Waterfront committee signs off on Croton affordable-housing preference law and Half Moon Bay bridge rehab
Croton's Waterfront Advisory Committee voted 3-0 on Feb. 24 to recommend both an affordable-housing occupational-preference law and a NYSDOT plan to rehabilitate the Half Moon Bay Drive bridge as consistent with the village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program.
●Recommended LWRP consistency for Local Law Introductory No. 5 of 2026, adding occupational preferences for affordable housing (3-0)
●Accepted the Coastal Assessment Form and Short Environmental Assessment Form for the law, each by 3-0 votes
●Flagged a cross-reference typo in the draft law's waiver section (Subsection B should read Subsection C)
●Recommended LWRP consistency for NYSDOT's rehabilitation of the Half Moon Bay Drive bridge over the Metro-North Hudson Line (3-0)
Croton's waterfront review is complete for two significant village projects: a local law that would add occupational preferences to the village's affordable-housing rules, and a state plan to rehabilitate the Half Moon Bay Drive bridge. The Waterfront Advisory Committee voted 3-0 on Feb. 24 to recommend both as consistent with the village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program.
Acting Chairman Leo Wiegman led the session, with Deputy Mayor Len Simon, the committee's chairperson, and member Stuart Greenbaum absent. Wiegman, Trustee Stacey Nachtaler and Planning Board member Steve Krisky — the three members present — supported each of the evening's motions unanimously.
Occupational preferences for affordable housing
The Board of Trustees referred Local Law Introductory No. 5 of 2026 to the committee on Feb. 18. The measure would amend the affordable-housing provisions of Chapter 230, the village zoning code, to allow occupational preferences in new affordable housing units.
Village Manager Bryan Healy told the committee that adding occupational preferences has been a Village Board priority for some time, according to the minutes. Healy said the village has worked with the Pace Land Use Law Center and the Housing Action Council, and that an analysis of American Community Survey data showed the occupations under consideration — emergency service workers, medical service workers and veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces — are majority-minority.
The committee also caught an error in the draft law. On page 2, in the section on waivers, the text should read "If a site plan or subdivision applicant wishes to voluntarily provide more AFFH units than are required by Subsection C above," but the draft incorrectly cites Subsection B.
Nachtaler moved to accept the Coastal Assessment Form, seconded by Krisky, and Krisky moved to accept the Short Environmental Assessment Form, seconded by Nachtaler; both carried 3-0, with the committee determining no changes were necessary to either form. After reviewing all 44 LWRP policies and finding none applicable to the law, the committee voted 3-0, on Nachtaler's motion seconded by Krisky, to recommend consistency with the LWRP.
Bridge rehabilitation wins same verdict
The second referral involved a state Department of Transportation project: the rehabilitation of the vehicular bridge that spans the Metro-North Hudson Line at Half Moon Bay Drive. Because the project is a SEQRA Type II action, no environmental review is required. The federally funded project would rehabilitate the existing bridge without changing its footprint.
Unlike the housing law, this review did engage the LWRP. The committee's memo identifies some two dozen applicable policies, among them restoring deteriorating railroad-related structures, managing runoff so oil, grease and other contaminants do not pollute surface and ground water, timing construction in Croton and Hudson River spawning areas so anadromous fish and shellfish are not harmed, and protecting scenic views — including views of Croton Point and of the Hudson River from South Riverside Avenue and the Route 9 corridor. Finding nothing inconsistent, the committee voted 3-0, on Krisky's motion seconded by Nachtaler, to recommend the project as consistent.
What happens next
Both recommendations went to Mayor Brian Pugh and the Village Board of Trustees in memos dated Feb. 25. The board has since opened a public hearing on the measure and adopted it in June. The bridge project, administered by NYSDOT with federal funding, is moving forward as well: village officials reported this summer that final plans and specifications have been submitted to the state Department of Transportation.
Share
Community Discussion
0 comments
One email per new comment on this story. You'll confirm by email first; unsubscribe any time. Your address is never shown publicly.
Be the first to comment on this story.
Sent to the editor for review
This is what you asked us to forward to the Village Board:
An editor reads it first. Once it goes, your comment here
will show a ✓ Forwarded to the Village Board mark —
that is your confirmation.
Coverage of the Waterfront Advisory Committee meeting on 2026-02-24,
Village of Croton-on-Hudson, NY.
View original document ↗
●Motion to accept the Coastal Assessment Form for Local Law Intro. 3 of 2026 (3-0)
●Motion to accept the Short Environmental Assessment Form for Local Law Intro. 3 of 2026 (3-0)
●Motion to recommend LWRP consistency for Local Law Intro. 3 of 2026 (3-0)
●Motion to approve minutes of the October 14, 2025 WAC meeting (3-0)
●Motion to adjourn
●Resolutions Failed
●None recorded in the minutes
●Applications Reviewed
●None (no Planning Board or ZBA applications)
●Public Comments
●No public comments recorded in the minutes
●Reports
●Village Engineer Vincent Salanitro reported that the current Zoning Code amendments clarify definitions to make the code easier to understand and administer.
●Village Manager Bryan Healy added that the changes address inconsistencies throughout the code.
●It was noted that under New York State law, any change to the Zoning Code requires an LWRP consistency opinion.
Waterfront Committee Finds Sign-Code Changes and Curve-Warning Project Consistent With LWRP
●Review draft Local Law Introductory No. 16 of 2026, its environmental and coastal forms, and waterfront-policy consistency.
●Consider whether to recommend a waterfront-policy consistency finding to the Village Board; no committee recommendation or adoption of the proposed law has been reported.
●Consider approval of draft minutes from the September 16 committee meeting.
Experimental project: croton.news uses AI to generate articles from public records. Content may contain errors. Please report any inaccuracies and check our corrections log.AI-assisted experimental site — may contain errors. Corrections
Community Discussion
Be the first to comment on this story.
Sent to the editor for review
This is what you asked us to forward to the Village Board:
An editor reads it first. Once it goes, your comment here will show a ✓ Forwarded to the Village Board mark — that is your confirmation.