Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.
The North Salem Planning Board met in person and via Zoom on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, at 7:30 PM. The board set a public hearing for a fill permit renewal, granted AT&T Mobility a second extension, and recommended an increased removal bond to the Town Board.
Lorusso fill permit renewal (28 Whittier Hills Dr., owner Julia Lorusso): The board reviewed a Chapter 89 fill permit renewal. The original permit received final approval in 2022 but expired, and Lorusso reapplied. Instead of removing the previously imported soil as originally required, Lorusso requested to keep the stockpiled soil on site. Soil testing, witnessed by the town engineer and building inspector, was performed after the soil had already been stockpiled; board members discussed whether the blended soil was representative of all soil on the property. Geotechnical consultants reported one slight exceedance of trivalent chromium above residential criteria, but not above restricted residential criteria, and recommended the soil could be used as regrading material. Lorusso said the testing focused only on her property and that the exceedance was minimal. Board members indicated comfort with leaving the soil on site if a demarcation layer was installed, and discussed ensuring adequate topsoil depth (4–6 inches) for vegetation. The board also noted the restricted residential category prohibits vegetable gardens. Pending items included responses to the town engineer's Hahn memo, particularly whether the infiltration system will discharge above or below contaminated soils, and updated plans showing the soil will remain on site, the demarcation layer, and revised cut/fill numbers. Lorusso asked whether the public hearing could be waived; the board said Chapter 89 Section 6.4 requires a public hearing and it could not be waived. The board voted to set a public hearing for July 9, 2025, at 7:30 PM. The applicant was directed to send the public hearing notice to owners within 500 feet, after confirming she had obtained an updated assessor's list, and to have her engineer update the plans and respond in writing to the Hahn memo before the hearing.
AT&T Mobility (101 Bloomer Road, owner Bloomerside Coop.): The board considered a draft resolution granting AT&T Mobility a second 90-day extension of its exemption and approval, from July 7, 2025 to October 6, 2025. AT&T representative Cecilia Todd explained the delay was due to difficulties obtaining signed mylars from the property owner and tower owner, including lost initial mylars, and said she was completing the other requirements of the February 5, 2025 resolution. The board approved the extension. The board also approved a resolution recommending the Town Board increase the existing $25,000 removal bond by $45,000 for a total of $70,000 for the AT&T Mobility facility, based on the Town Engineer's review. Board staff said they would coordinate with the town clerk and town attorney on whether to execute this as a second bond or a redone single bond.
Next meetings and administrative updates: The board scheduled its next regular meeting for July 9, 2025, instead of July 2, and a work session for July 16, 2025. The chair reminded members of the annual four-hour planning board training requirement and encouraged online courses, including NYPF offerings. The chair also reported Town Board updates: a short-term rental discussion may be scheduled for a Town Board work session; a Croton Falls Sewer District item is on the next Town Board agenda; and a Croton Falls Master Plan public hearing is set for July 8, 2025, and may remain open through the summer.
All right. So the North Southern Planning Board of meeting of June 18th, 2025 is called to order. The first item on the agenda is the LaRusso. Chapter 89 fill permit renewal. This is a case where a permit was given final approval in 2022 and it has expired, so the property owner has reapplied for her fill permit. And at the same time has advised us that contrary to the original approval, which required the removal of the soil that was brought in. Her plans are now to keep the soil on site. None of the soil is cle is clean. So the there was testing done. It was not done in accordance with the approval plan because the soil had already been stockpiled. But the testing of the soil was witnessed by our town engineer and our building inspector. And I guess the first question is a level of confidence that the soil that was stockpiled was duly representative of all the soil on the site and with the testing done there, that we're comfortable that it rep it's representative of all the soil on the site. But you can have I understand that, but now this board has to take a position as to whether or not they are comfortable with the soil testing. We have the report now from the um GEO company that did the soil testing. Um we see that there are some similar results from the soil that was on the neighboring property. Um it seems to me personally that since all of the soil had been mixed and moved around, that it we probably could have a level of confidence that it um I don't know if it all came from the same site, but it certainly um was piled and then pushed around and piled and pushed around. So it certainly seems blended. Yeah, it blended is a good term, yeah. So um assuming that we expect to be. So can we just can we just just to be Julia? Could you identify yourself when you speak, please? Thank you. Um yes, it's Julia LaRousso's got my name there. Um I I just want to clarify for the record though, so everyone's familiar that we're not assuming anything is the same as any neighboring property. We're focusing on mine and my soil testing only. Um and the only thing that was slightly above, there was one thing that was hit slightly above residential, which was the tribal and chromium, which was a very minimally above the residential limit. Um, so I don't know if you want to read that report, share that report. If I I don't know if everyone's reviewed it. Everybody has received everything. Thank you. And it did not exceed restricted residential either. So it was very minimally over, and it's only the trivalent chromium, and it was not hexament chromium. We know that we all got the report. Um so the first question to the board