Croton’s Planning Board asked for clearer sign definitions, approval responsibilities and enforcement provisions during its May 12, 2026 review of the Village’s proposed sign-law rewrite. It also sought a 30-day response requirement for applications referred to the Advisory Board on the Visual Environment. This article is written solely from the meeting’s minutes; the archived original bears a DRAFT label. Croton News had no reporter present. The discussion concerned Local Law Introductory No. 7 of 2026, which proposed changes to Chapter 179, Property Maintenance, and Chapter 230, Zoning. The Planning Board continued its review with Village Attorney Jeannette Koster, participating by Zoom, and planner Bill Brady of Nelson Pope Voorhis, working through the consultants’ April 10 memorandum. The board wanted clearer definitions of commercial signs and sign area, including treatment of directional signs on commercial buildings, transparent signs and window decals. It also wanted clearer maximum-size language and an application section stating the requirements and size limits. The minutes state: “The Planning Board would like the code to clearly lay out the approval process”, including when an application goes to the VEB and when it goes to the Planning Board. Members discussed possible Zoning Board of Appeals relief for nonconforming applications. They wanted the law to specify that “when an application is referred to the VEB, they have 30 days to provide a response.” Temporary signs raised a separate set of questions: how long they should be allowed, whether a permit or fee would be required after that period, and whether existing signs would receive a grace period. Members suggested maintenance requirements and removal or violations for signs in bad repair. They also wanted to prevent temporary signs from being briefly removed and then put back. Dating signs when they were installed was one suggestion. Members proposed excluding legally required signage from permit regulations and reminding applicants to comply with applicable State requirements. The discussion also covered inflatable tube-shaped balloons, grand-opening celebrations, nonconforming signs and attachments to trees that would not injure them. The minutes record the board’s enforcement view: “The Planning Board believes that in order to ensure compliance, the sign laws should be strictly enforced.” Koster suggested adding a section addressing fines for noncompliance. Steve Krisky separately asked the consultants for recommendations on signs at Village entry points, particularly Route 129. Brady said a grant might be possible. Koster cautioned the board about allowing one group to post signs while excluding others. These were comments and recommendations on a proposed law. The minutes do not record adoption of the sign-law rewrite at this Planning Board meeting. The meeting also recognized Eva Thaddeus’s resignation from the Planning Board to focus on the Conservation Advisory Council. Members approved the April 14 Planning Board minutes as amended, 5-0, on Thaddeus’s motion seconded by John Ghegan. The meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m. *Correction, October 19, 2026: This article replaces an outdated agenda preview with the discussion and actions recorded in the May 12 meeting record. The preview also incorrectly described Trustee Stacey Nachtaler as mayor; that attribution has been removed.*