Alright. Welcome to our May 27 village board work session. Our first standard of business will be readopting a home rule request to authorize the establishment of a school slowed school zone speed camera demonstration program
• in the village. Manager, would you like to introduce?
Sure. Thank you, mayor. So I was notified earlier today that there was some duplicative language in the original home rule bill. And so there was also erroneous reference to our parking violations bureau. It was being called the traffic violations bureau, so they had to make that correction. And so they've reintroduced the bill, which requires a separate a new resolution for the board to pass. So I'm gonna read that now. Whereas the village of Croton-on-Hudson desires to establish a school speed zone camera demonstration program, and whereas the state authorizes municipalities to make such requests through the home rule process. And whereas assemblywoman Dana Levenberg has introduced bill a one one three two two a in the state assembly to authorize a school speed zone camera demonstration program in the village of Croton-on-Hudson, and whereas state senator Peter Harcom has introduced companion bill s one zero zero five eight b in the state senate regarding same. And whereas the village is required to formally submit a home rule request to the state legislature. Now therefore be it resolved that the village board of trustees hereby request authorization to establish a school speed zone camera demonstration program, and be it further resolved that a copy of this home rule request be sent to state assemblywoman Dana Levenberg and state senator Peter Harkom.
Manager, there's a b print on the assembly bill as well? No. The assembly one is a and senate is b. Okay. But the the a print has the the they match?
Alright. Do I have a motion? So moved again. Second. Second by trustee Simon, second by trustee Nicholson. Discussion?
• All in favor? Aye. Aye. Larry?
• Alright. Consider referring various correspondence received on the leaf below or law to the Conservation Advisory Council for their review. I think it would be helpful and I kind of I've discussed this very briefly with the chair of the CAC. If we gave, you know, some kind of general guidance about the issues we want them to consider and kind of questions that we would like them to try to answer in addition to whatever recommendations they might have. And so off the top of my head, I think one would be, you know, if they're to you know, if we're to make some kind of change, what kind of phase in period we would want.
• I think the question of coverage is kind of essential. You know, the villages with our latest RFP looking to be, you know, apply the seasonal restriction to our own operations. Now there are some entities such as the school district that are just always going to be exempt because they're I don't know what the right term would be, attorney, basically parallel sovereign or whatever. Yeah. Yeah. Attorney, why don't go ahead?
Yeah. I think school districts are not necessarily always exempt. Well, I'll say we can't get into it. Well, they yeah. I think we There's police powers that are generally applicable. I'm sorry. Okay. Well
I I was gonna address that one. But, you know, there there may be some juror Yep. Entities that will be exempt. I you know? Metternority being one. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That that definitely is. Yes. Our attorney can look into it. And but I think that, you know, I think broadly people wanna see it be applied as equally as possible, but we should still ask for that recommendation specifically. I think reporting enforcement is very relevant here. You know, there have been some very specific recommendations from some of the advocates, and there are also measures in the code that exist for other nuisance violations that allow people to say, for instance, wear out a complaint. I mean, that's something that with without having to have, you know, someone from the village present to and, obviously, they have to make, you know, that best to get addressed in court and whatever, but it's a way of having, you know, action taken on it in the absence of necessarily having, you know, staff available at a particular time. Yeah. And maybe you could just
Oh, it will be the classic piece from the code is dogs barking. You can swear out a complaint or an affidavit that says this dog in our neighborhood is habitually violating the rules on dogs. Mhmm. And, you know, then it's I can't remember the last time. It it actually did happen. Oh. When? Last
year. Oh, okay. Yeah. There was a, you know, a resident inquired of how to on how to do that process and we, you know, sent them down to the court and they did actually Oh, they actually did it? Yeah. They did actually. But before that, it had probably been a very long time. Yeah. Yeah. But
that sort of takes away some of our you know, someone needs to be caught in the act at the moment. Yep. Right? So that sort of allows for
Yeah. Right. I mean, avenue for a resident to Correct. If we're not able to respond in a timely fashion for whatever reason Mhmm. If they feel so compelled now, I mean, they have to put their name down. Right? I mean, the whoever the violator is is going to see that they were the person that was filing the complaint. So as long as they're comfortable with that, then they can
they can take that route. Yeah. And there are general evidentiary standards whenever you bring evidence into Yep. Yep.
And I I'd like to just add a couple of things for their consideration. One is that understanding that it's a new chair for the committee, and the committee hasn't addressed this issue for a while with that understanding, but to ask them to give us those recommendations within a reasonable time. I I don't you know, it's don't I don't know what it is, but we'll know it when we see it. You know? But not not to take too long to to do it, you know, perhaps couple of months or, you know, something along that order. But, you know, certainly, we wanna be be focusing on this around around September, I would think, that would give them enough time. If they can do it in a in a quicker fashion, that's that's great. So but but to do so in a reasonable time. And then the the other thing is just by pure coincidence, I happen to be in, you know, just a bunch of meetings over the last couple of weeks where other other municipalities were present. And each one I've been quizzing, you know, particularly the ones that have gone a little further than than we have, and in some cases are are listed as having having done the ban. If the simplest way to do a ban is with with, you know, five or six words. These are banned. But in fact, in each one of these municipalities, it's it's done in in a little a little more detailed way. There there are versions of of phase ins. There there are versions of of exemptions, And and they're actually and this this was this surprised me. I was talking with the former mayor of of one municipality, and I said, I understand that you've got the the ban. How did how did you deal
• with with the school system? And and he said, well, actually, our our school system was was eager to participate. So it's I I think that we wanna we my my message on that is to just ask the committee to take a good hard look at all of not only the not only the headline sentences, but in fact, the statutes Mhmm. Itself. Because I think we'll we'll be we'll we'll be guided in many ways by those. So be expeditious
Well, and in their comparison with other municipalities, I also think it makes them I I think it's important for them to take notice of the differences between our municipality and theirs like. Yeah. In those. You know, we have a lower population density some somewhat significantly than any of the other any of the villages that have enacted a year round ban. And I also think that they need to take note of tree coverage. Mhmm. I think that it's been a long time or, you know, about a decade since this was last studied. But Mhmm. Based on the information that I've seen, I think we probably have as much tree canopy as any village in the county. And I don't think that's materially changed much in the last ten years. I don't think other communities got new forests. Let's put that way. Right? So I think that's probably more or less unchanged. I mean, if there's new research, that's great. But Yeah. And I also would like to see, just in terms of researching on the other municipalities,
is, you know, the the fines and penalties, but also the enforcement and how much is being enforced. How many tickets are they writing? Yeah. Are people abiding by the ban? Are you know, is it being enforced? I'd be interested to find that out as well.
The the other thing, I this this conversation ended in mid conversation, but the first part was fascinating, which is to to say that this is with a municipality that that is is going towards towards a ban, but is is cautious about the gasoline powered battery rechargers that are being used. In other words, the the the companies are using gasoline powered devices on-site to recharge their batteries. Absolutely. Yeah. Sort of makes sense in some ways. You've got unless you show up to the site with lots of batteries. So that's just something to to think about how do you how do you do you regulate that? How do you regulate that? Just so that that just shows that, you know, there's a lot of Mhmm. Lot of doors that we have to open and questions that we have to ask or that that they have to ask. So and and and I thank them, by the way, in advance, you know, for all the work that we're asking them to do. Yeah. And someone also mentioned that phenomenon at the conservation advisory Council meeting last night.
And that cracks open the door into a larger question that we may or may not want them to look into. But, I mean, then, you know, one of the things that makes the argument for, you know, special regulations on leaf blowers in particular is because most are two stroke and because of the very nature of what they're doing, they're blowing, they're really pushing out pollutants including whatever on the grass in a way that you don't see with other lawn care devices in the same way. But if the issue is just combustion, that's kind of different. Yeah. And that's kind of what you're getting at when you say, oh, well, they're using, like, a gas generator. Because the gas generator is fundamentally not doing anything much differently than, you know, a car. Right. And now it's true that we do have, you know, a regulation on idling. Yeah. Yep. But we do regulate what cars do. But,
you know Yeah. And a lot of these are regulated under noise odor noises. And they dent they do tend to be quieter. Yeah. Yeah. But I think oh, I didn't mean to interrupt you. No. Was just gonna say, I think that's what we'll find out through their work. Yeah. You can have a gasoline powered battery recharger, and it really doesn't cause any great difficulty. So I think these are all great points.
I just wanna say that there are legitimate quality of life concerns raised by many folks that have written letters and legitimate operational and economic concerns. So, you know, just wanna be sure that the Conservation Advisory Council is weighing, right, all of these sides. And in in kind of researching the most successful municipalities, they invited stakeholders into the process before drafting any final legislation. Now I don't know if that's something that we do as a board of trustees or whether we consider that as an ask of the CAC but, for example, the participants included local landscapers, HOA property managers, residents on both sides for and against, DPW staff, environmental committee designates, business associations or somebody representing businesses, a school district, athletic field managers, and large property owners. So whether that's the golf course or something, but I think forming I know we talk about subcommittees on different topics, but I think that inviting these different groups and having their participation
• gives them a seat at the table, and that will reduce accusations of a predetermined outcome.
Yeah. I think it's fine for us to ask them to solicit commentary from stakeholders.
• Prescriptive, I would say, you know, holding at least one kind of open forum, which they did in the past for the previous or the current iteration of the code.
Yeah. And I you know, it's like who do we put wanna put the onus on? I mean, that is a big ask at the CAC. So, you know, and to your point, we would like this to be expeditious. Right? If they make their recommendation, is that something that we can do sort of prior to at a work session where the CAC can be represented and then we can also bring in other stakeholders. I like that I
mean, again, they had a they did a forum for the previous version. I think we can make the ask if they say that this is due onerous. Mhmm.
Yeah. I mean But I don't think we need to say no. Yeah. Or I don't think we need to say no on their behalf. Yep. If I remember correctly, which I may not be because it was a while ago, but I think we did that on Zoom. Yeah. Yeah. And, you know, the the villa, probably me that hosted it Yeah. On on Zoom. So, I mean, you know, we can certainly host the village staff can certainly host it for them. And, you know, if they want to, you know, if they wanna run it or or not. But
And and and there may be some, you know, issues where they don't wanna make a specific recommendation, but but they'll at least give us some choices, and then it's up to us to that's why we're
I think that it would sound I mean, they could, again, this could be them. We're giving a lot of work to do. But, you know, instead of a forum, or we could have a forum, but a plus, and someone mentioned it last night in CAC was, you know, doing some sort of survey, right, like do we want to survey three or four landscape companies, the stakeholders that are mentioning Great practice. Great one. I mean, I think that that they could also think about doing that to be efficient in terms of their their time of just trying to sort of ask some questions of people Yeah. To gather information as well. Sure.
Good thoughts. And I think if we can just talk about the process, just make it as transparent. I think you mentioned it, mayor, but so we're gonna make is it a formal ask of the CEC? It's in writing with That's why I have to I have to guidance. Gotta put it together. Yeah. Okay. No. Yeah. Thank you, manager. And then they would then that would come back in a work session?
Yep. Well, well, let's clarify what what what you're asking that comes back. Are you asking is there a suggestion or recommendation coming
Yes. Yes. That will come back. So recommendation would come back in a work session. And then at which point do we do we have a public hearing or do we have Sure. Like what you did on Half Moon Bay Bridge and Govea Park, which was helpful.
Well I don't know. You know, the the forum that, you know, they did last time back in 2021 or whatever, I think that would be analogous to what happened with Half Moon Bay or Govea Park. In terms of a public hearing, you know, I not to put words in the mouth of the CAC, but what I think they'll do is they'll they are not gonna draft an amendment to the code. I imagine that they'll put out a memo with some thoughts and recommendations in it. And so, you know, the work session would be to further refine that, give guidance to the attorney, they would draft an amendment, and we would go through the usual code amendment process, including a public hearing. So there would be, legally, would be obligated to build a public hearing. And then in terms of timing, this is not a fast process, so there would be plenty of opportunity for public input. And at the risk of getting a little too granular.
• Alright.
• Oh, yeah. I mean, I I think we should probably just provide the memo once it's finished and just put it into the backup of the next board meeting, which is not for some time. It's just as correspondence items so people can find a place. Yeah. And also that, you know, we probably should open a projects and initiatives page on this.
Oh, and one other thing I'd like them to consider, I don't think I mentioned this, is just question of technical and economic feasibility. I think it would be relevant to, you know, just a side by side comparison of the specifications and pricing of some of the leading pieces of electric and gasoline powered lawn equipment.
Some go ahead. Go ahead. Some some municipalities have had demonstrations. Maybe maybe that was done back in '21 or '22, but just to bring in these diff you know, the electric versus gas or just, don't know if that's
No. I think that's a great idea. If they're if they're willing to set it up, I think that would be great.
And we have you know, we can obviously work on this, but we have electric blowers that we can demonstrate, you know, DPW. Mhmm.
So That would be good. Yeah. Peekskill City Council decided to do was also, ask the county to formally ask the county to consider this, because it it just makes more sense for the county to do this. A county wide. A county wide. I mean, for the county to address this versus each municipality addressing it in its own little unique way. So I would also consider that as an opportunity to ask our county friends if there are are is anything coming or any interest in that. Because I know Keith Skill made that request
about a month ago. I know that's that's the biggest complaint that the landscapers have. Right, is that, you know, when they get when engineering goes out to enforce the ban, they go, you know, we don't know what's allowed in Ossining versus Cortlandt versus Croton versus Yorktown, and so, you know because everybody has different rules on what's allowed when. Mhmm. So,
you know, it it is it is confusing. Right. And I think the county has more ability to sort of help with the financial cost to the landscapers. Mhmm. County's budget is is challenged, but, you know, to be able to give rebates or, you know, something like that, you know, we don't have the ability to do that.
So So is that something we would or could consider drafting a letter to the county making a recommendation?
Some there are other municipalities like trustee Nickerson was saying, Peakskill. I know Hastings did a resolution as well. There's there's probably others that have, you know, just adopted a resolution encouraging the county board to put their own, you know, put adopt the law regulating this. So you could you could do the same if you wanted to.
