Correction and update, September 8, 2026: The earlier headline did not make clear that the pigeon ban was proposed. Scheduling a public hearing did not set an adoption vote or guarantee adoption. No adoption vote was taken on September 2; see the separate update for the subsequent hearing and next steps. Read the September 8 update. *The account below describes the draft and agenda available before the August 19 meeting.* The draft of Croton's new animal law attached to Wednesday's agenda would prohibit keeping pigeons — and roosters — in every residence district in the village. There is no grace period in it, no exemption for birds someone already keeps, and no variance to apply for. It would take effect the day it is filed with the Secretary of State. The August 19 agenda proposed scheduling a public hearing, not adopting the law. A hearing date does not establish when, or whether, an adoption vote will take place. Resolution 180-2026 would schedule a public hearing on Local Law Introductory No. 10 of 2026 for September 2 at 7 p.m. in the Georgianna Grant Meeting Room of the Stanley H. Kellerhouse Municipal Building. It sits on the consent agenda, the block of items approved in a single motion rather than taken one at a time. Trustees may consider it with the other consent items or pull it out for separate discussion. That matters more than a scheduling item normally would, because two versions of this law are in circulation, they treat pigeons differently, and the packet does not say which one is going to the hearing. What the law would do, in full The law rewrites Chapter 230 of the zoning code. It repeals the provision that governs this today — Section 230-9.1 A(10)(f), which permits keeping domestic animals except pigs, up to three dogs over six months old and up to 25 fowl, with anything other than a dog or cat kept 50 feet from a lot line — and marks it *Reserved*. In its place it adds two definitions and one new section of rules. *The definitions.* Domestic animals are companion animals and pets — the law lists cats, dogs, fish, parrots, rabbits and reptiles — and expressly exclude farm animals. Farm animals are animals customarily raised on a farm, "including, but not limited to, chickens, ducks, horses, cows, goats, sheep, pigs and donkeys." *What stays permitted.* Domestic animals, with nothing but a dog or cat penned or housed within 50 feet of a lot line. Chickens and ducks on a sliding scale: five on a lot under a quarter acre, 10 between a quarter and a half acre, 15 between a half acre and an acre, and 20 above an acre — kept 25 feet from lot lines in the RA-5 and RB districts and 50 feet elsewhere, never roaming free, in clean, dry, secure enclosures kept odor-free, with ventilation, sun and shade, protection from pests and predators, and feed in rodent-proof containers. Other farm animals are allowed only on lots of two acres or more: two goats or sheep on two acres and another half acre for each additional one; one horse, donkey or mule on two acres and another acre each; one head of cattle on five acres and another acre each; two swine on two acres and another third of an acre each. The acreage is additive across species — the law's own example is that two goats and one horse would require four acres. Those lots need secure fencing with self-latching gates, metal rodent-proof feed containers, and barns or animal storage set 50 feet from every lot line and 300 feet from any neighbouring dwelling. *What would be banned.* Roosters, in every residence district. Pigeons, in every residence district. Any farm animal other than chickens and ducks on a lot under two acres, or under five acres for cattle. Chickens and ducks above the lot-size numbers above. Letting chickens or ducks roam free. And the 25-fowl allowance itself, which disappears. One provision cuts the other way: the current code bans pigs outright, and this draft would permit two swine on two acres. Where the word "fowl" goes It is tempting to read this as a fowl law that swept pigeons up in a definition. It is not. The word *fowl* appears twice in the draft, and both times inside the struck-through text being deleted. The law defines *domestic animals* and *farm animals*; it does not define *fowl* at all, and pigeons appear in neither definition. Pigeons are prohibited by a clause that names them. That matters because the reverse is what makes them lawful now: asked in June what *fowl* means in the existing code, the Zoning Board of Appeals read it as a bird of any kind, which places pigeons inside the 25-fowl allowance. The earlier drafts of this law, circulated in May and June, did define *fowl* — "any poultry or domesticated game bird," listing chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, pheasants, peacocks, quail and grouse — and pigeons were not in that list either. Rather than widen a definition, the drafters dropped the concept and named the bird. One gap follows from that choice. Turkeys, geese and similar birds are farm animals but are not "chickens and ducks," so they fall under the two-acre rule — and the ratio table sets no number for them at all. The difference between the two drafts is a year and two species The copy attached to Wednesday's agenda carries the control number 4904-5233-4776, v. 3 in its footer. It sets no compliance date, offers no grandfathering for birds already kept, and provides no variance path. Its effective-date clause says the law takes effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State — any effective date would depend on a future adoption and filing, neither of which the hearing-scheduling resolution established. The copy the Waterfront Advisory Committee reviewed in July carries a different number, 4905-7596-8955, v. 1. There, roosters are prohibited immediately, but a separate sentence begins *Effective January 1, 2027* and prohibits pigeons, geese and swans — a later date and two more species — and a further paragraph applies the enforcement and penalty sections at 230-173 and 230-174. A January 1, 2027 date was described in earlier discussion as giving keepers time to rehome or relocate birds. It is not in the document travelling with Wednesday's resolution. Three reviews came back, none of them about pigeons The Westchester County Planning Board answered on July 20 under referral file CRO-26-004, raising no objection and finding the matter one for local determination. Its description of the law — new definitions, permitted numbers by acreage, enclosure regulations — does not mention the prohibition at all. The Waterfront Advisory Committee reviewed the referral on July 8 and recommended a finding of consistency with the village's waterfront program; the committee is chaired by Len Simon, who also sits on the board that will vote, and the memo is signed in his name as chairman. The version his committee reviewed was v. 1. The village Planning Board reported on August 3 over Chairman Luntz's signature and raised one problem, an internal one: in some districts the setbacks would permit an accessory dwelling unit but not a chicken coop. So the clause that ends an activity the Zoning Board of Appeals found lawful in June — when it read *fowl* in the current code as meaning a bird of any kind — has cleared three reviews without any of them addressing it. What you can actually do on Wednesday The August 19 agenda offered three opportunities for residents to address the proposal. *Public Comment — Agenda Items* is taken before the consent agenda vote. Resolution 180-2026 is an agenda item, so this is the slot for anything about which draft advances, whether there will be a compliance date, or whether existing keepers are grandfathered. Saying it after the consent agenda passes is still worth doing, but it is after the vote. *Responses to Questions Submitted by Email* is its own item on the agenda, which means a question sent in advance can be answered on the record rather than absorbed into general comment. The address is BoardofTrustees@crotononhudson-ny.gov. *Public Comment — Non Agenda Items* comes later in the meeting and is open to anything. The meeting begins with a 6 p.m. work session; the regular meeting is called to order at 7. Both are in the Georgianna Grant Meeting Room at the Stanley H. Kellerhouse Municipal Building, One Van Wyck Street. The questions that are still genuinely open, and that Wednesday is the moment to put, are narrow ones. Which version of Introductory No. 10 will be advertised for the September 2 hearing? If it is v. 3, was the January 1, 2027 date dropped deliberately or lost between drafts? Will existing keepers be grandfathered, as Tarrytown did when it restricted pigeons? And is the board aware that the Waterfront Advisory Committee's consistency finding was made on a different text from the one now attached to the resolution? After Wednesday, the next opportunity is the hearing itself on September 2, where the levers are the same three: the date, the grandfathering, and which species the line covers.
Source documents:
*Related coverage:*