Thank you, Debbie. Welcome everyone tonight to the June 16 meeting of the Croton and Hudson zoning board of appeals. Before we start, in case of emergency, there's two exits. One out there in the back and one here. We only have one item tonight on the agenda, so we'll get right to it. It's an interpretation of village zoning code, and a village engineer will present his application.
Hello, everybody. I'm basically just asking for an interpretation of this sentence.
• That's it. It's hard to interpret it. It could be interpreted in multiple ways, so I don't need to know how to enforce the law.
• That's it. That's all I got. That's it. I know we I know everyone's had information on what exactly the code is,
• but I will read the code section,
• which is
• Article 239.1, section,
• What is it? A a a 10 a 10 f. Mhmm. Keeping domestic animals except pigs for individual domestic purposes or as pets provided that not more than three dogs over six months old and not more than 25 fowl shall be permitted. And no animals except dogs or cats or fowl shall be penned or housed within 50 feet of the lot line. So that is what you're looking for, the interpretation Yeah. Of of what is there any specific
part of it? Yeah. So question number one, what's included in the definition of foul? And then question number two, are foul allowed to be penned housed within 50 feet of any lot line?
Those are the two questions that I'm asking for interpretation on. Okay. And you're, you don't need one on on the definition of domestic animal? You could give me that as well. That would be
yeah. If you wanna interpret that as well. Okay. We'll see how we'll see what the board the board thinks. Okay. Thank you. No problem. So now we're gonna open it for public comments. Before we start, though, just remember the comments are about the code. They're not about specific property or specific situation. It's interpretation of code. So any comments you have, about this code section and your interpretation of it, are welcome.
• So, come up Eddie, can you, come up to the table, say your name and address?
Hello. My name is Matthew Rubinstein. I'm on Trussell Drive in Croton, and I I thank you for interpreting this. I know that there has been some ambiguity detected, and I in discussions of my own with the engineering department over the past few years, there's been some noting that, the the way that code sentence is structured with comma separated clauses sometimes might be different to a lawyer than to an enforcement person or to a resident. And I think it's good that, there's some interest in making this clearer not just for the application and enforcement, but also just for anybody in the village who wants to abide by it and, you know, be able to interpret it, and we're all on the same page. So I appreciate that this process is is happening. I did wanna say that, you know, I I actually I'm kind of a nerd. I read stuff like this, you know, from time to time, and, I think I get it. It's actually fairly clear to me, but I would mention that it it's what's clear to me in terms of the questions. The the the main question of or the first question of whether foul are allowed within 50 feet of a lot line. I think that is pretty clear. I mean, even where there's sort of some commas and stuff, it finishes with whatever whatever. Or fowl shall be penned or housed within 50 feet of any line, but it says no animals, and then there's some other stuff. Or fowl shall be penned or housed within 50 feet of any lot line, and I I think that that's pretty clear. I do think that it is interesting, if there is a definition of foul, although I also think the dictionary definition is pretty clear.
• You know, they're birds. And that, but I think the wider interpretation of domestic animals, I suppose that that is subject to perhaps, you know, more interpretation in the practical conditions in the village. But I do also think that the current specifications, which, you know, accepts pigs or mentions, you know, some numbers of dogs and cats, I think it's fairly clear. So I just wanted to kinda speak up that way to show that, you know, people like me or just residents are interested even, you know, whether we're interacting with the villagers doing their own thing and that that that this will be very helpful to all of us. Thank you very much. Thank you. You.
Hi. Andy Andy Simmons, 146 Old Post Road North. I'm my neighbor has just built a pigeon coop next to our on our next to us. And as far as my wife and I are concerned, we're not concerned about this at all. So, you know, particularly fine. I know you asked about us just dealing with the code, so I apologize about that. It's, so I don't know whether it's 50 feet or whatever it is, but I do know that in general, it does not bother us and what have you. Maybe it's 40 feet, I have no idea. But, I just wanted to say, I just wanted to say that part. Okay.
Hi, everyone. My name is Tony. I live on 148 Old Post Road. I'm the one who's bringing the pigeons in. I'm guessing everybody has some information about the pigeons now, which I sent some documents. As I'm pretty sure that most of you guys have pets, cats, dogs, you could prob you can't probably imagine your life without them. So for meats, it feels the same. For me, I treat them as they are my own kids. I clean them. I keep them well. I vaccinate them
• two to three times a year.
Excuse me. We're we're trying to talk about the definition, not the specific situation.