Yeah. I mean, I if we're looking at, kind of advocacy towards other levels of government Mhmm. At the risk of, pulling at a thread, You know, we we typically only do one legislative packet a year. And, you know, these could be famous last words, but we could do another in the sense of, you know, at the the legislation of legislative session is gonna be over after the first week of June, there will be a closed universe of bills that have passed both houses of the legislature. And we could do a follow-up memo that said we would encourage the governor to sign these. I mean, I bring this up specifically because it's been raised to this venue before, is a bill creating a rebate program for law and equipment has passed both houses. Yeah. And while if we wanna weigh in on that, we should probably see if there's anything else that's relevant Yeah. That we would want to
opine on. Mhmm. Or the test players, it'll be interesting to see what's there. Okay.
guidance or Yeah. I'm go I'm going to basically I'll type up a memo based on this conversation that would, you know, go ultimate ultimately go to the CAC.
the the correspondence, or do wanna just wait to do it all at once? No. I I think we should do it all. I mean, I think we should make the referral now and Yep. Okay. So know, the manager will will be directed to collect and bundle and, you know, refer periodically as this process goes on with it, further correspondence.
Do I have a motion? So moved. Second. Motion by trustee Simon, second by trustee Nicholson. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Alright. Great.
• Alright. Discussion of the New York Forward grant application.
Alright. So, I was before this board a few months ago, and we talked about grants that were the village is looking to pursue in 2026, and one of them was the New York Forward grant. At that last, at the work session which I attended, there was a discussion of having starting to start with, like, a small committee, to start discussing the boundary area as well as the potential projects. So I'm here tonight to sort of give you an update as to as to what was, at least, thought about in terms of boundary area as well as some projects. And I would just wanna start, I guess, a little bit for the public just to sort of highlight again what the New York Forward program is. The New York Forward program is a program from, New York State Department of State. It was, founded in 2022, and it specifically is focused on small, communities or areas, downtown areas that are mixed use, walkable, that are less dense than some of the downtown revitalization initiative areas, which those, those are primarily a lot of them are cities or very dense villages. And then it also may include hamlets, villages, or neighborhood centers within, like, a larger community. A New York forward community, does afford, you know, if you are awarded that, $4,500,000 to go to projects, but the projects can be both public and private projects. And there is a whole public outreach process, that ends up being undertaken and projects, what they call an open call for projects, where both private property owners as well as the the village themselves can put forth projects, and then the committee selects which projects to move forward to the state. And then, ultimately, the state ends up awarding the certain projects, certain funds. So not all projects that the village would put forth would be awarded. The state ultimately ends up picking that.
• The types of projects that can be awarded, again, are new development or rehabilitation of downtown buildings, public improvement projects, and these can be parks, you know, wayfinding, recreational trails. It could be transportation improvements, streetscaping. The other thing is small project funds. Small project funds are basically managed funds similar to, like, a facade program or program. A lot of times, it's like smaller rehabilitation within interior for commercial businesses. And that would be something that would be run through, like, the village or, like, a third party that the village contract with. And then the last is marketing and branding. So for this particular, grant proposal, this round, the thought was to, basically include the South Riverside Commercial Corridor, specifically looking at from Oneida down to Van Cortlandt Manor, and then also including the Croton-Harmon Train Station. And I believe I provided there's a a map in your packet. So I think I mean, we can start with that. I'm also happy to go through the projects now as well, and then we can just open it up for discussion after that too, if you like.
Valerie, thanks very much, for the memo and and the map. I think it's wonderful. And, you know, we we've talked about some of this before. And and, you know, from my own perspective, I'm I'm just, you know, with you completely on the approach and, you know, various and and numbers one through seven. But I wanna I wanna focus just on on seven and and not not not press you for a specific answer right now. But one of the things I'd wanna work on if we if we were with your good work, I feel very positive about the whole process and and the application. But if we're fortunate enough to be chosen, one of the things I'd I'd wanna work on with the state is to see if there was a way that number seven, the small project fund could be adapted so that it could have some applicability outside these boundaries. You know, for example, we would be in a situation where small merchant a, who's right on the inside of the boundary, you know, might be able to get some funding for furniture, fixtures, things of that nature, whereas small merchant b right on the other side would not would not be able to. I'm assuming that's that's how it works. Yes. That's correct. You you wouldn't
are very strict with the boundary. You have the ability, though, as part of the like, so if you were awarded Yep. Through the, what they call the strategic implementation planning process, if somebody were interested that is right outside the boundary area, they could submit, like, an application in as part of the open call for open call process, and the local planning committee could revise the boundaries during that process itself. I also wanna just make clear that they won't fund things like they they will fund permanent equipment. Sure. But they won't fund,
like, if for some reason somebody a new restaurant wants to open up and they wanna outfit that restaurant with tables and chairs. Right. They potentially would do, like, a kitchen or something like that. That's correct. And one thought that I had, and I'll now, you know, revert to my favorite hobby, which is spending the manager's money, and that which is that what we what we might be able to do is think in terms of, you know, if if the small project fund for businesses is restricted to inside the boundary, we could match an equal amount of that. So say say that was, you know, 150, 250,000, then we could we could put in the commit to putting in an equivalent of that to to simultaneously
be helping certain businesses outside the boundary. Yeah. I mean, theoretically, yes. I think you'd have to probably work with your, like, land use counsel or your corporation counsel Yes, ma'am. To, like, to hold If back on we get to that point legalities are back. That point, I'll be very happy to do that. So because I think that
Valerie, are is this are these seven different applications, or is this one holistic
application with seven projects So in that's a good that's a really good question. So the way the application process will work is they wanna make they wanna make sure that that if they word the 4,500,000 to the village of Croton on Hudson, that you actually have projects when that within that area that would meet the New York forward funding, guidelines. And so part of that application is identifying, you know, what potential projects could potentially, you know, seek funding. Also, they're they're also interested in seeing that not only do you have the potential projects, but what is taking place within that within the boundary area or potentially taking place in the boundary area. So it's all part of the application process. So it doesn't mean so, for example, if you do have some if we do identify some private potential private developments, that doesn't mean those private developments ultimately end up having to seek funding. It just demonstrates to them that there is potentially private funding taking place in within the boundary area that could potentially seek funding. And then plus it also helps with, you know, there's initiatives with, like, the pro housing initiative and some of the other it's in the the basis of this project is an economic development project. So the state wants to see that it's not just, projects that are going towards, like, for example, just streetscaping or parks, that they wanna see that it's also gonna generate economic development.
I I think it's important that we started start. I mean, I think having a committee for this is really kind of the way to start tackling it and making sure that we have the right stakeholders at the table. I think that some of the landowners, property owners in that area, drawing them in would be good. I think Mark Franzoso certainly comes to mind. I think that the owner of the owner of the 42425 South Riverside development area, I think that the owner of the, you know, the John Joc location that we were trying to sort of, you know, get some business going in that location. I'd like to see that woman at the table. I'd like to see Bob Elliott at the table. He was he's you know, has done a lot of work in terms of this particular gateway and, you know, sort of what past boards have envisioned for the gateway. So I think he can bring some of that to the table. So I just think, like, bringing bringing sort of I think that the I guess that that part of Riverside doesn't have a
of the ABC, ABC hasn't taken it as far as got a a couple our our our vice president or treasurer, I should say, is is Croton E bikes. Right. Right in the heart what about Baked by Susan?
Yes. Baked by Susan. Yeah. So that's important. Does this not include the diner, the Croton diner?
Is. No. It it ends it ends at Oneida. Yeah. Yeah. Or maybe just a little north of both. I think it's Oneida. Yeah. Yeah.
Valerie, to the to the extent that that we're focusing a little bit on Van Cortlandt Manor as a potential source of future tourism growth as well as future business from that tourism, I I would think we could even have them on on the committee as well. Yeah. Absolutely. I mean stakeholders.
Confused why we're including them because they we don't I don't know. I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem like we have a very strong reciprocal engagement with them. I mean Oh, we work very well with Historic Hudson Valley. I mean, they haven't we're not really brought in in their whole project plan on on I don't need to go into it. But Yeah. I was how does that benefit the village?
I mean, I think that working with Hudson Historic Hudson Valley and their business model, bringing more people to the village will support businesses. Right? So, like, right now, it's historically been well, not historically. Over the last decade, it's been Blaze, right? And that has been sort of, like, you know, something that we've been working with them on and trying to get more Blaze folks into the village, but to your point, that's been a little bit challenging. Exactly. But what we'd like to do is have that operation and what their plan is for the future, having it open all year round as a historical site, which is how it was twenty five years ago, thirty years ago. Yeah. And I mean, I think it's I think it's also becomes like a Phillips Manor situation where then people are coming to Croton all year round. And that's helpful context. Right? And, like, normal amounts of people where
they'd be using our restaurants and going to Yeah. And in fact, their their team came in, I guess, about six months ago and met with the ABC. It was it was a it was a good meeting. There needs to be a lot of follow-up on that, but I think the spirit is there. And, you know, of course, we are sponsors of their big reconstruction project and and there's Well, the money flows through us, but I don't know Yeah. How I mean, how much we're really
what's No. I mean, I think I just sorry. Just wanna say that, you know, a lot of the businesses in Harmon would probably say that they see great benefit from the Blaze. You know, we have to just What I hear is they they expect more and they would like to see more. Well, I mean, the restaurants are in Harmon are completely full on blatantly.
Would they like would they hope for more and do they get, you know, something now? And I think the answer is probably yes to both.
Yeah. And and and they have partnered with at least one quote in business to provide some of the treats, I'll call them, in the in there. So I mean, they they're doing more they have heard the complaints that we have brought to them in years past, and they have made a concerted effort to share information on our local businesses in emails that go out to everybody that has tickets, partner with local businesses to bring their merchandise into the into the Blaze itself. You know, I mean, they've worked with us to reduce the number of people that are that are ticketed on each night and spread it out so that the traffic is not as intense as it has been pre COVID. Right? So, I mean, you know, I I personally find that they are very dedicated to the village and want to help to improve it. And that's why they're, you know I mean, this project that's going on is not being entirely funded by the state of New York. It's you know, they're using their own money too to invest in our community and hopefully bring more people to it. Without without
without pinning you down, you know, too much, but would you say that the New York state would look favorably on us bringing a major tourism generator into into the process? I I would say absolutely. I think almost
most of the projects that do get awarded have some sort of cultural arts or some sort of cultural aspect to their application process. So that's where, you know, that's where the the Croton Manor would would come into play.
You know? And then in terms of, like, if we could just go through these, like Mhmm. So number one, Croton Station parking lot upgrades. That's the sea also include oh, so it's the Seawall. Yes. So
that that that's a big one. That's a big one. That's a big one. Yeah. And they're not gonna fund yeah. They might fund Right. 1 or 2,000,000
of that project potentially. Right? They're not gonna fund the whole thing. Could, like, as sort of a plan beyond that, could moving the salt shed and developing Echo Canoe Landing into something, again, better than it is now, bringing you know, it brings a lot of people to the area, but it's also, like, you know, gravel parking lot right now. Like, it's not Not pretty. It's not pretty. No. We could have bathrooms there. We could have Can I wait? Concessions. Like, there there could be a way to make that nice. So I know that kind of the big win would be a seawall, but, you know, could there be a plan b win where Echo Canoe Landing becomes a park Mhmm. Or something along those lines.
I know when we start dreaming all these Wait. Well, I mean, I think I think in terms of in terms of the application, we can put it in there. Right? Because, ultimately, when they do the when we do this open call for projects, the village will be like, if if the village were awarded, you would be then responsible for identifying exactly each and every project you wanna put forth as part of the local planning committee's decision. And that local command planning committee will be ill you know, the state usually asks for names, and then the state will vet the names and then identify who the local planning committee is. So it's ultimately the local planning committee that will say, we like this project versus that project better. So there is there is a little bit autonomy from from the village. Right? So, usually, typically, the mayors will be, like, a co chair. So there is there is some direction from the village and some input from the village, but then there's the rest of the committee. So so for the for the application, though, they do like to see parks and applications. So if we do have that as, a concept,
we could put that in there as just saying this is another idea that has been circulating. Yeah. They'll provide us again. I'm I'm presuming our success, but they'll they'll provide us sort of with a planning consultant navigator That's correct. There is who will who will sort of guide. Right. In in many ways, we're nominating what we think are great projects. That's correct. And then the navigator
will will work with us to determine which are the ones that actually Right. The purpose of the application is for you to get them excited about what you potentially could offer and what types of projects could potentially be part of this area. And and there's nothing wrong with having a range of ideas within a specific category.
No. You say within within with our within our train station category, we could be focusing on resilience, but we could also focusing on future recreation
all the rest. I think what we wanna avoid is too many pie in the sky. If we come in with, like, $1,020,000,000 dollar projects, they're gonna say, okay. Wait. This $4,500,000
is not gonna work. You know, I think like trustee Nicholson was about is a subset of the first place. And we can add And we're already leaning in on the, canoe land currently as a village and investing in it and making income, and this is about making it even better.
Yeah. We and we're hoping to pair that with other potential grants as well. Right. Yeah. And, Valerie, the fact that, say, removing the salt shed is already in our LWRP, which after a very exhausted process was approved by the New York State Department of State, would that be a be a plus? Okay. Yes. That would be And then going back to the committee or the I I hear what you're saying about the ultimate steering committee or planning committee. But for the purposes of the application, would it be helpful? Again, I wouldn't even call it necessarily a proto committee, but let's say a roundtable of stakeholders. That's correct. Would be a positive as well. I mean, I think that you'd wanna go broad for public input in the way that we did last time with our town hall. Yes. But also perhaps go deep with a select group of stakeholders who are very invested in that particular area, which naturally would be some of the local businesses and property owners. Right. That's correct.
Right. And then that's another key component of the application process, as the mayor mentioned, is is the public outreach outreach and public support. They wanna see that there is public support for these projects so that, you know, they don't have a situation where a community gets awarded and then you have, like, public opposition for the projects that are being identified. Demonstrate that in the application? So part of it will be, just as the mayor mentioned, like, you know, maybe a stakeholder. Right? So you get their feedback. We can talk about, like, you had a stakeholder meeting, and this is the feedback that we received. And then also having, like, either a public meeting, workshop, or if you have some festivals. Like, once you identify some of that, we can, you know, we can develop, like you know, we already have a map. We can identify potential projects, and that can just go out to even just, you know, some of your, like, on an an event a community event, and you can just ask people, what do you think? You know? Yeah. So it's that that kind of feedback as well. When when we you know, even though the project was not successful, but I think we were successful in convincing them that our public outreach was good. Yeah. Exactly.
