After 76 dogs, Lemont weighs household animal limits

Seventy-six dogs at one Lemont home and garage: enough to turn a search for firearms into an animal-rescue operation lasting upwards of nine hours. Now that discovery has put a different question before village officials—whether Lemont should limit how many animals residents can keep at home. There is no proposed number yet, and no new limit has been adopted. ^{1 5}

Police Chief Jason LoCoco is comparing other municipalities’ animal regulations before bringing the issue to the village board, according to CBS Chicago’s October 26 report. He says Lemont has no ordinance regulating the number of animals kept in a residential home. That is his account of the village’s rules, not an independently verified review of its code—and it does not mean animal-welfare requirements are absent. ¹

“We are definitely currently looking at whether there should be an ordinance,” LoCoco told CBS. “It was never an issue until it became an issue.” His words describe a review, not a legislative decision. The report identifies no proposed cap, exceptions, enforcement system, board consideration date or effective date. For residents, the practical answer is that the announcement does not establish a new household limit. ¹

The number 76 is the scale of this incident, not a suggested legal threshold. Any ordinance would have to do more than react to that extraordinary count: the board would need to decide what it wants to prevent, how it would identify unsafe keeping conditions and whether a numerical rule would serve that purpose.

In our October 26, 2026, report, aired at 03:36 UTC, we said 76 dogs had been removed from a condemned house and garage on McCarthy Road. We also reported that homeowner Andrew Malak, 58, faced multiple animal-cruelty counts and felony weapons charges. The latest developments are the village’s ordinance review, Malak’s pretrial release and a detail that complicates the earlier impression of a completed removal. ^{5 1}

Neighbors still heard dogs at the condemned property overnight Saturday, October 24. A rescue returned Sunday morning, October 25, to collect more, CBS reported. Neighbor Myra Bertling described hearing animals “that had been left behind.” Our earlier account should not be read as establishing that every dog was already gone before that weekend. The available reporting does not provide a complete, reconciled chronology of when each animal left or where each went. ¹

The search itself took place October 22 and began with an investigation involving firearms, not an inspection for exceeding an animal-number limit. Prosecutors say police responded in July to a report that Malak had threatened to shoot a utility worker; his firearm owner’s identification card was later revoked. Weeks later, a neighbor reported that he had threatened to kill her and her dogs. A detective then sought a firearm restraining order and a search warrant. Those threats remain allegations in an unresolved criminal case. ^{2 1}

Inside, officers encountered the dogs and housing conditions that prompted intervention. Prosecutors said ammonia levels were dangerously high, though no measured concentration or underlying test result is available in the reporting reviewed here. Other reporting described dirt-covered floors and walls and scattered debris. The house was condemned. ^{1 6}

“The living conditions and housing conditions for them was a bit deplorable and that’s why this action had to be taken,” LoCoco said. Yet he also described the dogs as healthy and cared for. Those statements concern different things: an animal’s apparent physical condition does not establish that its surroundings are safe. Nor does the description of the house establish a clinical finding for every dog. Comprehensive veterinary findings have not been supplied. ¹

By October 24, Chicago’s Anti-Cruelty had taken in 33 of the dogs—a documented destination for part of the group, not a complete placement record for all 76. Shelter reporting described many as undersocialized and needing individualized care. Removal from the property was an intervention, not the end of the work; permanent homes for every dog have not been confirmed. ^{20 6}

Malak says his intention was to save animals. In a text message to CBS, he wrote: “I was saving animals from being killed just like everyone is trying ... I was trying to create a two-tier program that helped pregnant dumped dogs with individuals with disabilities or older communities.” That explains his stated aims; it does not verify that such a program operated or that the housing was suitable. ¹

Bertling acknowledged the desire to prevent euthanasia while welcoming the dogs’ departure. “I think it just makes us all relieved they’re going to be in homes where they’re in a safe environment,” she said. Her relief is not confirmation that permanent placements have been completed. ¹

The criminal case remains separate from the village’s policy choice. A judge in Bridgeview denied the state’s request to detain Malak on a gun charge, and he was released pretrial. Release is not an acquittal. The report does not specify his release conditions; it identifies his next proceeding as a November 2026 status hearing in Bridgeview, without a day or time. ¹

One detail of the search also remains unreconciled. Earlier CBS reporting described three recovered firearms, while its October 26 account identifies two handguns. The newer report does not explain whether those handguns were part of the earlier total or whether the inventory changed. Neither figure can responsibly be presented as a newly settled total. ^{2 1}

For the village board, the next step is less dramatic than the rescue but consequential for residents: deciding whether to write an ordinance at all, then spelling out what it would regulate and how. LoCoco’s comparison of other towns’ policies is the identified starting point. Until there is a proposal, the discovery of 76 dogs explains why Lemont is asking the question—not what its answer will be. ¹