Croton-on-Hudson’s revised rules for waterfront-consistency review took effect October 14, 2026, when Local Law 13 of 2026 was filed with the New York State Department of State. The law clarifies how the village agency responsible for approving an action coordinates its review with the Waterfront Advisory Committee, and how it must explain a finding that an action is consistent despite WAC’s recommendation that it is inconsistent. (Filed law, pages 1–4.) The effective date comes from the law’s own Section Eight, which says it takes effect “immediately upon filing in the office of the New York State Secretary of State”. The State’s filing stamp is October 14. The attached certification and adoption resolution record the trustees’ earlier October 7 adoption, by a 4–0 vote; the proposal was Introductory Local Law 14 before becoming filed Local Law 13. (Certification and resolution, pages 6, 8 and 12.)

Who coordinates the review

The amendments address Chapter 225, Waterfront Revitalization, including its definitions, management, consistency-review and enforcement sections. An “authorizing agency” is defined as a village-code-authorized agency responsible for issuing approval for an action. The lead agency or authorizing agency coordinates review of actions in the village’s coastal zone against the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, or LWRP. WAC advises and recommends; the reviewing agency makes the determination of consistency. (Sections 225-3 and 225-4, page 2.) The filed definition of an action covers Type 1 or unlisted actions under state environmental-review regulations, or a development project requiring special-permit approval or site-plan approval for a project with 5,280 square feet or more of habitable space. (Definition, page 2.)

Referrals, deadlines and disagreements

The lead agency or authorizing agency must refer the required review documents to WAC within 10 days. WAC has 30 days after receiving the referral and required documents to provide its written recommendation. It may seek more information, documentation or a consultant, with an extension requiring agreement between the lead agency and applicant. If WAC does not respond within the specified time, the reviewing agency makes its determination without that recommendation. (Section 225-6, page 3.) WAC must explain whether a proposal is consistent with the waterfront program’s policies and may recommend modifications or approval conditions. If WAC recommends that an action is inconsistent and the lead agency or authorizing agency reaches the opposite conclusion, that agency must put its reasons for disagreeing in writing and explain how it considers the action consistent. (Review provisions, pages 3–4.) The law also addresses an action the reviewing agency itself finds inconsistent with one or more policies. Proceeding requires a written balancing finding that considers all four listed factors: no reasonable alternative allowing the action to proceed consistently; minimizing inconsistencies; advancing other LWRP policies or proposed projects; and an overriding village, regional or statewide public benefit. That finding must come before a determination of consistency. The agency may impose reasonable conditions to ensure compliance. (Section 225-6, page 4.) For projects subject to Chapter 225, the enforcement section requires the village engineer to receive a written consistency determination before work starts, except for direct actions. If work violates the chapter or an imposed condition, the engineer must issue a stop-work order and work must cease while it remains in effect. (Section 225-7, page 5.) Read the complete 12-page State filing, including the enacted law, certifications and adoption resolution.