The they liked the town hall. They liked all of the things that we did to to to bring the public in so we could Yeah. Yeah. The one the one thing the one thing that I think we learned from the town hall though is is it's important to go in with the projects. Yes. Absolutely. Yeah. Because what happened at the last time is most of us remember, right, is that people came in with all these absolutely wonderful ideas. Yeah. Right. But we had, like, 30 ideas, and so we could only choose so many of them. Right. And then people were sad slash upset that we could go with their idea. Right? So And a lot weren't actually in the I like this map. Yes. Because we were also a little bit like Yeah. We were all over the place. All over the Well, know, yeah. And I think we've, you know, we've learned from 2024,
you know, how to Yeah. How to do it right. I think the other people is the but WBP.
Right? So just in terms of planning your stakeholders for sort of advising stakeholders, are those people excluded then from your local committee?
No. Not necessarily. No. Okay. Good. Mm-mm. And and they do have, like, a recusal process that if for some reason somebody on that local committee I mean, the local planning committee happens to be some you know, puts in a project or associated with the project, they just recuse themselves from that discussion. Okay.
• So I think the next steps will be kind of refining this list a little bit more, soliciting to see if there's and and we can and as part of the public outreach process or the information that we can provide you is, you know, we can make sure that the information is clear as to what types of categories of projects and then the timeline in which the state wants to see these projects, you know, be ready to move forward. And so that might also help with, you know, get obtaining feedback and identifying other projects that might be that might work within that time frame that we could also add to the application as a possibility. I see you, I don't know. Are you gonna go one by one? Or I mean, I I mean, I can if you'd like. It's it's up to the board. I have a question on a couple, but if you were gonna
do that, I would wait. I think you can do if let why don't you ask your Okay. Ask the question. Yeah.
The four twenty five South Riverside development. So I I read what you provided and multi use mixed use, rather, is something that has high value in the application process. While this app there hasn't been an application on 425 South Riverside, my understanding is that it might just be 100 residential. I don't know if there is opportunity to but what would the the benefit if if we can have a conversation with the developer on benefits?
Yeah. I mean, that I think that's you know, not to interrupt Yeah. Valerie, but, yeah, that can that can happen. Right? I mean, you know, we've had projects where it it actually was the opposite. Right? We had a project on 1380 Oldeny Post Road that was originally supposed to be mixed use and ended up being converted to all residential. Right? So, you know, developers can change their minds and and change their plans based on
new information. Yeah. Or other other public benefits that that could come about through the conversation.
Right. Yeah. Yes. Right. And that would be during the land use approval process. It wouldn't necessarily have to be part of this application. It's just identifying that there's potentially private development. Because I can tell I can tell you for a fact that some of the New York forward areas, I mean, that they put forth an application and they don't have anything except, like, public projects. Right? And and that ends up right? So this is identifying and because ultimately, the owner of that particular property would have to say, I actually want New York forward funding. If they decide they don't want New York forward funding, then they you know, even if you get awarded, they just don't put in an application. I see. Right. And,
you know, roughly, if if, you know, past this prologue, our application would go in maybe in October or something something like that. That's correct. Probably, you know, I can't no one can predict this, but probably around the time that the beginnings of construction on 1 Croton Point Avenue will will happen. Mhmm. So Yeah. And and I would think that, you know, even though there may not be a direct tie in between this this grant and that project, that they would the state would take notice of that. That that That's correct. Because there is a section in the application process where they ask for, like, past
investment in the area, right, and re recent past investment. Mhmm. So that would go into that and that we would highlight that that's not only was it you know, it's it's also, like, residential, but it's also affordable too. So I think that that shows that there's already interest in that area, and that helps as well because then they realize that there are some of these projects that are being listed, especially private development projects, that there is momentum already taking place in that area. Also,
• Could we or would we consider extending the streetscaping so that it extends to that location kind of beautifying, you know, the street and the walkability, which I know there are sidewalks now. But Yep. It it's within the it's within the zone. Okay. So just wasn't mentioned streetscaping is only listed as Riverside and Benedict, so I thought it was Oh, no. I I mean was included.
Yeah. I think correct me if I'm wrong, Valerie, but it could be potentially anywhere in the Yes. It could. So if you wanna expand it, we can also identify that too. Okay. Yeah. That'd be great.
And I just the small project fun, I'm just it the way it's worded, it just I don't feel like it's transparent in in what really we're talking about, and I I'm concerned about that. You know, I don't know what really what that means.
So I know you tried to No. It's it's can't repeat what you said. I don't know what it means. Right. That's what the state calls it. And it basically is it for New York Forward, it's typically $300,000 that they will provide a community, and it's for grant applications that would come in from individual property owners for less than usually, it's less than $75,000, and it would be to upgrade some sort of, like, commercial interior or exterior.
When we say property owners, we mean in most cases. Small businesses. Yeah. Okay. Yes. Yes. Well, right. A lot of it is for beautification. Right? To, like, kinda clean up to your exterior. Maybe if you need a new awning or you wanna put in a new window or something, you know, something like that. Exactly. And there would be a match that's required from the individual of usually 25%
of the total project. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. But when you think about that gateway and you think about kind of the podiatrist store
But then there are also like you know, there's also kind of some funky parking along that area. Yeah. It would really be nice to sort of get someone in and think about that parking. Well, I think you
hopefully, when we get this in, you use that process to figure out what's what's the future of this corridor here down on that side. Yeah. On the podiatrist side. Mhmm. Yeah. Leaving because we actually the we the area that's between the podiatrist podiatrist and
425 South Riverside is actually all within our right of way. So, you know, if there was something I don't remember. I think that's a little hilly there, but maybe that could be if we wanted to do something there to make it like a seating area or something like that, you that's something that could be looked at as well. Great.
And the big expanse of Van Cortlandt, that is all Van Cortlandt Manor property? Like that? Yeah. Everywhere everywhere that's
north and east where it says Van Cortlandt Manor. Yeah. So, like, behind that abuts the river. Whose property is that? So
this year Yeah. Van Cortlandt Manor. Okay. This is Van Manor. Okay. This is Van Van Cortlandt Cortlandt Manor. Matter. Okay. No. HHV is one of the large landowners.
I mean, just think, like, from the end of Piney Point on down. Yeah. This is all that I'm doing down here. Wow.
yeah. By by by pure coincidence, the Mid Hudson Economic Development Council Regional Economic Development Council is having their annual meeting. They're they're the funders for this, and they're they're having their annual meeting tomorrow morning at SUNY Orange County, Newburgh. So I'm gonna go and visit with them. Oh, very nice. And just So get them ready. Getting them ready. Well, I thought I'd bring a suitcase with that could Small on Mark's bills? Yeah. Just let's see what but we we've we did this before, and and it's it's nice to be able to get them to to connect our activity with with with a specific specific place. So there'll be some there'll be some good folks there for us to talk to tomorrow. Great. Thank you.
Anything else on New York Forward or Soon. Are we are we going to, was everybody okay with moving forward with, like, the roundtable, like, the stakeholders? Yes. Okay. So, Valerie, we'll we'll talk about who potentially that could Okay. That could be. Sounds good. Great. Great. Thank you. By the know, we it's similar. I
think this will be a larger version, but we use that stakeholders and group for our TOD Yes. Yeah. Working group, which I think was very successful. We had a lot of lot of good folks involved in it. Mhmm.
Alright. Our next item of business is a continued review of local law seven of twenty twenty six regarding signage.
Valerie, you wanna start with your memo? Or should we I I don't know how do we wanna start with Valerie's memo? Do we wanna start with the planning board? Let's start with Valerie's memo. Okay. It's Valerie's here. I,
well, I have I also I looked at the plan I actually have the planning board memo on my computer up.
I think some of their some of their comments relate to some of our comments in the memo as well. Okay. So, if you'd like, I can kind of highlight both if that might be. That'd be great. If if you can do that, that would be wonderful.
• So so what both the what we what NPV did and then also what the planning board did was look we looked at the the proposed local law and, we identified, you know, instead of actually coming back with actual edits, there's a lot of decisions that this board would need to make or decide whether you wanted to move forward with certain suggestions. Mhmm. So we thought we would just kinda put forth like overall suggestions or recommendations and also sometimes best practices. And then, ultimately, it'll be up for this board to decide whether you wanna, like, pursue any of them or if you're happy with what you have or what the proposed local law already states. And we presented that to the planning board, and the planning board, reviewed our comments and then looked at the local law and then have their specific suggestions as well. So I'll just kind of walk through and identify both of them. Great. So the first was definition. So this is also this is, I'm gonna say, a combined recommendation from both the planning board and the MPV memo. But, we just we looking at the, definitions within the proposed local law, there was two that we thought, would probably be better, defined, and one is commercial signs, and then also sign area. Both of those, I think, at this point in time, like, commercial signs is referred to in the local law, but it doesn't isn't specifically defined. So that might be, helpful to do that. And then the same thing with, sign area that, it should be a little bit more clarified as to that definition. And so the planning board also agreed and suggested that, that that be looked at by the village board. And and I can as I go through each one, before we go to the next one, I can always just ask if there's any questions on that. Yeah. So I mean, I don't think I I don't think anybody disagrees with that. We can more I more definitions, the better. Yeah. Absolutely.
Yeah. So then you would be providing those definitions to us or what Yes. Yeah. Right. You know, we can work with with your,
• The second, deals with and I'm just gonna say, overall, it deals with, types of signs, locations of signs, and size of sign. So let me just explain. So in a lot of in in a lot of communities, they especially if they're concerned about certain zoning districts. Right? So right now, Croton on Hudson sort of takes the approach of, like, more or less a universal sign law. Wait. Sorry, Valerie. Just to clarify. When you say right now, do you mean the existing law or the proposed law? Well, I mean, I'm gonna say both. Like, just in generalities. You specifically if you look at your and even what you're proposing,
• there's a reference to, like, commercial signs. Right? Or and there's an application to signage in general that applies to multiple commercial districts. In a lot of communities, they'll look at commercial districts and they might define those commercial districts and specifically say these types of signs can go in this particular commercial district versus another commercial district. The other thing that some communities will do is they will specifically identify the types of signs and regulate the size of the sign based on the type of sign. And let me just explain that. There's a difference between, like, you know, your pile on sign that you see, like, at your ShopRite supermarket versus a store sign that you would see in your like, along South Riverside Avenue by the podiatrist. There's also a difference between, like, a flag type of sign where you might have something per perpendicular coming down and, like, along a walkway versus, you know, a sign on an awning. So some communities will regulate based upon the different types of signs, and then, therefore, the size of the sign will follow that type the type of sign. So
And still, this is this has got nothing to do with content. This is all No. It's nothing to do with content. It's just size and shape. Right. Yeah.
I think I I mean, I don't know how because we have a lot of our stores and and offices that are kind of not in commercially zoned areas, I think that might be a little difficult. But, I mean, we can we can talk about it. Right. The planning board
suggested, that this language regarding the maximum size of the sign should be made more clear and that there should be a section on the sign permit application specifically stating the requirements and size limits. Yeah. We suggested if for some reason you didn't wanna deal with the types of signs or the locations of signs that, again, that we might want to at least look at the maximum sign. I think right now you're proposing, I think it was, like, 48 square feet, and that we should make it clear that that's functioning as, an absolute ceiling. Yeah. And that and that you might wanna consider at least maybe having a little bit of regulations in terms of, like, the ratio of maybe the sign to the building. So a lot of times you might say, like, if a building facade, it can't be you know, it can make take up more than, like, 30% of the front facade or something like that. And that because that would also limit the size,
and that would prevent somebody from coming in saying, well, it's technically 48 square feet. We're taking up like that. I think I mean, obviously, the I'll let the board speak for themselves, but the number that we put in there was kind of more of a placeholder number because we didn't really know what we wanted. And so I think what you just said sounds very reasonable. It does. Yeah. Right. So we're thinking 40,
• I forgot what the measurements were of that. Was it was it six by eight? Six by eight. I think that's yeah.
• Right. That's a big sign. That it was. Yeah. Was 26. It
a maximum. Yeah. I was driving the other night, and I was in Yonkers. And there was a sign on someone's front lawn of a politician's space, and it was it was a lot. It was big. And I would say it was about 48 square feet. That's why I had that's why I had to So that's what we don't want. I mean, just to be sort of clear, I don't wanna see a sign anything. For anything. That's big. That's that whole bag is that big. And could you regulate
depending on commercial prices. And I believe your your restrictions right now let me just find it because I have a
• I think you have size, unless otherwise permitted elsewhere, signs whether re whether requiring a permit or exempt, and that's where you have so technically, right now, it does apply to both residential and commercial. So sometimes with the resident if you're so especially if you're dealing with, like, home occupations and stuff, sometimes those signs are Those are very expensive. Much smaller. And so we could, you know, carve out that for, like, the home occupations type of residential signs.
What do mean by home occupations? So if you like So if you were, like, a real estate agent or a therapist or something like that? That's correct. If you have something, you know, because that's typically because I think you're I think the proposed
sign regulations really are focusing commercial signs. You know? And so Yeah. They that's really where we would apply for the because we can't
You can regulate certain things. Right? You can't regulate content. Mhmm. You can't regulate Yes. Reasonable time, place, manner, respect. Yeah. Right? Like, you know, there's things in our code right now that we really and we haven't been enforcing because we can't. You know, like, things like saying, like, you have to take election signs down within seven days. You know, you can't there's it's not allowed anymore. Yeah. So, you know, the guidance that we had gotten from the board last year was just to basically revise the code to have restrictions on commercial signage. And when we when we say commercial signage, we mean signage related to businesses. It doesn't it could be whether it's an industrial use or a professional use, whatever it might be, anything that's nonresidential. But mainly leaving the residential with little restrictions except on size and placement. You know, they can't you can't put a sign out that's going to block somebody's view or
things. So, like, sort of these lawn signs and thinking about those for in a residential area, we can so right now, it would be eight by nine would be our So eight by eight. Six by eight. Yeah. So, you know, if we reduce that down to, you know, a typical long sign is 24 inches by 18 inches
• or 24 by 36 inches. Right? So Something like that. In your by three feet.