Yes. But it it I feel like, one, I brought it up, which I was trying to do everything right the right way. You know, like, stuff was trying to change like, the codes was changing. So I just, like, wanna let everybody know that I I bought the house for these pigeons, and I can't you know, like, I called I called the town. I called you guys over here, and I, like, to find out if I could keep the pigeons, and I got the answer, yes. I, like I mean, I could I could have them, and that was the reason I got the actual house for them. So, I mean, I spent a lots of money on this. I spent a lots of money building the shed. I pulled a permit. I we got the permit signed off. I I bought the house where it is, and I just feel like
• I'm not feeling very welcomed, honestly, right now.
Well, we're we're looking for the interpretation of what it means. Yeah. So we're not here to say your situation is good or bad or No, no, We're I looking at the global picture of what the Village, you know, this is gonna apply interpretation, whatever we say and whatever the Board of Trustees says is going to apply across the village. Okay. It's not simply, I mean you're, it's helpful to have these kind of cases because it can help clear up any ambiguity in the code, and it helps us, understand where where the holes are in the code. Okay.
So So is there something I need to do to put the pigeons in a coop, which is already been built?
We're not we're not here to talk about your specific situation. We're talking about
• the specific code. General gen it's a general code thing. It's not as specific to you.
I understand. That will that the word that's the reason I actually came here because I had this isn't my first time being, you know, to to a place like this. So I don't even know what to do, honestly, what to say. But
Well, this is a unique situation. We usually don't have this. Usually, it's about a specific property. Right. But this is kind of a global code issue we're dealing with, so that's why we're trying to stay away from the particulars because what we're gonna talk about is the interpretation.
It's gonna apply across the village. There's other forums that you'll be able to advocate for yourself, but Like in terms of your situation, but this we're we're we're we've been asked to help the building department interpret the zoning code. Okay. So if not you know, it may be related to an to a question that's come up in a specific property or not. Okay. So while I'm here, is there something that
I you know, what what I can do to just get it done and, you know, like because I'm I'm having them in the boxes in the basement, they're honestly dying from the heat. I I have them for for months like that. I just
I feel like I'm killing them. We appreciate that. We're that's why we're here tonight to interpret the code. And from that, we'll go back to the village engineer and and he can help you with the enforcement options that that are available to you and to the village.
Okay. Alright. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Thanks a lot. Thank you.
• That's it. I don't have anything else.
That's it. Okay. Okay. So let's close the public hearing, and I think we have a few things to talk about. Number one, with regards to the interpretation of the code. Number one,
• are pigeons considered domestic animals? Number two, are pigeons considered fowl? And from that, we can the third thing is the 50 foot the 50 foot rule. Right? I mean, that's the way I see it. I don't know if anyone has any I'm not sure we're
actually being asked to discuss any particular species. I think the question Or yeah. Maybe you're yeah. Yeah. Think what as I understand the question that we've been asked, we're being asked to provide a Well, to provide an answer to the question, what's included in the definition of foul.
• So that Okay. That's kind of what I prepared to ask questions That's a better.
So let's talk about the first part, the domestic animals. Does anyone have any thoughts on that?
• From what I've seen and from what I've read, you know, dugging up, and I would say that
• That's kinda what I would wild forest or you have a
I would say. My understanding is it's not non wild animals that are maintained by humans for human benefit. Sorry. I
I said before, if anybody didn't hear me, in my in my opinion, a domestic animal is any any animal that's not wild that's being taken care of by by a a human being.
Excuse me. I'm sorry to interrupt. There was a couple that just arrived a few minutes late for the public hearing. And so there's an ask whether you could possibly consider letting them speak.
Can we reopen the public hearing? Yes. Okay. So we can reopen if you guys have wanna have anything to say. As I said, we're not talking we're not talking about a specific situation. We're talking about the interpretation of the code. So anything you can add, your thoughts on how the code should be interpreted are are welcome.
