HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-10/15/2025 Glenn Goldsmith,President �QF sorry Town Hall Annex
A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President �Q� ��� 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski J l Southold, New York 11971
Liz Gillooly G Q Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth Peeples • �O Fax(631) 765-6641
COU
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, October 15, 2025
5:30 PM
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Eric Sepenoski, Trustee
Liz Gillooly, Trustee
Elizabeth Peeples, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Administrative Assistant
Lori Hulse, Board Counsel
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening, and welcome to our Wednesday,
October 15th, 2025 Trustee meeting. At this time I would like
to call the meeting to order and ask that you please stand for
the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance is recited) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll start off the meeting by announcing the
people on the dais. To my left we have Trustee Krupski, Trustee
Sepenoski, Trustee Gillooly and Trustee Peeples. To my right we
have the attorney to. the Trustees, the Hon. Lori Hulse, we have
Administrative Assistant Elizabeth Cantrell, and with us tonight
is Court Stenographer Wayne Galante.
Agendas for tonight's meeting are located out in the
hallway and also posted on the Town website.
We do have a number of postponements tonight.
The postponements are, in the agenda, on page five, under
Wetlands and Coastal Erosion Permits, numbers one and two, as
follows:
Number 1, Stephen Kiely, Esq. On behalf of 1000 SOUNDBEACH
DRIVE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit for-the as-built addition of approximately 15 cubic yards
of sand within a 2, 090sq.ft. Minimally sloped area to level up
the lawn with the grade being raised ±2 inches and sod installed
Board of Trustees 2 October 15, 2025
on top; as-built installation of two (2) untreated wood tie
planters with-west-planter- being 50' long by 3' wide -by-.10" -hi*gh
and east planter being 32' long by 3' wide by 10" high, witha
sod egress to the beach and two (2) fireplaces installed between
the planters.
Located: 1000 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-1-5. 1
Number 2, Docko, Inc. On behalf of THE CARROLL M. CARPENTER
REVOCABLE TRUST requests' a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit to remove the existing landward wood ramps and construct
a new landward 7 " wide by ±42 linear foot long access ramp to
pier with handrails and two beach access stairs; in-place
reconstruction of existing 7 ' wide by ±112 linear foot long
fixed pier with handrails; reconstruct existing 7 ' wide by 22 '
long fixed "L" pier with' a ships ladder; install a new 31x20'
hinged ramp to a 8'x15' floating dock secured by four pilings; '
install two new tie-off piles, and relocate existing tie-of
pile; and to install new water and electric to pier.
Located: 2512 Brickyard Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-7-4-3.1
On page 12, numbers: 22 through 25:
Number 22, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of THE D. B. ROBINSON
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove
existing 100 linear foot long concrete bulkhead with steps to
beach, and construct a new 100 linear foot long vinyl bulkhead
with 5'x6' steps to beach in same location as -existing; and to
establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer
along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 915 Mill Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-3-37
Number 23, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of BAILEY INVESTMENT
GROUP II, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing
4'x30' fixed dock and construct in-place a new 41x30' fixed dock
that includes 4' wide landward steps up to fixed dock and 4 '
wide seaward steps down;' and for a proposed 41x20' long fixed
"T" section off seaward end; all decking to be Thru-Flow; and to
maintain existing 25' wide non-disturbance and 15' wide non-turf
buffers.
Located: 910 Glenn Road,, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-27
Number 24, Jeffrey Patanjo .on behalf of DONNA & GERALD
ZUKOWSKY requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
existing timber bulkhead' with 105' of new vinyl bulkhead in same
location as existing and raise the bulkhead height 12 inches
above existing; install two 10' long vinyl returns; and to
establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer
area along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 1235 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-8
i
Number 25, AS PER REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN AND PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 9/15/25 Jozsef Solta Architects on behalf
of JOHN WIRTH & LINA PILSHCHIK requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish and remove the existing dwelling, deck and septic
system; construct a 2, 670sq.ft. Two-story dwelling with two
132sq. ft. Ground floor front porches, a 12" high by 14 ' long
Board of Trustees 3 October 15, 2025
retaining wall with two 26sq.ft. Platers under the dwelling
separating the parking area and brick patio; a 283sq. ft. Front
first floor deck, a 356sq.ft. Rear first floor deck, a 126
sq.ft. Second floor balcony, and multi-zone mini-split heat
pumps with condensers for a/c units; construct a 15'x40' (4'
deep) saltwater swimming pool with a 1,530sq.ft. Pool patio
including a 480sq.ft. Covered dining and bbq area; install 4'
high pool enclosure fencing, pool backwash containment system,
and pool equipment area inside storage area; install an A/I OWTS
sanitary system; install a Cultec drainage system for stormwater
management; re-grade areas around the new dwelling an pool
patio; install a gravel driveway with covered parking area;
install a solar-panel system in lieu of a generator; and to
plant native, salt-tolerant plantings such as American
beachgrass, northern bayberry, seaside goldenrod, tufted hair
grass, eastern red .cedars, American holly and chastetree.
Located: 1230 North Sea Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-5-10
On page 13, numbers 26 through 29:
Number 26, THOMAS &! JENNIFER SMITH request a Wetland Permit
to demolish the existing one-story dwelling and construct a new
one-story dwelling in-place consisting of raising the existing
foundation ±16 inches to meet FEMA compliance, and backfill
inside entire foundation with compacted clean fill; construct a
1, 203sq.ft. One-story dwelling with two 19.5sq. ft. Stoops and
one 15sq.ft. Stoop; remove/abandon existing septic system and,
install an I/A OWTS sanitary system with 42.29 cubic yards of
clean fill and a retaining wall enclosure of a 0.7'H x 20.5'L x
8"W section, a 1.1'H x 4.3'L x 8"W section, a 1.5 'H x 22. 1'L x
8"W section; relocate 201L.F. of Belgian curb; existing brick
walks and patios to be removed and replaced with concrete pavers
and permeable stones; install a stormwater drainage system for
the dwelling and garage; for the existing 12 .5'x24.5' garage and
to construct a second-story addition with a 'i bath, a 3. 6'x6'
second-story balcony and' a 13.2'x3. 6' exterior landing with
stairs to grade; install. a 41x6' outdoor shower off garage;
construct a 10'x10' pergola; install a 6.8 'x7. 9' jacuzzi on an
elevated berm that sits 33 inches above current grade; remove
existing retaining wall behind garage and construct a 26'L x
33"H x 8"W retaining wall; install underground water and
electric; and to establish and perpetually maintain the entirety
of the property except for a 380sq.ft. Area be a non-turf buffer
area.
Located: 3121 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-6-10
Number 27, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of
MICHAEL J. & ALEXANDRIA PRISCO requests a Wetland Permit to
remove and dispose of the existing 61x44.' catwalk; construct
in-place a new landward 4 ' wide staircase up to a 41x5' platform
elevated 4 .5' above grade leading to a raised 41x50' ramp
leading down to a 4'x30' catwalk; reuse existing 31x16' ramp and
6'x20' floating dock situated in an "L" configuration; remove
Board of Trustees 4 October 15, 2025
existing pilings and install two (2) new anchor pilings; and the
existing landward wood walkway to dock to be removed and
replaced with a mulch walkway.
Located: 905 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-139-1-17
Number 28, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION & PLANS
RECEIVED 7/2/25 L.K. McLean Associates on behalf of NORTH FORK
COUNTRY CLUB requests a Wetland Permit to remove dead, diseased,
or damaged trees within an approximately 18, 000sq.ft. Area with
all tree removals to be conducted in a selectively and minimally
invasive manner to avoid disturbing the surrounding habitat;
within an approximately 7,500sq.ft. Area of the wetland itself,
selectively remove invasive plant species using best management
practices, and for the trimming of phragmites down to spring
high water (el. 4.01) .
Located: 26342 Main Road', Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-109-4-8.3
Number 29, L.K. McLean Associates on behalf of AWC
DOCKSIDE, LLC requests alWetland Permit for Marina improvements
consisting of the as-built 61x981 , 61x218' and 6'xl2. 10'
(±1, 988sq. ft: ) Sections of CCA decking along top of existing
southerly bulkhead section; within a 10' wide area in front of
existing bulkhead section incidentally dredge ±140 cubic yards
over ±1, 600ssq.ft. Area to a max. Depth of 6' below Mean Low
Water (EL. -8 .86) to reclaimsoil lost from behind existing
deteriorated bulkhead; excavate ±2, 015 cubic yards of material
over an area of 4,030sq.ft. Between existing and proposed
bulkheading to elevation; -8.86 max (6' below Mean Low Water)
with unsuitable material; to be removed from site; remove ±160
linear feet of existing bulkhead and install new ±161 linear
feet of vinyl bulkhead varying ±15 ' to ±32 ' landward of existing
bulkhead location and ±1. 8' higher than existing bulkhead;
install a 22.3' north vinyl return and a 14' south vinyl return;
construct a 26' long vinyl slotted breakwater off north end of
bulkhead; create nine (9) 151x35' slips by installing 10 new
mooring piles and 10 new guide piles; install a 4 'x40' gangway,,
one (1) 8 'x53' and' one (1) 61x102' floating dock parallel to new
bulkhead and install five (5) 41x30' floating finger docks off
of 6' and 8 ' wide floating docks; spread dredge spoil and raise
grade in area landward of new and portion of existing bulkhead
approximately 4" higher (±140 cubic yards over an area of
12,200sq.ft. ) ; in an area around existing concrete slab, spread
excess fill taken from area landward of bulkhead and raise grade
approximately 18" (±230 cubic yards over an area of
4, 140sq. ft. ) ; a proposed pump-out truck with 1,.000gal. Capacity
with potable water washout; and with the use of a turbidity
curtain during construction.
Located: 5505 West Mill Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-6-1
On page 14, numbers 30 and 31:
Number 30, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of HALLE
EATON requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing two-story
dwelling, existing shed and brick path; construct a proposed
Board of Trustees 5 October 15, 2025
two-story 3, 684sq.ft. Dwelling with an 81x52 ' covered front
porch; a 10'x92' first floor rear deck with pergola and `
15.51xl7 ' steps to grade; two 171x17' second-story rear decks; a
171x38 ' in-ground pool, pool enclosure fencing with gates, a
pool equipment sound deadening enclosure, and a pool drywell;
install an irregularly shaped 271x68 ' wood deck around pool
leading to a 4 ' wide boardwalk; abandon existing septic system
and install a new I/A sanitary system landward of dwelling;
install a permeable roundabout with stone steps at grade to main
and side entrances; relocate existing 6' high fencing and
install additional 6' high fencing; install A/C units and a
generator; install a stormwater drainage system; existing
irregular shaped ±40'x±40' two-story garage and koi pond to
remain; with the edge ofifirst floor rear deck and edge of pool
foundation to be planted with native, non-fertilizer dependent
vegetation.
Located: 1480 Old Wood Path, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-1-21
Number 31, Karen Hoeg, Esq. On behalf of DOUGLAS P.
ROBALINO LIVING TRUST & DIANE E. ROBALINO' LIVING TRUST requests
a Wetland Permit for the as-built 1, 628sq.ft. One-story dwelling
with attached 186sq.ft. East side deck with steps and 405sq.ft.
West side deck with steps; as-built 181sq.ft. PVC pergola;
as-built 345sq.ft. West ;side concrete patio; 526sq.ft. Of as
built concrete walkways;; 827sq.ft. Of as-built step-stone walks;
as-built 598sq.ft. Masonry block walk; as-built 1, 600sq.ft.
Brick & asphalt driveway; existing previously permitted
1, 380sq. ft. Two-story garage; and 10' diameter by 8 ' deep
cesspool with shallow dome; remove the existing seaward masonry
wall and replace with two tiers of 30" high masonry walls with
36" between the walls and a drain system, to be planted with
native grasses; all debris, including tires and trash to be
removed from the bank face by hand and place native seed mix in
areas of exposed soil; establish and perpetually maintain a 30'
wide Non-Disturbance Buffer along the landward edge of wetlands,
and establish- and perpetually maintain a 1, 978sq. ft. Vegetated
Non-Turf Buffer on the east side of dwelling wrapping around
seaward side of dwelling, and within the area of the retaining
walls; remove existing concrete pad seaward of dwelling and
install a ±4 . 6' wide pervious gravel walk.
Located: 1695 Bay Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-9-21. 1
And on page 15, number 32, AS PER REVISED SITE PLAN &
WRITTEN DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 12/23/2024 Twin Forks Permits on
behalf of THE WILLIAM E. GOYDAN REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST, c/o
WILLIAM E. GOYDAN, TRUSTEE & THE KAREN B. GOYDAN REVOCABLE INTER
VIVOS TRUST, c/o KAREN B. GOYDAN, TRUSTEE requests a Wetland
Permit to demolish the existing two-story dwelling, detached
garage and other surfaces on the property; construct a new
3,287sq.ft. Footprint (5, 802sq.ft. Gross floor area) two-story,
single-family dwelling with an 865sq.ft. Seaward covered patio,
167sq. ft. Side covered porch, and 149sq.ft. Front covered porch;
Board of Trustees 6 October 15, 2025
construct a proposed 16'x36' swimming pool with 8 'x8 ' spa tub; a
1, 357sq. ft. Pool patio surround with steps to ground, pool
enclosure fencing, pool equipment area, and a drywell for pool
backwash; construct a 752sq.ft. Two-story detached garage,
_ gravel driveway and parking areas;, install an I/A septic system;
remove 23 trees and plant 25 trees on the property; and to
establish and perpetually maintain a 25 foot wide vegetated
non-turf, no fertilization buffer area along the landward side
of the wetland vegetation.
Located: 1645 Marratooka Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-3-2 .1
All those applications are postponed for this evening.
Under Town Code Chapter 275-8 (c) , files were officially
closed seven days ago. Submission any of paperwork after that
date may result in a delay of the processing of the
applications.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'11 _make a motion to have our
next field inspection Wednesday, November 5th, 2025, at 8:00 am.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next Trustee
meeting Wednesday, November 12th, 2025, at 5:30 PM, at the Town
Hall Main Meeting Hall. J
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
III. WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next work
sessions Monday November 10th, 2025, at 5:00 PM, at the Town
Hall Annex 2pd Floor Executive Board Room, and on Wednesday,
November 12th, 2025, at 5:00 PM in the Town Hall Main Meeting
Hall.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of
the September 17th, 2025 Trustee meeting.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 7 October 15, 2025
(ALL AYES) .
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral V, Monthly Report.
The Trustees monthly report for September 2025, a check for
$18, 113. 11'was forwarded' to the Supervisor's Office for' the
General Fund.
VI. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral VI, Public Notices. Public
notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for
review.
VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VII, State Environmental
Quality Reviews:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
hereby finds that the following applications more fully
described in Section XI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee
agenda dated Wednesday, October 15th, 2025 are classified as
Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are
not subject to further review under SEQRA.
As written:
Andrew & Andrea Curto SCTM# 1000-11-1-16
1000 Soundbeach Drive, LLC SCTM# 1000-99-1-5. 1
Kevin Keyser SCTM# 1000-107-3-11. 6
500 Broadwaters, LLC SCTM# 1000-104-10-5
Harbor Cove Property Owners Association SCTM# 1000-111-14-9.2
George Dangas SCTM# 1000-50-1-3
Barbara Kohn SCTM# 1000-111-14-12
Cornell Family Partnership SCTM# 1000-110-7-24
Town Creek Real Estate, Inc. SCTM# 1000-69-3-13
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
VIII. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII, Resolutions -
Administrative Permits.