Or In your code under bed and breakfast establishments for one family residential districts, you have the area of a sign shall not exceed two square feet. So that's only for bed and breakfasts, but that's that's the only limitation you have right now in terms of size for residential signs.
Or, I mean, not residential signs, signs in a residential district. Right. But what we do have in our code right now is that people can't have a certain number of signs, which is not We're not allowed We're not allowed to being removed. Yes. So I would be in favor of reducing the size Yeah. Of lawn signs allowed on people's properties to, you know Try to limit. Try to limit that. Right? So is it two by three?
Yeah. That's something question we had is whether we can reduce so the size as well as the quantity of signs in someone's yard. Not
you can't limit them in in a rest like, somebody's free speech, right, of being able That's to content. But Yeah. But no. But being I mean, if they say that they want You can't unduly burden their their free speech. Yeah.
There's there's certain restrictions. But I would suggest that whatever direction you give Valerie Mhmm. We're gonna have to take another look at it again in the constitutional Yeah. Framework as well and just see if something's problematic. So I think you should allow yourself to express concerns, but we will definitely take another look at anything that's gonna be incorporated to make sure it passes constitutional muster. Mhmm. Yeah. And just, again, as a reminder that we we can put more restrictive
regulations on the commercial speech versus it's commercial signs, I should say, which is commercial speech versus the residential. Mhmm. Right? So Correct. So if you wanted to do something, you know, like, you probably could say to a commercial operation, you're only allowed to have one sign, you know, that you know, you could do something like that Yeah. But not for not for noncommercial.
Alright. So it sounds like, we'll work with, you know, Josh to come up with something to, identify for residential in terms of size. Yep. And then also in terms of commercial, looking at the limitations based on potentially, you know, the facades, the actual length of the facade on a building or the percentage. Right? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. And then also, the other thing I wanted to call out or just highlight is that we're just gonna wanna double check that 48 square feet doesn't automatically put something like your stop and shop pile on in, like, a nonconforming sign. You might wanna if that we might wanna carve out and we can we can probably work with the engineering department to see what that dimension is, but you might wanna carve out for, like, your major shopping centers to allow, like, the pile ons. And that might be something different. I think that was in there. Is
there's I there's something I mean, think it was in our old code that I thought I thought got carried over that allowed them up to 20 feet or something. Right. And it might. So what we might wanna do is just clarify as to
you know, so it's not confusing when somebody's looking at the size, like, specifically
or if there's an exception, then we call out those exceptions in that section. Okay. So that it's clear on which, you know, what are the size limitations. Yeah. And then, like, this is sort of practice versus code, but I just want to bring this up. So, like, I was on the BEB when the sick go station was changed names, right? So it went from being a BP station to a sick go station. So when they introduced their sign to us, it was exactly the same. Right? They were just updating the existing sign. But what I wanna be careful of is at that location. Right? Like, I don't want them to go be able to go bigger than they are right now. So this is sort of in this grandfathering, but also limiting a little bit. Right? Because I don't want the sitco station to all of a sudden say, well, I can get have a sign that's twice as big, and then all of a sudden, we've got a gas station with a ginormous sign in the gateway. So how do we I mean, I think Valerie
can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you could put that, you know, in the in the gateway districts, gas stations are only allowed Right. This type of signage. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Right.
So, I mean, one of what I'm gonna suggest since it's clearly there's a concern about sign size, why don't I also have the buildings department I mean I mean, the, the engineering department pull some of the recent, sign approvals just to get a sense of the square footages, especially for some of the gas stations and also your larger commercial areas. And then that way, at least, we'll have a sense of, like, if we're in the ballpark or if the village is in the ballpark in terms of the maximums or if we do wanna carve out, like I said, for some of these, specific uses and then create sign limitations
for those. And the other piece is, like, lumens. Right? That's how bright a sign can be. Is that in the new
There is there is an illumination section. Yeah. Okay. I don't remember exactly what it says.
Section e. Yep. Yeah. Illumination. They shall not be twinkling, flashing, intermittent, or of changing degrees of color or intensity. Further, neon signs shall only be permitted on the inside of buildings. No sign shall contain or consist of day glow like material.
Shielded and not a source of. Yep. And then it changes the referral and VEB port to the planning board for applications for the village engineer or the village visual insight board may require submission of an illumination plan and regulate the number of placement and intensity hours of illumination all fixtures
are signed. So it it kicks all out to the planning board. Yeah. There was something in here because I remember having the conversation.
• Yeah. The there's a definition for beacon. Mhmm. Right? Which is any device that casts one or more beams of light, which light consists of five foot candles or more. Anybody know what a foot candle is? Whether fixed in direction or capable of being rotated or revolved automatically or manually, whether intermittent or constant. So, I think that those are not allowed.
Okay. I mean, the other piece of where I'm kinda going with this is like we're also thinking about adopting some dark skies legislation in the near future. So I just want us to be thinking about Yeah. Making sure that we're consistent in in this piece.
can tell you. Locked it up. Please tell. I I just I just I'm just curious. Right. It's how many it's it's it's by It's a foot from a candle. Oh, yeah. It's the elimination of a square foot. It took me long enough to learn the diameter at breast milk. I was curious to see if you said that I had to look it up. I would just I would like to say a couple things.
I I wanna go backwards a little bit. In terms of the lawn signs, I think I think
• that it's difficult to put a specific size on it because some lawn signs are I think there are a couple standard sizes of lawn signs. And so I just wanna make sure that we're not somehow excluding somebody's lawn sign because it's not falling in whatever the whatever those parameters are. So obviously, we wanna be more specific than like a standard lawn sign, but I think there are a couple standard lawn signs, some of which are larger than others. So I think, like, we get into a weird area if some particular person running for office has one that's bigger than ours, and now all of a sudden we've excluded them from being able to I wanna avoid that. Right. And I think, Josh,
in in the law. Political signs. Yeah. And usually political signs fall completely. Yeah. Well, I don't I don't think so because that would be content. So, yeah, we don't have that.
We but there are temporary signs, but that that that has to deal with commercial signage. I just wanna make sure we're not accidentally excluding something and causing a problem for ourselves because we were so worried about a
lawn sign being a little bit bigger than whatever Yeah. The measurements of a typical lawn sign. So I just wanna be thinking of it. We don't have to solve it right now. Yeah. No. So under I mean, as as the draft law is written right now, I and I was saying this earlier. I don't remember if you were here, trustee Slipin, or not. But we basically wrote this law to have the least restrictions on noncommercial signage as possible. Right? So we only really put in restrictions on things such as, like, safety. Right? So that people couldn't put a sign that would block somebody's view or something like that. So generally, you know, section l of the law, which is exempt signs, it basically says noncommercial signs are exempt as long as they're clean and safe, not in the right of way, don't obscure sight lines, pedestrian cyclist, or vehicular traffic are not illuminated and meet the size and placement requirements in subsection f. Right? So that would be, you know, as long as you're meeting those Right. That's what we're talking about. Outer bound. Yeah. Yeah. Right.
The other thing I wanted to say is just in terms of because you're talking about things going to the engineering department from the at the last VEB meeting when we talked about this, there was concern by the members of the VEB about sometimes the planning board is saying is okay and assigned. Sometimes we're okay and assigned. What's the process? How does that look? I would like to define that because the VEB wants to be play like, they feel and I agree that their role is very important, but it's a little confusing right now. There that was my word, not their word. I don't but basically just who's making the decision about the sign and when does the planning board make a decision about something that doesn't even get to the VEB and what is making it to the VEB. So just what that looks like and what their how their role can be effectively executed consistently. Right. Because those are those people are putting in a lot of time and effort and really care and are skilled with the aesthetics in a way that maybe the planning board's not. So how does that look? Well, and when the planning board reviewed this,
the planning board said in the meeting that they were comfortable receiving an application that might include a sign. If it did, they would refer it to the VEB, and the VEB would give their recommendation back to the planning board, and the planning board would communicate with the applicant.
So So it kept the VEB in the Yeah. I mean process. So I don't know where we landed on that. When I met with the VEB to go over this law, right, which I think was April. I think it was April, the April meeting. Mhmm. We talked about this. Right? And they said that they were comfortable with not having all the application to go to them because if if an application if some let's just say somebody wanted to change their gas station sign. Right? They have to go to the planning board for the sign application, and then it gets referred to the VEB. Then they gotta wait a month to go to the VEB potentially a month to go to the VEB meeting, and then it's gotta go back to the planning board for final approval. So for something that was of a minor nature, they said that they were okay with not basically just having the planning board doing the whole review process.
Was that the impression you got at the May I think it was the May meeting, the last meeting that we had. That wasn't the impression that I left with. I thought Right. They wanted to make sure that if there were I mean, and let's just clarify with them. Yeah. Right? Like, they didn't want their ability to make a decision taken taken away by the planning board. So I just wanna make sure that however that looks
They don't just to be clear, they don't make decisions. Right? They're just advisory. But no. I I time said getting together, reviewing this stuff. I wanna be respectful of their time and their expertise. And that it seemed that seemed that was what I think that they even wrote it They did. Might even be in their memo. They wrote it Yeah. No. I'm I'm just explaining why we wrote the law the way we did because 100%. Just want was what they told me
As the liaisons of the VEB, I want to make sure that they're we're taking that into consideration. You know? And maybe there's a maybe there's a way that other communities do this that's not this feels overly complicated to me.
Well, I think right. No. I don't I so I think one one of these So hold on. Just just to understand, sign law is always gonna be complicated. Well, that makes me feel better. Thank you. Yeah. So it is it's unavoidable.
That is why people hate sign law. Yeah. So I just but just if you think about some overall guidance stuff. So it it you could generally do reasonable time, place, and manner. So if you're talking about residential zones and you have wanna say this is the time, place, and manner, and it's reasonable, and it's been upheld by other courts that this is the type of sign and this is the size of sign that works in a residential zone, that would make sense. If you have reasonable uniform applicability of a commercial zone, you could have a similar type of thing. It's the con it's where you get into the content that you usually have problems. But you also have to understand that when you have different variant different types of uses within different areas, you have to also be uniform in that regard too. Like, you can't allow some things in your right of way and other things not in your right of way. You know, you have to kind of have some some normalcy in how what your approach is to all of these things. And so that's what But just What Proper planning involves that. And so what we're talking about is a universal law, which Brian had a lot to of of risk avoidance was the goal. Now we're coming back to how do we deal with this zone by zone in terms of how this actually works in Groton, and that's where we're trying to understand the difference. Yeah. And I mean, I I just you know,
one of the complaints that we get from a lot of people is that the application process is cumbersome. People are confused. They don't necessarily understand what they have to do. Mhmm. Right? And, you know, for somebody who is just wants to come and open a new business here, you know, just to put up a sign, they have to go to two separate boards. Right? And so it it just seems like it would make things go a lot smoother and be a lot more, you know, friendly to business if that if those type of applications were able to just go to one board. Right? I mean, any application that did not involve an application before the planning board would still go to the VEB, but if somebody was already going before the planning board for a change of use, they would the planning board would handle their signed permit as well. And that's that is what I discussed with the VEB. Obviously, they're entitled to change their mind. Well, I'm just saying, but the last sentence of their memo
differently that I am not disagreeing with what happened in April, but in May, this was what I was remembering. The board also expressed concern that the planning board might approve a sign without VEB review. So I don't know how we address that, but I want
I just want to address that. If we're changing words I you don't have to agree with me, but I just did address it. That's why we that's why we wrote the law the way we did because we were trying to streamline things. So if that's not what you guys wanna do and you wanna keep the VEB in the process, then we can make that change. But
I just think that if we're gonna we I would like to make sure the VEB is clear on how it's changing or what their just exactly what their role is. But I also think sometimes when the signs come to the VEB, it's not you know, they are getting the signs and, the staff member is reminding everybody what the rules are around it, but the members of the VEB are looking at it from their backgrounds, which a lot of times are artistic or marketing or whatever that reason is that made it so that they're on the VEB. So I think there's gotta be some way that that dovetails. Like, it's following our rules, but it's you know, we know, we we're obviously, we're asking these people with this expertise for a reason. So how does that does that work with what we're doing overall? Two things we identified that we thought
we suggested that we might you might wanna consider. One, the review standards. So we noticed that that was absent in your in your proposed, amendments, and that was very helpful, like, just what you're saying so that everyone is clear on, like, what the review standards are for a sign. And that way, it's also clear that it's not content based, but it's specifically, like, maybe it's the materials, maybe it's you know? So it it's it's it's specific in terms of, like, signage, that type of I mean, excuse me, size, that type of thing. And so we can provide you some draft language for that so that maybe that would be a little and then also that the applicant understands how their particular sign will be reviewed. But then it also helps them in terms of, like, the the sign permit requirements as to what is expected for them to submit so that everyone's on the same page as to, you know, how their their particular application's gonna be reviewed. The other thing that we also noticed, and I think that was also in the planning board's memo back to this board too is, that they wanna lay out like, they want the they want the co the the draft revisions to clearly lay out the review process between, like, the planning board and the VEB. And that was something we noticed. And I think it's because I mean, I'm gonna say, like, I think it's also because there was amendments and then there was a former process and then you're you're modifying the process. So we would just, like, recommend maybe just taking a look at the language again and maybe providing some tweaks and so it's clear as to when that process will take place. Mhmm. And then maybe that will help
• clarify a little bit in terms of the different roles and that might help with the discussion of who does what when.
