This account is drawn from the Waterfront Advisory Committee's minutes of the Aug. 25 meeting, which the committee approved on Sept. 16, and from the committee's Aug. 31 memoranda to the Board of Trustees. No video or transcript of the session was available. Croton's Waterfront Advisory Committee sent the Metropolitan Transportation Authority away with a list of questions on Aug. 25, declining to act on a referral asking whether the railroad's Harmon-to-Poughkeepsie signal system upgrade is consistent with the village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program and scheduling a follow-up meeting for September instead. The same session produced six unanimous votes clearing two proposed amendments to the village code. An MTA representative joined the meeting by Zoom and said the project would upgrade and replace signal and communications equipment along the northern portion of the railroad's Hudson Line, improving reliability and enabling increased capacity for trains running between the Croton-Harmon and Poughkeepsie stations, according to the minutes. The new signals would be raised above the floodplain. Work is not expected to start until 2027/2028 and would take approximately five years, though that span covers the entire corridor. Asked by Chairman Len Simon what residents can expect to see as the project is implemented, the MTA representative said it should enhance reliability. Visually, the minutes say, there would be signal huts on elevated steel platforms around the train station and outside of it. Near the station the structures would sit mainly within the Metro-North right-of-way, with easements still being worked out for a few other locations. Committee member Stacey Nachtaler asked how tall the proposed structures would be and was told they would be around 22 feet, including both the platforms and the huts. Nachtaler noted that the applicant had said the structures would not block sight lines, but raised concerns about 25 twenty-two-foot structures. Nachtaler also asked about construction of the platforms, noting that 1,000 people live right next to the train tracks. The applicant said it would prefer to work during the day rather than overnight and would try to mitigate the noise. The MTA does not have a contractor in place yet. Simon asked about the stations just north of Croton-on-Hudson, and the MTA offered to come back with information on those. The committee also asked about the project's impact on Croton Landing, as a major park, and on fishing along the waterfront. With many questions outstanding, members decided to schedule a follow-up meeting for September so the committee could be provided with more information, rather than issuing a recommendation. Committee member Leo Wiegman said he wanted the railroad to be more efficient and appreciated the MTA's willingness to provide more detailed information in September. The two local laws moved faster. Village Engineer Vincent Salanitro told the committee that both grow out of the state's changes to the State Environmental Quality Review Act: the village is updating its existing code to include language giving village boards the ability to ask for information on environmental issues that would previously have been captured during the SEQRA process. Local Law Introductory No. 13 of 2026 would amend Chapter 230, Zoning, to provide clarification in the review of site development plans. The committee reviewed the Coastal Assessment Form and noted no changes; Wiegman moved to accept it, Stuart Greenbaum seconded, and the motion carried 5-0. Members determined that no changes were necessary to the Short Environmental Assessment Form, which Steve Krisky moved to accept, seconded again by Greenbaum, carrying 5-0. After reviewing the 44 LWRP policies and identifying those that applied, the committee found nothing in the referral that was inconsistent; Krisky made a recommendation of consistency, Greenbaum seconded, and it carried 5-0. Local Law Introductory No. 14 of 2026 would amend Chapter 223, Waterfront Revitalization, to provide clarification in the review of land use applications for consistency with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan. The same three steps produced the same result: Wiegman moved to accept the Coastal Assessment Form, seconded by Nachtaler, 5-0; Greenbaum moved to accept the Short Environmental Assessment Form, seconded by Krisky, 5-0; and Krisky made a recommendation of consistency, seconded by Nachtaler, 5-0. It was during the second review that the committee's one substantive objection surfaced. Greenbaum stated that nowhere in the code does it mention the impact of site development on property values for existing homeowners, and asked that Nelson Pope Voorhis, the village's planning consultants, review the proposed language and give consideration to the concerns of existing property owners. Both recommendations of consistency went to the mayor and the Board of Trustees in memoranda dated Aug. 31. Those memos list the LWRP policies the committee found relevant, among them the protection of identified public viewsheds of the Hudson River, the requirement that construction cause no measurable increase in erosion or flooding, and stormwater controls on runoff from parking lots and storm sewer overflows. Each memo also identifies five of the 11 Section IV proposed land use and project policies as relevant, including facilitating access to the Hudson River waterfront, improvements at the Croton Yacht Club and Croton Landing, and a future-use plan for Gouveia Park. The signal upgrade is the business left open. The MTA is expected back before the committee in September with more detail, including information on the stations just north of the village, before the panel decides what to tell the Board of Trustees about a five-year construction program along the tracks.