggs per week, on average. This would be enough to feed most families, but in most cases, not enough to sell. 3 Many sources recommend up to (but no more than) six birds on urban lots; 4 however, due to the relatively small average lot size in Fredericksburg, we recommend four birds as an appropriate number. What requirements would be imposed for sheltering the chickens? 2 See, e.g., Town of Herndon Code § 6-3; Charlottesville City Code § 4-8. 3 KT LaBadie, Residential Urban Chicken Keeping: An Examination of 25 Cities, CRP 580 UNIV. OF NEW MEXICO 7 (2008). 4 Id. Page 3 of 10 It is important to require an enclosure for chickens that will protect them from predators and keep the chickens from wandering. They should be fenced in at all times, with a secure, elevated, and well-ventilated enclosure for nesting and roosting at night. 5 Additional precautions are strongly recommended to keep the birds secure from predators. Permanent runs should be covered with the sides buried to deter animals from digging underneath. “Chicken wire,” made of small mesh can be used to keep wild birds and rodents from accessing the pens, and chicken feed should be kept in rodent-proof containers. 6 The city may want to consider providing these recommendations to resident interested in applying for a permit to keep chickens. What separation requirements would be proposed? Again, local ordinances vary as to the distance buffer required to shield neighbors from potential nuisance effects of chicken coops. In Virginia, the ordinances we studied range from 10 feet to 250 feet, and can be measured from residences or property boundaries. 7 We began our consideration of distance restrictions with a citizen proposal that recommended all chicken enclosures be set back twenty-five feet from any residential structure on an adjacent lot. This is also the separation requirement found in the Madison, Wisconsin, ordinance, which reportedly is a successful regulation of urban chicken keeping. 8 Alternatively, a twenty-foot separation requirement from property boundaries would simplify the inspection and enforcement process, while still allowing for participation on an average-sized city lot. 9 The draft ordinance incorporates this suggestion. Would the City require a permit in order to keep chickens? Yes. Some localities require a permit for city-dwelling chicken keepers, which may be obtained by submitting an application and usually a nominal fee to cover administrative costs. 10 While the permits are not useful as a revenue-generating tool, they facilitate enforcement by encouraging proper maintenance (especially if permit holders are subject to inspection), requiring owner awareness of applicable regulations, and providing a means of redress in cases of noncompliance. 11 5 Interview with John Howe, Va. Cooperative Extension (June 19, 2012). 6 Phillip J. Clauer, Small-Scale Poultry Production: Raising Fowl in Urban Areas, PENN. ST. UNIV. (2010), available at http://poultryextension.psu.edu. 7 See Excel Spreadsheet, attached. 8 Telephone interview with Patrick Comfert, Animal Services Lead worker, Madison, WI Department of Health, May 31, 2012. 9 See “Typical Lot Sizes in Fredericksburg Neighborhoods,” attached. 10 See, e.g., Manassas, Va. City Code § 18-112 (The chief of police shall issue a permit for keeping any livestock, once owner satisfies distance, shelter, and cleanliness requirements); LaBadie, supra note 2 (fee costs typically range from five to forty dollars). 11 Interview with Patrick Comfert, Animal Services Leadworker, Madison Wis. Dept. of Health (May 31, 2012). Page 4 of 10 What would a person need to do in order to obtain a chicken permit, and who would issue it? Applicants should verify that they own their property (or that they have permission from the landowner), and that they are prepared to comply with all regulations including set back, structural, and maintenance requirements. 12 John Howe, who represents Virginia Cooperative Extension in the region, has offered to conduct a chicken keeping class once or twice a year that prospective chicken keepers could attend. The city might wish to encourage enrollment in such a class by offering to waive or refund the application fee, if they submit a certificate of attendance within six months of the permit application. Property owners should consent to inspections of their premises at the discretion of the Fredericksburg Animal Control Officer, who could then approve the issuance of the permit. Such inspections could be conducted at the onset of the application process, at a later time to ensure ongoing compliance, or in response to citizen complaints. Madison, Wisconsin has a permit program for chicken keepers that could serve as a model for Fredericksburg. Residents must obtain an annual license by submitting an application and $10 fee to the City Treasurer prior to January first of each year or within thirty days of acquiring chickens. The treasurer may assess a five dollar late fee to anyone who has failed to submit an application by April 1. The license may be revoked if owners do not comply with the provisions of the ordinance. 