The the other thing is not to beat a dead horse, but you though, in the last media or the last couple meetings when we're we were reviewing a gas station sign, and so that was this is a huge corporation that, like, those gas station things are all the same size. They have everything. They have this marketing material that looks fat. This is this is what the old sign looks like. This is what the new sign looks like. It's gonna fit right on top of that. That's super straightforward. You know, it's gonna go from a whatever to a whatever. Some of the other applications that we get, you know, if it's like a smaller store, you know, what is those business owners don't have the ability to be presenting it to the VEB or to the planning board in a way that's like, this is how this is gonna look on the window. There's a lot of don't this is probably not really the right place to be having this discussion, but I don't know where else to have it. And since we're talking signs, we may as well. Just something about that process. We've talked about having the meetings happen in person might make it a little easier than doing everything over Zoom because it is kind of it can be hard to make sure the technology is working on both ends. But I do think my observation on the VEB is that the process is not
there's room for improvement. So I think we're going in that direction. Yeah. I think if if Yeah. We can just especially since we know there's gonna be a change in leadership in the VEB and, you know, they've had another member that's had you know, that's resigned recently. I think we should have a fuller conversation with once the board gets kind of repopulated, you know, and then we can figure out moving moving the meetings in person if they're agreeable to that, figuring out how they feel about referrals,
and, you know, then we can we can come back to this. Wanna add part of Valerie, part of the process, because this came up in the VAB, is there are signs that the village creates, and they don't seem to go through anybody. Well, that's not true. It's not true. They go through the planning board? They go through the sign? They go to the VEB? No. The VEB did not review the sign. It's not true. Okay. Yeah. So I'm sorry. What's the name of the sign that went up? It was a lovely event. Croton Landing Park. Yeah. It commemorated
Yeah. That's that's the sign that was required under the easement agreement. Did that go in front of the VEB? It couldn't. They we had no say in it. It's not our sign.
So So, I mean, I I guess that's sign is it? It's the open state Open Space Institute sign.
We this village should not allow signs for somebody else to agreement go up.
When we when we got the land from them. We don't have we don't have a Okay. So there are exceptions
If there's something that's legally required, then, yeah, it would it would go up. It's that's it's something that this village board, not not this board, but a a previous village board agreed to. I think it would have been there was an opportune no one who was in that meeting knew that. Everybody was but everybody was very aware of I a sign. I'm just telling you If there were if there are questions that come up, I would appreciate it if the trustees would ask me about it, and then I can provide the guidance. That's, you know Well, we're having I I can't I can't attend every single meeting of every board. No. So, I mean, if That would good able to your time. Yeah. I would like to be able to share the information. Not all the staff doesn't have access to all the information. So if these questions come up, I would appreciate if people could let me know so that I could provide the information. But I think there also is an opportunity,
you know, there there are staff members on that. There are staff members at that meeting. Who's been here less than a year. So I I see an opportunity to to make a positive change here, you know, as I as I've said now numerous times, the people on the VB are super excited to be on it. They don't wanna feel as though their role is not important. And when a sign goes up and they're like, how did this happen? And nobody knows the answer to it, then that's what's happening. So I do think that having this conversation is helpful now. And we're talking about signs. So when else?
I think the challenge is that the VEB is an advisory committee and not the No. I know. But I just you know, I I don't I feel like the village is being attacked here. And I have sent more Not at all. I have sent more applications. I've sent more applications to the VEB in the past five years than probably went to them Which is in the twenty five years prior. So I just it's a little frustrating to hear them say that they don't ever see anything from the village because that's not the case.
It wasn't So it wasn't said that they never see. That was That was an example that came up. And and I'm sure they have a couple others maybe in Gottwoldt Circle with a conservation
sign. That sign went for Okay. Three times. That sign went for because happened. Fine. So, I mean, you know, I I I'm not saying that we are perfect in sending everything to them, but we have made a very concerted effort to involve them because they were kind of languishing and they were only seeing sign applications. And if you read the section of the code that deals with the VEB, they're supposed to have a much more expansive role. Right. And so over the past couple of years, we have been trying to involve them more in things that go on. Right? You know, they were involved with the expansion of the Harmon Firehouse. They gave their opinion on the color of the building. They gave their opinion on the new lettering for the EMS section. So, I mean, we we do try to involve them.
I I really just do wanna clarify, though. When we're giving feedback, it's not it's nothing is an attack. I feel like we're having the work session is to have a conversation, and that's what we're doing. I'm saying this is my observation from the last couple VEB meetings. I haven't been on the VEB for that long either. I don't really I don't really maybe, you know, but I'm glad we're having this conversation so that we can be more clear going forward, with them. Great.
Alright. So Back to the memo. And that that is sort of Valerie calls that out, in section
Yes. So that was, like, the general comments Yeah. On and, so continuing on, in general, the window sign calculations, we just recommended that we just take a look at that and just to clarify whether temporary window signs also count towards like the total window sign area and whether you want any statement on transparent signage to also be included. And some of this, I'm just we're just raising because some communities find that in terms of safety reasons, like a lot of police officers like to be able to see within the windows and not just have it, you know. So it might just be something that you might just wanna clarify, especially with when I call when I say temporary window signs, you know, decals or something that, you know, there's a certain, like, requirement that there is a transparency so that people can actually see through the windows.
So, I mean, that's really just gonna be, like, a minor just a minor sentence
kind of. Get birds that crash into our windows. It's it's very Yes. Sad to see. And some people put up decals. So in this, what you're proposing is a a see through?
So what I'm proposing is so that you don't have necessarily have, like, a storefront in your downtown that is completely cluttered with window signs, that there should be some sort of transparency to be able to actually see within the I think yeah. I think right now, it's 25%. Right. And so we just wanna clarify that that also includes so that somebody says it's all none of them are permanent, I mean, signs. They're all temporary signs, and then it's just general, any sign whatsoever, and that should be 25. That's all. Then the other one, there's something that both the planning board and also recommended to look at so we need to there needs to be some sort of clarification as to what to do with nonconformity, nonconforming signs. So because right now, you're repealing that section in the zoning mean, I in the proposed signs, look the local law. And we recommend that maybe there needs to be something maybe replacing that to allow for how you're gonna handle nonconforming signs or signs that don't, conform to the new regulations once they're adopted. Is there a grandfathering period? Do we wanna put that in? So that's just something that I think the the planning board also felt that would be helpful to them in their process.
I mean, how do people feel about that? Are you Well, is this something typically where our our building
code inspector would go on a periodic basis and take a look at it and and explain what we hope will be the the new law to the the business and then give them a reasonable period of time to I mean, I think if you wanted to, you could write that into the
you know, especially for commercial signage, you could say, you know, you have a year Yep. From the date of the the law, you have a year to
get your signage in order. Right? Give them a reasonable period of time. Yeah. I mean, not not grandfathering, but a reasonable period for compliance with the new statute.
Yeah. I I mean, I think that there's an opportunity to maybe talk to the ABC about, you know, what what would be fair. I'd like for the business' perspective on that. I mean, I think that there's one particular business I can think of in town. Probably spent thousands of dollars on a sign that's covering their windows at the moment. Believe that's everyone to think about. But, you know, I mean, I do think that, like, we also don't want a cause an undue burden on a small business. Right? Like, I think a year is a bit arbitrary when,
is it that egregious? Yeah. I mean, you can you can make it three years. Right? I mean Right. We haven't been enforcing anything in a while. Did. Yeah. I mean, we try we did send the the previous court enforcement officer did do some outreach to the offending businesses last summer. Right? So the ones that had more than 25% of their windows covered. Mhmm. And I, you know, I think he had moderate success in getting people to address those. Not, you know, not a 100% success. Right? And then we ultimately didn't, you know, move forward with any actual enforcement. So there are still some that need to be. Yeah. There's actually a scheduled meeting of all businesses
in under the ABC, but members, nonmembers on June 16. So we we can raise this issue manager to Yeah. If it fits on your schedule. And we can, you know, maybe get a couple of them to to sort of be liaisons with us as as this thing develops. Because we're probably not gonna have final language. I would think not. No. But at least tell them let letting them know the direction
that we're going in and seeing if we can get some participation from them. I think that would be really helpful because we definitely did get you know, when we started enforcing there was some pushback on lights, like, twinkly lights and windows. So that was that was something that, you know Yeah. Should probably talk that through. And that's,
So so it sounds like there's a yes you want, allow some sort of provision Yes. For Okay. We'll again Rule of reason on Right. Right. And we'll work with, you know, your attorney. And then the the last item, so for the planning board memo, they do I mean, they did have a couple other things that for dealing with temporary signs. They wanted to make sure that there's clearly, that the signs they suggested that potentially marking the signs on the back on the dates so that, you know, you don't have a situation where somebody puts up a sign, takes it down for a couple days, and then puts back up a sign again and still cause it to override. In the meeting, and I thought they misunderstood
that right now in our in the new law, temporary signs that it doesn't have an ex it's not forty five days. Right? There's no? It does say I was just looking at it. It does say It's there it's forty five days, but that's temporary commercial sign. Exactly. Yes. The planning board thought that that's Residential? Residential. Okay. Because we weren't clear. Okay. The law didn't say So, yeah, there's no there's no time limit on
And what as by way of example, a political sign with the new law could stay up
Forever. Forever. Forever. Yes. Correct. Even if the person As long as it's as long as it's within safe and good condition. Right? I mean, if it starts Right. There's, like, metal spike spikes coming out of it or something, then it could come you know, then they could be told to take it down. But Right.
Their, the planning board also had concerns that they didn't wanna they did not want to they didn't want the code to allow, tube men or, like, the types of balloons signs, and they just wanted to clarify that that but but they did say that, you know, but language might you know, should be added for grand opening celebrations or something like that. So maybe that could be a temporary sign, like a balloon
type of sign for, like, a very short period. I mean, would that fall in under a a balloon?
Tube tube man? Is that what Or inflatable. Right. Because balloon permanent balloons are prohibited already. So
I mean, we've had issues with those in the past where people have tried to put them up. I know that's why the planning board is sensitive to them.
And then the last was dealing with the trees. Again, we recommended some modifications and I think the planning board also agreed that that signs could be secured to trees, but only by non penetrating, non abrasive rope or cord and shall not be installed in a manner that injures the tree or restricts its normal growth. So it does allow for signs to be placed on trees, but not necessarily, like, screwed, stapled, wired, or otherwise. So it it kind of is a middle ground on the tree signs. And the board also agreed that that should be allowed, but in a way that does not injure the tree.
Yeah. And I think that was a concern that was brought up by this board as well. So I think I think everybody is or should be okay with Yeah. Good with that.
Yes. Next step is definitely a redraft. Mhmm. And, I mean, I think I I think we should probably bring it back to another work session to review and just make sure that everybody is okay with it before we before we schedule the the
public hearing. And speaking of of the attorney, I wanted to, before I forget, thank the attorney for volunteering
to be with us tonight on his birthday. Oh, wow. Happy birthday. Happy birthday. Thank Happy birthday. Thank you, everyone. Thank you.
Wow. That's dedication. So much fun. Sucks. I think I like it. Liz Garrett was here for my birthday. I just wanted to ask Valerie.
This was raised, and maybe the attorney would know. I think, manager, you said this point would go away in the new sign law. Okay. But there was a question that some of the village administration really didn't know how to interpret this language that was
• signed.
Let me look what It had to do it had to do with signs it had to do with freestanding signs that were a certain
• distance from the building or something would need needed to go to the zoning board for a special permit, and then we changed that when we did all the Mhmm. The cleanup stuff. We changed it to have it go to the planning board, and the engineering department said the language was really unclear. Yes. And what I had told trustee Nachtala was that that language is going away in this new law because we're rewriting the whole section on the sign Yeah. On the sign code. So Okay. Yeah. It was section 29
Of local of the of the local law that we just did on the cleanup. Got it. Section section 29. Okay. Yeah. I'll make a note to taking a special look at that line. Yeah. Please. It it's section 29,
Yeah. And, I mean, honestly, I couldn't four a. It's very hard to understand. It it it's definitely not it's definitely not written well. I mean, but like I said, that's kind of going away. And Yeah. I don't I don't think we ever I mean, at least the time I've been here, I don't think we ever had somebody go to the zoning board for a signed special permit. So it's not it was that's, you know, that's why they're not very familiar with it because Right. It's never really been used. So yeah.
a good point here. It's a it's a good sign. Yeah. Thank you. Time Alright. To move
And now we proceed to a discussion regarding proposed changes to the animal slash foul provisions of the zoning code. Manager, would you like to introduce the provisions? Sure.
Okay. I'll I'll just say that this was originally included in local law number three, which was the cleanup law that we were just talking about. And based on some feedback that the board received, it was decided to pull that section out of the law and have a fuller discussion on any changes that you you as the board would like to make to the existing provisions we have in the code. You know, the provisions that we have are pretty basic. They're not really detailed.
I was just gonna say, I think you wanted to make your statement first. Yeah. Yeah. Well, want Yeah. After the managerial. You know, it's but it's usually important that you do decide. Look. We're happy. That's why I was Happy. So I was just jumping in talking about Okay. He wanted he asked me about disclosing before. Yeah. You're happy to take Generally, before you get into it, it's good to take I will will pause. Then Very soon. Resume. Sorry to interrupt Right? And
and first of all, it's so great having Valerie here issue after issue. So glad glad you're here. Lined up. Yeah. And I I think you very very good job on this. I got some specific points on that. It's at a later point. But one thing I wanted to just raise is I think it's important that we address at some point in this process the the issue of pigeons. We've gotten some good information on what other communities are doing. Larchmont, Pelham, Pelham Manor, Port Chester, and Rybrook ban pigeons entirely. Ardsley requires village board approval after a public hearing. Tarrytown adopted a ban on pigeons in 1998, but grandfathered in existing owners. I I should mention, you know, truth in in in advertising and disclosure here. I I live on a street where there's some discussion of some pigeons being being in place fairly soon. So I I wanted folks to know that. I have a feeling. I I believe that I I would have having having read about what the other communities are doing and learn more learn more about this, I think I would have been in favor of us addressing pigeons under any circumstances regardless of where I lived in in Croton. And as I mentioned, you know, there's that that activity that I'm aware of, there could be lots of others all across the village, and we've gotten we've been the beneficiary of the last week or so of a lot communication from residents in in particular areas. So one way or another, I I would like us to address the pigeons pigeons issue. We have we have the the examples of what some of the other communities are doing and and, you know, you know, perhaps we'll devise our own approach. But I think I think since it's not addressed in the in the specific draft, I I wanted to kinda raise that as something that that we that we take take under consideration. Yeah. Just just to be clear, when Linda asked me about this, this is a law that is gonna be a universally applicable law.