Okay. Hi. Can you hear me? Okay. I just wanna thank you all, first of all, for your service. I know it's a lot of work. And to recognize that part of your role is about health and safety. Excuse me. Could you just state your name? Oh, sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Allison Rosen. And your address? Old Post Road. Okay. I support the pending village ban on pigeons, which is consistent with other municipalities in the county. And for tonight's item, the 50 foot lot line setback requirement with the exception of cats and dogs, for all residential zones. Pigeons are not biologically foul, but they're a scientifically distinct species, and I urge you to specify that pigeons are also excluded from being kept by residents under current code just as other nuisance animals or large exotic predators would also be prohibited under current code even if they're not all listed. Pigeons are known carriers of several diseases that are highly communicable, airborne, and dangerous to humans, particularly children or immunocompromised individuals and seniors. As we continue to receive alerts regarding avian flu, it's crucial to protect our neighborhoods from unnecessary exposure, especially given the current allowance of 25 fowl. Additionally, pigeons reproduce very quickly, which could increase their numbers beyond the 25. Their droppings have fungal spores that can cause infections in humans, including cryptococcus, a lung infection that can also cause meningitis, and histoplasmosis, another respiratory disease that causes flu like symptoms. Further risks from bacterial infections include, psittacosis, sorry if I said that wrong, also known as parrot fever, a respiratory illness contracted by inhaling infected dust and droppings, salmonellosis, and ectoparasites like ticks, mites, and fleas. Those impacts can can get into neighboring homes through open windows, vents, AC systems, etcetera. And indeed, a large number of cooped pigeons would fly around for exercise or race training, settling on neighbors' fences, decks, patios, gutters, and trees, leaving droppings that spread disease and damage homes, cars, outdoor furniture, and playsets.
• Further, pigeons attract rats and predators which bring other diseases and risks to neighbors and pets like cats and dogs. That imposes health risks and eradication costs for neighbors. Please act in your public office to prohibit this type of health, safety, and quality of life consequence in our densely populated neighborhoods, reinforcing common use definitions that exclude pigeons and especially help protect young children, elderly residents, and those who who are immunocompromised.
Thank you. K. Thank you. Does anyone else wanna speak? Let's reclose the public hearing. And
• I guess the next thing we talk we talk about is what's a fowl. And I don't know, it seems there's two ways of looking at it. The broad
• fowl is any bird, which from what I learned comes from the old English word for bird, or the scientific definition of what is afoul, which seems to be two separate orders, which seems to be, I would say, the modern definition of of what's considered a foul. So I don't know what people think. I don't know if you wanna start. Well,
I'll just start simply with, you know, we say except dogs or cats, which are also kind of lay terms. They're not scientific names for species. That's a good A a tiger is a big cat. So I think that we my inclination is to interpret fowl with the number one result on the Merriam Webster dictionary, is a bird of any kind, the same way that when we say cat, we're interpreting cat in the lay use of the term. And I, in my lived experience, have seen fowl usually referred to as a bird of any kind.
disagree. I I think fowl, because there's another section of the code where where the village says bird or fowl. Mhmm.
So that's what I mean, we're we're trying to interpret what what was meant by when the village did this, I would think. And That actually
You wanna go ahead? Leads me to a question. Just listening to Ethan and Jim, it's pretty clear that there is no specific definition of what a foul is. I was not able to find a definition of foul under New York law. There was nothing in New York state law. There's nothing in Westchester County code nor is there anything in our zoning code that defines the word foul. And then if you go to things to secondary sources, dictionaries, encyclopedias, things like that, there's different definitions of Falcon, and there's different definitions based on context and different definitions based on usage. So
• so in in my view, the it's the narrow answer to the question that's put before us, which is what is the definition of foul? Actually, the answer is there is no definition of foul that we have to guide us to interpret
• this code position provision. It's there is I agree with Jim that there's common usage of foul, geese and ducks and chickens and, you know, poultry, but there's also a different definition which is which is widely used,
• meaning all bird of any kind, and that's depending on who you talk to you're going get a different definition. So at the moment I don't think that we have a definition that we can look to, and if to the extent that we have to provide an interpretation, I would go broader. You know, if the if the village decides they want to read, you know, to edit or change the code, that's fine and the village can do that. But from the purpose of interpreting what's here, I think you need to go as broad as possible.
• That's my conclusion. Yeah,
I think I'm the only one who disagrees because I think where the village talks about keeping or harboring of any animal, fowl, or bird.
That Well, actually leads me to to sorry to interrupt. Yeah. Sure. Go ahead. As a follow-up question to to Vinny or or Ron, has any I I think I think there there are a number of provisions in the zoning code that actually set forth the legislative history. Like, for instance, the section on our zoning code for steep slopes has a big long paragraph legislative history. And as many people know, when you're interpreting legislation, if you find something that's ambiguous or potentially overly broad, one of the first places you go to look is the legislative history. That can be memos, that can be discussion from meetings of the board. And I'm wondering whether we have located any, you know, anything that could look like legislative history to define foul for us.
