Documents › Planning Board, 2026-07-28

site plan 9 pages Scanned/OCR — text may contain errors

Also attached to this agenda item: 425 S Riverside Ave-Croton-Site Development Plans Architectural Plans 425 S Riverside Signed 7.17.26 Coastal Assessment Form Fiscal Report 425 SRA Full Environmental Assessment Form Gateway Overlay District Compliance Memo Landscape Plan 425 SRA NPV Memo 425 S Riverside Ave 07-24-2026 Neighbor Letters x 2 425 SRA PB Application PB Cover Letter 7.13.26 Preliminary Wastewater Engineering Report

Karen Stapleton From: Chris Roose Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2026 2:48 PM To: Brian Pugh; Board of Trustees; Karen Stapleton Subject: Building Croton's Future Through Thoughtful Growth External (chrisroose@fastmail.com) Safe Spam Phish More... FAQ Protection by INKY *** CAUTION: External sender.*** Dear Mayor, Trustees, and Members of the Planning Board, | am writing because | care deeply about Croton and the direction it takes in the years ahead. | know many of you personally, and | have seen the time, energy, and care you bring to serving this village. Local government requires difficult choices, especially at a time when communities everywhere are grappling with housing affordability, changing demographics, and competing demands on limited resources. Croton should be part of the solution to the housing crisis. We should welcome new residents and create opportunities for people to build their lives here. The question is not whether Croton should evolve; itis how that evolution can best serve the village over the long term. Too often, the housing conversation is framed as a choice between doing nothing and building large- scale developments. There is another path. Thoughtful planning can add homes that fit the character of Croton while providing the range of options people need. Missing-middle housing -- such as duplexes, townhomes, and small multi-family buildings -- can expand opportunity while preserving the walkable neighborhoods, connections, and sense of place that make Croton special. The discussions around Lot A and the special permit application at 425 S. Riverside Avenue. reflect a broader question about how Croton approaches development. Lot A was rezoned as a transit-oriented development opportunity near the train station, a designation typically associated with walkable, mixed- use districts that integrate housing, commerce, and public life. In practice, the Lot A process shifted primarily toward residential density. Croton’s own history shows that the area around the railroad once supported a vibrant commercial district that served as a focal point for employment and civic life. The lesson is not that the village should recreate the past, but that transit-oriented development succeeds when it creates places where people can live, work, gather, and connect. The separate proposal at 425 S. Riverside Avenue. raises a related question about scale, context, and whether individual projects are being considered as part of a larger vision. The issue is not simply how many homes can be added, but what kind of place is created for the people who will live there—including whether they can move safely through the neighborhood, enjoy a healthy environment, and experience a high quality of life beyond their front doors. The village’s handling of the cannabis dispensary application highlighted another important aspect of public decision-making: transparency, communication, and trust. Regardless of one’s views on the 1 proposal itself, many residents were concerned that the village missed an opportunity to advocate clearly for local interests and that the public was not meaningfully informed or engaged until very late in the process. Confidence in local government depends not only on outcomes, but also on the process that produces them. Croton’s identity has always been built on more than buildings and tax revenue. Its landscape and character have long attracted people who saw this place as something more than a suburb—a setting for creativity, experimentation, and new ideas. Artists, writers, and social reformers have found inspiration here, drawn by the belief that communities can be shaped around shared values and a richer sense of human connection. That legacy is not simply part of Croton’s histon;; it is part of what gives the village its character today. My hope is that Croton’s continued evolution reflects the best of what has always made it distinctive: a place that is welcoming, creative, connected, and mindful of the character that makes it unique. Housing, development, and change are part of any living place. The responsibility is to guide those decisions in a way that builds upon what already exists rather than diminishing it. Growth is inevitable. The challenge is to ensure that it reflects the values and vision that have defined Croton for generations. Chris Roose 55 Truesdale Dr. 2 Rita Wilcox 8 Devon Avenue Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 July 23, 2026 Planning Board Village of Croton-on-Hudson 1 Van Wyck Street Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Dear