Whether he's affected, yay or nay, specifically by pigeons, which may exist or may not exist at some point in the future. That's a hypothetical, but I thought that he should at least disclose this this situation and that's he could still participate. He does not have to recuse in my opinion given those circumstances. There you go. Sorry, Brian. It was a long long wind up till we got it. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. So
I don't even remember where I was, but I think I was talking about the the how we got to where we are. Mhmm. And so,
• you know, we wanted to we wanted to have just a fuller discussion on animals in general. I know there had been some points raised, obviously, about chickens and now pigeons. There had been some discussion on farm animals, maybe, you know, goats or something, you know, along those lines. So we just decided to hold off so we until we could have this larger discussion and give some guidance to both Valerie and the attorney on, you know, how the board wanted to proceed. So, Valerie?
Sure. So I'm what I provided as part of your packet are revisions. The revisions are in red. The the text that was in black was what was presented last time. We heard we actually, I watched the meeting that you discussed this, and we also heard what the public had to say. And so the modifications kinda reflect public's comments dealing with the chick the concerns of the chicken and then the sports discussions. So I thought that would might be a good place to to start off with this discussion of, you know, we we are recommending, or modifying, the the pen or the chicken coop would need to be 25 feet from any lot line for properties under an acre and 50 feet for properties greater than an acre. We did do some modifications in terms of the total numbers. I think there were some concerns with the maximum numbers. And so we proposed changes that, you know, larger than a half an acre, but less than one acres, no
• anything more than an acre, the maximum is 20 chickens. And we provided some also some additional text in terms of, you know, keeping them in an enclosure, keeping it dry, odor free, adequate ventilation. So those those were the changes that we are posing and then also a definition, for a foul. So at this point, I figured, you know, we can we can start there, and I'm happy to answer any questions. We did also look at, you know, what would the minimums be for some of the larger farm animals, but then you're looking at a number of acres probably as minimum. And you just you I mean, we're happy to provide you, edits to the zoning on that. But Yeah. You know, for the most part, you don't have a lot of properties that would fall within those parameters to have larger And I'll I'll just say, just based on the farm animal, because this is quick. I mean, I did I did speak with
one of our local farmers, and, you know, she advised that basically they need at least a couple of acres. She she had said four acres for real, you know, to make that they would be op their optimal conditions, I guess, would be that would be for, like, goats, sheep, horses that, you know, farm animal type type animals. You know, but I think, you know, she had said that she knows that there are
animals that are here Yeah. In our village. And and so that's kind of my concern. I I mean, I I guess, some could say I misinterpreted the provision about whether or not a domesticated animal is just pets or if a pet is a companion animal. But in any case, I'd say that until recently, that kind of consideration was academic. But, you know, I think that part of what we're doing here with the this revision to the code is also communicating our intent to engage in some meaningful code enforcement on this front. And so for a long time, there hasn't been active enforcement on this, and therefore, the regulation has kind of been not incredibly relevant. But, know, again, we have reason to believe that animals exist, farm or livestock, however you wanna say it, in some form in the village. And certainly, we don't want them to be in situations that are dangerous for themselves or dangerous for other humans. But I think that we do wanna have an actual sound regulation of that unless I mean, well, I guess that's a a fair question. Right? Or we could just say we want all the animals out. But But I mean, if you had That's question I think. Have need to address. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry to interrupt. No. It's fine. I mean, we have some properties. Right? You have a whole zoning district where the minimum lot size is an acre and a half. Yeah. Right? So, I mean, it would seem like
those lots could potentially allow for one horse, one you know, two goats, whatever it might be. Right? Something like that. Something minimal. Yeah. So that's something that you could that you could discuss. Yeah. It certainly wouldn't be somebody wouldn't be able to keep a horse in Harmon. Right? You know, that's not what's that's not what's being proposed here. But, you know, you have you have some large track residential properties.
Yeah. Yeah. And I kind of imagine that we're probably not reaching a conclusion on any of this tonight, so maybe I appreciate the preliminary research you've done on this manager, but I would say suggest, you know, perhaps reaching out to veterinary societies and the Department of Health for their guidance as well. I mean, I think that the health concerns are really at the heart of the pigeon issue. And certainly, they have a certain reputation, but not an epidemiologist or a public health officer and I can't really provide any insight into what
actual impact they could have on people. Well, it's my understanding that pigeons fall into a classification that is not foul. It's more of like a
I don't know what the right Well, I mean, the the definition of foul is birds of all kinds. Right? I mean, that's But we didn't include pigeons in the definition. Well, it says including but not limited to. Right? So, I mean, we can very easily add the word pigeons to this definition. That's Yeah. It's just when this was written, we this was written last week before we started getting all the pigeons. Pigeon emails.
Right? So right. But, attorney, if you looked at this, you you would consider by this definition, pigeons would.
So there's a when you're looking at the this might be something that could go to the zoning board on an unrelated matter as far as I understand it. So I don't wanna give them problems with me giving you an interpretation, but there are two definitions that would be at play. There's birds of all kind Yeah. And then there's the second one, which is a more commonly one associated with chickens and other types of animals. And when you're deciding between which one was intended at the time of the code, you could kind of see some ambiguity in that what was intended therein. I mean, you might argue that on one hand, and these are all arguments, nothing is set in stone. You might argue when under our current code that someone could say, well, it's not reasonable for someone to include things that are not chicken like fowl because that would also include larger birds per se, like things that we would probably assume are not
Ostriches. So You know, so so that so they might be so when you're viewing this in that context of what our current code means, that, you know, there's some interpretation at play. And I don't wanna get too far down the road there, but there there's questions there. If we wanna be clear about pigeons Be clear now. Right. And that's what I'm saying. Right. Be clear now is the most important thing. Right now, is the most
thing. Yeah. Definite the more definition this is how we started out this whole thing. Right? That's what I'm saying. The more definitions, the better. Yeah. Yeah. So how so how do we do that? What's the We just add the word pigeons, where it says chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, pheasants. And they then they would be included.
Yeah. But Within the yardage. Well, no. And I The point I wanted to make is didn't mean to interrupt. I'm saying that. The point I wanted to make was was, you know, this is, you know, a great first draft in terms of storage and management Mhmm. Of of the of the ones that are that are before us. And I think that's a very appropriate thing. As a matter of fact, I was gonna add that, you know, from, you know, one of our constituents, you know, I've received, you know, something when when if looking at the box where the the divisions of the acreage are are exactly the same, but the numbers are different. So that's something that we wanna, you know, rather, you know Wait. I'm sorry. Can you say it again? Well, just, you know, that I got recommendations from one of our constituents that organize it the same way, less than a quarter acre, less than, you know, one quarter of an acre, but less than one half acre, etcetera. But the maximum number is different. So, you know, I think that's debatable in terms of some I mean, that's that's ultimately up to the board. These these are the numbers that we came up with. Yeah. But, ultimately, this is about storage and numbers and things like that. The pigeon thing, I think, is really more of a health issue, and I I that's why I think the mayor's comments are so appropriate in terms of let's let's explore this and and determine, you know, what the next approach is. Think we should ask them, like, are there any animals or
yeah. Any animals, but I guess especially foul that they would have flags on. I mean, I don't Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think I I think and, you know, I can let Valerie speak to this a little bit more, but I think the board might have a hard time banning one kind of bird and allowing others. Right? I mean, that's That's bird discrimination. I mean, but doesn't it have to do with the purpose of the bird? Like Excuse me. The a lot of the same issues with pigeons can be present with chickens as well. Right? I mean, they have the same kind of diseases and uncleanliness and Well, I mean, the yeah. Yes. In a in a broad sense, both can have to but
let's just Well, I know. But I just wanted I wanted to let Valerie speak to it because she looked into this. But almost all of the communities that were mentioned earlier don't just ban pigeons. They ban Yeah. So right. So I did I did look into,
so Brian passed on the the constituents concerns, and I did look into those codes. So the communities so Pelham, Pelham Manor, Port Chester, and Rye Brook prohibit both chickens and pigeons. Right? So Larchmont and Ardsley prohibit pigeons, but they don't permit chickens. Right? So they don't specifically say But can you say that again? Right. It's a little nuance.
• Specifically say pigeons are not allowed, but there's nothing in the code that says chickens are allowed. Right? Like, so they don't they don't regulate chickens, but, like, they specifically say no pigeons. I don't think any of those
make sense to me, to be honest. So I I I feel like, for me, it it might come down to the purpose, the the function of these animals. And I don't know if that's legal or not, but the people I know who own chickens do it. They eat the eggs, and
the the chickens are they're not flying into neighbor's property and causing issues. Right. Well, and and, actually, that's I wanted to raise that. How do we regulate Well, that was the other thing I was gonna ask Valerie. It's just you know, so I was intrigued by, you know, the your focus on enclosures. You know, they're very appropriate. But and that may work for certain certain fowl, not others, you know, that that are there for the purpose of flying around. So it's
Right. So I've So I think the the well, a couple things. I I just wanted to finish up that Tarry Town, though, they are the one exception that they prohibit pigeons but allow chickens. So there you go. Yeah. So there is one community. But I I think I think in terms of you're probably not gonna want birds to be flying over to your neighbor's yard. Right? So that's the concept with the enclosures. Right? So so in in the chicken coops or houses or whatever, I I think the other thing in terms of, I think the other thing with with a lot of those, like, as as as trustee mentioned, that, yes, a lot of these are the concepts of, like, these chickens are raised for some sort of purpose like the eggs and stuff like that. So if you really wanna focus on that concept and just then I would just recommend then allowing chickens and then prohibiting Mhmm. All other birds unless you're gonna keep it in house as a domesticated pet. You know? That's that's that's one theoretical approach. Right. I mean, that's, I mean, that's probably you know, because then you're gonna have to then decide whether you're gonna deal with, like, the turkeys, the ducks. You know? And then I think the other thing too is that people that I know with chickens or other they don't allow them out of the houses because you have a lot of hawks and eagles. So
they usually don't last very long. There are situations where chickens are wandering around harming from time to time. Right? And we saw we've had it down down the street here. That's I gonna
ask exactly that question. Like, for example, you know, again, I like your I like your definition of enclosure. But presumably, you know, if our if for whatever reason our code enforcement person comes by and and has evidence that, you know, the any of the foul are just, you know, roaming around, that's that's a code violation. Forget about, you know, the addition of others flying around. Right. You know, those are those are code violations if they're not literally enclosed. Right. And, I mean, again, that's
know, each community is different. So there are some that do allow you know, you can you can have a little bit more of a chicken yard, but it's usually on, like, larger properties. You know, this was sort of developed with the sense of, like, the properties in Croton, you know, but we can always amend
as needed or as interested by the village. I mean, I would be be of of the mind of allowing chickens and forbidding other foul.
So let me let let just when we're talking about foul, because we keep coming back, I would really encourage both a specific and a genus or however you wanna categorize an approach. Mhmm. You know, you could say this genus of bird, which there there are scientific terms that that associate with it, and then you could say, okay. Within this genus, we can allow pigeons. We can take pigeons out. Whatever we do,
be specific because fowl kind of is still ambiguous, and we need to be clear as to what we mean by foul. In the communities that only allow chickens, is there I mean, I get I get I guess, how can you answer this question? But, like, is there confusion? Like, seems pretty clear to me, like, a chicken is a is a chicken. Right? Like, you can't have a rooster. You can't have a you know? Like, I mean, there's, not really a lot of I'm no bird expert. And the more like, there's some Yes. Some word that starts with c that pigeons are. I'm afraid to even try to say it out loud. Yeah. Because, like, you know what I mean? I know. Okay. So, like, I'd like to know what that word is. Well, that's what mean. I don't see how putting that in the in the definition makes it clear. A 100%. So Correct. Which is why I'm saying, like, everyone knows what a chicken is. I don't think people but but I can, like, hesitate to say this out loud, like, I think that sometimes people do have chickens and a duck. Right? And like Yeah. Then what then what is that doing? Like, I don't wanna go into that gray area. I would like to keep it as very clear as possible. But what's the harm in somebody having a duck? I don't know. Unless it's a slippery slope, in which case that I'm okay to say no to a duck. But, like, do we have people who have ducks right now that aren't being problematic? The answer is a problematic problem. There are definitely people that are I don't ducks. Domestic
yeah. Like, the nuisance that the animal is causing is the problem. Right? So if you have a duck and you are not causing a nuisance to your neighbors Are ducks messier than chickens? I don't I mean, this is there any close to your neighbors?
• And then we're we're giving parameters around the amount amount of feet between the property.
And and, you know, I just would like to say that the the reason why this has come up and been an issue both now and in the past is because the enclosures have been allowed to be so close to the property line. Mhmm. Right? The interpretation from the prior engineer was that they were allowed within five feet of the property line. Now, hopefully, the zoning board is going to clarify this once and for all for everybody, you know, but and you guys are also proposing to change it now anyway. So you're go you know, you're gonna go from the current five feet to 25 feet for under an acre and 50 feet for over an acre. That should that should significantly reduce people's complaints about them smelling or or being noisy or something like that because they're gonna be much further away from the property lines. Right. So But why can't we restrict it to foul
the property line. As long as you define it correctly, you can. Right. I I feel like I'm so much more comfortable with making it very specific, like a chicken or or I don't mean, it's like we don't even have to include duck. I don't know who I'm making angry by saying, like, maybe don't include duck. Could say But I think that specific is what we need here because then it's gonna be like a like, I don't know the difference between a quail and a whatever. You know? How are and then we're putting this crazy burden on the person who's enforcing it. Now our enforcement person needs to know, like So it needs to be expert know what a chicken is. I think they'll know what a duck is. Other than that, like, you know, we don't have to get into I think that specificity here is what's gonna
help everyone. Right. And that very well might be the case. I mean, I think your code originally uses the word foul, and I think that's how, like Right. We just kinda carry that on. So, you know, it's it's you know, a lot of communities will define, as you said, like, as very specific animal too, and that's also possible as well. Like, so you have You could just you could just change it Right. Hypothetically,
right, if this is what the board wanted to do, where it says the keeping of fowl, you could just change that to say the keeping of chickens and ducks. Right. Right? Dedicated birds or No. So could they Can I ask those other questions? So, like, if you had a dog in Croton, you need to have it maybe this
you need to have it registered. Right? Like, you have Well, that's a state law. You have to have a license. Right. But if you have chickens, like, can I just put chickens in my back yard and never no one would know about it? Or do you have to if you're putting chickens in the yard, do you have to let There's no Right. So that is the other problem.
