Here is an update to what is happening with the Kearney City Code revision:
Residents say revised animal rules for the birds
KEARNEY— Chickens? Snakes? Pot-bellied pigs?
The Kearney Planning Commission threw up its hands Friday and decided that a committee should grapple with proposed changes to the city code’s animal rules before the commission makes a recommendation to the Kearney City Council.
The changes were written because City Planner Lance Lang noted that the animal regulations read differently in two sections of the code. The code is being revised to bring them into alignment.
The proposals divide animals into four classifications: household pets, fowl, livestock and domestic animals. Only household pets would be permitted inside city limits, but that household pet definition proved elusive.
Connie Decker told the commission that she used to have eight chickens because she intended to create an organic garden and wanted them to help control bugs and weeds. But a neighbor complained, and the city told her to get rid of the chickens.
She has spent the last 18 months researching this issue, and she’s curious: Can teenagers have chickens for 4-H projects? What about organic gardeners?
“Is a chicken a pet?” she asked. “If I have a snake and a spider, are they pets? If I have six snakes, am I out of compliance?
“Nobody seems to know,” she said.
Decker said chickens are permitted in residential areas of Omaha and Lincoln, She noted, too, that current Kearney regulations require 75 feet between a house and a chicken coop, and few city lots have that much space.
“What about people who have homing pigeons? What about 4-H rabbits? That’s not compliant with the city code, either,” she said.
Richard Lush, who lives south of the city limits at Avenue M and Interstate 80, said, “My family has had livestock since before the invention of the city of Kearney. Am I grandfathered in?”
He said he’s had between 50 and 100 chickens at once. “Nobody has a problem with our butchering. Neighbors don’t notice. But technically, we’re still in town.”
Lang noted that Lush lives outside city limits on a large piece of property, far away from neighbors. But he admitted he wasn’t sure about Lush being grandfathered in.
Nor was he sure about issues raised by Dwayne Osmansky. Osmansky had two chickens until the city told him to get rid of them three months ago based on a single two-year-old complaint. But when Osmansky looked at the police section of the city code, he interpreted it to say that he could have his chickens.
That’s what Lang hopes the revised language will correct, but questions kept popping up. Commissioners asked, who comprised the city’s animal control authority? Should chickens be allowed as pets, but banned if they’re being raised for consumption? How many complaints are coming in — one each year, or 50 a year? If chickens are permitted, what about ducks?
Finally, Commission Chairman James Ganz said it was time to stop talking and appoint an ad hoc committee to study the issue, and he invited Decker and Osmansky to be part of it.
“We’ve heard a lot of diverse opinions,” he said. “I’m not comfortable voting either way at this point.”
Lance said city employees who crafted the rules because, “We had to draw a line in the sand.” But he encouraged the commission to study the issue. The ad hoc committee, as yet unnamed, will try to untangle it without ruffling feathers.
(This article appeared in the Saturday, July 21, Kearney Hub.
http://www.kearneyhub.com/news/loca...cle_aa0a1f86-d2fe-11e1-91ca-001a4bcf887a.html)