Planning Board Members, | am writing to urge the board to protect the community character of Croton by denying the site plan for 425 South Riverside Avenue. | am a native of Croton and in 1967 purchased the house in Harmon that | am presently living in. The proposed building would be only a few hundred feet from my back yard. | would essentially overlook the roof of the building. Croton is a unique historic village with beautiful vistas, historic homes and a small-town vibe. People move here and stay here because Croton has avoided the faceless overdeveloped sprawl that plagues so many other parts of Westchester County. The proposed three-story, 49-unit complex is completely out of scale and out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. It is an overly aggressive use of a highly constrained fragile, steep slope piece of land. Please protect the visual and structural character of our village and deny this application. Don’t let the gateway to our village feel cramped and overbuilt. Thank you. Ki. We 7a t | Hole 6 Young Ave. Village of Croton Stanley H. Kellerhouse Municipal Building One Van Wyck St. Attn: Planning Board: | am writing to cppose the proposal of 425 Riverside Avenue. based on the severe traffic and safety issues it will cause. Anyone who drives through our village knows the this specific stretch of South Riverside Avenue is already a heavily congested bottleneck. It sits directly across from the busiest commercial hub in our area: the ShopRite plaza entrance. On any given afternoon or weekend, traffic is chaotic. Cars are constantly turning, delivery trucks are blocking lanes, and drivers are distracted. Now, the developer wants to inject the vehicle traffic of 49 new residential households directly into this mix.lf you assume a modest average of 1.5 cars per unit, that is roughly 75 additional vehicles pulling out onto, and turning across a major village artery every single day during peak commuting house. When the Blaze is going on during the Fall, the traffic is also immense. My deepest concern is pedestrian safety. This area sees heavy foot traffic from residents walking to the store or navigating down toward the train station. It is not a matter of if an accident will happen, but when. A project of this density does NOT belong on this specific corridor. Our roads cannot handle it and the safety of our pedestrians should not be compromised for a developer's profit margins. | urge the Planning Board to DENY THIS SITE PLAN APPROVAL. Thank you for taking the time to reevaluate this proposal. | am unable to attend the meeting . Elizabeth A Burns Page 1 of July 26, 2026 Planning Board Village of Croton-on-Hudson Stanley H. Kellerhouse Municipal Building One Van Wyck Street Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Attn: Karen Stapleton Planning Board Secretary CC: Board of Trustees I am Joe Bencivenga. I reside at 18 Devon Avenue, here in Croton. I want to offer some observations on the proposed residential development, 425 S Riverside Avenue, specifically the fiscal aspects. Anticipated Revenue On the question of tax revenue, we have only the report of the developer’s consultant to rely on. The Village assessor has offered no estimate of the assessment of the project and has made it known to the consultant, according to the consultant's report. “The assessed value of the Proposed Action will be determined by the Village of Croton-on-Hudson Assessor following completion of construction and therefore is not available at this time.” (p.8 of July 13, 2026, Fiscal Report). If the consultant can estimate the anticipated tax revenue, why can’t our own assessor do the same? Is the Village assessor’s estimate not critical in the determination of whether the project is a plus or a minus for the taxpayers? Letter to the Planning Board, July 28, 2026, Cont’d School District Impact Here we have only the consultant’s report for reference which report says the additional annual school tax revenue will exceed the additional cost to educate a projected 11 school-age children. I am sure you have read the consultant’s report but might I ask you to look it over again, particularly p. 10. No mention is made there of any contact with the School Superintendent. We don’t know if the Superintendent was approached by the consultant only to be rebuffed or if there was no contact with him at all. I placed a call to the Superintendent Stephen Walker but received no reply to date. I wanted to ask his opinion on the consultant’s projection of school age children and on the costs associated with educating them. Will more teachers be needed? Is the school district prepared to absorb the student influx in terms of space, equipment, transportation? Are the developer’s estimates reasonable? If there is anyone you would want to talk with about these issues, I would think it would be the Schools Superintendent. Yet we have no record of any such contact. Impact on the Police, Fire Protection, EMS, Parks and Recreation Functions, Water and Sewer Service: As you might expect, the consultant’s conclusions are predictable. For