In order to simplify our meetings the Board of Trustees
regularly groups together actions that are minor or similar in
nature. Accordingly, I'll make a motion to approve as a group
Items 1 and 4, as follows:
Number 1, KONSTANTINOS D. KATSIRIS & JULIA MELINDA
Board of Trustees 8 October 15, 2025
ORLIE-KATSIRIS request an Administrative Permit to install a
108"x108" above ground hot tub.
Located: 400 Lakeside Drive North, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-3-3
Number 4, En-Consultants on behalf of STRONG'S WEST MILL,
LLC requests an Administrative Permit to remove and replace
(in-place) approximately 157 linear feet of existing steel
bulkhead with composite bulkhead; back fill with approximately 50
cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be trucked in from an
approved upland source; remove and replace (in-kind/in-place)
asphalt parking area landward of bulkhead; and temporarily
remove and reinstall existing fuel dispensers and electric
meters in same locations landward of bulkhead.
Located: 5780 West Mill -Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-6-10 &
13.4
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, HENRY RUGGIERO requests an
Administrative Permit for the as-built ±506' of 4 '-6'
deer-fencing and chain link fencing around perimeter of property
(excluding bulkhead) .
Located: 425 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-63-7-29. 1
Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection October 9th,
2025. The notes say that the fence must be 20-feet back from
the bulkhead as per code. Pull the fence back to the top of
bank.
We have an LWRP that says this is a minor action, so it' s
exempt.
I 'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that the fence be located no farther seaward than the
top of bank, and submission of new plans showing the new
location of proposed fence.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Item #3, GREGORY & KRISTINA COUCH request an
Administrative 'Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to
hand-cut Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to 12" in height by
hand, as needed.
Located: 345 Reeve Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-114-9-6
Trustee Goldsmith conducted a field inspection October 9th,
2025, noting there was other vegetation, so to limit the
clearing to phragmites only.
The LWRP found this to be a minor action, so it' s exempt.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that the trimming be limited to phragmites only.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 9 October 15, 2025
(ALL AYES) .
IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral IX, Applications for
Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments.
Again, in order to simplify the meeting, I'll make a motion
to approve as a group Items 1 through-4 and 6 through 13, listed
as follows:
Number 1, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. On behalf of LAWRENCE &
DENISE BLESI-KAPLAN requests the Final One (1) Year Extension to
Wetland Permit #10014, as issued October 21, 2021.
Located: 2225 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-45.3
Number 2, En-Consultants on behalf of BGV HOLDINGS LLC
requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #10282, as
issued December 14, 2022.
Located: 250 Midway Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-9
Number 3, CHRISTOPHER ARIENS requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit #8487 from Channing Real Estate, LLC c/o Douglas Chan, as
issued August 20, 2014.
Located: 455 MacDonald's Crossing, Laurel. SCTM# 145-4-17
Number 4, AMP Architecture on behalf of RICHARD MEYERHOLZ &
SUSAN MEYEHOLZ LIVING TRUST requests an Administrative Amendment
to Wetland Permit #10816 to construct a 3' -7" x 3'-7" dormer for
elevator shaft within previously approved addition within
existing covered front porch footprint.
Located: 4245 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-6-23.
Number 6, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of
PETER & DONNA RUTTURA requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit #1080.6 to construct a 4'x12 ' top platform instead
of the previously approved 41x8' top platform per DEC
requirement of a 3' elevation over grade.
Located: 900 Sound Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-4-4
Number 7, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of
DHC LAND, LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #10579 to construct a 41x27 ' top of bluff wood walkway
leading to a 41x29' staircase leading to the 106' fixed dock and
4'x20' lowered "T" section at end.
Located: 4180 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-10-1
Number 8, BRETT O'REILLY requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit #10264 for the as-built ±265 linear
feet of fencing; as-built ±2, 400 sq.ft paver patio.
Located: 505 Lighthouse Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-6-29.1
Number 9, En-Consultants on behalf of BGV HOLDINGS LLC
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10282 to
relocate previously approved pool to 10' from existing dwelling
(instead of previously approved 314") ; construct 384 sq.ft. Pool
patio/coping; establish and perpetually maintain a 12 ' wide
vegetated non-turf buffer landward of updated wetlands
Board of Trustees 10 October 15, 2025
boundary.
Located: 250 Midway Road, Southold SCTM# 1000-90-1-9
Number 10, En-Consultants on behalf of WARREN W. JACKSON
2017 IRREVOCABLE TRUST requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit #10591 to install a low-sill "rock sill" with
return instead of a low-sill bulkhead with return; create
approximately 1, 015 sq.ft. Of vegetated intertidal marsh, as
required by NYS DEC.
Located: 300 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-12-4
Number 11, En-Consultants on behalf of DONALD J. & PAMELA
E. SCHNEIDER requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #10546 for the relocated outdoor shower.
Located: 890 Ruch Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-2-31
Number 12, Twin Fork Permits on behalf of LIZBETH JANSEN
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10818 to
construct a 598 sq.ft. Detached garage, in lieu of the
previously approved attached garage, connected to proposed
dwelling by a 11. 1' x 6' breezeway; increase size of previously
approved covered porch to 269. 9 sq.ft.
Located: 260 Sailors Needle Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-144-5-27
Number 13, JAMES LUBIN requests an Administrative Amendment
to Wetland Permit #10587 to install a 31x5' generator and a
10'xl2 ' shed.
Located: 2765 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, AMP Architecture on behalf of AJIT
KUMAR & JENNIFER ECCLESTONE, requests an Administrative Amendment
to Wetland Permit #10695 to remove a tree that is close to the
proposed retaining wall footing; plant a replacement tree in an
alternate location on the property.
Located: 1490 Paradise Point' Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-3-20
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection October 8th,
2025, noting that the condition that the replacement tree should
be placed on the seaward side of the house.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that the tree replacement be planted on the seaward
side of house.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
X. RESOLUTIONS - OTHER:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, Resolutions - Other.
Number 1, Set 2025/2026 Scallop Season:
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees open the
following dates to scallop harvesting and pursuant to Chapter
Board of Trustees 11 October 15, 2025
219 (Shellfish) of the Code of the Town of Southold: From
Monday, November 3rd, 2025 from sunrise to sunset through
Tuesday, March 31st, 2026 inclusive, in all Town waters, as per
Town Code.
That is. my .motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral XI, Public Hearings.
At this time I'll make a motion to go off our regular
meeting agenda and enter into the Public Hearings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter of the
following applications for permits under Chapter 275 and Chapter
111 of the Southold Town Code. I have an affidavit of
publication from the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may
be read prior to asking for comments from the public.
Please keep your comments organized and brief, five minutes or
less if possible.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under Amendments, Number 1, Jeffrey Patanjo on
behalf of ANDREW & ANDREA CURIO requests an Amendment to Wetland
Permit #10679 to install 1,720sq.ft. Of un-treated timber or
composite decking landward of the proposed bulkhead; the
proposed decking will be placed approximately 12 inches below
the proposed bulkhead top cap elevation; install a 245sq.ft.
Sand area to the westerly end of the property adjacent to the
wetland area.
Located: 560 Fishermans Beach Road, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-111-1-16
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. Policy Standard
4. 1, minimize loss of human life and structures from flooding
and erosion hazards. The Policy calls for minimizing the amount
of structures that have potential for becoming hazardous
floating debris in the bay after destruction by a storm; adding
over 1, 400 square feet of decking where there were no existing
structures previously is not consistent with minimizing loss of
structures from hazards. To minimize loss of structure and thus
be consistent with the LWRP, the amount of decking proposed to
be added should be reduced to the smallest area practicable.
The Trustees visited the property on the 7th of October and
questions the need for so much decking and also discussed
thru-flow decking on docks.
Board of Trustees 12 October 15, 2025
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant.
This was a previous application, obviously it's an
amendment to that, for the bulkhead replacement as well as the
neighboring property, which is owned by the same owner.
The application and the proposed plans were modified and
adjusted to include decking. IO s going to be one foot lower
than the proposed bulkhead, so there is no possibility of any
runoff coming off of this decking. It's all going to be
contained on the subject property. The decking is going to have
obviously untreated decking. We created a small area on the west
side, which is going to be sand in-fill to allow any runoff to
exit out into that area. And most of this existing area is
currently, and it was on the permitted drawings as a slate
patio, which was to remain. Also there is a lot of wood decking
and wood structures in the entire area, as it existed on the
permitted plans.
So we are really just trying to amend the permitted plans
to include a little bit of additional decking for the owner's
use. It will all remain obviously non-vegetated, non-turf
buffer, and be below the bulkhead elevation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. It was also noted .during-
inspections that there was some rock dumped in at the end of the
return.
MR. PATANJO: I was not out there for the actual construction
project. I can't speak to that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So those should -- oh, there you go.
MR. PATANJO: That could have been there prior to the project and
they just shifted it over. I was not there during the project.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Those should likely be added to the plans.
MR. PATANJO: Okay. And that' s on the west side.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: West side.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct
MR. PATANJO: Towards the end of the return.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. And we noticed out there, there is
actually some erosion taking place already out of that return.
So once you put those rocks on, maybe even as a condition of
this permit, you know, might want to address that a little more
robustly.
MR. PATANJO: Add some additional filter fabric.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, because it doesn't look like it' s
working at the moment.
MR. PATANJO: Understood.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it would be most appropriate to satisfy
the LWRP coordinator' s comments. While I understand that this
is swapped from slate to deck, it is an area that consistently
floods. I think stainless steel hardware during construction
would be appropriate. And I also think to address that west
side with the erosion, and where it abuts what is actually truly
Board of Trustees 13 October 15, 2025
wetland, it would probably make sense to do a planting plan
along that edge of the property within jurisdiction.
MR. PATANJO: We can absolutely do that. It' s proposed as just
sand right now but we can plant Cape American beach grass at 18
inches on center.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How far off are you looking to go off the
wetland there?
MR. PATANJO: Are we talking the area, the in-fill area in
between the deck, the house, as I labeled here as proposed sand,
no decking? We can plant that entire area. It' s a little
triangle there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It should probably come up along this area
here, too --
MR. PATANJO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: (Continuing) all right, and run up the property
aways.
MR. PATANJO: Okay. So we'll do five-feet along the perimeter of
the wetlands with some Cape American beach grass.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd say at minimum to that flood zone line.
MR. PATANJO: Okay, so along the entire perimeter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, if you'd like to go further, we can.
I also noticed on those plans, the new deck structure was
an overlay, on top of the slate and the grass. And it, I could
be wrong but I- don't see where it says to remove those. So that
should be, you know, where it says "slate patio, " "grass" and
"grass, " that should be removed from the new plans.
MR. PATANJO: Absolutely, yes. Remove all the existing
structures prior to placing new structures, with obviously
stainless steel hardware suggested.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any comments on that size of the
buffer?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That looked fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, is there anyone else here wishing to
speak regarding this application?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I do have one other comment. Obviously this a
non-turf area that you are proposing for this project. With the
decking, there will be some runoff from that that will then be
absorbed into what I'm assuming will be sand underneath that
would be maintained.
Do you have any plan for capturing any of that, like with
drywells, or is it intended just to ---
MR. PATANJO: No that will, as way of the typical projects in
construction, it' s going to be spacings in the deck and the deck
is going to be one foot below the bulkhead elevation. So there
is no possibility of runoff leaving the site. It' s all going to
leach through the decking boards and go into the sand
underneath.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you, for explaining that. '
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else wishing to speak regarding
this application?
Board of Trustees 14. October 15, 2025
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I make a motion to approve this application
with the following conditions: Submission of new plans pulling
out the grass area and the slate area underneath the proposed
deck. Add the stone currently existing to the return. Ten-foot
wide buffer along the property line, along the wetland, to be
vegetated with Cape American beach grass. And that the deck be
installed with stainless steel hardware, thereby bringing this
into consistency with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 1 under Wetland Permits, Studio AB
Architects on behalf of ALBERTO EDUARDO KAPLAN & ANNE CAREY
requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 1, 154.87sq. ft.
Two-story dwelling with a 79. 06sq. ft. Front porch, 334.75sq.ft.
Deck with a 4 'x6' south platform and stairs to ground, and
664. 10sq. ft. Detached garage/shed; replace existing, and add new
windows and patio doors; re-side dwelling; reconstruct
79.06sq. ft. Front porch with a canopy, a bench and stair
relocation; reconstruct in-place 334 .75sq. ft. Seaward deck with
4 'x6' south platform and stairs to ground; install a new
staircase to ground off 'deck; install one at grade paver area
.and steps down to one below grade -paver-area (198.4sq.ft. Total
area) , with ±15' long and ±3' long retaining walls; under deck
remove existing partially in-ground 337.34sq.ft. Screened-in
porch, 12' 1 1-4" long, and 27110 '-�" long retaining walls and
reconstruct in-place; and to reconstruct existing 41x4' outdoor
shower.
Located: 1270 Trumans Path, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-12-8
The Trustees visited the site on the loth of September,
2025. The project notes at that time read: Project needed
Trustee review. Project is nearly complete. Review permit
history. Healthy trees on seaward side. 15-foot non-turf buffer
landward of top of bank, and non-disturbance seaward of top of
bluff.
The LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the
application?
(No response)
Members the Board?
Ma'am?
Board of Trustees 15 October 15, 2025
MS. BERRY: I'm just here if the Board has any questions.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Questions?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. -" --" -
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 2, AS' PER REVISED SITE PLANS AND
PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 9/2/25 J.M.O. Environmental
Consulting on behalf of EDWARD QUINTIERI III requests a Wetland
Permit to relocate and reconfigure the existing docking facility
consisting of removing the existing 21x14' ramp, 4'x16' floating
dock, 4 'x42 ' floating dock, 4 'x14' floating dock and 8 'x21'
floating boat lift; install to the west of existing a proposed
4 'x10' fixed dock off bulkhead to a 2.5'x13.5' ramp to a 4'x28'
floating dock situated in a "T" configuration with a 2'x4 '
floating finger dock off east side off of 41x28' floating dock.
Located: 480 North Riley Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#
1000-122-3-34 . 1
The Trustees most recently conducted an inhouse review on
7th of October, noting that the project needs to be -- I've got
the wrong file here. One second.
The Trustees most recently conducted an inhouse review on
the 9th of October, noting to dial the total length of the dock
with vessel back, not to exceed 25% of the width of the creek.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent. This review was conducted on June 10th, 2025, and
it noted some issues with a previous plan, noting that the dock
was constructed without a Chapter 275 wetlands permit. The dock
configuration is not compliant with past permit. The dock
exceeds the pier line. The floats are not permitted. The number
and size of vessels are not shown. And the boat lift is not
compliant with Chapter 275.
We do have updated plans that address many of these
comments.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. JUST: Good evening. Glenn Just, agent for the applicant.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think what the Board has discussed is that
this dock will need to comply with that section of 275 which
. includes the vessel in the overall 25% rule, going across the
creek, since it's so narrow there.
So on the plan that we have, we did not see the vessel or
the size of the vessel noted. We just wanted to give you an
r
Board of Trustees 16 October 15, 2025
opportunity to comment on that.