So the village was incorporated in late nineteen thirty one when we came up with the original village code. And I think that the major revision was in the early sixties. I'm thinking '61. I saw that this particular section, I believe, was in that original 1931. It was a different the zones were differently, but I think that this provision was in the original code.
• So
so you could there's nothing in in in a file in a Wrong. File cabinet somewhere that might We we took a look at the e code 360, which is where the village code is online, and we did not find anything about the legislative intent for this code.
Right. Thank you. Thank you for that. I do take notice that in looking at this application, I looked online and there are a number of municipalities that get quite specific in how how animal ordinances and and laws are written. And in in particular, the analog to this provision that allows you to pan or house certain types of animals on your property. Many other municipalities actually do provide a detailed definition,
and we we don't. Right. And I think that that I know this is being discussed with the board trustees. Right. So I so hopefully that will, you know, save this from happening in the future. Yeah. Yes. Provide clarity. And provide more specific
Yes. But, you know, this this this wording goes from, like, the 90 years old. Yeah. It's I mean, and and and if it's that old, then then probably the interpretation may be that it was any bird back then.
You go all the way back to old English? All the way closer to old English. Acknowledging your point, though, there I know there was a section in our code that says bird or fowl. So there's some inconsistencies in the drafting. Right. Right. But we're we
I guess we're here just to to to make a a judgment on what we all think on on what on what it is. And then okay. So so fowl shall not be permitted
• when no animals except dogs and cats or fowl shall be penned or housed within 50 feet of a lot line. So if it is so any so no fowl. So if we're saying all birds are fowl, then no birds can be within 50 feet of the lot line. So we're we're gonna transition to that next Well, I mean, it's it's Yeah. Well, it says no animals except dogs,
That's the interpretation that we're deciding between those two options. Actually read it I read it differently, Doug. I I read it that the only exception is dogs and cats. And no animals except dogs or cats. It's like animals are fowl. And I think Ethan And no animals fowl. Well, I'm gonna be in the Doug camp on this one because animals
would encompass fish, birds, frogs, anything. So then you'd feel like the exceptions would be the dogs, cats, or fowl. Mhmm. Although I see why the the lack of a second comma makes it But but the
unclear. The comma would be after fowl then. I think this is, they don't want Right. That's what I would have been I would have wanted to see dogs, cats, and fowl without any comments. Except dogs, cats, and fowl, except all three of those. But I look at and it's not beautifully written, but it I I really I see dogs 31? Yeah. Dogs or cats. He said no animals except dogs or cats, and then or fowl shall be penned within 50 feet. So I think Yeah. I tend to agree with you, Bill. If if if they meant dogs, cats, or fowl, it would have been dogs or cats or or fowl, comma, after after fowl. Yeah. I mean, I really read that as nothing she can be within 50 feet. No animals between within 50 feet and what's up dogs and cats. Yeah.
Do have a a general question in terms of past enforcement presence, which is that other like, any kind of bird being kept, has it historically been seen as the latter or the the former in terms of within 50 feet of lot line being the requirement?
We have not required setbacks from lot lines Yeah. I for animals I for bowel. Mhmm.
I think this is and they they didn't they didn't want cows or horses, bigger, larger animals within 50 feet. They had to be. I think this is saying dogs
I I I interpret this to be you can have a penned dog, cat, fowl less than 50 feet, the way it's written. I think reasonable people could disagree. Yeah. Just
I'm just saying that I think that comma the comma is is the comma after cats is the one that that makes me
agree with agree I with wanna see dogs, cats, and fowl in one in one parenthetical. Yeah. Those two commas make it a parenthetical. And then the or fowl really is should have been connected to the animals. And, you know, we've seen that there are some inconsistencies in the code. Like, for instance, Jim pointed out that there's another provision that talks about bird or fowl. We can find that provision, but it it's
there's some looseness in the way some of these terms are used in the code. But, again, we don't know when that was written. If that was written after the 1931 original one. That's and we're talking about the keeping and harboring of animal, follow, or bird, which by causing frequent alarm, continued noise shall disturb the comfort any person residing in in city. In the noise ordinance. Right. So that's the noise ordinance. That's not even zoning. Noise. So it's not even zoning. That's that's a separate ordinance. Village Village code provision one sixty dash four d. Correct. Those what is the section? One one sixty four d. It's in the memo. Right. So and zoning is two thirty.