the Police: “The proposed increase in population will not result in a need for additional staff, vehicles, or facility space, therefore, no significant adverse impact to the Police Department is anticipated.” (p5) For Fire Protection: “The proposed increase in population will not result in a need for additional staff, vehicles, or facility space, therefore, no significant adverse impact to the fire district is anticipated.” (p.6) 2 Letter to the Planning Board, July 28, 2026, Cont’d For EMS: “The proposed increase in population is not likely to result in a need for additional staff, vehicles, or facility space, therefore, no significant adverse impact to the EMS district is anticipated.” (p. 6-7) For Parks and Recreational Facilities: The proposed increase in population is not likely to result in a need for additional parks and recreation staff, equipment, or facilities, therefore, no significant adverse impact to Parks and Recreational Facilities are anticipated. (p.7) For Solid Waste and Recycling: The proposed increase in population is not likely to result in a need for additional staff, vehicles, or facility space, therefore, no significant adverse impact to Solid Waste and Recycling are anticipated. (p.7) For Water: The consultant demonstrates that its calculators are working fine but offers no opinion on whether the water demand by the project will require extensive modifications to the infrastructure to meet the needs of the families who will occupy the residences. For Sewer: The consultant sidesteps what structural changes must be made to meet the demand for wastewater disposal and instead attempts to paper over the issue with calculations of estimated gallons of wastewater, wastewater generation of so many units per day, and the like. None of the conclusions above are the result of contact with people ‘in the know’, i.e., the department heads. Why not? I've been told by an anonymous source that it is likely that more hires will be needed in one or more of the various departments in response to this and other multi-residential developments in the pipeline. If that information is true, the consultant’s report is possibly unreliable. 3 Letter to the Planning Board, July 28, 2026, Cont’d It is a foregone conclusion that if 425 S Riverside doesn’t overstress the Village fiscal and financial resources--which I believe it will--surely it and the other multi-residential development in the pipeline near the train station will. It is myopic to view this project as a standalone, ignoring the other planned project. Need for Independent Professional Review On projects like this one municipalities have been known to hire their own independent review consultant. The Planning Board has had no such independent resource hired or available. Why not? Please note that the consultant Kimley-Horn never found a multi-residential project in New York State it did not like. On the contrary, Kimley-Horn has served consistently as the applicants’ advocate opining favorably on all multi-residential projects in the State to date. To conclude, the Planning Board is being asked to approve the applicant’s request for a special permit with no input from the Village’s own assessor, with no independent review by its own consultant, and with no input from its own department heads. If you were faced with a serious medical diagnosis, which of you would not seek a second opinion. Yet here on this controversial project we are doing exactly that. This is hardly an exercise in prudence. In these circumstances I don’t see how you can make an informed decision on the matter before you. In the best interests of the Village residents, at the very least you must postpone any decision on this proposed development. If you must decide at this time, then denial of the permit would be the only prudent decision. pete V (Bercivonga. Joseph V. Bencivenga 18 Devon Avenue Croton on Hudson, N.Y. 10520 4 Croton-on-Hudson Planning Board 1Van Wyck St. Dear Chairman Luntz and Members of the Planning Board: I am writing regarding the proposed development at 425 South Riverside Avenue. I wish to address the severe environmental degradation that will occur if the 425 South Riverside proposal is approved. The parcel in question contains a vital stand of mature trees and natural vegetation that climbs the steep slope. This green buffer serves several critical ecological functions. It absorbs carbon, mitigates local heat, provides a habitat for displaced local wildlife, and acts as a natural visual buffer that preserves the small-town aesthetic of Croton-on-Hudson. Building a massive three-story complex here means clear-cutting this hillside. We will be replacing a living ecosystem with an imposing wall of wood, glass, and concrete. The destruction of these mature trees will permanently scar the corridor. The developer must be forced to rigorously analyze the environmental damage they are about to cause and look at less dense alternatives. Better yet, given the high environmental risks of this specific terrain, the board should deny the special permit entirely. Frank Burrows 13 Devon Ave.