MR. JUST: That was from the LWRP?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It' s actually from our Town Code Chapter 275
which requires the vessel to be depicted as part of that 25%
- _._.... . -rule.
--
MR. JUST: It didn't arise the last couple of times around. I
guess we're going to have to go back and redraw it once again.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It appears if the dock was dialed back
approximately ten feet, you would be in compliance with, you
know, a boat, a typical boat for that type of dock. And if you
think that's, you know, a reasonable amount, then I think that
the Board can move forward with this application.
MR. JUST: That' s the only other issue? The other three issues
that arose are out the window now? The pier line, amount of
floating dock, which is 120-square feet. Pier line is out the
window. So this is the only issue?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It appears that the new plans that you
submitted address all the other previous issues that we
discussed, so this would be the only remaining concern.
MR. JUST: We can go back and look at that.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, would you prefer for us to move forward
with this application tonight, subject to new plans depicting a
reduction of ten feet or would you prefer to table to discuss
with the owner.
MR. JUST: Table it for now and I'll go back and do a little
homework and if I have to redraw it, I'll redraw it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And, Mr. Just, just to comment on that. That
one walkway off the bulkhead, which I believe was 4x10, or
whatever it was, you know, that' s what Trustee Gillooly is
referring to. If you remove that and just went with the walkway
off the existing bulkhead, it would dial the dock back enough so
that you would fit within that 25% rule, inclusive of the boat.
MR. JUST: Okay. I understand. I just have to look at the depth.
That' s the other issue that comes with that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did look. You 'do have the depths there.
MR. JUST: So, that' s the only question in my own mind. That's
what I wanted to look at it. If it all fits, hopefully we'll see
you next month with what you want.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: All right, is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application at the
applicant' s request.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 3, REVISED SITE PLAN AND PROJECT
Board of Trustees 17 October 15, 2025
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 10/3/25 Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of the
J. C. NEVILLE REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to
remove and replace existing timber bulkhead with 75' long new
vinyl bulkhead in same location as existing; install a 10' long
bulkhead .return on north end and a 6' return on south end; new
bulkhead to have batter piles on the seaward face placed at 6'
on-center along entire length; and to establish and perpetually
maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of
the bulkhead.
Located: 2380 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-6
The Trustees most recently visited the site on 9/10/25, and
Trustee Gillooly made the following notes: Review return
locations and ready adjoin with the neighbors. Soften the
returns.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent, with the
following notes. To meet Policy 6, number one, require turbidity
controls during construction.
And is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to
this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. And as
discussed, we had amended and modified the returns based on
comments of the Board last month. And limited it to six foot on
one side and ten foot on the other side.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much. We did note that here on
the new received plans stamped received October 3rd, 2025.
Noting that you do show the returns on both edges. So thank
you, ' for revisiting that, and the new submission.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak, or any other
questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none,, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application
with the recently stamped received plans October 3rd, 2025, with
the following condition of turbidity controls during
construction. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, REVISED SITE PLAN AND PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 10/6/25 Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JORGO
& CHRISTINA CIKOLLA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
12 'x321 . swimming pool with a maximum exposed wall height of 3'
on seaward face, an infinity style edge along the east and south
sides; install proposed 3' tall native plantings on seaward face
of proposed pool and deck for screening; install a 161x30'
raised deck with associated 41x4 ' steps down to backyard grass;
Board of Trustees 18 October 15, 2025
construct a 6'x39' deck between the proposed pool and the
dwelling; install a drywell for pool backwash, pool equipment
area, and 4 ' high pool enclosure fencing with gates; remove
existing asphalt driveway and replace with permeable gravel
in-place;. and to establish and perpetually maintain a 25' wide
vegetated non-disturbance buffer area using native plantings
along the landward edge of the wetland line for the length of
the shoreline, with a 4 ' wide access path to dock.
Located: 380 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-21
The Trustees conducted a field inspection September loth,
2025. Notes read: The pool is too close to the wetlands; less
than 50 feet. Proposed pool wall is too high. Existing
vegetation has been removed. The drainage -- there is a drainage
pipe from house flowing into the wetlands.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies
are: The proposed location of the pool is not code compliant
pursuant to Town Code Chapter 275 (d) (1) (a) (5) , which states that
pools and related structures must be at least 50 feet from the
bank. The plans show the distances at 38 feet and 46 feet from
the bank. This is inconsistent with the following policies as
follow below: Policy 5, protect and improve water quality and
supply in the Town of Southold.
The application is inconsistent with this policy because
the pool is located too close to the wetlands, with a very short
migration time of groundwater to surface water..
Discharging chlorinated pool water even into a drywell
poses a potential pollution issue, especially if the substrate
is sandy with little organic matter to bind the chlorine.
Policy 6.3 (a) , comply with statutory and regulatory
requirements of Southold Town Board of Trustees laws and
regulations for all Andros patent and other lands under their
jurisdiction.
This application is inconsistent with this policy because
it does not comply with the regulations in Chapter 275. Pool and
related structures too close to the wetlands, less than 50 feet.
Policy 6.3 (d) . This application is inconsistent with this
policy because it proposes the pool too close to the wetlands
leaving an inadequate buffer between the wetlands and the
development. Further there is no test hole shown on the plan or
survey indicating depth to ground water, nor is the size or
depth of the pool proposed drywell indicated. To be effective
and meet Town Code, the drywell needs to be above the level of
groundwater. And the absence of a test hole certification
applicant' s engineer that the drywells will meet all applicable
regulations for distance to groundwater and be effective to be
required.
The existing vegetation within the jurisdiction of the
Trustees has been removed without a permit, which is not allowed
pursuant to Town Code.
This is inconsistent with several of the LWRP policies as
Board of Trustees 19 October 15, 2025
follows: Policy 3. 1 (c) , .the removal of existing vegetation, has
removed the natural screening of the development.
Policy 3.1 (j ) , this property is visible from the public
trust waters, and removal of this vegetation has altered the
shoreline elements which contribute to scenic quality.
Policy 6.1 (d) (2) , the native plants were largely removed,
so the values of the ecological communities are lost. To attempt
to restore the ecological values, the site should be revegetated
with native plants, especially in the buffer to the wetlands.
Policy 6.1 (c) , (1) and (2) , the mitigation would have been
to retain the existing vegetation, however since it is gone, the
mitigation would need to be revegetated with native plants.
Policy 6.3, (d) and (e) , the proposed buffer is inadequate
to protect the adjacent future surface water quality because it
is too small and because the native vegetation has been largely
removed.
An open drainage pipe -draining into the wetlands was
observed onsite. Town Code Chapter 236 states that all drainage
must be contained onsite. Draining waters into the wetlands is
inconsistent with the following LWRP policy: Policy 5.1 (b) .
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application.
MR. PATANJO: Unfortunately, Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the
applicant.
We came here last month. We had discussed some of the
elements of the project. We did dial back the project to
increase the distance from the wetlands to the proposed pool and
raised deck. As shown on the latest drawings dated October 5th,
2025, the proposed pool has been placed at 50-foot away from the
proposed top 'of bank line, which is the wetland line as well,
which is the bank line.
The other consideration, there is a lot of codes and
chapters that were read out just now, so I took a few notes.
To address the comments, number one is going to be the
drain pipe that has been discussed in several of the notes.
What we are prepared to do is to remove any existing drain pipes
that drained towards the water, and we would provide roof drains
for all of the existing conditions of the existing garage and
house. We would provide roof drains on the landward side of the
existing house: We would also move the backwash drywell for the
pool, to remove any of the potential for chlorinated water from
enter into the sand, soil conditions, and move that towards the
front yard, which would in turn eliminate that issue, with any
chlorinated water entering the waterways.
We would have no problem issuing a drywell certification
from a signed and sealed New York State PE, after the
installations are complete for the roof drywells, in addition to
the pool backwash drywells.
We have proposed a maximum height of the pool of three-foot
of height, so it meets the typical retaining wall or pool wall
Board of Trustees 20 October 15, 2025
or retaining wall height requirements from this Board. We are
also providing with fully vegetated at time of planting
four-foot tall plantings, surrounding the entire perimeter of
the seaward side, in addition to the east side and the west side
of the proposed pool, the pool equipment, and- the proposed ----- --- ---
raised deck, which screens it from visibility from the water
side and the neighboring side of the properties.
We are also providing a 25-foot wide non-turf --
non-disturbance non-turf vegetated buffer, 25-foot along the
entire property line, with minus a four-foot wide path that will
access the existing dock. That will be vegetated with native
plantings for the entire area, 25-foot wide by approximately
125-foot wide for the width of the property. And in addition
that is going to be maintained as a non-disturbance buffer. So
no work can happen within that revegetated buffer.
So issues to address would be the visibility from the
seaward side, would be addressed by planting a 25-foot wide
non-turf buffer, also be addressed by plantings four-foot tall
plantings surrounding the entire proposed structure, and
addressing the chlorinated runoff would be addressed by moving
the backwash drywell on the landward side of the house and
pumping it by way of the pump for the pool pump.
In addressing the comment for the drainage pipe exiting out
on the back of the property, would be installing roof drainage
on the- landward side of the existing house to capture any of
that potential runoff.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
MS. LOEFFLER: Good evening, hello. Tammy Loeffler. I also
spoke here last month. I'm a resident of 535 Lupton's Point
Road, Mattituck.
I did mail in a copy of this letter, but I don't know if it
made it in time with the holidays, so I'll read it.
Dear Southold Town Trustees, I'm writing regarding the
permit application for a swimming pool and deck at 380 Lupton's
Point Road in Mattituck.
This proposal raises serious concerns for both the
environment and the community. The creek bed lies just feet away
and there is simply not enough land to build a pool without
compromising the wetlands. Allowing such construction would
jeopardize the ecological integrity of the area and further
erode the rural character of the neighborhood.
I urge you to weigh- this application against the Town
Board' s recently proposed code changes to Chapter 275, which
would nearly double setback requirements for pools near wetlands
These reforms highlight the need for stronger protections,
a 60-foot minimum setback and 100-feet for pools with retaining
walls above two feet, which, if I'm not mistaken, this has. By
those standards this project clearly does not belong.
Beyond the wetlands themselves there are broader issues of
Board of Trustees 21 October 15, 2025
compliance and respect for community standards with this
property owner. The property already features lighting
inconsistent with the Town' s Dark Sky code, disrupting both
wildlife and neighbors. The home's renovation began without
- proper permitting. Debris from the site was found in' the creek--=-- -----. . ---
and trees were removed unlawfully.
This build-first-asking-forgiveness-later pattern can not
be tolerated. They've already demonstrated they can not be
trusted to follow codes. And I highly suggest that this
homeowner and other people that are in this room that are
begging the Trustees to change codes, to look into the codes
before you buy land. Don't try to change the code after the buy
the land and the house.
And equally troubling with what I overheard at the last
Trustees meeting during the break, this project contractor with
another contractor and another local attorney, mocking the
process here, making fun of Southold Town and the Trustees for
holding them to account and, for having such strict codes.
Again, I say, if you don't want strict codes go to another
place that doesn't have codes like this. I'm sure in
Farmingdale, Patchogue, other places like that you can put in a
pool much easier.
To dismiss these protections as overkill and insist on
doing whatever clients demand and threatening lawsuits shows
disregard for Southold's values.
Again, if they want a pool they should purchase property
that could reasonable accommodate one. If they can not respect
the way things are done here, they should look into property
elsewhere.
So the application must also be seen in context. Lupton' s
Point has already changed dramatically. Of the twenty houses on
the road only a few remain occupied by year-round residents.
Most are now second homes, and too often the interest of these
owners are at odds with the preservation of Southold's rural
character. Each project that ignores environmental and community
standards pushes us closer to becoming what so many have moved
here to escape: Another over-developed suburb.
I just ask people why they move here to make here like
there, where they came from, and why they feel entitled to put
their interest before the good of the larger community.
Thank you, for your consideration. I ask you not to
approve this application, and thank you for your continued work
to save Southold's natural resources and rural way of life.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response) . ,
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
Board of Trustees 22 October 15, 2025
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second..
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: In light of the extensive LWRP report that
found this inconsistent, with the proposed pool still less than
50 feet from the wetlands, I'll make a motion to deny this
application based on:
Chapter 275-12 (a) , adversely affects the wetlands of the
Town. The pool is too close to the wetlands, less than 50 feet.
275-12 (d) , adversely affects fish, shellfish or other
beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation or
natural habitat thereof. The buffer and the area by the creek
has already been removed. And any further development will have
an adverse effect.
275-12 (e) , increase danger of flood and storm tide damage,
locating the structure less than 50 feet away from the creek.
275-12 (h) , weaken or undermine the lateral support of other
lands in the vicinity. Again, proposing a pool with a retaining
wall less than 50 feet from the edge of wetland.
275-12 (i) , otherwise affect the health, safety and general
welfare of the people of the Town.
And (j ) , adversely affect the esthetic value of the
wetlands and adjacent areas. Again, the buffer and the wetlands
vegetation have already been removed.
So in light of all those, and in light of the LWRP
inconsistent, I, make a motion to deny this application for those
reasons.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 5, En-Consultants on behalf of RICHARD &
JEAN JUNG requests a Wetland Permit to remove the most seaward
4'x11' .portion of existing 41x45' fixed timber catwalk, and
install in its place a 31x14' hinged ramp and 6'x20'
shore-parallel ("T" configuration) floating dock secured by two
(2) 10" diameter pilings; remove and replace in-place, as
needed, remaining 41x34 ' portion of existing fixed timber
catwalk and 31x5' steps to ground using open-grate decking on
the catwalk; and to connect water and electricity to the
catwalk.
Located: 3675 Wells Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-4
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Trustees visited the site on the 10th of September.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicants.
This is a continuation of the hearing from last month,
which was required due to the absence of the LWRP report at that
Board of Trustees 23 October 15, 2025
time. So I don't have anything to add.to last month's record but
obviously I can answer any questions if the Board has them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application, or any additional
comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 6, AS PER REVISED SURVEY AND PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 10/6/25 En-Consultants on behalf of HOBART
ROAD, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 161x32 '
in-ground swimming pool and a 506sq.ft. grade-level masonry pool
patio; install 4' high pool enclosure fencing, a pool equipment
area, and to connect to an existing drywell for pool backwash;
six (6) native hardwood trees to be planted within the
non-disturbance buffer area; establish and perpetually maintain
a proposed 10' wide vegetated non-turf buffer adjacent to the
landward side of the existing 30' wide non-disturbance buffer;
and to perpetually maintain the existing covenanted 30-foot-wide
non-disturbance, non-fertilization buffer along the landward
edge of the wetlands boundary with 4 ' wide access path to dock.
Located: 1750 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-1
The Trustees reviewed the plans 10/9/25, and the LWRP found
the project to be consistent with its policies.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding the
Application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
applicant.
This is a continuation of last month's hearing. At that
time there was a neighboring property owner who spoke and had
some general concerns about the project and the property. The
one specific to the pool was a request that the pool equipment
which had been located closer to the road, and actually outside
Trustee jurisdiction, be moved farther from his dwelling due to
concerns from noise.