Because No. I don't I don't think I don't think you could have a I'm missing the question. Could we have a requirement for registration?
Register the chickens? Yeah. Not the individual birds, but say I have two. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Oh, like a like a permit for chickens? Yeah. I don't know. I'd have to look into that. I've never seen I haven't seen that. So this is how this is know where they Right. This is under, like, the supplementary regulations under your residential zoning to you know, zoning. I'd had to just take a look at if it requires some sort of permit or not. It might just be I I don't believe it does. If it's if
if it's under a certain size, it doesn't would it only need a shed permit from the building department.
And then if it's over a certain size, then it has to go to the planning department. Mean, again, we'd be re regulating the structure, not the animal. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Of course, you can do permanent coop. I was thinking of, like, like, a recurring, like
No. Year yearly thing. That's what I was thinking. But no. Then the other question that came up last time, I'm as I vaguely remember, was something about the number of these. But, like Yeah. Guess you can only buy six Yes. You can only buy six chickens at a time. So, like, if you're down if you had six chickens and you wanna replace like, when you wanna redo your now you have to buy six chickens and you're adding that to your four chickens and now you're over the I don't know what our number was, but, like, you can't just go to Tractor Supply and buy two chickens. You have to I think you have to buy a certain number or something. Right? There's something like that. I did look into that. I had some some people I talked to said that wasn't that they were able just to buy, like, one or two chickens, but,
but, you know, I mean, we could we could look at it a little bit more. Of course. So I mean, I don't mean to be but I do But mean, I I do think there's consensus. Do this, we actually do make sure we're doing it right. Right. Sure. Yeah. But I do hear consensus
among everyone that, like, we don't want this to just be we want it to be defined. Yes. Yes. Let's call it chickens and maybe ducks figuring out, like but I would like to understand if there's a downside to ducks. But, like, beyond that, I think we're getting into territory that it feels like everybody's not particularly comfortable with. So I don't I'm also not comfortable
really with the 25 feet number. I I thought 50 feet was the It's 50 feet? Original law. Right?
Yeah. That's because I know when we talk about this in the This is broken up. 50 feet? Not current, but the original. Penned or housed within 50 feet of any lot line from the That's the that's the existing wall. What I mean. The existing is 50 feet, and that's
not comfortable with the 50 feet, you know, because it's what you're putting these animals closer to the owner versus
closer to the neighbor. I think the the problem with that I mean, you could change this to be 34. But the the RA five zone, the prop the lots are only 50 feet wide. Yeah. Right? So you they wouldn't be they basically be boxed out. They're only 50 feet. Higher than the 25, though? So, I mean, you could you could if you wanted to, you could change it to say 25
feet in the RA five and fifty feet everywhere else. I mean, you could That's a do something like that. I think that's a decent I I think what we don't wanna do is be putting an undue burden on a neighbor who doesn't want anything to do with ducks or chickens Right. And then is gonna be subjected to this. Like, I don't that's the way I'm approaching this. I don't I don't wanna take away somebody's ability to have the animal they want. But I also You gotta you have to try to balance it. Right? Right. But but, I mean, that's how I'm thinking about this. But I so, you know, I think if we can start chipping away at what we know we don't want Yep. And then distill it down to the things that we still need to because I don't I mean, it feels like we're gonna have to have another conversation about this. I think so. So what if if has everybody said what they wanna say? Just one just one oh, just one more of that. I either through
the the manager or Valerie or some combination of of the two, and whatever help other help you need that will get some pathway on on the pigeons that makes the most sense. Yeah. That's I just I'd like to just kind of
summarize. Right? How do people feel comfortable with chickens? Do people feel comfortable with chickens? Yes. Yes. Okay. Alright. So we're okay with chickens. We want more information on ducks.
• Pigeons? Hard to know. No pigeons.
They could be enclosed. I mean, you could if you if they're if they're your pets, they could be Yeah. And they just fly around. Yeah.
So they would stay on the property? Yeah. That's your buddy. I mean, just think Well, that goes to what I was saying is I think we should correct. A more information, but I I think And and get just ask about just general
common birds Yeah. And what are the common issues associated with them. Just because who knows? I mean, does a quail have an issue? I have no idea. Yeah. Yeah. But I Right. But then I think we're creating a a an enforcement situation. Is that a quail? Is it a pheasant? I I don't I wouldn't be able to tell the the difference between a quail, a pheasant, a grouse. I I really Why does it have long tails? Yeah.
tease me about the lat. Manager, I I I know that. That's what it is. But, you know, I but I'm just like, I don't because because if there is a problem, we want the enforcement person to be able to go out and say, that is clearly not a chicken or a duck. That's gonna come you know, I'm not saying that the research the manager conducts and comes information comes back with maps clearly onto the code. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe we just say it's too hard to differentiate, so we're just gonna say chickens only. But Yeah. Let's find out what's out there, you know, terms of potential But manager, I don't downsides. But one quick note on flightless versus flighted birds. I do wonder about what kind of practical difference any regulations on enclosures or, you know, housing for them is gonna have if, like, someone who has an affinity for birds in general or a particular bird spills a birdhouse and or just throws out a lot of bird seed. I mean, I think that you can have a lot of the same issues
Yep. And even less opportunity to manage it if they just decide to feed the birds every day. Yes. Like the song. But, manager, I I would say that, you know, as as we go forward here and we, it appears like there is a consensus against the pigeons, we wanna do it the right way, obviously, the legal way, taking into account what what's what's what the known health effects are and and and the and the difficulty of of keeping these in in reasonably dense neighborhoods. Yeah.
similar? The I believe the town of Ossining allows for chickens. I think the village of Ossining has
Okay. I mean, I had to double check, but I don't think so. Okay. Thank you. I think they're just prohibited.
And then in terms of the, setbacks, Or do people want to do 50 feet except in the RA five? Do you wanna keep it the way it is right now, is 25 under an acre, 50 feet over an acre?
setbacks. I'm I'm comfortable with something greater than 25. Yeah. I I am let's 50 is the number that I would Yeah. Prefer. Okay. I don't wanna exclude RA five. I don't think that's Let's let's go
Yeah. I mean, that's what I'm saying. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I was saying it would be 25 the setback would be 25 feet in r the RA 5 Mhmm. And it would be 50 feet everywhere else. Okay. So and the re and the reasoning behind that, again, is that most of the lots in Harmon area, which is RA 5, they're they're only 50 feet. Mhmm. You know, that's that's the property. Mhmm. So, you know, that was that the subdivision was created. Okay.
chickens. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Correct. Yeah. So, I mean, you'd you'd have five chick up to five chickens 25 feet off the property line. Mhmm. And then okay. So then we talked about this with the sign law, but, with this law, it's even kind of
time frame where maybe they can't replace their chicken? Well, that's yeah. And I was just gonna say that was how Tarrytown did it. Yeah. Right? When they specifically about pigeons, that was what their law was about. That they grandfathered in the people who had them Mhmm. But said you were not allowed to add or replace
to your flock. Yeah. I I think that's a little complicated. I don't know. I mean, I guess you'd be relying on them declaring that they have a pigeon in a timely manner and then also not surreptitiously replacing the pitching when it passes away and saying, oh, the same one. Mean, you Who would go? We don't want the code enforcement officer in the house. So so I I I mean, I think just having, like, a a phase and timeline might be the cleanest is my feeling, rather than a a grandfather.
Mhmm. Because, like, then you get into all these other situations of, like, oh. Yeah. I mean, we could we could look up what the lifespan of a pigeon Yeah. Is. See how long they normally or not. I I shouldn't say pigeon. Just check it. Yeah. Whatever works. Yeah. Not
not adding, you know, to the burden, but I guess I am. But if we could if we could check out what some of the r a fives are doing in other communities in terms of distance.
Yeah. I mean, I I don't know. I mean, zoning is different community by community, so I don't know if there's something similar, but we can we can look and see. I I think because I I think there's a case to be made that 20 of five communities that have smaller lots that I think regulate chickens.
I mean, there may there may be you know, I think we need to focus on it, you know, a a little bit more, think about it a little bit more, but there may be a case to be made for 25 being insufficient.
I think you're gonna find that a lot of communities actually have it less than 25 feet with the chickens. I'm just, you know, but but I can send you examples of that. Great. Thank you.
• what we're doing in terms of the analysis and the work and the
Right now, your code doesn't prohibit them. Right? I mean, it well, I shouldn't say that. It it's up for debate. Right? Because it's just extremely ambiguous because not only do you have the issue with the location of the of the pen, right, where that's allowed. But the word foul is not defined in the code. So, you know, that that becomes the whole thing about, you know, are they foul? Are they not foul? You know? So it's just it it's very unclear at the moment. So I don't even know what you'd necessarily be.
I mean, I I I don't think we'd be in a position to really fine tune this tonight, but I would be open to a moratorium. But I think you'd have to do it kind of across the board on foul and other livestock or whatever you wanna say because, right, say we're looking at the 25 foot setback versus the previous pattern of the five foot setback. Well, it would be very unfortunate if someone was like, I'm gonna be a good neighbor. I'm gonna put my coop 20 feet back. And then, you know, the next month we adopt the law and it says, actually, it's 25. So I think just But I I don't I mean, maybe the attorney can correct me. I don't know what you'd be doing a moratorium on. There's no approvals that are needed for
before us that we like, the reason we're talking about pigeons so much is because we have a I know that's gonna go situation. That's gonna go before the zoning board. Right? The there's gonna be an interpretation made by the zoning board as to whether the the location that this coupe is being built is legal or not. So and if it's if it's not, if they rule that the definition that the interpretation made by the engineering department was not correct and they rule they ruled that it's not correct, then it would have to be located 50 feet
from the from the property line. So I guess the other question is, what is the timeline for that happening? Like, is that gonna go to the next zoning board meeting? Is that is that two months out? Is No. It should be the end of June. Okay. Yeah. Or that no. They meet the middle what do they meet? The June 3? Or The calendar is saying the sixteenth.
Yeah. Sorry. Middle of June. But if our intent is to ban pigeons, right, and then the zoning board approves a pigeon coop,
That's a shame. Well, they're not gonna they're not gonna approve they don't they're not approving the pigeon coop. Right? They're making an interpretation as to where it would be allowed to go. I know it's probably a difference that a distinction without a difference. The shed Yeah. After bidding the lawsuit. Yeah. Them to build a shed, house
pigeons, and then we could potentially turn around a month later and ban pigeons.
And then that's a shame for that particular issue. Well, I I think that And could be zoning board could obviously
take notice of that when they're issuing Yeah. I mean, which they should. Yeah. That this is before the board of trustees and And the engineer or or There is going to be some clarification coming from from the board speaking on topic. Okay. Or the agenda. Wait. On on the topic of the placement of the shed or the topic of the Well, both both. Both. Really. Right? I mean, it's gonna be And that's gonna be before the meeting at the end of June?
No. I think this I mean, because the zoning board is gonna meet before you have your next work session. Right? So but there but, I mean, I will talk to the the assistant engineer is the one who goes to the zoning board. I'll talk to him and explain
I'll explain something. Intent is to not have somebody who's try the the person that's trying to house pigeons build something, thinking they're gonna be able to house pigeons, and then having us be like, sorry, you built this thing in a spot there, you can have it for for animals you can't have. Yeah. Like, I think that Yeah. I don't know what that communication looks like, but there's no it doesn't seem to be any disagreement that we're moving in a direction of no pigeons. Right. Yeah. No. I So that, I think as long as we can be super clear about that, because then maybe they'll say, well, then I'm building this thing if I can't put pigeons here. So how we communicate that to the zoning board and to the applicant so that maybe they don't go before the zoning board is what I wanna clarify. Very reasonable. The the applicant is not going before so the engine the village engineer is bringing is asking the zoning board to interpret this section of the code. So it's just
so that going forward until this until the law is adopted, which, I mean, just because of the secret price and everything, this law could potentially not be done until the fall. Right? So it will allow the engineer to have some guidance until the new law is adopted.
So, I know that this already this law, or this draft that we're talking about is broke off from another amendment, proposed amendment to the code, but maybe we consider breaking off breaking it in two again, which is to say if there's a consensus on twenty five and fifty, so to speak, 25 foot setback for RA five and fifty foot for everywhere else, We just do that now for foul across the board, and then when we decide I I'm couple of using the word foul because it feels like there's it's so confusing.
Right? Didn't we decide that foul was confusing because it was That's May May knowing where it's gonna be located. May are you proposing, and then that would be a proposed
at our next meeting? Be a law of its very own. Yeah. And whatever we wanted to like, you know, whatever creatures are in there, they have to be 25
or 50 feet back from the property line. But again, yeah, it's just because this is in the zoning code. Right? This is not it's not a quick process. Yeah. Yeah. You're not gonna you're not gonna get the law to refer until June 17, then you have to refer it to the planning board, to the county, to the WAC. It's gotta go through that whole process, then you get it back, then you schedule a public hearing, then you do your review. That's why I was suggesting a moratorium because if we know what the end game is,
then how do we prevent people or not prevent, but, you know, how do we? Avoid
people investing in I think some for the reason the manager just just outlined it kind of, you know, there the moratorium is in some way like, a moratorium is a more straightforward process. This would be the closest way you could accomplish that end would be like a blanket prohibition in the code, which would have to do a full secret process. Yeah. I
We haven't had a huge influx of people calling and asking us about pigeons. Right? We have one person who has desire to do this. I think, you know, taking what trustee slip and said, we'll go back, we'll talk to the engineering department, we'll make sure that the substance of this meeting is communicated to that person so that they're well aware of what is going to be occurring. And, you know, hopefully, they will Likely to occur. Like yeah. That that will be likely to occur. And they'll hopefully take that into consideration before they, you know, resources. Correct. Yeah. Right. And that's So
A a, I would say there's a there's a strong consensus on the board to do that. And and b, it is unlikely that there would be a grandfathering of them. I So think that's important.
