ZBA Interprets 1931 Animal Code: Fowl Means Any Bird, Pigeons Count, Coops Can Stay Near Property Lines

The Croton Zoning Board of Appeals spent its June 16 meeting parsing a single sentence of village code that dates to 1931, ultimately issuing interpretations on what qualifies as a domestic animal, what counts as fowl, and whether birds can be kept near property lines.

The interpretations were requested by Village Engineer Vincent Salanitro, who said the zoning provision on keeping animals has proven difficult to enforce because its language is ambiguous. The section, Article 239.1 of the village zoning code, reads: "Keeping domestic animals except pigs for individual domestic purposes or as pets provided that not more than three dogs over six months old and not more than 25 fowl shall be permitted. And no animals except dogs or cats or fowl shall be penned or housed within 50 feet of the lot line." Salanitro asked the board to answer two questions: what is included in the definition of fowl, and whether fowl are allowed to be penned or housed within 50 feet of a lot line. Public comments Several residents spoke during the public hearing, including a resident identified only as Tony from 148 Old Post Road who said he bought his house and built a coop specifically to keep pigeons, after being told by village staff that he could. "I called the town. I called you guys over here, and I got the answer yes," {{quote:447}} he said, adding that the pigeons had been kept in boxes in his basement for months and were suffering from the heat. "I just feel like I'm killing them." {{quote:635}} His neighbor Andy Simmons of 146 Old Post Road North said the pigeon coop did not bother his family. But another neighbor, Allison Rosen, also of Old Post Road, urged the board to prohibit keeping pigeons, citing health concerns including avian flu, cryptococcus, histoplasmosis, and salmonellosis. She said pigeons are "known carriers of several diseases that are highly communicable, airborne, and dangerous to humans, particularly children or immunocompromised individuals and seniors." {{quote:828}} Matthew Rubinstein of Trussell Drive spoke in favor of clarity, saying the comma-separated phrasing of the code could read differently to a lawyer, an enforcement officer, or a resident. Defining fowl After closing the public hearing, the board debated whether "fowl" refers narrowly to poultry like chickens, ducks, and geese, or broadly to any bird. Geoffrey Haynes argued for the broad definition, noting that the code uses lay terms throughout. "We say except dogs or cats, which are also kind of lay terms," {{quote:1044}} he said. "A tiger is a big cat." {{quote:1044}} He pointed to Merriam-Webster's first definition — "a bird of any kind" — and said in his experience, fowl has usually referred to birds generally. Chair James Tuman initially disagreed, pointing out that another village code provision refers to "animal, fowl, or bird," suggesting the drafters viewed fowl and bird as distinct categories. "We weren't around when this code was drafted," {{quote:1263}} he said. Bill Goldsmith noted that no definition of fowl exists in state law, county code, or the village's own zoning code. He said that without a specific definition to guide the board, the broader interpretation was appropriate. "If the village decides they want to edit or change the code, that's fine," {{quote:1204}} he said. "But from the purpose of interpreting what's here, I think you need to go as broad as possible." {{quote:1204}} The board voted unanimously to define fowl as "a bird of any kind."

Domestic animals On the question of what constitutes a domestic animal, the board quickly agreed on a definition: non-wild animals maintained by humans for human benefit. Haynes suggested using the Merriam-Webster definition of domestication — "adapted over time as by selective breeding from a wild or natural state to live in close association with and to the benefit of humans" — and the board adopted it unanimously. The 50-foot setback The most contentious question was whether the code permits fowl to be kept within 50 feet of a property line. The sentence in question — "no animals except dogs or cats or fowl shall be penned or housed within 50 feet of the lot line" — turned on the placement of a comma. Tuman, Haynes, and Ethan Lewis read the clause as saying dogs, cats, and fowl are all exempt from the 50-foot setback, meaning birds can be kept close to property lines. Goldsmith disagreed, reading the comma placement as making dogs and cats the only exceptions. Lewis said his interpretation was that the intent was to keep large animals like cows or horses away from neighbors. "I interpret that to mean that you're allowed to have chickens in a coop that aren't 50 feet away from the lot line," {{quote:1631}} he said, noting that many existing coops would be noncompliant under the stricter reading. Haynes raised a practical concern: if fowl had to be kept 50 feet from all lot lines, residents would need a 100-foot-wide lot, which does not reflect most properties in Croton. "That does not reflect the vast majority of lots in Croton," {{quote:1809}} he said. "That would be a very big leap in past enforcement precedents and something I would hope would be resolved through village legislation and a cleaned up code rather than this zoning board." {{quote:1809}} Tuman made a motion that fowl shall be allowed to be penned or housed within 50 feet of any lot line. It passed 3-2, with Goldsmith dissenting. Broader context The interpretations come as the Board of Trustees is already working on revising animal-keeping rules as part of Local Law No. 3, a sweeping zoning code cleanup. The Planning Board has recommended scaling the number of fowl allowed based on lot size and reducing the setback requirement from 50 feet to 15 feet from property lines. In April, the trustees removed the fowl provisions from the proposed law to allow further study of best practices used by other municipalities. Village Attorney Joshua Subin had suggested the board let him draft a clean resolution for a vote at the next meeting rather than deciding on the spot, but Salanitro said the matter was pressing. Goldsmith noted that the board was split roughly 3-2 on the key questions, saying "that's really interesting information for the village to take into account that it's not unanimous." {{quote:2012}}

Salanitro thanked the board for the interpretations, which he said would help with enforcement. Tuman said the discussion would also help the village "see the holes that are in the code, and hopefully will adapt it and revise it accordingly." {{quote:2524}} The board approved the minutes from its May 19 meeting.