The Trustees had also had a couple of requests relating to
the buffer which was including increasing the number of hardwood
trees that are proposed to be planted within the existing
30-foot non-disturbance buffer, which had been proposed at
three. And then also had requested the addition minimally of a
ten-foot wide vegetated non-turf buffer to be established and
professionally maintained landward of the existing 30-foot wide
Board of Trustees 24 October 15, 2025
non-disturbance buffer adjacent to the wetland boundary.
So we did, responsive to those three requests, we did have
a revised site plan prepared that' s dated September 30th, 2025,
which you alluded to had been submitted to the Board. The
revised site plan shows the addition of a proposed ten-foot wide
vegetated non-turf buffer adjacent to the landward limit of the
existing 30-foot wide non-disturbance buffer. It shows the
relocation of the proposed pool equipment, farther from the
neighbor's dwelling to the northwest, and is now positioned
close to the landward corner of proposed swimming pool, within
Trustees jurisdiction, and the notation concerning the number of
trees to be planted within the existing non-disturbance buffer
was doubled from three to six, and those changes are detailed in
the cover letter submitted by my office dated October 3rd, 2025.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
MR. SEMONS: Hi. Andy Semons. 1580 Hobart Road, the property to
the north.
First of all, I just want to thank everybody very much for
their time and attention to this. And I do .appreciate Mr.
Herrmann' s revision to the original plan which include the
relocation of the pool equipment. So it' s now about 25 feet from
the line.
However, I still would like a little bit of reassurance
about noise abatement, which we did discuss last month. Because
I do remind you there is a generator right next to that, there
are two very large air conditioning units that are very close to
that, that also run very, you know, very often, particularly on
hot days. And, you know, that is a probably close to 30-foot
tall structure, with a solid wall, and it kind of acts like a
great big cup and I 'm really afraid there will still be a lot of
noise reverberation as there is now.
So if anything else can be done to just soften the noise
level coming out of the pool equipment, that would be greatly
appreciated.
The other thing that I mentioned last month at the meeting
was basically the covenants, Section H one and two, stipulated
that along the northern boundary of the property, to lot one,
there should be a row of six to seven-foot tall white pines.
About 30 feet worth of those trees were removed within with the
past two months. I would love, you know, while I realize that
this may not fall within your jurisdiction, I would like some
guarantees that those covenants will be respected and that those
trees will be replaced so that I have adequate visual screening
from that decking and that pool.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you.
MR. SEMONS: Thank you.
MR. HERRMANN: So I apologized to the speaker because I did, we
did note and it was, I think suggested maybe by Trustee Peeples,
I don't remember, but there was a request made that the pool
Board of Trustees 25 October 15, 2025
equipment be fenced and screened. And so we did actually, that
note is on this revised plan. And I failed to mention that in my
comments a couple of minutes ago.
So that was the intention there, to create the sound
attenuation. with the, not just the fencing..but .vegetation .around
it so it will be visually and acoustically screened.
I can't speak to the question about the white pines. I
don't have any idea whether that is within the wetlands
jurisdiction. Unfortunately that, I mean I certainly understand
the concern, but it's not something that I can respond to in
this venue.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you.
MR. SEMONS: I just want to go on record saying that the
additional screening noise is greatly appreciated.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Appreciate that.
MR. SEMONS: Okay. Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is there anyone else wishing to speak
regarding this application?
MR. FINORA: Hello. Joe Finora, here speaking with regard to this
application. I wanted to make two points tonight with regard to
this application that were not addressed yet at the previous
hearing. They both relate to the covenants and restrictions
that were applied to this parcel as part of the subdivision, one
of which was a requirement that 18-inch trees or larger, which
were noted on this final subdivision plot, were to be maintained
in perpetuity. That data and tree plan was not available on the
project map as has been submitted for this application, as a
result there is no way to understand what tree count was
pre-existing to the construction of the property, and also what
may have been in conflict with the proposed pool application.
The second point that is in the covenants and restrictions
is a section that restricts development and clearing on the
parcel to 50% of what was noted at the time of that final
subdivision plot. That information was also not included on the
application drawings and made available to the public, so that
the public can thoroughly understand what environmental impact
if any there was with regard to how much clearing has been done
on the property.
So I think the request here is simply that this application
be tabled and the applicant provide that information so that the
public can better understand the impacts associated with the
proposed project. Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you.
MR. HERRMANN: Again, similar to the prior comments, I can't
speak to what the subdivision requirements were at that time.
Again, we discussed at the last hearing, I know there had been
some sort of a clearing violation here, one that has been, I
believe addressed by the Town, and also addressed by the New
York state DEC.
Board of Trustees 26 October 15, 2025
There is no proposed clearing related to this project.
There is no proposed tree removal related to this project. The
addition of the ten-foot vegetated non-turf buffer and the
addition of the six additional hardwood trees and the existing
-- buffer both came at the Board's _request, which. the applicant has__.
been responsive to.
So again, in the context of this Board' s jurisdiction and
the Town' s wetlands code and the application that is before you,
that is the extent of what I can respond to.
MR. FINORA: I would like to just add one more additional
comment, if I could. That there's been a series of these
violations in the past, and the concern, particularly from the
neighborhood, is that the project sequence is one of deliberate
segmentation. These things all happen individually, but as a
result there is significant change to the parcel and
environmental conditions there.
I don't think it's anything but a modest ask to be able to
see the requirements that were made as part of the subdivision,
as an overlay on what is proposed. Almost all of which are
within that 100-foot jurisdiction. So it' s totally germane to
this application. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Mr. Herrmann, have you reviewed all the
covenants and restrictions on this property?
MR. HERRMANN: I guess the short answer to that question is I
have seen some of the covenants and restrictions, there's even a
private, a file covenant that relates to how close the swimming
pool can be separated from the adjoining property. But again
those issues, while completely valid,, they don't relate to this
proposed swimming pool which complies in all ways, in fact
exceeds compliance relative to the wetlands code. And that is
what we have presented.
If there is some other concern that relates to a potential
non-compliance with a Planning Board requirement, that would not
typically be brought to the Board of Trustees, it would be
brought to the Planning Board.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Sir, do you wish to address the Board?
MR. SEMONS: If I may, yes. I just want to draw your attention to
the fact that a lot of these conditions in the covenants
actually ladder up to the granting of a C of 0 for the property.
And if the pool is an accessory structure, I don't understand
how it can be built in the absence of the C of 0.
So on some levels I think that all, I mean the way I read
this, is these covenants need to be satisfied before there can
be any kind of permit for any kind of accessory structure.
Unless I 'm misinterpreting it. So, I just wanted to bring that
to the Trustees' attention.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Can you speak to that, Lori?
MS. HULSE: What they are referring to is it sounds like possible
Planning Board covenants that were done initially when the
subdivision was done. The enforcement of those covenants has
Board of Trustees 27 October 15, 2025
nothing to do with this Board. That's a separate enforcement
issue.
This Board isn't constrained by a C&R that the Planning
Board put on. This is a completely different review. So that
enforcement would be something that you can go to Code
Enforcement and seek their input on, but not something that
would allow this Board not to consider or delay it for any
reason. We are just not legally bound by `that.
MR. SEMONS: I'm at just a little bit of a loss because in some
prior actions, particularly because there was infringement with
the construction of the dock and a lot of other things, years
ago, there was a hearing and it was determined that you can not
put an accessory structure on a lot that has no home, no
certificate of occupancy or anything else. It can't be granted.
So. I'm going under the assumption that the pool is an accessory
structure, and I just don't understand how it can get a permit
if there is no C of 0 on the property.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: The Board has talked previously about the
segmentation of projects and how, you know, this idea of getting
a permit for the house and then coming back later for a permit
for the pool, doesn't give us the ability to examine the whole
project holistically, and if there is no CO on the house, I
think, you know, maybe there is a little bit more research --
MS. HULSE: We don't know if there isn't a CO on the house. Let's
just start with that premise. We don't know that there isn't.
The house is outside of our jurisdiction. Your point to does
there have to be CO. There has to be a principal use. Which it
seems to be on this property, which is the house, before an
accessory structure is permitted. That is valid and true.
However at this point, the Board, that's not before this Board.
The house is outside the jurisdiction. So- this Board can act.
Whether or not that is something that the Building Department
would take up is another issue.
MR. SEMONS: I've checked actually in the annual taxes on that
house were $6,000 a year, which is actually the value of the
land alone, which says to me there is no C of 0 on that house.
MS. HULSE: We don't have anything before us with respect to
that. I appreciate that comment, but it be or there could not
be. Either way it' s outside of our jurisdiction.
MR. SEMONS: Okay.
MS. HULSE: Thank you.
MR.' HERRMANN: I also did want to add a response to Trustee
Gillooly's comment. I mean, the idea of "a project segmentation,
it' s not unusual for a dwelling, principal dwelling structure to
be constructed, and then at some later date an accessory
structure be proposed.
Now, I do understand the idea of trying to coattail in
something that is nonconforming. An example where we build a
house that is too close to the wetlands or has too much lot
coverage, and then we say, well, we need more nop-compliance
Board of Trustees 28 October 15, 2025
because of this condition that we just created.
But in, this case the house is compliant with 'the wetland
setback. The house, the proposed swimming pool not only exceeds
the existing wetlands setback in your code but it also exceeds
your proposed increase in wetlands setbacks to pools by 15 feet.
So this project, you know, I understand there is obviously
quite a bit of history here that I have had the pleasure of not
being involved with, but with respect to this particular
project, it does, again, it complies in all ways with the
existing wetlands code, and we've revised the design now twice,
in response both to the Trustees request and the request of the
neighbor. There is not more, again, there' s not more that I can
offer or respond to in that regard at this point.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I was just going to say thank you for that
response. I think that was clear.
MS. HULSE: There's times where this Board will actually consider
when there is an application, what may come in the future, and
they will comment on it and will make restrictions and
conditions based on the analysis of the entire property and the
impact environmentally. So this Board has done that routinely.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I do think that while this is a
theoretically fairly straightforward application before this
Board with, you know, you have the right distances, there has
been a history here that this Board has not been fully able to
address, just due to different layers of enforcement and
relations with the Town Attorney's office.
So obviously as you know, I'm preaching to the choir here,
but we are trying to balance the use with the environmental.
And this was a virgin lot that we did not get a piece of
originally, so. That with some' bad acting for several years does
complicate this slightly.
MR. HERRMANN: I understand.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Are there any other comments from the public
or members of the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the addition of an,additional ten feet of vegetated
non-turf buffer, increasing it to a total of 20 feet, and new
plans depicting that buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, for hearing me.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 7, En-Consultants on behalf of TENFORTY
Board of Trustees 29 October 15, 2025
CENTRAL, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to clear (including nine
trees to be replaced 1 to 1) , and re-grade area of property f
between the 50-foot and 100-foot top of bluff setbacks using
. approximately 227 cubic yards of earthen fill material sourced
- - - from proposed on-site construction located more than 100' from --the top of bluff, to create a more level rear yard by raising
(max. 4ft. ) Or lowering (max. 2ft. ) Existing grade elevations;
construct at least 100ft. From bluff a two-story, 2, 304sq.ft.
Single-family dwelling with a second-floor balcony, swimming
pool with raised patio and outdoor kitchen area, and associated
stoop and steps; install an I/A sanitary system; and to
establish and perpetually maintain a 50-foot-wide
non-disturbance buffer along the landward edge of the top crest
of the bluff, and a 25-foot-wide non-turf buffer area between
the 50-foot and 75-foot setbacks.
Located: 1940 Central Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-1-27
The Trustees most recently conducted an in-house review on
the 9th of September, noting a four-foot path through the
non-disturbance buffer was. needed.
We are in receipt of plans that show that four-foot path
now.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent. The inconsistencies include that the parcel is
currently undeveloped and wooded, the clearing and grading
within 100 feet of the top of the bluff is proposed for use that
is not water dependent, which inconsistent with the policy to
avoid physical loss of woodlands when possible. The parcel has
sufficient depth to avoid 'having to do any clearing within
100-feet of the top of the bluff, and still have room for a
backyard. It also states the proposal is not water-dependent
use, and should be located as far away from the top of bluff and
coastal hazard area as practical.
The parcel is currently undeveloped, providing the
opportunity to be consistent with this policy by moving the
house farther away from the top of the bluff, thus allowing for
a rear yard that could be cleared and graded without impacting
the woodlands that will be stabilizing the buffer for years to
come.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann, of En-Consultants. The owner
of the property is here, the project architect is here.
This is another hearing that is a continuation of last
month, that was held open solely for submission or receipt, I
should say, of the LWRP report.
Yeah, I found the LWRP report a little surprising. I mean
it essentially, I understand these were kind of rushed together
this month, but it does not seem to reflect the familiarity with
the site and the topography on the site.
The Board has been on the property, we specifically sought
Board of Trustees 30 October 15, 2025.
the Board' s counsel before completing the design and submitting
an application, and the application has been designed in
accordance with the Board's guidance.
All of this is on the hearing record. from last month: In a
....very, very quick review, all .of the proposed .construction is
already located outside the hundred-foot setback, well beyond
the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, beyond the hundred-foot top of
bluff setback, set well beyond not just the pier line but
physically behind to roadside of the existing dwellings on
either side already. It therefore meets the code, it meets the
clearing setback of 50 feet. There is a 50-foot non-disturbance
buffer. The Board had recommended that we had an additional
25-foot non-buffer beyond that, which we did. That we further
limit the fill, which we did. And at this point, really, the
project is compliant with the Town wetlands code. It' s well
outside the coastal erosion code. It' s consistent with Board
precedent decisions on these type of projects, and with the
Board's :specific guidance on this property in particular.
So, if the Board wants to discuss -- oh, and the other
issue, too, in terms of the tree removal part, we did also with
the Board' s suggestion commit to 100% tree replacement within
the hundred-foot setback from the top of the bluff. So there
would actually be, ultimately no net loss in trees as a result
of the construction-related activities.
So if the Board wants to rehash any of the prior
discussions, we certainly can, we can answer any questions,
otherwise we hope that it is a project that is consistent with
the LWRP and consistent with your code and policies.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just want to comment with regards to the LWRP
report after visiting the site several times. There is
discussion about the depression closest to the -bluff there, and
if it' s kettle hole or not. But I would say after review of
that, and of the surrounding area, it more likely than not that
it's just like a borrow pit that, from past use. Geologically
speaking,, I don't believe it' s a natural feature, and if it is,.
I think it would have extended along the neighboring properties
as well, which either that was manipulated at some point in time
to level that out, or it just somebody was taking sand out of
there at some point. And that's just my expertise from
inspecting the site.
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, Nick.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any further comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 31 October 15, 2025
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application
subject to the 25-foot non-turf buffer as depicted be made a
vegetated non-turf buffer. And with the extensive buffer and
the Trustees field site inspections, plus the very minimal
activity within the hundred feet, we thereby bring this into
consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 8, REVISED SITE PLAN SUBMITTED 9/12/2025
En-Consultants on behalf of WIN WUNN, LLC requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a fixed timber catwalk with water and
electricity, consisting of a 41x76' fixed timber catwalk using •
open-grate decking, a 31x14' ramp, and a 61x20' floating dock
situated in an "I" configuration and secured by two (2) 10"
diameter dolphin piles, with two (2) 10" diameter dolphin
tie-off piles located approximately 20 feet east of floating
dock.
Located: 1055 Wood Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-6-11.
The Trustees most recently reviewed this project on
September loth, 2025. Trustee Peeples noted that this
application is straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator made the recommendation that this
proposal is consistent with the LWRP as outlined below.