13 How would the City address cleanliness standards? It is imperative that prospective chicken owners be educated about the proper way to maintain their coops and pens. The ordinance should expressly require a dry, well-ventilated, and well- maintained enclosure as a condition of the permit. Sanitation requirements may also be enforced under the current City Code, which prohibits the keeping of any animal in such a manner as to cause unsanitary conditions or offensive odors beyond the boundary of the property. 14 More specific guidelines would ideally be provided to residents during the application process. For instance, litter should be three to four inches deep, consisting of an absorbent material, such as pine shavings, and should be kept dry, as moisture contributes to odor. Wet litter should be promptly removed. 15 Hen houses should be cleaned out completely every six weeks at a minimum, and more frequent cleanings will likely be required in the summer months. 16 12 See Salem City Code § Sec. 106-318.1(c) (requiring applicants to submit a sketch of the chicken house and surrounding area with property dimensions and set backs). 13 Madison, Wis. City Code § 9.52. 14 Fredericksburg City Code § 14-154. 15 Clauer, supra note 5. 16 Interview with John Howe, Va. Cooperative Extension (June 19, 2012). Page 5 of 10 How would the City address noise concerns? While a small number of female chickens should not be particularly noisy, they do make a characteristic “clucking” sound and will vocalize during and immediately after the egg-laying process. Owners must house the animals so that noises are no louder than the normal speaking voice of an adult human—this should be accomplished with the combination of distance requirements and an enclosed nesting area. If, in any case, the chickens become so loud as to become a nuisance to neighbors, Fredericksburg already has a general noise prohibition, which provides that a person may be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor for causing an unreasonably loud or raucous noise to be created.17 The code further provides that it is a per se violation to own, keep, or possess any animal or bird that vocalizes in such a manner that is plainly audible across property boundaries for 15 minutes or longer during waking hours. 18 Will chickens attract predators? Yes, they likely will attract such predators as raccoons, foxes, snakes, cats, and dogs. All of these animals currently exist in the city, but they will be attracted to the chickens, eggs, and chicken feed as potential food sources. The proposed shelter requirements are intended to reduce the risk that chickens will attract predators or be killed by predators, but it is still possible. What if an owner discovers a chick to be a rooster and not a hen, or for any reason, needs to dispose of a chicken? If Council adopts a new ordinance, it should be prepared for the potential problems that can arise when a chicken becomes unwanted, or a resident mistakenly purchases a rooster. Currently, when the city finds a stray animal, it will turn it over to a Spotsylvania animal shelter, which will hold the animal for a prescribed amount of time (usually five days). In the case of chickens, they may also be fostered with a local farmer until the owner retrieves it or a permanent solution can be found. 19 Additionally, there are a number of refuges in the area, which may be helpful resources.20 The recommended limit of four chickens per household should greatly decrease the likelihood of accidental rooster purchases, as Virginia law prohibits the sale of fowl under two months old in quantities less than six. 21 Chickens older than two months should be easier to distinguish by sex. Ultimately, however, the onus is on the landowner to ensure that they procure only hens. Periodic inspections may also be used to ensure compliance. 17 Fredericksburg City Code §§ 38-34, 38-35. 18 Id. § 38-36(6). The code also prohibits such noise if sustained for 10 minutes between the hours of 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM; however, hens are generally quiet while roosting at night, so this should not be a problem. 19 Interview with Officer Tom Worthy, July 10, 2012. 20 See, e.g., RIKKI’S REFUGE ANIMAL SANCTUARY, http://rikkisrefuge.org (last accessed July 10, 2012). 21 Va. Code § 3.2-6510. Page 6 of 10 What are the public health concerns with urban chickens? The primary risk associated with poultry is caused by salmonella, a type of bacteria present in the birds’ intestines and fecal matter. People working with chickens should take precautions by washing hands and equipment used to take care of chickens often. These risks apply mainly to the individuals caring for the chickens and not the public at large. We found no evidence of avian influenza or other diseases associated with backyard chicken farming. For more information, see the attached report from Dr. Brooke Rossheim of the Rappahannock Area Health District BEES: How would the City define “bees?” The ordinance should be drafted to permit the keeping of “honeybees,” which are defined to include only those races certified as European honeybees (EHB). 22 Honeybee suppliers can provide state-issued certification according to the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture’s approved “European Honey Bee State Certification Procedures.” Virginia law already requires certification of bees produced in a state infested with the Africanized bee (AHB) as well as certificates of health for all bees shipped to the Commonwealth. 