Trustees Take Up Signage Overhaul, Pigeon Regulations, and Cannabis Dispensary Moratorium in Marathon Work Session

The Croton Board of Trustees held a marathon work session on May 27, working through a packed agenda that included speed zone cameras, leaf blower regulations, a proposed signage code overhaul, animal and fowl regulations, a cannabis dispensary moratorium, and committee leadership changes.

Speed zone camera request re-adopted The board re-adopted its home rule request to the state legislature for school speed zone camera authority for the second time in two weeks. Village Manager Bryan Healy said the latest revision was needed because the companion bills — A11322-A in the Assembly and S10058-B in the Senate — had been amended with duplicative language and an erroneous reference to the village's parking violations bureau. The request authorizes the village to establish a demonstration program placing cameras at up to three school speed zones. The board first adopted the request on May 20 and would re-adopt it a third time at a June 2 special meeting as legislative amendments continued. Leaf blower regulations referred to Conservation Advisory Council The board voted to refer correspondence on leaf blower regulations to the Conservation Advisory Council with detailed guidance. Trustees provided extensive direction covering: a phase-in period for any new restrictions; equity concerns about whether regulations would disproportionately affect certain neighborhoods; enforcement mechanisms including a process for residents to file formal complaints; comparison of Croton's approach with other Westchester municipalities; the question of gas-powered battery rechargers; whether to pursue a county-level coordinated approach; technical and economic feasibility of electric versus gas equipment; stakeholder engagement with landscapers, homeowners associations, the school district, the DPW, and large property owners; equipment demonstrations; and a potential letter to the county legislature. Trustees also discussed a state bill that would create a lawn equipment rebate program. Signage code draws detailed feedback The board devoted significant time to reviewing a proposed new signage code, Local Law 7, with planning consultant Valerie. The discussion ranged across numerous technical details and policy questions. Trustees and Valerie discussed whether temporary window signs should count toward the total window sign area limit, currently set at 25 percent transparency. Nicholson raised bird safety concerns, noting collisions with fully covered storefront windows. Valerie recommended clarifying that all signs — permanent and temporary — count toward the limit, both for aesthetics and so police can see inside commercial windows. The board discussed how to handle nonconforming signs once the new law takes effect. Simon suggested requiring businesses to come into compliance within a reasonable period rather than grandfathering existing signs. Slippen urged consulting the Association of Croton Businesses about what timeline would be fair, noting that at least one local business had spent thousands on window signage. Healy said a previous enforcement effort last summer had achieved only moderate success. Trustees debated temporary sign duration limits, with Nicholson pointing out the proposed law sets a 45-day limit for commercial temporary signs but is silent on residential temporary signs — meaning political signs, for example, could remain indefinitely. Valerie confirmed that under the draft, a political sign in safe condition could stay up permanently. The board also discussed prohibiting inflatable signs and tube men, with Valerie noting the Planning Board had specifically recommended banning them while allowing short-term inflatables for grand openings. On tree-mounted signs, there was agreement that signs could be secured to trees only with non-penetrating, non-abrasive rope or cord that does not injure the tree. The conversation revealed frustration on the Visual Environment Board about village-produced signs that bypassed the review process. Healy pushed back, saying the village had sent more applications to the VEB in the past five years than the prior 25 years combined. Healy noted the VEB is advisory, not regulatory, and said a fuller conversation should wait until the board is repopulated following recent resignations. Valerie recommended a redraft incorporating the board's feedback, with a return to a future work session before scheduling a public hearing. Simon noted the ABC is holding a meeting open to all businesses on June 16, which could serve as an opportunity for early input. Animal and fowl regulations

The board turned to revisions of the village's animal and fowl provisions, pulled from a broader code cleanup law (Local Law 3) for fuller discussion. Valerie presented a draft that would set chicken coop setbacks at 25 feet from any lot line for properties under an acre and 50 feet for larger properties, with maximum flock sizes scaled to property size — up to five chickens on the smallest lots and up to 20 on properties over an acre. Simon disclosed that he lives on a street where pigeon keeping has been discussed. Village Attorney Joshua Subin confirmed Simon could participate in the discussion without recusing himself, noting the law would be universally applicable. Pigeons dominated the conversation. Simon reported that Larchmont, Pelham, Pelham Manor, Port Chester, and Rye Brook ban pigeons entirely, while Ardsley requires village board approval after a public hearing. Tarrytown banned pigeons in 1998 but grandfathered existing owners. Valerie noted that most of the communities banning pigeons also prohibit chickens, with Tarrytown being the exception. Pugh raised concerns about enforcement. "I think that's how I'm approaching this — I don't wanna take away somebody's ability to have the animal they want, but I also don't want to put an undue burden on a neighbor who doesn't want anything to do with ducks or chickens," Nachtaler said. Nachtaler pushed for specificity over the term "fowl," which she called ambiguous. "Everyone knows what a chicken is," she said. "I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a quail, a pheasant, a grouse." Slippen said she would be inclined to allow chickens and prohibit all other fowl. The board reached rough consensus on allowing chickens, wanting more information on ducks, and moving toward a ban on pigeons. On setbacks, trustees agreed on 25 feet in the RA-5 zone — where most lots are only 50 feet wide — and 50 feet everywhere else, though Simon said he wanted more research on whether 25 feet was sufficient even in RA-5. The question of a pigeon moratorium was raised. Subin said a moratorium might be "a bit much" given that only one resident had expressed interest in keeping pigeons. Healy said the village would communicate the board's intent to both the applicant and the zoning board, which is expected to take up a related interpretation in mid-June. Nicholson asked whether the village needed a moratorium to prevent someone from investing in a pigeon coop while the law is being drafted. Pugh suggested splitting the setback requirements into a separate, faster-moving law while the broader animal provisions continue through the full SEQR process. Farm animals — goats, sheep, horses — were discussed briefly. Healy said the only zone where they might fit is RA-60 (lots of two acres or more), and noted that existing code already prohibits pigs. Cannabis dispensary moratorium Healy proposed a six-month moratorium on new cannabis dispensaries to give the board time to review the village's zoning in light of continually changing state regulations. The Office of Cannabis Management has repeatedly revised distance measurement rules — from front door to property line to same-street front door — and changed which facilities count toward distance requirements. "We opted in, and the rules changed, which is not fair," Slippen said. "And then you don't have any way to back out. I agree. I think we should do a moratorium, give a little bit of fight to the OCM. Give us the rules, we'll play by the rules. If you change the rules in the middle of the game — yes." Nachtaler raised concerns about the moratorium creating a monopoly for the one dispensary already approved in the village, noting it would be the only such store in the region. Subin acknowledged the risk, noting that moratoria affect property rights and carry preemption exposure given state preemption of local cannabis law. He said a hardship exemption mechanism could mitigate some risk. Pugh suggested the board could reduce its exposure by moving expeditiously on zoning amendments and completing them within the six-month window. The board voted to schedule a public hearing on the moratorium for June 17, with an option to close the hearing and vote the same evening. The moratorium is a Type II action under SEQR and exempt from environmental review. HART Committee leadership

The meeting closed with a brief discussion of the HART Committee. Committee leadership had reached out to resign, and the board had discussed converting the committee to ad hoc status. Nachtaler urged the board to slow down, saying she felt rushed into a decision that had unfolded over just a few hours of email correspondence. The board voted to extend the committee leadership deadline to June 30 to allow time for further conversation with the current members. Attorney Joshua Subin was present for the work session on his birthday, which drew thanks and birthday wishes from the board.