Policy standard 6.3, protect and restore tidal and fresh
water wetlands. The catwalk is elevated at least four feet above
grade in intertidal zone, and constructed with light-penetrating
.open-grate decking so as not to impede the potential growth of
vegetation beneath it. Also, the length of the dock as short as.
possible.
These mitigation measures minimize adverse impacts to tidal
wetlands.
Policy standard 9. 4, assure public access to public trust
lands and navigable waters. The length of the proposed dock is
landward of the neighboring docks on both sides, ensuring the
creek remains open to public access.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regards to this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. This 'is my last hearing that was held open from last
month for receipt of the LWRP report, which sounded great, so
I'll leave it at that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That's fine. I read it just for you, Mr.
Herrmann.
Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak?
(No response) .,
Are there any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
r
Board of Trustees 32 October 15, 2025
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted..
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 9, AS PER REVISED PLANS SUBMITTED
9/15/2025 Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf of CHRISTOPHER &
ARIANNA MARTELL requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
existing ±234 ' long wood bulkhead and 36' long jetty with new
bulkhead and jetty in-place using vinyl sheathing with 12"
diameter pilings placed 6' on-center, 8"x8" walers, vertical
deadmen with horizontal lay-logs or helix .screws for backing
system with a fiberglass grated cap along the entire length;
perform reclamation dredging along the bulkhead to a maximum
depth of 4 ' to no more than 10' seaward of bulkhead; temporarily
remove existing permitted ramp and floating docks and replace
in-place; 95sq. ft. Of existing cantilevered platform with steps
that lead to the dock and two flower planters to be removed and
reconstructed in-place; install a 48"x50' untreated on-grade
pervious wood walkway along the northern section of bulkhead;
and to install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf
buffer area along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 1640 First Street & 945 Orchard Street, New Suffolk.
SCTM# 1000-117-5-46.3 & 1000-117-5-46. 4
The Trustees most recently conducted a field inspection
September 10th, 2025, noting straightforward bulkhead
replacement. Question the length of the boardwalk.
We do have new plans submitted that shorten the length of
the boardwalk.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
Again, this is another application that was carried over
from the previous month because we did not have an LWRP report.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, with Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf
of the applicants, Martell' s. As you alluded to, this is a
holdover from last month because of not having the LWRP report.
I read online the LWRP report, saw that it was found consistent,
with one recommendation, that we addressed last month and it' s
in the .plans that were talked about last month, that is
specifically shortening the walkway that was going along the
length of the bulkhead. So we've already done that. So I'm here
to answer any questions you might have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I was remiss, we do have the stamped received
plans, September 15th, 2025, that do show the shortened walkway.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
Board of Trustees 33 October 15, 2025
application.
(No response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted, with the stamped plans September 15th, 2025.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 10, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AND PLANS RECEIVED 8/26/25 Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf of
ANDREW L. TERRONO REVOCABLE TRUST 2011 requests a Wetland
Permit to modify the existing permitted dock consisting of
removing the existing adjustable ramp and 6'xl6' floating dock;
install handrails onto landward 4' wide stairs to catwalk;
extend the catwalk 16' seaward for a total of a 4 'x76' catwalk;
install flow-through decking on the entire catwalk; install a
new 31x16' aluminum ramp to a new 61x20' floating dock situated
in an "L" configuration and secured with two (2) 10-inch
diameter piles; install a ladder off fixed catwalk; and relocate
existing water and electric connections to end of new catwalk
section.
Located: 387 Wood Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-6-29
The Trustees performed an in-house review most recently,
prior to that was the August 6th field inspection concerning
proximity to the headwaters, with dock extension containing an
"I" cutout for more access to water depth. Pier line needs to be
drawn, which I should note has been drawn since then, and no
additional floats off proposed float.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
proposed action is located within the New York State Department
of State Significant Fish & Wildlife Habitat Area and New York
State Critical Environmental Area, and a Peconic Estuary
Critical Natural Resource Area. The creek has shallow water
depth.
11Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. Comply
with statutory and regulatory requirements from the Town Board
of Trustees laws and regulations for all Andros patents and
other lands under jurisdiction.
The applicant fails to prove the action meets the following
requirements: 275-11, construction operation standards C2D of
the Southold Town code, review approval of dock applications
before issuing permit of a dock structure, the Trustees shall
consider whether the dock will have any of the following harmful
affects: Whether the dock will unduly interfere with the public
Board of Trustees 34 October 15, 2025
use of the waterways for swimming, boating, fishing,
shellfishing, waterskiing and other water-dependent activities.
A net loss of public use of waterways is expected as a result of
the extension of the dock in or on public waterways.
What is the need to extend the dock in an ecologically ... _ _.
sensitive waterbody. Preserve the public interest in and use of
lands/waters held in public trust by the state lands of the Town
of Southold. Limit grants, leases, easements, permits or lesser
interest in lands underwater in accordance with an assessment of
potential adverse impacts of the proposed use. Structure or
facility on public interest and public lands underwater.
The extension of private residential dock structure in
public lands and/or waters results in the net loss of public use
of such lands and waters.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, Sol Searcher Consulting, on behalf of
the applicant. I'm not going to go through the LWRP response
because we already did that at a previous hearing. I'd just note
that we are looking to extend the dock four feet on a body of -
water where the width there is 700 feet there from shore to
shore.
I'm going to read a statement.
We respectively submitted to the Trustee office on July
27th a revision to the June 12th application for Trustee
application for modification to the dock for Terrono Trust 2011.
A public hearing was held on August 13th, it was tabled to the
September hearing. Another submission of modified plans was
submitted to your office on September .2nd. A public hearing was
continued on September 17th. We are requesting tonight an
approval of this wetland permit as per the plans submitted on
September 2nd. We base this on the following:
A presubmission conference was held of the property on May
6th, 2025. The primary purpose of this conference was to obtain
feedback regarding the pier line as demonstrated on the proposed
site plan, and was staked in the field.
We are not looking for the Trustees to propose a design for
the structure at that time. In preparation for this site visit,
presubmission site plans dated April 4th, 2025, depicted what we
thought was the pier line. A proposed four-foot dock extension
was staked. Trustees Goldsmith, Sepenoski and Peeples were
present for the visit. I told them the purpose of the site visit
was to review the pier line as it fell within -- excuse me -- as
if they felt that, if it was, the pier line was not correct, the
applicant was not going forward with this proposed project. All
three Trustees indicated the staking of the most seaward limit
of the dock did match the pier line showed on the scope plan.
There was no mention'of an objection of the pier line on
that field inspection report. The only modification requested on
the field inspection report was the use of open-grate decking on
Board of Trustees 35 October 15, 2025
catwalk, which we complied with.
We submitted for consideration at the August hearing a
kayak lift, given the applicant' s disability. This disability
had been accepted as valid by the Town of Southold as the Town -
issued a handicap parking permit for this applicant.
The Trustees strongly objected to his kayak lift, so we
removed it from the application in preparation for the September
hearing.
The Trustees also mentioned an objection to the pier line,
initially indicating it did not match the pier line on the
presubmission site plan. A copy of the presubmission site plan
was presented to the dais, which clearly demonstrated the pier
line of the proposed plans matched exactly the pier line as
shown at the pre-submission conference.
At the September public hearing, the Trustees objected to
- the pier line.
On our September 2nd site plan we showed a pier line which
included a dock on an adjacent property, which was located to
the northwest, or just inside the mouth of the tributary. This
possible pier line transversed land, which was stated was
totally impractical.
One Trustee stated in her opinion that was the correct pier
line. We disagreed, .as had the Trustees who participated in the
presubmission visit in May.
It was suggested at the September hearing that a fixed "L"
dock to be constructed which would terminate at the present
location, which would be in less than required depth of 2 .5
feet. It even, if it was lowered to the level of the mean high
water and mean low water, it would still require a stepdown of
between 2.5 and three feet, which is not possible for the
applicant given his disability.
The suggestion was that is not a reasonable accommodation
under ADA. Plus it has been the past practice of the New York
DEC in approvals of docks in less than 2.5 feet, to condition
that no motorized vessels can be moored at the dock.
Now let' s look at this from an environmental perspective.
The Trustees had mentioned in the August hearing that as a
present dock is nonconforming but permitted, it can simply be
replaced over time, over a few years as is allowed in Chapter
275. Yet our proposed project would include flow-thru decking on
the catwalk. And getting the boat into deeper water, hence
reducing the opportunity of propwash, which has a negative
environmental impact on the benthic community. It's a fact that
our proposed project would result in net environmental, positive
environmental impact.
In conclusion, the feedback received both verbally and as
was stated on the field inspection notes at the pre-submission
conference resulted in our moving forward with an application.
It' s not with the Trustees, but with the New York DEC, New York
Department of State and the Army Corps of Engineers. Clearly we
Board of Trustees 36 October 15, 2025
would not have moved forward with this application if the
objection to the pier line was provided at the pre-submission
conference.
New York Department of State issued a letter of no
objection to army Corps. on September 30th, and we received Army
Corps approval this week, and I handed up to the Clerk those
documents.
Thousands of dollars have been dedicated to this project
based upon the feedback received at the pre-submission
conference. With all due respect, we feel that the three
Trustees present at the pre-submission conference have an
ethical responsibility to vote to approve this application.
Clearly our project proposed results in a net gain from an
environmental perspective, and will allow the applicant a
reasonable accommodation for his documented disability.
We ask that all Trustees take the net gain of the
environment, plus the applicant' s disability into consideration,
and vote to support the decisions of the Army Corps and
Department of State and approve this application.
Thank you, for your time.
With that, I'm here to answer any questions you might have.
MS. HULSE: I'll just note for the record not everything of what
you just put on the record was actually accurate or correctly
stated in the record. The record will speak for itself.
Maybe your marshalling of what you believe the testimony
would be is your opinion of what you heard but not necessarily
what actually took place. I can tell you that my recollection
differs significantly from a lot of what you just said.
Just to address one issue, you made reference to the kayak
ramp is not permitted in the code. The lift, rather, is not
permitted in the code. Is there a basis that you have that you
are disagreeing with that other than he has a handicap permit
for parking? Is there a reason you think you have an
exception that no one else should be allowed to have?
MR. BERGEN: In the revised plans that were submitted, the kayak
lift had been removed. We agreed to that already. So we've
agreed --
MS. HULSE: It doesn't comport with the code, right? It doesn't
comport with the code. You put it in -the application knowing
that you were never going to get it. So you made a point of
addressing that specific issue but in fact you removed it
because you are not allowed to have it be code, correct?
MR. BERGEN: I never thought that it would not be allowed,
because of the documented disability. I thought- it would be,
I'll use the word "variance, " granted by the Trustees -- if
you'll let me finish please.
MS. HULSE: You know this Board ks not a board of variance, so.
MR. BERGEN: If you'll let me finish, please.
MS. HULSE: Go ahead.
MR. BERGEN: That it's no different to me than if somebody came
Board of Trustees 37 October 15, 2025
in and wanted a structure less than 100 feet from the wetlands
and they wanted it 95, and the Trustees approved that. They are
in essence giving a variance 'to the hundred foot. I'm not using
it in the legal term, I 'm using it in a common term.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then it should be put on the record then.
MS. HULSE: Legally, that' s incorrect. Because the code
specifically prohibits it, the Board cannot decide based on
X,Y, Z to allow it. And I've already taken -issue with your
assessment as to the handicap proof that has been provided. I
think there are significant limitations with that. But be that
as it may, this Board can't do that in any event.
So that part of it, I think, you know, I wanted to clarify
for the record.
MR. BERGEN: But, again, we've taken that out of this project.
What I'm submitting --
MS. HULSE: You just referenced it in your recitation.
MR. BERGEN: Yes. No, I referenced the disability and I
referenced the kayak ramp in that they stated a strong
objection, excuse me, kayak lift, stated --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no. I'm sorry, we're not objecting to it.
It does not conform to the code. So it's not a bargaining chip
to be used for the record.
Ms. HULSE: That's my point.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I think that' s what our attorney is saying.
MR. BERGEN: And I'll accept that completely. I will accept that
completely. And again, we removed that part .of the application,
so that is not even up for consideration tonight because we've
already removed that.
MS. HULSE: I appreciate that, and I don't want to belabor it,
but you just brought it up as point to be made, and you said
they strongly objected. They didn't have a feeling about it
either way, because I told them, as they know already, that the
code specifically says it's prohibited. So to make this some
sort of an emotional point I think is misplaced.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think it' s also worth noting that in our
code under "setbacks, " it specifically states that the Board of
Trustees reserves the right to waive or alter these setbacks for
site-specific and/or environmental conditions justify such
action. Which is what gives us the ability to make alterations
to the setback. We do not have the same ability to make an
adjustment to a code that explicitly prohibits something.
MR. BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And speaking of the code, I would like to
state for the record, Chapter 275-8: Process of an application,
(a) , pre-submission conference. Applicants are encouraged to
schedule a voluntary pre-submission site visit to discuss the
proposed operations with the Board. Discussions in the field are
purely advisory and non-binding.
MR. BERGEN: Okay. I'm just trying to respond to one of the items
that you stated. I had the opportunity to go back and look at
Board of Trustees 38 October 15, 2025
the August Minutes, because they've already been posted, in
preparation for that statement tonight.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would like to follow up, just to make the
record clear, that, Mr. Bergen, you keep coming back to the
presubmission and then to the subsequent field inspection, and
again, the code states it pretty clearly, but just for all
intents and purposes, you are well aware as a former Trustee
. that's non-binding and, you know, again, I was not there, we had
a conversation about it afterwards, you know, on the record.
And this is a tricky site.
I would also just like to point out that on your updated
plans with your pier line, that this Board does not agree with,
it's factually an incorrect pier line, but even with that pier
line you don't conform to that because you show the vessel on
there as outside the pier line.
So as we saw it at an earlier hearing today, in Chapter
275, it' s very clear, that that pier line has to include the
—vessel. So right there there is a major issue with the plans.
So my recommendation, because I have spent a good amount of
time kayaking this area, this would certainly block access to
people utilizing, you know, going up in that inlet and sort of,
you know, utilizing the environmental resources there, is that
you take another look at your depths. I think, you know, you
are trying to achieve a "T" configuration here. This is just
one Trustee's opinion, but I think you could probably extend the
catwalk slightly, stay within your current footprint, not extend
further seaward, and find the depth.
I have spent, you know, a good amount of time here, and I
do believe that your depths are slightly incorrect and that you
would find the 30-inch if you stayed within, on both sides of
the float, if you stayed within your current length.
So that is a slightly less extension than you are applying
for, however it doesn't encroach into the public right-of-way
any further, and I think it would still be achieving what your
client is attempting to achieve. And you are very, very close to
having that depth already. And it's very mucky there, and
things move around a lot.
I think you should take another look, and I think there's
probably a pretty fair compromise between public use and private
property that can be reached here.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I also want to note that we do appreciate the
extensive amount of money and time and energy that has gone into
this application, and we would understand the applicant's
frustration with the process: And so I think it' s worth noting
that we do understand that, but I think that what Trustee
Krupski has just proposed is a reasonable outcome that would
satisfy this Board.
MR. BERGEN: So, I'm trying to understand what exactly Trustee
Krupski was suggesting here. That we stick with the "I"
configuration?