23 The city may also consider a more specific definition (as cities like New York and Anchorage, AK have done), allowing residents to keep only hives of Apis mellifera, the common, nonaggressive honeybee. 24 How many bees would we propose to be permitted? Local beekeeping laws commonly restrict how many hives can be kept on a residential lot. The numbers of hives allowed may vary, though typically, urban regulations limit landowners to no more than six hives. 25 Regulating colony density is important to help ensure that urban beekeeping operations do not grow so large as to create a nuisance. Limits on the number of 22 BEEKEEPERS GUILD OF S.E. VA., BEEKEEPING BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (2012), available at http://beekeepersguild.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13&Itemid=51. 23 VA. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE & CONSUMER SERVS., SHIPPING REQUIREMENTS FOR PACKAGE BEES AND QUEENS, available at http://townhall.virginia.gov/l/GetFile.cfm?File=E:\townhall\docroot\GuidanceDocs\301\GDoc_VDACS_2552_v6.p df. 24 Anchorage, Ak. City Code § 21.40, Mireya Navarro, Bring on the Bees, N.Y. TIMES BLOG (March 16, 2010, 12:16 PM), http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/bring-on-the-bees/?pagewa. 25 See, e.g., Fairfax Co., Va. Zoning Ord. § 2-512(4) (maximum 4 hives permitted on lots smaller than 10,000 square feet); Madison, Wis. Zoning Ordinance § 28.08(2)(b)8.l (no more than 6 hives on any lot). Page 7 of 10 hives within the city may also be important to prevent bee populations from outnumbering the nearby foraging sites. 26 The city may also wish to consider lot size when determining the appropriate colony density, either by requiring a minimum lot size for beekeeping in general or by scaling the number of hives permitted according to the size of the property. Fairfax County, for example, allows up to four hives on lots which are smaller than 10,000 square feet. For lots greater than 10,000 square feet, owners may keep an extra hive per every additional 2500 square feet of land. 27 Similarly, the city of Fort Collins, Colorado allows two hives on parcels of land that are less than a quarter of an acre. From there the number of permitted hives increases incrementally with the size of the property up to an 8-hive maximum on lots larger than an acre, with an exception for additional hives if they are set back 200 feet from all property lines. 28 What standards would apply to bee hive location? Most colonies have a basic flight pattern as they leave and return to the hive—they usually fly straight out of the hive opening, three to six feet above the ground. This can become an annoyance to both people and animals passing through the flight path. Planting a hedge or building a fence at least six feet high will raise the bees’ flight path above head level, reducing the chance of encounters with neighbors and pedestrians. 29 This six-foot “flyway barrier” is a crucial safety precaution as well as a neighborhood courtesy, and several local ordinances, such as Fairfax and Prince William Counties, require beekeepers to install one near their hives. 30 Some localities also place set back restrictions on bee hives as an additional safeguard against any potential nuisance effect. Like minimum lot size requirements, set back restrictions vary widely. For example, in Newport News, hives must be 3 feet from property lines and 50 feet from any building on adjacent lots.31 Beekeepers in Dayton, Ohio must position their hives at least 10 feet from any lot line and 30 feet from any sidewalk or roadway, facing them away from the property line of the closest residential lot. 32 Indeed, the direction in which the hive faces is likely more important than its distance from property boundaries, as bees tend to fly straight out from the opening—they will seldom double back to fly behind the hive. 33 What other requirements would the City propose to impose upon beekeeping? 26 Sami Grover, When Will Urban Honey Bees Run Out of Food?, TREEHUGGER.COM, http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/08/urban-honey-bees-food-forage.php. 27 Fairfax Co. Zoning Ord. § 2-512(4). 28 Fort Collins, Colo., Mun. Code §4-233(a) (2009). 29 Mid-Atlantic Apicultural Research & Extension Consortium, Keeping Bees in Populated Areas – Tips for Suburban Beekeepers (2000), available at http://MAAREC.cas.psu.edu (hereinafter MAAREC). 30 Fairfax Co. Zoning Ordinance § 2-512(4); Prince William County Zoning Ordinance § 32-300.02(10). 31 Newport News, Va. Code, § 45-418 (2). 32 Patricia Salkin, et al., Honey, It’s All the Buzz: Regulating Neighborhood Bee Hives, B.C. ENVTL. AFF. L. REV. (forthcoming 2012). 33 Interview with John Howe, Va. Cooperative Extension, June 19, 2012. Page 8 of 10 Beekeepers must provide a fresh water source for their bees. Bees need water to dilute honey when nectar is scarce and to ventilate their hives in the summertime. 34 When water is not close, they will be attracted to swimming pools, pet water bowls, birdbaths, hanging laundry, and other sources on neighboring property. Once they have become accustomed to a watering hole, they will use it throughout the season, so correcting problems after they develop is not always possible. 