Documents › Regular Meeting, 2026-09-02

4 pages

Also attached to this agenda item: CAF - Local Law Intro 10 of 2026 Local Law Introductory No. 10 of 2026 Memo from Valerie Monastra on Fowl%2FAnimals Memo on Fowl %26 Poultry from Village Manager Bryan Healy PB Memo to VB Local Law Intro 10 of 2026 Farm Animals Proposed Language on Farm Animals and Fowl - June 2026 Proposed Language on Farm Animals and Fowl - May 2026 Public Comments Received by Email - August 19 Resolution 156-2026 LL Intro 10 of 2026 Referrals Resolution 180-2026 LL Intro 10 of 2026 PH Short EAF Part 1 - Local Law Intro 10 of 2026 completed

From: Croton-on-Hudson NY via Croton-on-Hudson NY To: Manager"s Office Subject: Date: Monday, August 31, 2026 10:21:20 AM External (cmsmailer@civicplus.com)   Safe  Spam  Phish  More...  FAQ  Protection by INKY ***CAUTION: External sender.*** Submitted on Monday, August 31, 2026 - 10:20am Submitted values are: Choose One: Public Comments for Board Meeting Please include any questions or comments: Hello and good morning. I have reviewed the proposed (draft) Local Law No 10., and I would just like to pose some questions, as well as potential inconsistencies, and issues with how the law is currently drafted, that should be considered (if not already): The LL includes specific provisions for the keeping of chickens and ducks, as well as prohibitions on the keeping of pigeons, geese, and swans. What about other fowl (e.g. turkeys, peacocks, quail, pheasants, etc.)? These do not seem to fit any of the categories, and this could result in confusion should the law be adopted and someone wish to keep (or already keeps) such animals. More critically, the setback distances required for the keeping of chickens may prove untenable for some (but not other) property owners, which I do not anticipate was intentional, and which would be unfair to certain neighbors. To that end, with a setback requirement of 25 feet from ALL lot lines in the RA-5 district, wherein the minimum lot width is 50 feet, and the minimum lot depth 100 feet, a conforming lot of 5000 sf (50 ft x 100 ft) would be unable to have chickens, since the required setback is at least 25 feet from all lot lines. This surely could not be the intention of the code update - to zone certain lots out of a right that is permitted on other lots. I believe the only correction for this issue would be adjusting the setback requirement downward (for example, to 10 feet). I will also note that, depending on the placement of a home on a lot, lots in the RA-5 district which are larger than the 5000 sf minimum in the RA-5 district might face the same issue and not have the necessary distances, outside the footprint of a house, to meet the regulations under the law. In the RA-10 district, for example, a conforming lot of 9,375 sf, with required setbacks of 75ft (width) and 125 feet (depth), would be, under the proposed LL, unable to keep chickens, as the required setback from all lot lines is 50 feet or greater. Again, this could not have been the intention of the law, and I believe the setbacks should be reduced accordingly. Additionally, the LL does not identify if lots already containing chickens, and/or with enclosed pens close to a lot line (less than the new requirements of 25' or 50') are grandfathered in. I believe this should be explicitly noted, and I believe those neighbors who have been keeping chickens in conformance with existing regulations, and in a clean and safe manner, not bothering neighbors, should not be excluded from keeping them upon passage of the new LL - and it is clear that this could be an unintended consequence of the law, given how it is currently drafted. I can think of at least one example in my neighborhood where, a neighbor who keeps chickens without any issues, would suffer a hardship. I believe the LL requires material revisions to ensure it is fair to all residents, appropriate for the Village's unique lot sizes and setback requirements, and to protect the Village from future challenges to the law based on its requirements/specifics. Thank you for your careful consideration of these comments. ==Please provide the following information== Your Name: JASON MENCHER Email Address: Street: 45 VAN WYCK STREET City: Croton-on-Hudson State: New York Zipcode: 10520 Organization: Phone Number: The results of this submission may be viewed at: https://www.crotononhudson-ny.gov/node/2/submission/45786 From: Laura Seitz To: Manager"s Office Subject: Pigeon law Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 12:10:42 PM ***CAUTION: External sender.*** II would like to add my voice to those who are calling out to grandfather the pigeons already living in Croton. Also, can we not hold off on draconian measures to forbid all other pigeons at this time? Since a certain number of chickens and ducks are allowed, why shouldn’t pigeons receive the same consideration? I have yet to hear a good argument about WHY this particular bird should be seen as offensive, when we have wild bird feeders providing treat to all kinds of birds, including mourning doves, throughout the village. Thank you for your consideration, Laura Seitz From: Lisa Parr To: Manager"s Office Subject: Pigeon law Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 12:02:10 PM ***CAUTION: External sender.*** Hello, I would like to add my voice to the discussion and state that I firmly believe all existing pigeon coops in Croton should be grandfathered in and any law limiting them should proceed with requests moving forward. As a pet owner, I am appalled that you would consider telling pigeon owners (of which I believe there may be only one) that they have to get ride of their pets. That is not the village I want to call home. Thank you, Lisa Parr 26 Olcott Avenue