1
Board of Trustees 39 October 15, 2025
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI': No. I think that your client is, I'm assuming
trying to achieve a little extra depth, and seems to like the
"L" or "T" or whatever- you want to call it.
You have the required depth right at the line that they are
currently at where the piles are. I think that you could propose
a slight extension, and then still turn that float sidewayq as
proposed, not going out any further than the existing piles, and
you would still be within the 30 inches as required.
So again, not extending out into the public-use factor any
further, but achieving, I think, essentially all that you are
trying to achieve here.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I also think if the argument is that this dock
cannot comply with the pier line based on having to go over
land. I would ask that you remove the pier line all together
because I think it's confusing the plan here to see a pier line
that is not connected to docks at all.
MR. BERGEN: You're talking about the diagonal pier line that was
on the September 2nd plan?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The September 2nd plan. There' s the two pier
lines. There is the one that -- the one that the Trustees
believe is essentially, and this just, there's always going to
be an end to the dock, right, so the Trustees contention is that
when you get to the end of the docks and the headwaters, you are
going from dock to zero. There is another dock there, which
doesn't really help you with the pier line. But that' s what I
think we would argue that the pier line is.
The other one, again, and I said this earlier, and I don't
want to get too lost in the pier line debate, seeing as we are
at the end of the road with the docks here. It really comes down
to we are at the headwaters of the creek, environmentally
sensitive area, public, you know, use and right-of-way. And I
think there is a middle ground that can be reached that I think
is pretty reasonable.
MR. BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have any wish in terms of this?
MR. BERGEN: 1 just wanted to see if there were any other
comments at this point in time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak to
this application, or any additional comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
MR. BERGEN: Okay, then I would request to table this application
and go back to the applicant and see what he would like to do.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Hearing no additional comments, I
make motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 11, S. Heaney Marine Construction,
Inc. On behalf of HARBOR COVE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
Board of Trustees 40 October 15, 2025
requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place
existing timber bulkhead with approximately 33 linear feet of
vinyl bulkhead; construct a proposed 10' long return along
eastern property line; backfill with approximately 11 cubic
yards of clean sandy fill to be trucked in from an approved.
upland source; and to install and perpetually maintain a 10-foot
wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 145 Sailors Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-14-9.2
The Trustees notes from 10/7/25 read straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent
with its policies.
Is there anyone. here that wishes to speak regarding the
application?
MR. HEANEY: Shawn Heaney on behalf of the applicant. Sounds
like you said, it's straightforward. So unless there's any type
of questions, I think we're all good.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. Any members of the public wish to
speak, or members the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 12, Costello Marine Contracting Corp.
On behalf of 500 BROADWATERS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4 'x30' landward ramp leading up to a 41x30' catwalk
to a 4 'x30' ramp down onto a 4 'x57 ' dock (41x147' total) ;
install a 31x14 ' aluminum ramp at seaward end of dock leading
onto a 6'x20' floating dock situated in an "L" configuration and
secured 'with two (2) pile dolphins.
Located: 500 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-10-5
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 7th of
October, noting the project needs to be dialed back to pier line
with immediately adjacent neighbors, and also noting the
open-grate decking is required for .the entire length of the
dock. v
The LWRP. reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent.
Some of the inconsistencies include: The application does
not comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements. The
proposed dock extends beyond the pier line as defined in Town
Code. The pier line shown on the plan is incorrect because it
extends beyond the dock immediately adjacent to a dock further
Board of Trustees 41 October 15, 2025
away. The length of the proposed dock encroaches into the
navigable waters and limits public access to public trust lands.
The remainder of the project could be found consistent if the
dock is shortened to be within the pier line. Other than
extending too far into Broadwater Cove, the design incorporates
best practices.
The catwalk is elevated at least four feet above the grade
in the intertidal zone and constructed with light-penetrating
open-grate decking as to not impede potential growth of
vegetation beneath it.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. COSTELLO: Hi, I'm Jane Costello, as agent for the applicant.
Okay, so the pier line. The reason why we chose that pier
line is the adjacent dock when we looked up that piece of
property, the first thing that comes up is that this Board, in
May of 2022, found that dock to be not compliant to the original
permit. So I don't know if you want to create a pier line to a
dock that is non-compliant.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Was it shorter than permitted?
MS. COSTELLO: I don't know. When I brought up the records to
look at the adjacent docks and everything, the first thing that
came up was that the current owner is trying to transfer the
permit into their names, and the transfer was denied to the new
owners because the dock was not in compliance with the permit.
And so we took from there. We went over an additional dock
and drew the line.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: When you're speaking about the non-compliant
dock from your search of the records, which one are you
referring to? The one on the west?
MS. COSTELLO: The west. The smaller of the two.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, the dock to the west of the applicant's
dock.
MS. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you.
MS. COSTELLO: That is why on our project plans the pier line
goes to the next dock to the west.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's unfortunately not how, I mean if there
was a dock that was egregiously longer, of course we would not
utilize that for the pier line. But if there is an existing dock
there that has quite a bit of age to it, that' s where we would
have to draw that pier line to. And I did the transfer on that
several years ago, and what's while it's not conforming, it is a
reasonably-aged dock. It certainly was not built within the last
few decades.
MS. COSTELLO: No, I 'll agree with you. It' s a tired structure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MS. COSTELLO: And so, but I don't know if the Board really wants
to get into using a non-compliant dock to draw a pier line.
Because, just because this one is going the way you want it, if
Board of Trustees 42 October 15, 2025
that dock was 45 feet longer, you're telling me you would say
no, that's not the pier line.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Correct. I think what we would use is the
actual permitted dock structure on that property. So we do have
to review the records to find what is permitted on that property
to get an accurate pier line, is what I would assume makes
sense.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The deck could be shorter. We can look up what
is permitted on there.
MS. COSTELLO: There are times where docks are not, you permit a
structure and they are not even built. I mean, you can't use
that as a pier line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And never built, you are saying. But if it's
within the timeline of the permit, it could be utilized. If
it's past the expiration date of the permit and never built, we
would not use that as a pier line.
But I think to your point, you are not wrong, and we can
research this and go back to what is permitted there, and that
would be your actual pier line. I'm not sure we would be able to
come up with that tonight, though.
MS. COSTELLO: Even though, I mean if these people, if the
neighbor came to you for a permit to construct that dock to be
in conformance with their permit that was issued in 182 or 183,
would you even allow it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:. Well, I don't think we can legally speak to
that, right.
MS. COSTELLO: ' But you are binding us to it. Standards have
changed, right. So --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't really follow your argument, I'll be
honest with you.
MS. COSTELLO: If we approached the neighbor and say, hey, your
dock .is getting tired and old, we want to -- are you considering
reconstructing this dock, right. Right now we have to get, you
would not want them to reconstruct into the way it was permitted
anyway. Because it has a floating dock, it would be in less
than, you know, 30. inches of water and things like that. So that
would not even be allowed in today's standards. But right now,
if my application was not on the table and I said, extend your
dock out, the pier line that I'm showing on my plans is the pier
line that the neighbor would be able to utilize.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct. And that is a slight way to
manipulate the system, but that is not something we see on a
regular basis. It's also a nearly-perfect system, but it' s not
perfect: So that would be, I mean, and we are kind of getting
into the weeds here, or the marsh grass. But if you wanted to
approach the neighbor first and say, hey, we would like to
rebuild your dock, you could do that. That's definitely an
option.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Granting the adjacent docks you would draw
the pier line from are also conforming to their permits.
Board of Trustees 43 October 15, 2025
MS. COSTELLO: They are, I did. It would not being an argument
unless I checked that.
So I mean, hypothetically, if I drew it to the pier line to
what is existing there right now, my proposal would have to be
reduced in length about 16 feet, and therefore a ramp and a - - ---- -- -
float would not be used, because now the float would be in 29
inches the water instead of 30.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: If not mistaken, when we looked at it, it
looked like it was on the seaward side of that 29-inch. So using
that pier line with the dock in its current configuration, you
were close to the 30 inches. And I'm_sure if you went out and
measured, utilizing that, you would probably find that 30 inches
to have a float, judging by what we saw on the plans. And
again, we didn't have an accurate pier line to go by. But when
we drew one, you know, using what's there, it does look like you
are at or close to that 30 inch. So if you came up with some new
plans, went out there with some new measurements, utilizing
those new plans with the accurate pier line, and find that 30
inches, that would be something that could entertain then having
a float.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay. I'll go back, take more measurements, and I
understand it' s very close, as far as the water depth is
concerned. But I will urge that the whole concept of using a
non-compliant dock as a pier line is just, that is a tough one.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think you are correct in that, and thank you
for pointing that out. That dock is permit #66, and we are
currently looking up the measurements on that now so we can
utilize what is supposed to be there as the pier line.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And just, we don't come cross too many docks
that are shorter than are permitted, so any non-compliance is
usually on the other side, so.
MS. COSTELLO: Right. But that's my point. It' s like, normally,
right now, this is, you know, the Board tends to not want a
longer dock. It seems like you guys want the docks to be
shorter. And so this is to your benefit. But if that went out
farther, this would not be to your benefit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, it's certainly not to our benefit. We are
protecting the public resource and use, so that people who live
inland can access this and not just the private owners on the
waterfront.
MS. COSTELLO: Right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : So certainly not to our benefit, and not just
to the environment benefit either. It's really about public
access for all residents of the town.
MS. COSTELLO: So the difference is, because I did calculate it.
The difference is if I pulled the dock back, regardless if there
is a float or not, but if I pulled it back 16 feet, you're
talking about a 240 square foot difference that the public would
be able to use. And that' s what you are trying to preserve.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's certainly part of it. We are also trying
Board of Trustees 44 October 15, 2025
to conform with the code. And honestly, if we are talking 16
feet to conform with the code, and you're at 29 inches, and I
know how the sediments move around there, if you move that dock
to the left or right slightly, there's no world that you are not
--- - —_.--- going to get 30 -inches -to be in -compliance. --
MS. COSTELLO: Yeah, but you still have to do the offsets,
property line offsets and stuff like that. There is not much
wiggle room there as far as moving the docks. And I honestly
think that would be worse for the neighbors. You don't want to
hug one side or the other because then the neighbor's navigation
is going to be encroached on a little bit. You know what I mean?
I want everybody to be able to use their docks.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Certainly.
MS. COSTELLO: I don't want to hug a property line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. And that' s part of the reason for the
pier line, so we don't get in front of the other docks and
everyone can utilize.
MS. COSTELLO: Yes, but I think it' s actually, on our dock, if
you went out there, I don't think it's really impeding anybody' s
navigation.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It still has to comply with the pier line, and
the pier line depicted here is not accurate.
MS. COSTELLO: Right. But you are saying -- what are you going to
draw the dock that was supposed to be there in the 80s?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, we're not.
MS. COSTELLO: Are you going to provide me plans to go work off
of; is that what we're going to do?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not. Someone is.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay, I was just wondering the way this was going
to go.
I mean, the dock and the structure, even what's there, it' s
not that they, you know, bumped out in recent years. This has
been there and it just happens that they tried to transfer it. I
mean, there's a lot of non-conforming docks. It just happens to
be that this one is in records, and that it states it is a
non-conformity. Or not compliant with this.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Ms. Costello, I do really appreciate your study
on all of this and what you brought to the attention of the
Board, and we would hope that all applicants would be utilizing
all of the resources at hand within the town for this
information. Butt one thing, just while we are in the spirit of
study here, the pier line that you did provide, which we have
acknowledged is not correct because it's not the immediately
adjacent dock, the property that you drew the pier line from the
west side of the dock, if you look at the tax map, the parcel
actually does sort of angle towards the seaward edge, so when we
are dealing with the land, obviously there is an organic edge of
the shoreline there, we would sometimes actually take the
distance of the dock from mean high water to the seaward edge of
the dock. Not necessarily, if' we are trying to draw a bit of a
Board of Trustees 45 October 15, 2025
creative pier line or look at properties that may not have a
very clear line that is available, I just wanted to bring that
to your attention that while you drew that pier line to go
extend to that most-seaward point, it may in fact need to be
dialed pack slightly just because that property does exceed the
line of the other properties. The seaward edge of it. If that
made sense.
Basically, if you look at that line -- we do take that into
consideration, and you've likely seen that in other hearings
wear it' s not a straightforward pier line. So I just wanted to
bring that to your attention as well, because I understand that
you have studied this quite extensively. And we do appreciate
that. But just bringing up that is something that we would also
perhaps take into consideration, depending on the situation.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think you mentioned that when you pulled up
to the neighbor's property, the saw the note that the current
dock is not in compliance. If you look at page 32 on Laserfiche
you'll be able to see the plan that is approved. And so, you
know, that might be a helpful context for you. But sounds like
you are going to, would you like to table this?
MS. COSTELLO: Yes, absolutely.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application at the
applicant' s request.
MS. COSTELLO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 13, AS PER REVISED SITE PLANS AND
PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 10/3/25 Joan Chambers on behalf of
GEORGE DANGAS requests a Wetland Permit to install a 19.51x55'
stone patio located at grade on the northeast side of the
property and elevated 2 ' (maximum) above grade at the southwest
end; construct a new 14 'x36' gunite swimming pool with an
automatic cover within the patio area; install pool enclosure
fencing with gates; the existing deck and northeast staircase to
remain; install seven (7) 23"x36" stepping stones at grade
between the existing stairs and new patio; maintain in-kind the
existing ±53' long irregularly shaped railroad tie retaining
wall along the southwest side of the property; construct a
staircase connecting the existing deck to new stone patio;
construct a second staircase from new patio down to existing
grade at lowest terrace; install a new outdoor counter and grill
area on existing deck; install a 4 ' wide pea gravel walkway with
Board of Trustees 46 October 15, 2025
ten (10) 24"x36" stepping stones along south side; add a free
standing outdoor shower; install area drains within the pea
gravel walkway and shower area to be connected to a new drywell
that will also contain roof runoff; repurpose the existing
drywell to serve as a new pool and patio drains drywell;
existing generator to remain; relocate buried propane tank to
southeast side of property; install pool equipment along south-
side of property enclosed on three sides with pool compliant
railings; no trees are to be removed; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 25' wide vegetated non-turf buffer area
along the top crest of the bluff.
Located: 1900 Hyatt Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-50-1-3
The Trustees most recently performed an inhouse review on
this, dated October 7th of 2025, and noted review at work
session for in-house review.
The LWRP coordinator found that this action is consistent
with the LWRP policies, noting the following: Number one,
clarify outdoor shower drainage. Number two, a large native
plant vegetated buffer is recommended to further Policy 6. And
number three, limbing up of trees is recommended instead of
removal.
Is there anyone here who wishes to. speak regarding this
application?
MS. CHAMBERS: Good evening, I 'm Joan Chambers, I'm representing
the Dangas family.
As you know, this project was reviewed before, and the
family and their construction team went back and redesigned and
came up with conformance with some of the suggestions that were
made at the last hearing, and I would just like to read them in
here.
The original proposed 18 'x40' foot gunnite pool has been
reduced to a 14x36. This modification allows the north setback
from top of the bluff to be increased from 78 feet to 87 feet,
representing a nine-foot increase, or about 9% more.
In the original application, a 2014"x6' wooden deck was
proposed at the north end of the pool; positioned ,three feet
above existing grade, along with a 2014"xll' 8" deck at the south
end, positioned eight feet above grade, to align the pool
elevation with the existing decks.
