Cannabis Dispensary Plan for South Riverside Sparks Debate Over Traffic, Safety, and Village Character

The question of whether a state-licensed cannabis dispensary fits into the fabric of Croton's downtown dominated a lengthy Planning Board work session Tuesday night, pitting promises of a high-end retail experience against resident fears of increased traffic and safety risks near a daycare. The applicant, Mindset Cannabis Shop, seeks approval for a change of use from retail to a cannabis retail dispensary at 370 South Riverside Avenue. The meeting, which stretched approximately two and a half hours, was the Planning Board's first formal review of the application. The Board engaged in a detailed negotiation over "time, place, and manner" restrictions—the only levers available to local officials under state law. The discussion ranged from the technical logistics of security cameras to the philosophical character of the village's gateway.

### A Data-Driven Defense of Traffic and Parking Central to the Board's inquiry was whether the dispensary would generate more car and foot traffic than the existing deli. Attorney Micci Weiss presented data from the company's Tarrytown location to assuage concerns. He argued that the cannabis shop would actually result in fewer daily trips than the convenience store it replaces. Vincent Silvestri, the designated operator, said he will be on-site seven days a week. "The current retail shop sees approximately 250 customers a day. The average duration time of each customer spends inside the store is approximately ten minutes," Weiss said, citing current conditions. "The cannabis shop is anticipated to see about 125 customers a day, half as many customers as the current use who will each spend an average of less than five minutes in the store." {{quote:466}} He emphasized that unlike a grocery or convenience store, most cannabis transactions are pre-ordered, quick in-and-out exchanges. "Most people that do visit the store are an in and out. They they don't wanna hang out. They're regular. They know what they want. They've ordered it. Most people are just pre ordering, walking in and walking out," Silvestri said. {{quote:2590}} To address the Village's parking requirements, the applicant proposed a mitigation strategy that includes obtaining parking permits for a lot on Benedict Boulevard and, if necessary, obtaining parking passes at the train station for employees. Silvestri assured the Board that customers would not be left circling the block. "We check ID twice in the store, which is not a requirement under the regulations, but it's best practices," Weiss said. "Once you get inside the store, that person, once they get to the register again after they've walked around and made their choice, they're gonna be checked again their ID before they check out." {{quote:628}} Weiss argued that strict security measures, including double-ID checks and surveillance, would deter loitering. If someone leaves the store and litters, the applicants believe they will see it on the cameras and address the situation. The applicant also committed to a soft opening rather than a large ribbon-cutting event if the Board preferred. ### The Daycare Dilemma and Legal Constraints Despite the applicant's concessions, the majority of public comment focused on a factor the Planning Board is legally barred from considering: the proximity of Happy Hearts daycare. Under New York's Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA), dispensaries cannot be located within 500 feet of a school. However, private daycares that are not regulated by the education department are exempt from this buffer. Village Attorney Jeannette Koster confirmed at the outset that Happy Hearts does not trigger the state's distance restriction, meaning the Board cannot legally deny the application based on its location near the daycare [Board Of Trustees 2026-01-14](/article/22). This technicality did not sit well with residents. Drew Gamils, a Young Avenue resident, argued that Happy Hearts' participation in the state's Universal Pre-K program should subject it to the same "school" definition used for other proximity protections. "I urge the board to ask for clarification about the site protection proximity... because I do think that OCM got it wrong in this case," Gamils said. Several speakers expressed frustration that the Village Board opted into the cannabis program without first establishing local zoning laws that would have restricted such businesses to discrete areas away from children [Board Of Trustees 2026-02-11](/article/13). Susan Skrelja of Truesdale Drive read a prepared statement saying that gun shops, strip clubs and gambling facilities, like this cannabis dispensary, are legal, but not appropriate for a Village this size. Skrelja believes that the Village Board should have opted out from having these types of businesses, and that the Village failed to protect us and protect the character of the Village. Chris Roose of Truesdale Drive added that the business will have black out windows and age restrictions, giving off a different feel from existing businesses, more like a strip club or casino. Roose thought the Village deserved some grace, as they believed that this spot would not be approved by the state due to the daycare. Brian Cook of Truesdale Drive raised concerns about security, noting that the products sold in this shop will have a higher dollar value than items sold at the convenience store. Cook also expressed concern about the Blaze event held in Croton every year from August through November, and told the applicants they are not wanted here. Cathy Connolly of Young Avenue urged the Planning Board to deny the dispensary at this location as it serves as a primary entryway into the Village. Connolly also pointed out that this location is in close proximity to the Chapel playground, where young children play basketball.

### Traffic Congestion and the 'Gateway' Aesthetic Beyond the daycare, residents voiced strong concerns about traffic congestion at the intersection of South Riverside and Grand Street, a major gateway to the village and a route frequently used by commuters accessing the train station. Drew Maniglia of Hastings Avenue argued that a high demand business like this would import not just foot traffic but a lot of cars to the already congested three-way intersection, making it harder to walk and bike to the train station at peak times. However, not all residents were opposed. Riley Moeller, a local business owner whose bike shop is located two doors down from the proposed site, supported the application. He contrasted the proposed dispensary with the existing businesses that already sell alcohol and tobacco, noting that the site currently sells beer and cigarettes. "Again, there's liquor and cigarettes being sold in this location right now. We're just gonna sell cannabis. Both of those products or all three are for sale to those 21," Weiss said, echoing Moeller's point. {{quote:6512}} Moeller added that he welcomed the foot traffic and does not think this will lead to people smoking pot on the street. Dan Calandro of Briggs Lane also spoke in support, saying he has been to dispensaries that are nicer than doctor's offices and is not worried about people smoking outside. Calandro thinks there will be less traffic from the cannabis shop than the current convenience store. ### Balancing Hours and Public Safety Toward the end of the session, the Board discussed operational hours. The applicant requested a schedule of 9:30 AM to 9:30 PM, citing the need to accommodate residents coming home from work. Steve Krisky suggested the applicants agree to open from 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM, and the applicants countered with 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM. Board members expressed a desire to see the store close earlier to ensure the evening quiet of the adjacent residential neighborhood. The applicant resisted cutting hours before proving whether the business would be a nuisance. "To ask us to open later without giving us the shot to show you that there's gonna be no impact is is a little difficult for us to swallow," Weiss argued. {{quote:6876}} Ultimately, the Board reached a compromise of 9:30 AM to 9:00 PM, which the applicant accepted. Eva Thaddeus stated that, in response to residents who had concerns about an increase in crime, she reached out to and spoke to a police lieutenant in Ossining who said that there has not been an increase in crime since the dispensaries opened there. Chairman Luntz added that he agrees that this is not the right location for this establishment, but understands that the applicant looked at alternate locations, and the Planning Board is held to the law, therefore, he cannot find a reason not to move ahead with the application. The Board then voted 5-0 to approve the change of use from retail to a cannabis dispensary at 370 South Riverside Avenue, with conditions including a grand opening coordination plan, operating hours of 9:30 AM to 9:00 PM, ongoing police coordination, customer-only parking signage, off-site employee parking, signage review by the VEB, and full state licensing prior to opening. The motion was made by Steve Krisky and seconded by John Ghegan.

--- **References used in this article:** - [Board Of Trustees — 2026-01-14](/article/22) · Croton DPW boss urges board to let bigger cities test new tech first - [Board Of Trustees — 2026-02-11](/article/13) · Trustees reject biased $36,500 village court study proposal