35 Many localities recognize that an on-site water requirement is key to promoting safe and successful bee husbandry, and their ordinances reflect this. The most common provision requires the water source to be located within 50 feet of any hive, 36 though because Fredericksburg’s lot sizes are typically only 50 feet across, a smaller distance might be reasonable for city lots. Would the City require a permit for urban beekeeping? Permit and licensing requirements for small-scale urban beekeeping are rare, but some do exist. In Virginia, individual beekeepers are not required to register; however, they must report any instances of diseased bees to the State Apiarist, and open their hives to state inspection. 37 Registration can be a useful tool for keeping track of hive locations, responding to complaints, managing inspections, and providing a means of redress against keepers of poorly maintained colonies. Madison, Wisconsin has licensing program for honeybees that could be a good model for Fredericksburg, if Council chooses to require hive registration. The Wisconsin program requires beekeepers to submit an application and $10 annual fee for a honeybee license, which the zoning administrator may revoke if there are three or more violations of any zoning ordinance within a six-month period. Licenses must be obtained within 30 days of acquiring the honeybees. 38 What are the public health concerns with urban beekeeping? While there are individual safety risks associated with beekeeping—namely, the risk of being stung—we have found no evidence of a significant public health risk. For more information, see the attached report from Dr. Brooke Rossheim of the Rappahannock Area Health District. OTHER MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS: Will a Zoning Ordinance amendment be required? 34 MAAREC, supra note 24. 35 Mid-Atlantic Apicultural Research & Extension Consortium, Beginning Beekeeping: Apiary Location (2012), available at https://agdev.anr.udel.edu/maarec/beginning-beekeeping-2/apiary-location/. 36 See, e.g., Fairfax Co. Code § 2-512; Newport News, Va. Code § 45-418 (2); Prince William Co. Code § 32- 300.02; Yorktown City Code § 24.1-271. 37 Va. Code §§ 3.2-4404, 4409. 38 Madison, Wis. City Code § 9.53. Page 9 of 10 No. Chicken keeping or beekeeping would be considered an “accessory use,” which is permitted throughout the City. The regulations governing accessory structures in City Code §78- 70 would apply to coops and beehives. These prohibit accessory structures in the front yard, or closer than 5 feet from any rear or side yard lot line. The home occupation regulations in City Code §78-71 would prohibit the selling of eggs or honey at a residence, since all home occupation activities must be conducted within the residential dwelling unit. Is the Planning Commission required to review this proposal? No, since no Zoning Ordinance amendment is proposed. Neither is topic directly addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Page 10 of 10 Attachments. 1. Comparison chart of local ordinances 2. Typical lot dimensions in Fredericksburg Neighborhoods 3. Madison, Wisconsin City Code – applicable provisions. 4. “Public health issues associated with raising backyard poultry,” by Dr. Brooke Rossheim, M.D., M.P.H., Rappahannock Area Health District, dated July 2, 2012. 5. “Public health issues associated with backyard beekeeping,” by Dr. Brooke Rossheim, M.D., M.P.H., Rappahannock Area Health District, dated July 2, 2012. 6. Draft ordinance  Virginia Ordinances Regulating Chicken Keeping Locality License Maximum Name Type Code Section(s) Code Category Chickens Roosters /Permit Number Minimum Lot Size Buffer/Separation Fairfax County Yes Yes 2 acres 100 ft. from property line (§ 24-10) 400 ft from any lot in any residence district and 200 ft from any other lot occupied by a non-farm Ch. 24, Art. V, § 24-11 (One dwelling or by any school, church or family residence districts - Varies (typically 1 any institution for human care not Henrico County uses) Zoning Yes Yes No N/A acre) located on the same lot Herndon Town 6-3 Keeping of Fowl Animals Yes No No 1 N/A 10 ft. from property line § 7-5 Fowl at large, §7-6 4; 5 or more Excessive noise, 35.1-28 Animals and Yes (But, see § 7-6 allowed on lots secure enclosure, 200 ft. from lot or Lynchburg City Zoning Uses Fowl; Zoning Yes Noise Restrictions) No over 10 acres N/A street line Animals and May not let fowl roam at large (except Charlottesville City Sec. 4-8 Fowl; Zoning Yes Yes No N/A N/A for homing pigeons) enclosed, 250 ft. from nearest dwelling Manassas City Sec. 18-112 Animals Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A (other than owner's Transportation and Enviro. Servs. - Animals More than 200 ft. from any residence Alexandria City Sec. 5-7-2 and Fowl Yes Yes No N/A N/A NOT occupied by the owner of the fowl Petersburg City Sec. 18-61, 62 Fowl Yes Yes No 20 N/A More than 30 ft. from any building 10 IF lot size <20,000 sq. ft.; More than 50 ft. from any residential Roanoke City Sec. 6-93 et seq. Poultry Yes Yes No otherwise 40 N/A building  Virginia Ordinances Regulating Chicken Keeping Health/Sanitation Enforcement Official Penalties Other? manner causing unsanitary conditions N/A Director of planning and deputies fine up to $250 N/A Town Police Class 3 misdemeanor $250 for "fowl at large"; removal for N/A Animal Warden excessive noise No Specific chicken ordinance other N/A Animal Control Officer Class 1 misdemeanor than the at-large restriction If 50% or more of property owners Maintained free from flies and in within 500 ft. of