Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Keeping Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chestnut Street Feedery withdraws application to keep rodents after health department review
Summary
An application from Chestnut Street Feedery to keep livestock and other animals, including rats, at 115 Chestnut Street was withdrawn after Board of Health staff said the department will monitor vector-proofing under the property maintenance code and may inspect the site under section 309.6.
The Board of Health reviewed an application from Chestnut Street Feedery to keep livestock, fowl and other animals, including rats, at 115 Chestnut Street; the applicant withdrew the request during the meeting.
Board staff told members the matter is primarily one of vector control under the city's property maintenance code rather than the city's chapter 70 ordinance on keeping livestock and fowl. Staff said the property maintenance code requires structures that provide a breeding environment for vectors to be made "vector-proof," meaning construction or repairs that prevent the ingress or egress of vectors to or from a space.
That distinction matters because, staff said, if the rat enclosure is effectively proofed the Board of Health would not need to take further formal action on an application. "As long as it's effective proof, there's no issue," one staff member advised the board; staff and the vector-control officer said they would monitor the property and take enforcement steps if proofing proved ineffective.
The applicant and witnesses described changes made at the facility in response to earlier inspections and complaints. The applicant said liner paneling has been installed where oriented strand board was previously exposed, plastic sheeting showing holes has been replaced with metal, and tin covers have been installed across an entryway to reduce potential rodent entry. The facility now stores carcasses in sealed 55-gallon barrels with lockable lids and ships waste to a facility in Lafayette for disposal, the applicant said.
A witness who identified himself as the applicant's son told the board, "I think that it is good that mister Plowman has been pressuring my dad to clean up his rat room because it is now a lot more cleaner and it smells better and it is fun working." The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture also inspected the site in June, staff said; according to the applicant the inspector returned and expressed satisfaction with progress but did not provide a written certificate.
Staff and the board discussed establishing an inspection schedule. Section 309.6 of the property maintenance provisions was read into the record to show the department is empowered to make periodic interior and exterior inspections of dwellings and structures. Board members expressed a preference for initial follow-up inspections at relatively short intervals, with longer intervals if the facility remains in compliance; staff said the code currently authorizes "periodic" inspections and the department conducts unpredictable inspections similar to those done by state inspectors.
After that discussion the applicant withdrew the application. The board took no approval action on the application; staff said they would continue monitoring the feedery under the property maintenance code and could pursue citations if vector proofing proved inadequate.
The meeting then recessed and adjourned on a motion that passed without recorded opposition.