I just wanna I just wanna note that, part of the reason why you don't wanna move forward just right away for, like, some minor edits to that section is right now that section is needs to be we we flagged it as needing to be fully edited because it actually has restrictions on your dogs and cats. Yes. Right? And so that's really that's one of right? So I know every the issue at hand is the fouls, but right now Oh, let's not talk about dogs and cats. Right. Right. It has it has these it has these strange restrictions on dogs and cats, which you know? So that's why we flagged it to specifically have it so that you can that gets modified
so that people can actually have dogs and cats as they, you know Yeah. Because, I mean, you know, that's right. I mean, we there are people that obviously have more than three dogs.
Right? And so, you know, that's technically not allowed under the code. Mhmm. So Okay. Alright. So just going back to so we're gonna be able to communicate to the person who's The person who was getting the shed permit. Yes. And also, we're gonna be able to make some because we've gotten you know, there's one person who's interested in having pigeons, and there are a lot of people or there are significantly more people than one who are who are Yeah. We got four emails, so I'll I'll respond to those people. Right. So whatever that looks so we'll have a response for the people who are concerned about the pigeons and the people who is the person who is wanting the pigeons. I just wanna make sure, like, there are a couple there are, like, four different constituent groups here that need to understand what we did tonight. I I would like to understand what we did tonight because I'm totally lost at this point. But Yeah. I mean, that's that's that's why I was going down the list here of just trying to get as as best a consensus as we could so that we can prepare for the next one. Right? So
yeah. So it was 25 feet in the RA, five fifty feet elsewhere, pending whatever information Valerie can can find that might make more sense.
And just Oh, sorry. Sorry. What? I was gonna say, just to be clear, if tomorrow Brian gets 30 applications for pigeon goops and a 100 for ostrich pens, Like, we can definitely review moratorium. But I was just thinking it's a little bit much given the the scope of the problem that we're deal addressing at this moment. That's all I was saying. So that's why I didn't give a full throated answer to what I was thinking.
I understand. And we're just a very small village, you know. We have houses that are fairly close to each other, and this affects a number of Yep. Folks, you know. So it's Yeah. It's an important matter. Yeah.
In terms of farm animals, I mean, how do we I don't we didn't really touch on that. How do we feel about that?
Go to the vet societies and get a good, like, a good ratio of spay I mean, I I think it's just space to creature.
Yeah. I mean, I think, truthfully, the only place that it could potentially be would be the R A 60. Right? I mean, I don't think I don't think an acre is big enough for most farm animals. So Mhmm.
• Right.
Yeah. And, I mean, I I when I was looking at all this stuff, I mean, there was I think, actually, I I think our code prohibit prohibits pigs. Mhmm. The existing code. Is that somebody have that up? Yeah.
Yeah. And they yes. It says keeping domestic animals except pigs for individual
domestic purposes as whereas pets. So, yes, it was it was it's not a domestic animal. Yeah. So, I mean but that's not here now. Right? Because we we put we moved pigs to farm animals. Right. They're not but k. Yeah. I think the I think the general idea would be that no pigs. Okay?
• Yeah. But I mean, there are people as I'm sure everybody knows, there are people that have interesting animals as their Many pigs. As their pets. With the puppet. Yes. So,
• Okay.
Was there anything else we wanted to touch on here? And again, just going back to the to all these animals, right, like, we as I said, I think the point of doing this is also to communicate that we plan on enforcing this, and once that happens, we're gonna start running into some of these issues. And, you know, at the end of the day, we say that you can't have your this animal x, you know, that could be upsetting for that person, so I want to make sure that we have, like, a robust reason for it Yes. And we're not shooting from the hip. Yep. Okay.
You, Valerie. Thank you, You're welcome. Thank you, Valerie. Thanks, Valerie.
we proceed to item six, a discussion on a proposed moratorium on cannabis dispensaries in the village.
Yes. So thank you, mayor. This is just, coming up because, there's obviously been a lot of discussion regarding cannabis and where it can be, located in the village. There's been continual updates from the office of cannabis management as to, definitions and where to measure distances from Mhmm. The most recent update being in February. And so things look differently now than they did five years ago or four and a half years ago when this was first discussed. And so we would like to or what I'm proposing is that the board adopt ultimately adopt a moratorium on the dispensaries for a set period of time, is set for six months in the law to allow time for a thorough review of our zoning to ensure that,
you know, the applicability of the zoning is in line with what the board would like to see. Yeah. And and and in actuality, like, I think we had a version of in back in 2022, a map Yep. You know, that everyone could look at and say, just similar to the New York forward map. You know, so they say inside the dotted line and then outside the dotted line. Yeah. Yep.
And then there's a four month extension if we needed more time. Correct. And so, no. I think this is great. So thank you for proposing it. What what would be the process for us to discuss the zoning regulations?
So what what we can do right now is if the board would like, we schedule the public hearing on the local law. Mhmm. So that then on June 17, we have the public hearing. And if the law is adopted, then the moratorium begins once it's filed with the state secretary of state's office. So then after that point, we could schedule then it could be the next work session. We could schedule the initial discussion on what changes you would potentially like to see. We presumably would would do the moratorium
Yeah. Mean, that's again, that's ultimately up to you if you wanna close the public hearing and vote on it. Yep. You know, I mean, that's generally what the board does. Yep. And it's exempt from CEQA as a type two action. Yes. So can you just say again what that timeline would be? We'd have a public hearing on June 17, And then Yeah. Assuming you then vote to approve the moratorium that same evening, we could then schedule at the next work session, which I guess would be June 24. We could have the initial discussion on any you know, basically, get feedback from the board on what the what potential changes you'd like to see. Right? I mean, it it it's really just as kinda like a sneak preview. Right? I mean, it's you're gonna be looking at your retail uses and what's allowed in your commercial districts and
yeah. Yeah. I get I'll jump in. Yeah. Just see, they borrowed when writing this law from First Amendment law and said time, place, and manner restrictions. And the way they used it is to say that you can have reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions in regards to to cannabis. However, they then enumerate what those restrictions could look like in broad categories, and this is about something Valerie can speak to when you start looking at what you wanna have in your zoning, whether it's a special permit or a straight zoning solutions, but it's hours of operation, visual and architectural integrity if in a if located in a historic district, parking, traffic control, but not limited to pedestrian or vehicular traffic, odor pursuant to article 13 of the public health law. It's less important when you're talking about dispensaries, but still something that you can look at. Noise and and distance requirements. The you know, the you you don't have a historical district, so that's that's obviously something. If you wanted to have input on two, you'd have to have that. It's it's you do have a significant number of historical resources, but there's there's other things to look at in that in that context. But I would allow I would suggest that once you have the moratorium in place, you then start to get your planner looking at your specific zones and what makes sense. And I think that's what Brian was talking about in terms of those zones as to what your retail look like, what what your parking might look like in one zone, what traffic control might look like in some other zones, and how these these reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions could be effectuated.
Right. I just I just wanna emphasize one thing that Josh is raising is that, even though he's we were talking about zones, the state tends to look at this as retail. So if you allow retail in certain zoning districts, they assume you're also gonna allow cannabis. That's what I was saying. Wanna make sure that I I just wanna make sure that everyone is clear that it's you're not you can't necessarily, like, zone out cannabis from a lot of different zoning districts, but you can
Of the of the of the certain distance requirements like the So that's the other thing. The the lot of the distance requirements are already, like, fully baked into the law, so you can't modify them. But there is something with public use facilities that and and, like and Josh will even and Brian will previewing some of the Right. Right. But but I think but part of I just wanna emphasize they're they're constantly changing these regulations. Yes. They're constantly changing them. So what we say tonight could be changed in two weeks from now, and that's the frustrating part. But we found we found that out. Yes. This is not an we're not the only village or municipality that's dealing with this and having some issues. It has not been fun. Right. It it as Brian alluded to, you had distance requirements measured from the front door, then you had distance requirements
measured to the property line, then you had distance requirements to this front door on the same street. Right. And this is all within
years. Right. And at one point Most recent in one year. Right. At one point, like, community centers counted. Now they don't count anymore unless they're only for youth. It's it's just yeah. The parties. By the municipality. Right. Right. So it's just yeah. And I'm not even opining on the equal protection grounds. Right. They where where they distinguish between private and public entities Right. Without any rational basis establishing
a a reason for that. But that's the state, and they're gonna deal with those lawsuits. We don't we we have to just be as resilient
as we can be in what we are doing. Yeah. Well, and I think by taking an action that we are creating a moratorium, you know, and bringing it up to OCM, you know, it is a form of protest for this nonsense because it's not fair to the municipality, it's not fair to the trustees that pass this in good conscience under a certain set of rules Exactly. And then the and then the rules changed. And that's not fair. And then you don't have any way to We have no way of yeah. You can't back out. Yeah. Yeah. So, you know, I agree. I think we should do a moratorium. A little bit of fight to the OCM. I mean, you know, give us the rules. We'll play by the rules. If you change the you can change the rules. In the in the middle of the game. Yes. Okay.
So I didn't write a formal resolution for this, but, you know, be it resolved that the board of trustees Yeah. To public hearing for June 17 that that's so much. Moved and so voted.
should checked have it by a trustee. Go ahead. Ask the question. So if if we were to get like, I'm not I am in favor of doing this. But say we were to get an application, and it's for a v a store like, a space has been vacant for a really long time, and the
never mind that mhmm. Sorry. I was gonna say there's a hardship. Okay. So, like, an applicant is, you know, I mean They can owner? Yeah. They can come to the village board and say, basically, you know, I'm presenting an I'm asking for an exemption to the moratorium because of x y z, and then you could consider that. Okay. And then also, by doing this, we've created, like, a
corner on the market for things that have happened before the moratorium. Right? So I don't know I just I just feel like there's a little liability in doing this the way we're doing it Because now there's no competition. We already know we're having a dispensary coming in, and by not allowing another dispensary to come in, then there's only one dispensary in Croton, which we've been told is the only dispensary in this region, which is why it's gonna be such a traffic problem. I mean, I think if you I think if you were doing a moratorium for a long period of time, then that but, I mean, by the time the the moratorium the moratorium is probably gonna be halfway done by the time they even open. Right? Right. Exactly. I'm just saying I'm thinking about the fact that now we have give corner you know, given the one the the dispenser that was able to slip it, you know, to slide in before we got the You
are correct. There's always risks. Right. And moratorium affect property rights. You are I just wanna I just wanna just say that out loud because I don't think you're gonna You are taking a risk. There is a hardship lever that is supposed to alleviate some of the risk that happens with that. There is also generally, moratoria have been upheld a year to two years in various different ways. This one is a shorter time frame than normal. Yeah. That being said, it is an issue where the state has tried to preempt some things. Right. And you run into preemption issues whenever that happens. So we are we acknowledge that risk. I I could advise you further as to the the that that risk, but, you know, that's that's you are taking. But Yeah. I have to I just asking you take risk. To say it would be fair to say that we would reduce our risk
if we moved expeditiously on the amendment and got it done, you know I don't I don't know. And didn't go and have to extend
the moratorium. Correct. And you there is a a sister village that has done a similar, but not entirely
In the short Within the six month window, I'm not Yes. I don't think that there's a ton of exposure. Giving the public two right? So, you know, from the public perspective, like,
we opted in, and, again, the rules changed, which, again, is not fair. But we are giving the public a couple of opportunities here. So we're giving them the opportunity to weigh in on the moratorium, and then we're also giving them an opportunity to weigh in on any type of changes we make. Correct. Right? So it's giving the public an opportunity to also weigh in, which I think is important in this process. I couldn't agree more. Right. People wanna be able to Yes. Have lots of times to say what they think about this on whichever side they are. Okay. Yeah.
Oh, go ahead. Yes. So the heart committee, the the leadership has reached out and expressed their intent to resign. We have there's been some discussion about amending their status.
• Amending the status of the heartbeat. Of the heartbeat. Of the people who are But but when that was shared with them, they said the response was, well, we you could accept our resignations, appoint the successors, and then if there's a change, we can reconsider it. So I I think that there is actually a I I have full confidence in the people that are lined up to succeed them on the committee. And if that's the way,
that's what they've said, I'm fine with the I mean, would just like to say I don't all the discussion about this we had decided I thought we had informally decided that we were gonna make the heart committee an ad hoc committee so that the new rules about people serving on more than one committee would not apply to the H. A. T. Committee for a variety of reasons that we don't have to rehash at this late the hour. However, I I I think that I felt like the decision making about people stepping down because of the timing of the meeting and if we were gonna have a meeting next week, I just would like to pump the brakes on this because all of that happened in email discussions in the last well, now it's been probably five hours. But, you know, it it was very recently. So I feel like I would like to just put hold be able to just hold off all the other committees that we discussed and all the new rules are gonna move forward and just put a hold on the heart until we're able to have a conversation with those
I just feel like we've been I feel like I would be being rushed into the decision and Yeah. No. We don't trustees have weren't even on this. We don't wanna have my my ask to to this evening was to do the thirty day extension. But Yeah. They don't That's what I would like to do. What the mayor was saying, which kinda threw a wrench into what I was asking, is that the chair who was the person that we were doing this for Right. Said, well, I'm just gonna resign, and then you can reappoint me.
My sense is that this is a this is a person that really follows the rules. And by Yeah. Like, June 1 was the date, and there was a there's a desire not to break the rules. So I would like to
make it so that she's not Yeah. That's what I that's what I wanted to do. Right. Yeah. I'm in that's what I'm in favor of. Yeah. So do I have a motion to extend until June 30? So moved. Second. Motion by trustee Slippen, second by trustee Simon. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Alright. Do I have a motion to enter into an executive session to discuss matters of personnel concerning specific individuals? So moved. Second. Motion by trustee Simon, second by trustee Nicholson. All in favor? Aye. We will not be returning to public meeting from executive session. Thank you and have a good night. Thank you.