In the revised proposal, the reduced size pool is now set
with a new stone patio that sits at grade height at the north
side, and rises to no more than 24 inches above grade at the
,south end.
The existing wooden deck and north staircase will remain in
place without alteration. The original design included the
staircase along the southwest side of the property.
And in the revised plan the staircase has been reconfigured to
improve circulation on the southwest side. The existing railroad
tie retaining wall in this area will remain and be replaced
in-kind as needed.
Board of Trustees 47 October 15, 2025
The pool drywell as originally proposed has been
eliminated. Instead the existing drywell along the south
property line will be repurposed to accommodate drainage for the
new pool and patio.
In addition a new drywell will be installed in the side
yard to handle roof runoff, site drainage and the outdoor shower
drainage.
The pool equipment, which is previously located beneath the
deck has been relocated to the side yard and will be housed
within an enclosed area.
The retaining walls that were previously proposed below the
existing deck had been removed from the new plan.
Lastly, the non-turf buffer had been increased from 15 feet
to 25 feet, further enhancing the environmental protection along
the bluff.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, Ms. Chambers.
MS. CHAMBERS: Can you repeat the recommendations of the LWRP?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Certain. Clarify the outdoor shower drainage,
which you just have noted. I would say that it's not here on the
plan, though you noted that that was the new drywell would
accommodate the shower drainage.
A large native plant vegetated buffer is recommended. And
as you noted, you increased the buffer to 25 feet, and it is
noted on -- actually, the plan notes a non-turf buffer. The
project description notes vegetated. So perhaps that can be
updated on the plans as well as adding that note for the drywell
about the shower.
One comment that Trustee Gillooly made, which we have noted
in the past is it is a little bit distracting to have a green
used as the color for a vegetated non-turf buffer, because it
looks like a lawn. So perhaps that's changed to a hatch or
something another color.
MS. CHAMBERS: I 'll pass that recommendation on to the draftsman.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It's something that we have noted in the past,
and it is a little distracting sometimes.
MS. CHAMBERS: Do you have a preference?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It could be a hatch or other color, that
doesn't look lawn related.
And the LWRP coordinator also noted limbing of trees is
recommended instead of removal.
Are you planning on removing any trees that are outside of
the building envelope?
MS. CHAMBERS: No
TRUSTEE PEEPLES,: Okay. So I would like to condition that we
maintain the trees.
MS. CHAMBERS: Maintain the existing trees.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Exactly. And obviously if any trees are needed
to be removed during construction, please return to the Trustees
office for a tree letter.
MS. CHAMBERS: Yes.
Board of Trustees 48 October 15, 2025
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: But those are the comments from the LWRP.
I do appreciate everything you did to address the concerns
of the Board. The comments that were made, I appreciate you
reviewing all of them as well because it is quite an extensive
-- site plan and, you know, by reducing the pool, increasing _the
distance from the top of bluff, increasing the non-turf
vegetated buffer, that all seems good. Thank you.
Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak, or any
other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition of new plans submitted that show the verbiage
of proposed 25-foot vegetated non-turf buffer, and the note that
the new drywell that is on, the more landward drywell, includes
the outdoor shower is connected to that, and that addresses the
concerns of the LWRP. I would also like to condition that all
trees are to be maintained on the property.
MS. CHAMBERS: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That is my motion.
TRUSTEE .KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 14, Condon Engineering on behalf of
BARBARA KOHN requests a Wetland Permit for construction
activities on the existing two-story dwelling which is located
outside Trustee jurisdiction including a new I/A OWTS sanitary
system; remove existing and construct a 1, 068sq. ft. Raised rear
wood deck with steps, and for the existing 26'xl5.2 ' (398sq.ft. )
Raised deck and stairs with 8'x15.2' balcony above off dwelling;
existing generator on concrete pad; install a proposed 35 'xl5'
in-ground .swimming pool with 4' high pool enclosure fencing with
gates, a pool drywell for backwash and pool equipment area; for
the existing 14 .5 'xl8.5' (268sq.ft. ) Cabana with 277sq. ft.
Concrete patio serviced with water and electric; existing
8.2xl2. 6' (103sq.ft. ) Shed/boathouse with an 8 .2x4. 1 outdoor
shower with water and electric; a proposed 120 l.f. trench to
relocate/install new underground electric to existing permitted
deck area along bulkhead; from cottage to main house create a
proposed 20 l.f. trench to install underground sanitary force
main from pump station to main house, a 49 l.f. trench to
install waste line from cottage to the pump station, and install
a pump station.
Located: 500 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#
1000-111-14-12.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection October 7th,
Board of Trustees 49 October 15, 2025
2025. Notes say the pool's closest area to the wetland is at six
or seven feet. Seaward edge of pool should be under two feet.
Move the pool equipment off the property line, and add
screening.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent. And also
notes the proposed action involves replacing a traditional
septic system with newer technology that will reduce nitrogen
pollution into the groundwater, helping to better protect both
coastal waters and the aquifer.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. CONDON: Yes. John Condon, Condon, Engineering.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Condon, I believe when we met in the
field, you said that the seaward edge of the pool would not
really have an elevation to it.
MR. CONDON: We'll keep it two-foot maximum, as discussed in the
field.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And then with the pool equipment, it looks
like it' s on the south side -of the property there. We would be
looking to do some sort of screening or sound attenuation around
that.
MR. CONDON: Yes, we can do that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Is there anyone. else here wishing to
speak regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Are there any other 'questions or comments from- the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that the pool be no higher than two feet
above grade and that sound attenuation to be planted or put in
place around the pool equipment, and new plans submitted
depicting. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 15, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED 8/13/2025 South Fork Environmental Consulting, LLC on
behalf of 106 MULBERRY CORP. , c/o STUART MOY requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a two story, single family dwelling
(25'x42 ' 4", ±1, 058.25sq.ft. ) With attached 7 .3'x48 .2'
(351.86sq. ft) deck on south side of dwelling; install a 251x6'
(±150sq. ft. ) Stone driveway, a 12'x20' parking area on west side
of proposed dwelling, and an ll'x20' parking area on north side
of proposed dwelling; install a new innovative, alternative
nitrogen reducing water treatment system (IA/OWTS) ; install
Board of Trustees 50 October 15, 2025
sanitary retaining wall at an overall length of 99.5' and a
width of 8. 0" across the top of the wall. Located: 750 West
Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-2-1
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. Many of
the inconsistencies relate to the initial application with the
flood zone, which spoke to the bulkhead and also the dock, and
ownership of that said dock, which is .not part of this
application.
The Trustees most recently visited the property on August
6th, 2025. Noted that the pier line should be added to the
plans, with the immediate adjacent structures. Discussion of
the retaining walls on the property since with the bulkhead it
has been raised for reconstruction. The results of the
subsequent discussion with the agent about the need for the
bulkheads and it was believed they should be removed.
I should also note that there is a letter in the file from
a neighbor, from the West Lake Association.
First and foremost it is imperative the community retains
access to the channel and lake via the roadway easement without
restrictions, fences or barriers, temporary or permanent that
might prevent access by any local residents. Uniform concerned
voice by all the community. Second, during bulkhead construction
the contractor took liberties in spreading sand as deep as eight
inches outside the applicant' s property. This already restricts
access, was never on the original permit. Asking to restore the
roadway easement. This excessive sand must be removed
immediately.
In addition we would like to request no homeowner vehicle
parking or any storage on the road by easement or town land.
Modify the site plan to reference any portion of the easement as
roadway, and remove any reference to a driveway within the
easement. Pull the retaining wall height to 24 inch along
easement as measured from original elevation. That the proposed
house plans represent the maximum size permitted for this site,
including the top ridge elevation.
I would appreciate asking these questions. As per the
architectural plans, referenced to the natural grade. Natural
grade is shown elevation 7. 0 yet current property elevation
essentially matches the surveyed height of the bulkhead, which
is 5.5. Where is the natural grade as per the Town Code.
Should the non-turf buffer be included along the channel
bulkhead to protect the environment. Can all non-turf buffers be
vegetated with natural grasses. Can the plan define locations
for all mechanical equipment to the east elevation, including
electrical cables, services connections at. the same location.
In conclusion the community does not have support of the
applicant West Lake Association, Inc. Having accepted the
responsibility to keep the channel at a proper depth, it would
be helpful to include a C&R that any future runoff of solid
earthen materials from this property into the channel be cleaned
Board of Trustees 51 October 15, 2025
up, a/k/a dredging by the current and future property owners at
their expense. Regards, Ken Quigley.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application.
MR. IVAN: Yes. Matt Ivan, South Fork Environmental. If you
remember, I met you guys out at the site on August 6th. Let me
just address the pier line. If I can hand these out. The surveys
were updated to show the pier line location.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. IVAN: And you'll see, it' s almost right on top of the pier
line. It' s about a six-inch extension of the southeastern corner
of the house seaward of that pier line, as you can see.
I do also remember we had talked about the retaining wall.
As it stands now, the maximum height of that retaining wall
sticking out of the ground is 28 inches. I did talk to the
engineer, Joe Fischetti. At this time he doesn't believe he
could lower that retaining wall. I could revisit with Joe a
little bit on this. I could provide an analysis more specific in
terms of why we can't lower that retaining wall. I'll leave that
up to the Board how you guys want to deal with that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It should be noted, and we did discuss this in
the field, and I believe your understanding was we could remove
the retaining wall at that time. And as, Mr. Fischetti is well
aware, because he has been before this Board many times, we
don't allow retaining walls right on the property line at this
point in time. So, and also the 28-inch is an interesting
number, because there was fill put in as a result of the
bulkhead work, - which was already done. So that number, I mean I
don't know if he has been out there since, but if this was the
original application, of course there is an eight-inch grade
change. That' s pretty simple math.
MR. IVAN: All right, let ,me go back to Joe on that. And it
sounds like I'll probably have to have the survey updated to
reflect the most common topography out there. So then Joe can
operate off of that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Probably so. I also think, you know, now
you'll have to look at the location of those retaining walls.
You know, you are trying to maintain a ten-foot minimum but this
Board doesn't allow retaining walls on property lines creating
sort of the castle/moat effect for the neighbors. I understand
that the neighbor is the applicant, but that could change in the
future. So that plus the right-of-way- would have to be
addressed.
So lowering that or removal and doing some sloping, we've
actually worked with Mr. Fischetti in quite a few projects where
he was able to achieve that, with less elevation.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And I would just like to point out, based on
plans you just submitted, it shows that the proposed retaining
wall, top of walls at 7.4, and then on the corner there,
elevation 4.1. So it does look like it's over, what, three feet
Board of Trustees 52 October 15, 2025
in height.
MR. IVAN: Right, I apologize for that. I was reading 6. 4
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just so you are aware. We have seen a slew of
applications very similar to this over the last few years, and
--- '- - - we get into this back and forth with the engineer on retaining — — -- - -
walls, and they have to be there. And we say, well, we can't put
them there, and then the engineer eventually brings us a plan.
So if we could expedite that for next meeting, I think that
would be the best thing to do and not go back and forth and be
back here in December.
MR. IVAN: Understood.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just my two cents on that matter.
Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding
this application?
(No response) .
Or any additional comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Would you like to table this application to make modifications?
MR. IVAN: Yes. Can you give me like two months, if you could?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. All right, hearing no additional comments
table this application for submission of new plans.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 16, Michael Liegey on behalf of TOWN
CREEK REAL ESTATE, INC. Requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
14 'x35 ' in-ground pool with 1' wide coping; install a 5'x46'.
section and 9.7'x20' section of on-grade blue stone pool patio;
install a pool drywell for backwash, a pool equipment area and
4 ' high pool enclosure fencing with gates.
Located: 480 Ackerly Pond Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-69-3-13
The Trustees visited the site October 7th, 2025. Notes read
pool location is setback adequately from wetland boundary.
The LWRP found the project to be inconsistent. While the
location of the pool relative to the wetlands is consistent with
the policies of the LWRP, the location of the pool with respect
to the zoning is not.
Citing Policy One, fostering a pattern of development in
the Town of Southold that enhances community character, reserves
open space, makes sufficient use of infrastructure, make
beneficial use of the coastal location and minimizes adverse
effects of development.
The LWRP goes on to say this proposal is out of character
with the community and does not minimize adverse effects of
development. The pool is proposed in the side yard, only 15
feet from the street. The front yard setback is 40 feet in the
AC zoning district for nonconforming lots of this size. Similar
to the subject parcel, neighboring lots on either side have
houses close to the road due to the headwaters of Jockey Creek
Board of Trustees 53 October 15, 2025
running through the back of the parcel, but neither parcel has a
pool.
The LWRP asks us to consider the following options:
Number one, remove the pool entirely, construction of the
pool was begun without a permit. The applicant has applied
permits in the past, including on this parcel, and should have
been aware that the pool would require a building permit. A
wetland permit would not be permitted in the side at 15 feet
from the street without significant variances.
Number two, the Board is inclined to give a variance,
reducing the size of the pool and reducing the area that is
fenced in around the pool could be an option.
Pursuant to Chapter- 268, the ZBA shall consider this
recommendation in preparing its written determination regarding
the consistency of the proposed action.
I am also in receipt of a letter from Teresa Ward and
Michael Murray. This letter outlines several frustrations with
this project. I will summarize them here.
We understand the Trustees have jurisdiction within 100
feet. Chapter 275. This entire project was already oversized.
Activity in the backyard that overbuilt which I must admit was
addressed on our last inspection. And one of the other
challenges here is that the gravel continually runs off the
driveway with rain and slides downhill at the traffic triangle.
We are hoping to understand approvals are not decades old,
however this is clearly an instance of self-created hardship
which should not be allowed to be further exacerbated.
Is there anyone here to speak regarding this application?
MR. LIEGEY: Mike Liegey, the owner.
We met at the property. I think I submitted something that
you were looking for that wanted to approve for a pool. And
never seen any of the gravel on the other side of the street,
but I'll look into that. I'm trying to be good neighbor, not a
bad one.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The Board is in receipt of the LWRP and it
states that our pool relative to the wetlands is consistent, but
the location of the pool with respect to the zoning is not.
In the field, and given our field notes, we do see an
adequate setback for the pool. However, we have concurrent
jurisdiction here with the Zoning Board of Appeals, and it would
be my recommendation that you go before them or receive a letter
from them approving of the application that you have before us.
MR. LIEGEY: I'm willing to do that. I'm on the calendar for
November 6th. I was told when I went to the Zoning Board that it
was of note that I must see the Trustees first, so that' s why
I'm before your board. So whether or not that' s a mistake or
what, you know, I could table it to next month. I know that
there are numerous houses that have the same situation, that
either the house is, the pool is on the side yard or even in the
front yard. And I have numerous pictures of local houses that
Board of Trustees 54 October 15, 2025
have that situation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to clarify, I don't think it was a
mistake. This Board is unable to comment on -applications that
are in front of the ZBA until they come in front of us, so I
think in the interest of saving you time as an applicant it
makes sense to be on the calendar for them, apply to us, receive
our comment, and then they can move forward concurrently.
MR. LIEGEY: There was some misunderstanding then. Because I went
to ZBA and they told me I have to go to the Trustees first.
That' s, what the note said. They would not take my application.