the property petition the sanitary condition as determined by city council alleging nuisance, the chief of police Police Chief revocation of permit permit shall be revoked. N/A ? ? dry, ventilated shelter, cleaned at least twice per week (once a week in winter months); clean water source on premises Animal Control Officer Class 4 Misdemeanor Clean, sanitary, free from refuse; feed kept in containers inpenetrable by rats with tightly fitting lids Animal Control Officer declared public nuisance  Virginia Ordinances Regulating Beekeeping Locality Max # of Type of Name Type Code Code Type hives hives Min. Lot Size Water Source Flight Barriers Other More than 4 hives allowed IF lot is at least 6ft (if hive located within 10,000 sq. feet AND 2500 extra sqaure feet Fairfax County Sec. 2-512 Zoning 4 N/A N/A Required within 50 ft. 10 ft. of lot line) available per hive 6ft (if hive faces and is More than 4 hives allowed IF lot is at least located within 10 ft. of 10,000 sq. feet AND 2500 extra sqaure feet Prince William County Sec. 32-300.02 Zoning 4 N/A N/A Required within 50 ft. lot line) available per hive Hives must be at least 3 ft. from property line Newport News, VA City Sec. 45-518 Zoning N/A N/A N/A Required within 50 ft. N/A and 50 ft. from any building on adjoining lots Hives must be more than 50 ft. from any Yorktown City Sec. 24.1-271 Zoning N/A N/A N/A Required within 50 ft. N/A building On October 11, 2011 the City Council of Norfolk removed any references to the keeping of honey bees in the city's nuisance ordinance. Frank Duke, Planning Director for the City of Norfolk, stated "There are no restrictions in City Norfolk City N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ordinance dealing with bee keeping". Regulates size of hive as accessory structure, but not lot size; Prohibits in Virginia Beach City Sec. 401, 501, 601 Zoning N/A N/a Apartment Districts N/A N/A  Sample Bee and Chicken Ordinances - Outside Virginia Animals Code License/ Maximu Name Permitted Category Roosters Permit m# Buffer/Separation Enclosure Other? 6 (no more than 10 ft. from public sidewalk and 20 cu. Ft. 25 feet from principle structures Enforced by Zoning in on adjacent lots; 6 ft. flight Administrator; License revoked Madison, WI Bees Zoning N/A Yes ($10) volume) barrier after 3rd violation 25 ft. from lot line, OR behind a 6ft. Flight barrier, OR 8 ft. above 4 (if lot ground level, OR oriented with <10,000 entrance facing away from Anchorage, AK Bees N/A sq. ft.) adjacent property 150 ft. from residential structures or certain public Any hive declared a nuisance by buildings (40 ft. setback for majority of city council may be Dover, DE Bees N/A educational and farm facilities) removed or relocated Covered enclosure must be Enforced by Zoning provided and chickens fenced in Administrator; License revoked Madison, WI Chickens Zoning No Yes ($10) 4 25 Ft. from residential structure at all times after 3rd violation 100 ft. from any occupied Johns Creek, GA Chickens Yes 75 building 4 sq. ft. per bird Well-ventilated enclosure with 1 sq. ft. of window to floor space, Cleaned daily, well drained to prevent moisture, lined at least twice weekly during warm Hendersonville, NC Chickens Zoning N/A Yes N/A N/A weather months (May-Oct.) Allows keeping of any domestic animals, except pigs, for "individual domestic purposes or Dover, DE Chickens Zoning Yes 25 20 ft. from lot line as pets"  Fredericksburg Neighborhoods – Typical lot sizes College Heights • 50-55 x 130 College Terrace • Sunken Road: 50-60 x 141-164 • Franklin St. & Littlepage St.: 40 x 132 • Mortimer to William St.: 40-70 x 130 • William to Hanover: 40 x 115 Confederate Ridge • 80-100 x 125-150 Fairview • Lee Ave., Weedon St.: 30 x 120 • Willis St.; Shepherd St. 25-40 x 100 Hillcrest • 50 x 150 Idlewild • North SFH (Idlewild Blvd; Hearthstone; Wright Ct. West): 52 x 115 • Mid-SFH (Saunders Dr.; Taylor St.; Wright Ct.): 42 x 111 • South-SFH (Yates Cir.; Perry St.): 42-70 x 110-115 • Townhomes (Wilcox Ave.; Saunders Dr.; Hampton St.): 20-24 x 78 Mayfield • North of Howison Ave: 25 x 105 • South of Howison Ave: 50-55 x 95-100 Normandy Village • Woodford St.: 57-58 x 111-114 • Elsewhere: 60 x 120-150 Rising Sun • Varies, app. 25-50 x 105 Train Station (Darbytown?) • 25-50 x 115-130 (varies widely) Westwood • 100 x 150 Sec. 28.08(2)(b) 28 - 65 Rev. 3/15/12 (b) Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the R1 district provided no structure shall exceed 10,000 square feet in floor area: (Am. by Ord. 11,702, 11-13-96) 8. Accessory uses, including but not limited to the following: j. Keeping of up to four (4) chickens on a lot with up to four dwelling units, provided that: i. No person shall keep any rooster. ii. No person shall slaughter any chickens. iii. The chickens shall be provided with a covered enclosure and must be kept in the covered enclosure or a fenced enclosure at all times. iv. No enclosure shall be located closer than twenty-five (25) feet to any residential structure on an adjacent lot. v. The owner, operator, or tenant obtains a license under Sec. 9.52, MGO. vi. The applicant for a license notifies all residents of the property and the owner or operator of the property if the applicant is not the owner or operator. Notification is not required for renewal of a license (Cr. by Ord. 13,605, 5-21-04; Am. by ORD-08-00108, 10-7-08; ORD-10-00004, 