Sydney council sends proposed backyard-fowl rules back to staff for review after public hearing

The City Council on Oct. 14 directed staff to review and merge a resident-drafted proposal to allow backyard chickens with the city’s existing animal ordinances and return with a consolidated draft for future consideration.

The vote followed roughly an hour of testimony from residents and city staff about potential benefits and problems of allowing fowl inside current city limits. Proponent Megan Donardo urged the council to permit backyard hens, citing reduced pesticide use, community food access and examples of similar-size Nebraska municipalities that have adopted rules. "I have near almost 300 signatures from people in the community saying they're for it," Donardo told the council.

The council’s decision came after extended remarks from Sierra Nickel, the city’s code enforcement and animal control officer, who told the council that her office consists of a single eight-hour-per-day staff position and that allowing chickens could increase calls for animal and code enforcement. "The code enforcement slash animal control officer only works 8 hour shifts Monday through Friday," Nickel said. She raised public-health concerns, telling the council that "chickens can and will carry diseases that can be harmful to the health and wellness of humans," and cited E. coli transmission risks tied to fecal contamination.

Other speakers presented a mix of experiences and concerns. Jennifer Adamson said she has kept chickens for 20 years in a property zoned agricultural without complaints; Marshall Hall, the city's building official, warned that enforcement calls take extensive staff time; and residents Doug Hart and Nolan Bridal urged against changing the ordinance citing nuisance, noise and property-value concerns. Supporters including Mikaylee Conger and Dana Veil described chickens as educational for children and manageable when coops and feed storage are controlled.

The resident proposal presented by Donardo suggested rules including limiting coops to rear yards, a 20-foot setback from neighboring structures, a minimum of 2 square feet per hen in the coop, maximum run size of 120 square feet, an 8-foot height limit, night enclosures for all birds, no outdoor slaughtering, permit requirements with annual fees and a provision allowing animal control to impound fowl found running at large. Donardo said her draft excluded ducks for now but left that choice to council discretion.

Code and enforcement questions dominated much of the discussion: whether the city has a place to shelter impounded chickens (there is not), how waste would be managed, whether predators would increase in neighborhoods, and the staffing capacity of police officers to assist when the animal-control officer is off duty. Nickel said animal calls this year numbered 614 to date while code violations were 271, underscoring her staff workload.

Councilmember Griffin moved to have staff and council members Josh (interim manager) and others work with Donardo to "meld" her proposal with sections of city code (notably 6.18 — animals); the motion passed 3-2 (Bondergaard opposed; Radcliffe, Kirkman and Koons in favor; Lee opposed). The council did not adopt any ordinance text at the meeting; the motion directs staff to prepare a consolidated ordinance for future consideration.

The move preserves the next steps outlined during the meeting: staff will combine Donardo’s model rules with existing ordinance language, identify related sections that will require amendment (including 6.18.02, 6.18.19, 6.18.20 and 6.18.26 as cited during testimony), and return to council with a draft ordinance and recommended enforcement approach. Council members and staff noted that the draft should address permitting, enforcement resources, waste handling, and options for limiting the number or types of birds.

The council’s action stops short of policy change; further public hearings and a formal ordinance reading will be required before backyard fowl would be permitted within city limits.