If you didn't hear me, I I said my interpretation of this is that the intent was if it was a larger animal like a cow or a horse,
• then they if it was in a pen, it had to be at least 50 feet from the property line. Since this is saying no animals except dogs or cats or fowl shall be penned or housed within 50 feet, I interpret that to mean that you you're allowed to have chickens a coop that aren't 50 feet away from the lot line. And a lot of people I mean, not a lot, but I know some people that have chicken coops that Mhmm. Are not would be out of compliance if that's the interpretation.
And and just to circle back since I wasn't talking loud enough before, I think reasonable people certainly could read it that way. I think, I don't have any data on intent. There's no data on intent. So I can't really I can't really look at it and say what I think guessing the intent. What I think what the intent was. And looking at the the wording, I I look at except dogs and cats as the only parenthetical there, and that the fowl are included in no animals to be penned or housed within 50 feet of the hotline. I think that, to me, that that makes the most sense based on the sentence construction. My Even if it hasn't been applied.
My largest concern is that if we go with that interpretation, which either way well, I don't interpret it that way. It's over the placement of a comma that's confusing. We're effectively saying to have foul, you need to have a 100 foot wide lot. And that does not reflect the vast majority of lots in Cronin. And certainly for a piece of code permitting some whether it's all birds or some birds, it was to permit bird species on the property seems like a very big leap, and change in past enforcement precedents and something that I would hope would be resolved through village legislation and a cleaned up code rather than this zoning board.
Well, I think ultimately that's what's gonna happen. I I think we brought up enough issues here that, you know, we we can't the board can't even agree on on on what what a clause reads. So, you know, a reasonable person needs little more clarity of what's what's what what the village wants. And, you know, as Bill said, a number of other villages have very extensive definitions of what's allowed and what's not in terms of animals and birds. So, I think that's probably a good guide for the village to use for for for amending this code, you know, particularly since it's 1931 when when things were different. It
• Absolutely.
Yeah. Wouldn't I'd be surprised if they want because I don't think we're gonna at that. Yeah. Absolutely. Gonna get a consensus Well, the question then becomes do we need a consensus? Do we do we One. On these issues? Well, guess that's the question I have and maybe someone who can help me with,
you know, normally you have the five factors. How how do how do we what gets how does this get resolved from
our from our board standpoint? I mean, you can ask us to you can essentially ask us to take all the evidence that has come in online and this in this hearing and present a report based on all of that, and then you guys can make a determination as to what you want to do.
When you say what, but but how do we I I I think we're to the point where we're kinda clear, we have opinions and what we think both on
• what's a foul and and interpretation of the 50 foot rule. Mhmm. Do we you know, normally, we have the five factors. The five factors, are they applicable here? Do we need to discuss them? Or
is it just we vote? The whole code. It's not, right, a variance for one property. Right. Right. We're we're we're we're
just making inter the the zoning board of appeal, the the interpretation is this. I think you make a vote, Yeah. And it's majority.
And we have do we have two votes on the two separate? Yeah. I think we should have to have two votes. Yeah. And and I think it it sounds to me like we're probably three to two on both of these issues. And that's the case, you know, even if we've made a decision, I think that that's really interesting information for the village to take into account that it's not unanimous. Well
I am tending to go your guys way on the foul now due to the age of the code. And
• you know, as you said, the expansive definition of what a foul, And I think it's up to the Village Board of Trustees to tighten that definition, but for our purposes,
• I'm more inclined now than I was when we started this.
• But I still think that fowl should be that it's animals or fowl.
That no animals or fowl should be penned or housed within 50 feet of lot line. I mean, the second definition on Merriam Webster is a cocker hen of the domestic chicken, especially an adult hen of any of several domesticated or wild, galenacious birds. Like, if that was in the code as a definition of fowl or was the instead of using the word foul, that was used, then that would be a very clean Right. Way of stating it. We probably wouldn't be It wouldn't be her. Yeah. But since it since there is another definition and it's any kind of bird, that's where I get hung up on it since that's also a very common use of it.
