Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Code Animals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rejects immediate ban on keeping pigeons; staff and prosecutor say code needs clearer language
Summary
After a resident complaint about a property keeping dozens of pigeons, the Village Board considered an amendment to Chapter 6 to prohibit keeping pigeons. The motion to adopt the ordinance failed; the board directed staff to gather more information from the homeowner and report back.
The Village Board on July 21 considered ordinance No. 25-06, an amendment to Chapter 6 of the municipal code that would explicitly prohibit keeping pigeons. The amendment followed a resident complaint and a staff investigation that found multiple birds at a property; staff and the prosecuting attorney advised the current code did not clearly cover pigeons.
Nathan, a village staff member, told trustees that an officer had documented “dozens” of birds at the residence and that the municipal prosecutor, Rebecca Boyle, had advised staff that existing language on wild animals did not explicitly address domesticated pigeons. "It was her opinion that it was not," Nathan said, explaining why staff proposed a code change.
Trustees debated alternatives including limits on numbers and intermediate enforcement steps focused on nuisance conditions such as noise, odor and accumulated waste. Trustee Woods suggested pursuing intermediate remedies, like requiring cleanup or reducing numbers, rather than an outright ban. Several trustees said they wanted to hear directly from the homeowner before adopting a prohibition.
Trustee John Johnson moved to adopt the ordinance amendment; Trustee Thompson seconded. After discussion the motion failed. The board did not adopt the explicit ban, and several trustees asked staff to contact the property owner to gather more information about the birds and any possible mitigation.
Why it matters: prosecutors and staff said the change was intended to make the code clearer for enforcement. Staff noted that other municipalities sometimes allow domesticated pigeons and that the village’s existing chicken rules — which limit backyard chickens to four birds — are more explicit. Nathan said the complaint alleged about 50 birds at the property; he described the concern as primarily a nuisance claim (noise, droppings, odor) rather than a public-safety crisis.
Next steps: staff and the municipal prosecutor will follow up with the homeowner, and the board may revisit an ordinance amendment or a narrower regulatory approach later. The failed motion does not preclude future action.