1-21-10) 9.52 Licenses and Permits KEEPING OF CHICKENS. Any person who keeps chickens in the City of Madison shall obtain an annual license prior to January 1of each year, or within 30 days of acquiring the chickens. The license year commences on January 1 and ends on the following December 31. Application shall be made to the City Treasurer and the fee for the license shall be ten dollars ($10.00). The Treasurer or other authorized individual shall collect the fee and shall assess and collect a late fee of five dollars ($5.00) from every owner of chickens, if the owner fails to obtain a license prior to April 1 of each year, or fails to obtain a license within 30 days of acquiring the chickens. All late fees received or collected shall be paid into the local Treasury. The Zoning Administrator may revoke a license if there are three (3) or more violations within any six (6) month period of this or any ordinance in Chapter 28, MGO regulating the keeping of chickens. (Cr. by Ord. 13,605, 5-21-04; Am. by ORD-06-00154, 11-23-06; ORD-10-00004, 1-21-10) Sec. 28.08(2)(b)8.1 Zoning l. Keeping of honeybees, provided that: i. Hives may be located only on lots with residential use. ii. No more than six (6) hives may be located on a lot. iii. No hive shall exceed twenty (20) cubic feet in volume. iv. No hive shall be located closer than three (3) feet from any property line. v. No hive shall be located closer than ten (10) feet from a public sidewalk or twenty-five (25) feet from a principal building on an abutting lot. vi. A constant supply of water shall be provided for all hives. vii. A flyway barrier at least six (6) feet in height shall shield any part of a property line that is within twenty-five (25) feet of a hive. The flyway barrier shall consist of a wall, fence, dense vegetation or a combination thereof and it shall be positioned to transect both legs of a triangle extending from an apex at the hive to each end point of the part of the property line to be shielded. viii. The owner, operator, or tenant obtains a license under Sec. 9.53, MGO.  ix. The applicant for the license notifies all residents of the property and the owner or operator of the property if the applicant is not the owner or operator. Notification is not required for renew 9.53 Licenses and Permits KEEPING OF HONEYBEES. Any person who keeps honeybees in the City of Madison shall obtain an annual license prior to January 1 of each year, or within thirty (30) days of acquiring the honeybees. The license year commences on January 1 and ends on the following December 31. Application shall be made to the City Treasurer and the fee for the license shall be ten dollars ($10.00). The Treasurer or other authorized individual shall collect the fee and shall assess and collect a late fee of five dollars ($5.00) from every owner of honeybees, if the owner fails to obtain a license prior to April 1 of each year, or fails to obtain a license within thirty (30) days of acquiring the honeybees. All the late fees received or collected shall be paid into the local Treasury. The Zoning Administrator may revoke a license if there are three (3) or more violations within any six- (6) month period of this or any ordinance in Chapter 28, MGO, regulating the keeping of honeybees. (Cr. by ORD-12-00025, 3-5-12)  Public health issues associated with raising backyard poultry Brooke Rossheim, M.D., M.P.H. Rappahannock Area Health District July 2, 2012 Please note that the Virginia Department of Health does not have an official policy or guidance document about the raising of backyard poultry. The primary risk associated with chickens and other poultry is that it is common that they carry Salmonella bacteria in their intestines and shed Salmonella in their feces. Salmonella can be present on the animal itself (its beak, feathers, feet, etc), the cage or area where it lives and anywhere it roams. Therefore, it is not recommended that poultry live in individuals’ homes. Chicken eggs can also carry Salmonella; thus, they must be cooked thoroughly before eating. There are other infectious agents associated with backyard raising of poultry that have the potential to be transmitted to humans. Poultry usually do not become ill even if they carry Salmonella bacteria. However, Salmonella infection can make humans ill. People contract Salmonella infection from their hands or other objects coming into contact with poultry feces and then touching their mouth or the area around the mouth. Salmonella can cause fever, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal pain. Infants, the elderly and individuals with a weakened immune system are at higher risk of developing a more severe Salmonella infection. There are measures people working with backyard poultry can take to reduce the risk of developing Salmonella infection: • Keeping baby and adult chickens away from people with weaker immune systems (for example, individuals receiving cancer chemotherapy or those with HIV infection) • Washing hands thoroughly with soap and water after touching live poultry or areas where poultry live or roam • Adults should supervise handwashing for young children who handle poultry • Avoidance of eating or drinking in areas where poultry live or roam • It is recommended that poultry not live in people’s homes • Regular cleaning, done outside the house, of equipment used to take care of poultry with hot soapy water or a mild bleach solution Aside from Salmonella, there are other potential concerns associated with backyard poultry. Poultry manure may attract insects and cause unpleasant odors and there will likely be noise from the animals. These issues are generally considered nuisance problems and are not public health hazards per se. Impressions: 1. Individuals wishing to raise backyard poultry should be aware of the potential risks of doing so and weigh this against the benefit they wish to achieve. Individuals engaged in this activity should take appropriate infection prevention measures. 