The Croton-on-Hudson Planning Board approved a security-minded redesign of Temple Israel of Northern Westchester's entrance Tuesday night, granting the amended site plan, wetland activity permit and special permit needed to turn three confusing doors into one clear, controlled main entrance at 31 Glengary Road. The board closed a public hearing that had been open since Feb. 24 and attached conditions covering demolition staging, plan submissions and inspections before the temple, part of the village for more than 75 years, can build. "The temple currently provides a vibrant home for 275 member families from many towns and villages in Northern Westchester, including Croton,"Read 2:00▶ the chair of the temple's building committee told the board, describing a building that houses a sanctuary, meeting spaces, a nursery school, classrooms and a religious school. The problem the design solves is that visitors cannot tell which door to use. "There's no clear main entrance. So instead, there are three points of entrance currently,"Read 4:25▶ a principal with KG+D Architects, the project's design firm, told the board. "The proposed solution is to create a clear main entrance on the Northwest and to promote that with a new canopy."Read 5:06▶ Under the approved plan, the northwest entrance becomes the main entry, announced by a new canopy styled to match the temple's existing southern canopy — similar light fixtures, ceiling finishes and steel detailing. "We're not trying to add, like, a new aesthetic feature to the building,"Read 5:46▶ the architect said. Daily visitors will pass through a new outer door into a secured vestibule, check in at a security window and be buzzed through a second set of doors. The southern entrance remains a secondary door for large events, staffed by volunteer ushers, and the northeast entrance becomes exit-only — though it can still be opened remotely, a point one questioner pressed in asking how emergency personnel would get in if the other entrances were inaccessible. Because a significant portion of the building already sits within the 120-foot wetland buffer of the stream to the north, the exterior work required village wetland review. The total disturbance is in the low hundreds of square feet, according to the applicant's representative from Insite Engineering, who said silt fence will be placed between the construction area and the wetland. "there's no new impervious surfaces associated with this work,"Read 17:38▶ the representative said, adding, "this is just a a very small amount of work that will have no material impact on the wetlands."Read 17:54▶ Board members concentrated their questions on demolition — where debris would be staged so nothing leaches toward the wetlands, and whether asbestos or lead could be disturbed. The applicant said materials would be tested and a hazmat report prepared as needed, and the board wrote the concern into its approval: final plans must show an appropriate staging area for materials coming out of the building, to the building department's satisfaction. The resolution deems the project a Type II action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, records land disturbance under 5,000 square feet — leaving stormwater signoff to the village's stormwater management officer — and notes that no trees are being removed. The temple's submission also included a request that the village waive its fees. The site-plan approval expires unless a building permit is issued and work is begun and diligently pursued within three years. The resolution sets separate deadlines for the associated permits: the special permit expires after two years unless substantial construction has begun, subject to a possible one-year extension; the wetland permit expires March 24, 2027, or upon completion of the specified work, with renewal available by application. Three signed and sealed site plan sets must accompany the building permit application; the approved plans are the KG+D sheets dated Jan. 21, 2026 and an Insite Engineers site plan dated March 9, 2026; and inspections must satisfy the village engineer before a final certificate of occupancy is issued. The conditions were read aloud before the vote. John Ghegan made the motion to approve, which was seconded and carried. The final minutes record a 5–0 vote. Steve Krisky did not participate in the hearing or the vote — Krisky recused himself when the hearing opened in February as a temple member involved in the design and application process, and joined the meeting only afterward to help review the board's February minutes. The board chairman was openly supportive of the presentation. "the entrance confusion when I've been there before is real,"Read 19:26▶ the chairman said of the current layout, adding, "I think it's well thought out and and nicely presented."Read 22:03▶ The rest of the meeting turned to whether the board's advisory work travels anywhere. Members asked what becomes of the recommendations they draft on village local laws — among them a proposed affordable-housing law with occupational preferences and the board's push for more flexibility in parking requirements — and whether memos written from their discussions come back to the full board before heading to the Board of Trustees. "I just wanna make sure that the output of our work is being used,"Read 33:37▶ one board member said. Village Attorney Joshua Subin said he, Planning Board Secretary Karen Stapleton and Village Engineer Vincent Salanitro had sent the memo on the board's recommendations to the trustees. What happens next is up to the trustees: "the board of trustees doesn't have to take it up,"Read 35:26▶ the attorney said, noting that trustees have statutory control over their response. Parking code changes are under review but not yet ready to come back to the board. In the engineer's report, Salanitro said rental registry letters have gone out to property owners; the registry covers anyone renting out a house or apartments in the village, commercial rentals included, with the requirements laid out on the village website. Salanitro is compiling a list of the village's existing special permits from an email by Village Manager Bryan Healy — an earlier look had turned up perhaps 15 — and said roughly 35 of the village's 50 allowed accessory dwelling units have been permitted, by the last count. A subdivision application at 52 Mount Airy Road, recently before the Zoning Board of Appeals, has been referred to the Planning Board and is expected to arrive soon. The temple's project now moves to the building department for permit review. On the village's horizon: the Mount Airy Road subdivision application and a parking-code discussion expected to return to the Planning Board.