Okay. So let's vote. Do we even need to I think we should vote on domestic animals. How do we vote on that? What's considered a domestic animal? Do we need a a definition of that or do we
That wasn't in the original application. So I'm I'm Right. Okay. So we so we don't need to worry about that. I mean, I know but Vinny did ask us to opine on that. I don't know. Whether we wanna take some time to think about that or whether
it seems obvious and you can To me it seems obvious. Okay. So I don't know what even if I've we need got an opinion. I mean, I don't I don't know what I mean, my suggestion would be to
charge the charge the village attorney with presenting a clean resolution for you guys to vote on before you take a vote on anything. So, take all the evidence that we've gotten, work with you guys on a clean what what you guys wanna do and then vote on it at the next meeting? That would be my suggestion rather than voting on it here. I'd like an an interpretation
of this meeting if we can because it's a pressing matter, and I'd I'd like some type of an answer on something. Well, and and just It sounds like all the information that you guys have have you guys have all the information already. You know what you're discussing. Do you need anything on domestic animal at this point? I would like something on domestic animal as well. If not, I'm gonna have to interpret it to the benefit of the applicant. So
Yeah. I mean, to me, it's any animal of any any any being or animal, non human being that that is being maintained by humans for human's benefit.
I agree with that. Yeah. Agree with that. I I I mean, I I to me, I think Alright. Doesn't have to be food. Doesn't have to be, you know So we can take a vote on that. So so our vote would be that different that our definition we interpret domestic animals to be animals that are
Harbored and maintained by humans for their benefit. Right. Harbored and maintained.
Not wild animals. You got a better Right. Better definition? Not potentially better. I just wanted to float it as an as a one option, which is sticking with the the Merriam Webster definition, of adapted over time as by selective breeding from a wild or natural state to live in close association with and to the benefit of humans so that we have, like, a verbatim I'm not gonna argue with your reference. Yeah. I'm not yeah. That's fine. No. The same thing. But Yeah. Then but then we don't have, like, two different sources for like, we're just sticking with Okay. So let's vote on that. Someone who wanna make a motion? I move that we adopt the Merriam Webster definition of domestication.
• Okay. So let's move on. Foul.
• Does someone wanna make a a motion
• that we will consider, the expansive definition of foul?
bird? Any kind. It'd be bird of any kind. Okay. Second? That's also Merriam Webster. That's also Merriam Webster. It's The first number one. That's all And also, we'll clarify first one for the don't definition of domestic as well. Okay. It's it's the old English.
• Okay. Yes. Yep. Okay. Now the third one is shall foul be hand or house within 50 feet of a lot line. Right? Mhmm.
• So does someone wanna make a motion that Fowl shall be allowed to be penned or housed within 50 feet of a lot. I'll make that motion. I I don't think Who wants to does someone wanna second?
• shall be allowed to be penned or housed within 50 feet of any lot line.
• You changed.
No. I'm I'm opposed to no. I'm I didn't change. We might need to do it again. We'll pause in between. Let's do the voting. Do you So so if we if if we didn't understand what we're voting on, then we ought to clarify it. Yes. We're being asked to answer the question whether the code permits Fowl to be pinned within 50 feet, not whether we think that they should be Yes. Yes. The lab. Yes. Yes. And I think I think the code as written allows dogs and cats to be within 50 feet of the wild line and nothing else. Right.
And I see that since it's animals and then except dogs, cats, or fowl, that any other animal than dog, cats, or fowl would be exclude that have to be outside the 50 feet lot line, like a pig or a sheep.
And, obviously, nondomesticated animals like a a tiger would be no, period. Mhmm. Based on my interpretation of the code, Fowl would not be allowed to be within 50 feet of the of the law line. Right. Whether whether that's what the village ultimately wants to do or not is a different question. And whether we personally think that should be, I think is a different question. I think we're being asked to interpret the code. Right. So they made a motion to that
that the that the code should be interpreted, that follows should should be allowed within 50 feet. With the code as it's written, yes. Right. Okay. Second that. You second it, and then we'll take a vote. All in favor of allowing foul within 50 feet? Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. So three and all opposed?
I just wanna thank you guys a lot. I'm sorry for bringing this confusing code to you guys to interpret today, but I appreciate it. It's gonna help us enforce the code. Right. And, hopefully, we can get a cleaner one in the future. I think it also helps the village
see the holes that are in Oh, yeah. In the code, and and hopefully, will adapt it and revise it accordingly.
This point, I'd almost look at anything over, you know, almost a 100 years old and just read, like, say, okay, does this section of code read in modern English? Because I I see that it came down to comma questions.
So so the only thing we don't have the five factors. So the only thing we have left to do are the minutes From the last meeting, I went through them, I didn't really have any comments. I don't know if we were all here, so we can all vote.
• Does anyone have any No comments on the minutes. Does someone wanna make a motion to approve?
I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from last meeting. Well, I I think that there's, there is one mistake.
• All in favor? Aye. Aye. K. Thank you. I'm right for I don't know. Meeting's adjourned. D o u One t. Two t's.