2. From a public health perspective, there does not appear to be sufficient risk of harm to the public to ban the practice of raising backyard poultry. The health risks associated with backyard poultry apply mainly to individuals having direct contact with the animals, their surroundings and equipment needed to care for them. Page 1 of 2 References: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Keeping Backyard Poultry. http://www.cdc.gov/Features/SalmonellaPoultry/. Accessed 5/31/2012. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health risks associated with raising chickens. www.cdc.gov/healthypets/pdf/intown_flocks.pdf. Accessed 6/12/2012. Illinois Department of Public Health. Human Health Concerns About Raising Poultry. http://www.idph.state.il.us/health/infect/Poultry.htm. Accessed 6/13/2012. Page 2 of 2  Public health issues associated with backyard beekeeping Brooke Rossheim, M.D., M.P.H. Rappahannock Area Health District July 2, 2012 Please note that the Virginia Department of Health does not have an official policy or guidance document about backyard beekeeping. Backyard beekeeping generally refers to maintaining hives of “non-aggressive” breeds of the European honeybee. Despite significant online research, I’m unable to locate published material about the public health aspects of backyard beekeeping. Information available on beekeeping deals largely with the biology of bees and practical aspects of beekeeping. However, there are other sources of information that shed light on the public health aspects of this activity. In my communications with Dr. David Gaines, Public Health Entomologist for the Virginia Department of Health, he recommends that hives be kept at least 20 feet from neighboring properties and that backyards with hives should be fenced in so someone doesn’t unknowingly wander into the hive area and accidentally provoke a defensive reaction by the bees. Mr. Keith Tignor, state apiarist with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), stated there is no real public health issue with backyard beekeeping. He notes that currently most beekeepers operate in more rural rather than urban areas. VDACS does provide guidance documents on beekeeping which are listed in the references. Mr. Tignor mentioned that beehives are kept at the White House, National Zoo and Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. Also of note, in March 2010 the New York City Board of Health lifted a ban against beekeeping in that city. Currently, beekeepers must register their participation annually with the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. With regard to bee stings, removing the stinger as early as possible results in a less pronounced reaction. In most individuals a bee sting causes only a local reaction consisting of pain, swelling and perhaps itching. Most people do not require medical attention, but can self treat by applying cold compresses to the area and perhaps taking an over the counter antihistamine (i.e. Benadryl), if needed, for itching. Severe allergic reactions (anaphylaxis) are reported in approximately 0.3 – 3% of bee stings. These individuals need immediate medical attention to diagnose and treat their condition appropriately. Impressions: 1. Beekeeping appears to be a common activity in Virginia and elsewhere. In the Commonwealth, beekeeping in urban and suburban locations is uncommon; rural hives are more prevalent. 2. Individuals wishing to engage in backyard beekeeping should be aware of the commitment and possible risks involved in this activity and maintain hives properly (i.e. in accordance with VDACS recommendations) 3. I am unable to locate a document specifically focusing on public health risks associated with this activity. From research conducted, the principal concern is being stung—this is an individual risk and not a public health one. In addition, given that the New York City Department of Health, a large public health organization, permits individual beekeeping with non-aggressive honeybees, it leads me to believe there isn’t a substantial public health concern associated with backyard beekeeping. Page 1 of 2 4. Suggest contacting VDACS regarding proper beekeeping practices References: Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Apiary Inspection Service, Office of Plant and Pest Services. Top 10 Tips for the Suburban Beekeeper. http://offices.ext.vt.edu/powhatan/programs/anr/beekeeping/suburban_beekeeping.pdf. Accessed 6/22/2012. Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Best Management Practices for Maintaining European Honey Bee Colonies in Virginia. The White House Blog. The Secret Life of White House Bees. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/06/23/secret-life-white-house-bees. Accessed 6/22/2012. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Bees. http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/ehs/ehsbee.shtml. Accessed 6/15/2012. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Dear Beekeeper letter. http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/ehs/ehs-beekeeping-guideline.pdf. Accessed 6/15/2012. New York Times. Bring on the Bees. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/bring-on-the-bees/. Accessed 6/22/2012. UpToDate. Bee, yellow jacket, wasp and other Hymenoptera stings: Reaction types and acute management. http://www.uptodate.com/contents/bee-yellow-jacket-wasp-and-other-hymenoptera- stings-reaction-types-and-acute-management. Accessed 6/22/2012. Page 2 of 2 Sec. 14-1. – Definitions. Add the following definitions: Chicken means a domestic egg-laying hen belonging to the subspecies Gallus gallus domesticus and does not refer to any other type of fowl or game bird. Honeybee means a certified European honeybee, otherwise known by the species name Apis mellifera. Sec. 14-184. - Keeping fowl, pigeons or bees. (a) Except as provided in Article IX, it shall be unlawful to keep or permit to run at large any domestic fowl, pigeons, or bees or any like animal within the city limits. This section shall not prohibit the transportation of such animals through the city or containing such animals within the property boundaries of any duly licensed and lawfully operated livestock auction, slaughterhouse, circus, carnival, zoo, or similar business. (b) This section shall not prohibit the continuance of any bona fide farming operation existing as of January 1, 1955, and located on farms lying within that portion of the city annexed by order of the annexation court dated October 30, 1954. Sec. 14-218-14.230 - Reserved . ARTICLE IX - URBAN AGRICULTURE Sec. 14-231 Keeping of Chickens (a) Keeping up to four chickens on an occupied single family residential lot shall be permitted, provided that: 1. No person shall keep any rooster. 2. The chickens shall be used only for non-commercial household egg production. Selling eggs, slaughtering chickens, or selling chickens for meat shall be prohibited. 3. The chickens shall be provided with a clean, covered, well-ventilated enclosure that is secure from predators. 4. The chickens must be kept in the covered enclosure or within a fenced area at all times 5. No enclosure shall be located closer than twenty feet to any property line.  6. The person shall obtain a license under Sec. 14-250. (b) Any person who keeps chickens under this section shall comply with all City and Virginia laws, ordinances, and regulations regarding care, shelter, sanitation, health, noise, cruelty, neglect, reasonable control, and any other requirements pertaining to, but not limited to, the adequate care and control of animals in the city. (Sections 14-232-239 Reserved.) Sec. 14-240 Keeping of Honeybees (a) Keeping up to two hives of honeybees on an occupied, single family residential lot shall be permitted, provided that: 1. No hive shall be located closer than ten feet from any property line or public sidewalk. 2. A constant supply of fresh water shall be provided on the lot, within twenty feet of all hives. 3. A flyway barrier at least six feet in height shall shield any part of a property line that is within twenty-five feet of a hive, or facing a hive opening. The flyway barrier shall consist of a wall, solid fence, dense vegetation, or a combination thereof. 4. The owner, operator, or tenant shall obtain a license under Sec. 14-250. (b) Any person who keeps honeybees pursuant to this section shall comply with all City and Virginia laws, ordinances and regulations regarding beekeeping, including, but not limited to, Code of Virginia Title 3.2, Chapter 44, “Beekeeping,” and the regulations of the Virginia Department of Agriculture. (Sections 14-241-249 Reserved.) Section 14-250. Urban Agriculture Licenses and Fees (a) Any person who keeps chickens or honeybees in the City of Fredericksburg shall obtain an annual license prior to January 1 of each year, or prior to acquiring the chickens or honeybees. The license year commences on January 1 and ends on the following December 31. (b) Application shall be made to the City Treasurer and the fee for the license shall be ten dollars. (c) The Treasurer or other authorized individual shall collect the fee and shall assess and collect a late fee of five dollars if the person fails to obtain a license prior to April 1 of each year, or fails to obtain a license prior to acquiring the chickens or honeybees. All late fees received or collected shall be paid to the City Treasurer. (d) The applicant for the license shall provide written permission from the owner of the property if the applicant is not the owner. Notification is not required for license renewal. (e) The license shall authorize the Animal Control Officer to enter the property at reasonable times and upon reasonable notice to the license holder to inspect the chicken- or beekeeping operation for compliance with the provisions of this Article. (f) The Animal Control Officer may revoke the license if there are three or more violations within any twelve month period of this or any ordinance in this chapter, the Noise Ordinance, or the Nuisances chapter, or any other applicable Virginia or local law or regulation regulating the keeping of chickens or bees.