So I don't know.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I understand your frustration.
MR. LIEGEY: So, anyway, November 6th I'll be before that Board.
So do you want to table it until after?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Our comments here in the field notes, that
the pool meets an adequate setback; you've addressed the issues
in the backyard with the hardening of the structure. We saw
removal of turf grass in the areas that we've pointed out to
you. There was installation of a split-rail fence, clearly
delineating a non-disturbance buffer with a significant
non-disturbance area seaward of the house.
So with respect to our Board's purview as an environmental
review, with our Chapter 275, this project does satisfy those
issues.
So with these comments, I believe you could go before the
ZBA and plead your case with them. Due to the setback off the
road, I think is the issue.
MR. LIEGEY: So I guess I table it to the next meeting that you
have or -- is it after the 6th?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes.
I'm trying to figure out the most efficient way for you to
move forward with this project. And they've given the ZBA
calendar and their pace, the pace in which they review
applications and write determinations. I don't know when that
would be.
MR. LIEGEY: On I'm on the calendar for the 6th of November.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean the issue being if, I mean, you've gone
through this Board and gotten our comments, which is usually
beneficial, to go to them with. But if they try to push you
back based on what they are reviewing then you'll get stuck in
this back and forth with plans. So it might be beneficial for
you to table and go to ZBA.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: The issue is that the ZBA does not make a
decision at the time of the hearing. They make a written
decision later. So the timing of their decision would not allow
for our next meeting. So it would probably be December.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So you're looking at December.
MR. LIEGEY: I'm sure you are more knowledge in these facts than
me.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think we could move forward with the LWRP,
Board of, Trustees 55 October 15, 2025
as --
MR. LIEGEY: I have lots the pictures of houses that are side
yards.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We have to evaluate each property in its own.
unique circumstance, so I'm not sure that the photos will help
us. They may be beneficial for ZBA. But I do think it' s worth
noting that when this house was constructed recently, with this
Board, there was no mention of the pool, and at that point it
probably would have been the most appropriate time to --
MR. LIEGEY: Unfortunately that's not what I was thinking about.
We originally applied for this in 2019. COVID, everything else,
I was delayed for a long period of time.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And are all of the violations being dealt with
the Town, or are they --
MR. LIEGEY: I think it's all done.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think I understand the legal perspective
here. For clarity' s sake, if this Board moves forward tonight,
because I'm reading this language here at the bottom of our LWRP
report, it says: Location of the pool relative to the wetlands
is consistent with the policies of the LWRP.
If we take that as our starting point, our foundation, we
can move forward this evening with a determination on the
project that you had presented to us this evening. Then you go
before the Zoning Board, because here it says the location of
the pool with respect to .the zoning is not. So you go before
Zoning and then you are with them with our comments. If they
approve, you move forward. If they disprove and provide some
Kind of justification for their denial, then you are back to us,
potentially, with a new application.
So the choice before you this evening, I believe is whether
you wish the Board to vote or you wish to table the application
and go before the ZBA with our comments.
MR. LIEGEY: Let me just be clear. You're saying if you vote on
this now and you approve it, and I go to the ZBA, and they deny
it, then I would have to go back to you for whatever reason they
are denying.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: For an amendment.
MR. LIEGEY: For an amendment. I'm okay with that. I don't know,
maybe I'm not the wisest, I!m roaming the dais here.
I don't know. I feel like I should have Pat up here advising me,
or En-Consultants, which I wish I had.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: It's up to you.
MR. LIEGEY: If I'm not mistaken in what you are saying to me, if
you make a decision and approve it, I still get a chance to come
back to your Board with revisions later. So why don't I just do
that?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Correct. I think keep in mind the LWRP' s
comments here that you could remove the pool entirely, number
one.
Board of Trustees 56 October 15, 2025
MR. LIEGEY: Yeah. Or smaller pool or smaller fence.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Smaller pool and smaller fence. Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I want to give you all the information because
we are honestly trying to expedite this for you, or make it go
as smooth -- so if we approve, say we do vote, and I'm not
saying we would approve, but if it were voted on tonight and
approved, ZBA makes you modify those plans, it comes back to us,
you would have to apply for an amendment, you likely would not
catch the December calendar then. So now we are looking at
January. Whereas if it's a tabled application we could reopen it
in December and you could come forward with a modification if
you had to.
MR. LIEGEY: Let me go with that. I don't want to keep you guys
any longer tonight.
MS. HULSE: It's really, honestly, you are not losing anything.
You are just making a decision on how you want this application
to be handled. It's six of one, half a dozen of the other. You
are just making a decision based on what you think is going to
happen in the ZBA. That's essentially what you're doing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The nice thing that you have now is a good
sense of where this Board stands with the application. So I
think that' s the benefit regardless of moving forward.
MR. LIEGEY: Let me not table it and get your vote and go to the
ZBA and see what happens.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Very well. Anyone else wish to speak
regarding the application, or members of the Board, comments,
questions?
(Negative response) .
In this Trustee's opinion, I feel we should close, I make a
motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve this application,
as submitted, noting that the LWRP found the pool relative to
our wetlands code consistent with its policies, and subject to
ZBA approval. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 17, AS PER REVISED SITE PLAN AND PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 10/9/2025 Cole Environmental Consulting on
behalf of MDC TRUST requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
880sq. ft. One-story dwelling; construct a 24 .3'x23.2'
(560sq.ft. ) Landward addition with a 24.51x23.21x8.3' basement
with 4 . 6'x22. 8' basement egress stairs with a 7.4' deep
retaining wall, and 3' wide window wells; install new windows
and new sliding doors on existing dwelling; existing retaining
wall on seaward side of dwelling to be removed and replaced with
structural retaining wall unit stacked with interlocking key and
Board of Trustees 57 October 15, 2025
grooves (total wall to be 616" with 11814" exposed) ; existing
seaward 24.51xl4' concrete patio to be removed and replaced
in-place with one 2'x3' stepping stones on grade; on west side
install an on-grade (8. 4'x34.2 ' , 11.8 ' at widest point)
_ irregular shaped permeable patio with on grade stepping stone
path to replace concrete patio; the existing 7.2'x6' concrete
stoop with 3. 3'x3.2' steps and existing 6.41x6. 6' outhouse to
remain with no work proposed on the outhouse; ±200sq.ft. Of
concrete walkway on east side of dwelling to be removed;
existing 8. 1'xll.3' screened porch to be removed and install an
enclosed 8. 1'xll.3' sleeping porch with a 12.5'x14. 4 " covered
stone patio with steps to ground; existing 10.4'x32.3' detached
garage to remain along with existing concrete stoop and steps;
remove existing septic system and install a new I/A OWTS
sanitary system landward of dwelling with a 53.3' long concrete
retaining wall with 2 ' maximum exposure; install a new buried
propane tank; install gutters to leaders to dry/wells to contain
roof runoff; install a new 5.21x3.2' a/c condenser on slab;
install a generator; and install buried electric; ±180 cubic
yards to be excavated for new basement all excavated material to
be regraded on site; existing chain link and wood fences to be
removed; any tree removal will be replaced one-to-one using
native hardwood species; and invasive plant species to be
removed landward of the addition with area to be planted with
native, non-fertilizer dependent vegetation.
Located: 2515 Soundview Avenue, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-68-1-8
The Trustees most recently visited the site on September
10th, 2025. In Trustee Peeples nervous handwriting here, says
pull house back. Concerns about house located on bluff. You
know why? We did encounter a few ticks on this property. Just a
few.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent. The inconsistencies include the permeable paver
patio proposed on the seaward side of the house is located at
the top of bluff, rebuilding it does not the policy. To be
consistent the site of the old patio should be revegetated with
native plants to stabilize the top of the bluff. ,The stone patio
proposed on the east side of the house is also located at the
top of the bluff, with the potential to cause erosion.
Minimizing the patio, adding native plantings to stabilize
the bluff is recommended. The proposed action involves
replacing a traditional septic system with a newer IA system,
which is consistent. But the retaining wall for the septic
system is proposed at only one foot from the property line,
leaving no opportunity to revegetate on the other side, and
creating a potential erosion hazard, in addition to being
potentially unsightly and a nuisance to the neighbor. With ten
feet being the minimum setback on the garage and 16 feet being
provided, there seems to be an ability to move the entire IA
system to the east by as much as much as six feet. Requiring
Board of Trustees 58 October 15, 2025
four to six feet between the wall and the property line provides
the opportunity to install native plantings on the west side of
the new retaining wall for the septic system.
To be consistent with the LWRP, move the wall and install
- - --- - - - native plantings as described above. --
I should also note that we are in receipt of new plans
stamped received October 9th, 2025, which we reviewed inhouse,
at our most recent work session.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. RUMMEL: Kate Rummel, Cole Environmental:
So in regards to the permeable pavers that, currently there
is an existing concrete patio and as we discussed last time, the
ZBA wanted us to replace that, not with the deck but with
permeable pavers, so instead we just removed that from the plans
and now just have essentially a walkway around the house. We are
fine with planting the rest of the buffer, or the rest of the
bluff with some low-lying native plants. '
Moving the structures would require like essentially
clear-cutting the entire property. The bluff is very stable, and
where the addition is proposed, the property starts to slope, so
minimal excavation would be needed there. .
And in regard to the retaining wall, we were trying to
utilize an existing leaching ring, but we can move the, we can
reconfigure the system a little further south, toward the
southeast, on the plans, on the I guess the western side.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Are you stating you are not intending to add
an IA system to this project?
MS. RUMMEL: No, we are. We are just trying to utilize one of the
existing leaching fields, so which is why it's proposed in this
location. But we can, if that's a sticking point, like the
location of the retaining wall is a sticking point we are happy
to reconfigure it.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, for clarifying.
I believe that if there is an option to move retaining wall
without the need to relocate the septic, I'm not sure if that's
possible.
MS. RUMMEL: I don't believe so. I think we would have to shift
it toward the southeast. Because there is, the County requires
us to be 65 feet from the top of the bluff. So it' s like a
little curve, so.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Understood. Go ahead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is it just one ring you are trying to save?
MS. RUMMEL: I believe so.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, regarding the concrete walkway, the
seaward side of the house, will there be regrading needed in
order to make this viable?
MS. RUMMEL: Oh, like where we are putting the permeable pavers?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Right. For the walkway around the front of
the house.
Board of Trustees 59 October 15, 2025
MS. RUMMEL: No. I have the architect here as well.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Those would be on-grade.
MS. RUMMEL: Yes, these would be on-grade.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, is there anyone else here wishing to
speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sorry, did you just mention, we talked about
non-disturbance for the area, because it' s all habitat area.
There is a history here, nothing being disturbed, but we would
like to keep it that way while we are doing this project.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Are you referring to seaward of the crest of
bluff or for a larger portion of the property?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would say the entirety of the property within
jurisdiction. At least the, you know, remain vegetated and
treed. That' s what this entire area is, historically.
MS. RUMMEL: So just on the proposed plan, we do have the removal
of some invasive species. So just for maintenance purposes,
there would be, I mean if you can include that in the plan or
would that need to be a subsequent application?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm fine with that. I'm open to how you want to
word it. I 'm not being particular about it
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I 'm wondering if a vegetated non-turf buffer
with a note to not remove any trees accomplishes what we are
looking for here. Or is the non-disturbance more appropriate in
that location. I'm just asking the rest of the Board members
what their opinions are.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think the non-disturbance seaward of the top
patio, or that walkway surrounding the house, and then other
areas,- non-disturbance that is seaward of the crest of the
bluff, as one Trustee feels, that that's appropriate, with the
addition of a vegetated non-turf buffer. Because it is a unique
property where the house is actually seaward of part of the
crest of bluff in terms of, you know, because of the undulation
of that crest of bluff. So I do think that there needs to be
something, someway to account for that, the area that, where
the crest of bluff does come a bit back landward. Perhaps
that's with the non-turf buffer.
MS. RUMMEL: So basically sort of where the proposed addition
comes in, is that like to the east of that is where kind of
where the crest of bluff comes. I'm just trying to understand
where the buffer --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think we are still trying to figure out
amongst ourselves at this moment.
MS. RUMMEL: And just to clarify, there is the removal of five
trees with a one-to-one replacement.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Outside of the building envelope or as part of
the building envelope.
MS. RUMMEL: As part of the building envelope. And they are noted
on the plans.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That's helpful to have it noted. Thank you.
c
Board of Trustees 60 October 15, 2025
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think it's consistent with this area we are
seeing here on this satellite imagery. The trees, we can't see
the embankment leading down to that dunal feature there, but the
trees are an important part of this larger eco-system. And I
think a non-disturbance buffer in this area makes sense. These
are not manicured lawns, property to property to property, but
holistically sort of connected, a connected bluff feature with
lots of mature trees and shrubs.
So understand, there's going to be some cutting to
accomplish the project, and the replacement of those trees and
some shrubs, but I for one think the non-disturbance buffer
makes sense.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I agree with Trustee Sepenoski. Now, with the
allowance, if you want to go in there and remove some invasives,
I'll give you a one-time clean up, but obviously leave the
existing hardwood trees besides the ones you have to cut for the
addition. But then leave it alone after that, and maintain all
those existing mature trees that are prevalent throughout that
whole entire area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This Board actually also has a history of
properties such as this, we've done sort of like a large, I
don't- even know what to call it, like a large project for
invasive removal. There is not a lot here, actually, so you are
better off with that. But we have done like a scale invasive
restoration which I don't think you have to do here, but I think
they can probably apply as needed. And I think the Board is
very open to that.
MS. RUMMEL: Okay. Yeah, it' s pretty minimal and I think most of
it is contained around the garage area, which is where it' s
proposed.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application, or any further questions or comments
from the Board?
(Negative response) .
I guess my final question would be if we would -like to see the
wall moved at least three feet from the property line, if you
would like for us to proceed with an application tonight,
subject to new plans.
MS'. RUMMEL: Sure.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Hearing that, I make a motion to close this
application.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approving this application
with the one-time clean up of invasive species, a
non-disturbance buffer on the entirety of the property within
100 feet of crest of bluff. The retaining wall must be relocated
a minimum of three feet from the property line with native
plantings on the west side, and new plans depicting those
Board of Trustees 61 October 15, 2025
requirement. If •this project becomes a full demolition, a new
application will need to be submitted and reviewed.
And with the overall reduction of the seaward patio, and
relying on the Trustees' observations in the field, and the
relocation of the retaining wall, we are thereby bringing this
into compliance with the LWRP. That is my motion.
(After a brief pause this proceeding continues as follows) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: (Perusing) I would like to rescind my motion.
I make a motion to approve this application subject to a
one-time clean up of invasive species, and then thereafter a
non-disturbance buffer on the entirety of the property within
100 feet of the crest of the bluff. Removal of the retaining
wall and new plans depicting those requirements. If the project
becomes a full demolition, a new application will need to be
submitted and reviewed. And with the overall reduction of the
seaward patio and relying on the Trustees observations in the
field, and removal of the retaining wall, we are thereby
bricking this project into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 18, Young Associates on behalf of
CORNELL FAMILY PARTNERSHIP requests a Wetland Permit to
temporarily raise the existing two-story (902sq.ft. Footprint)
dwelling, remove existing foundation, seaward deck and front
entry stairs, and construct a new poured concrete foundation
higher than existing to meet required FEMA elevation; construct
46sq.ft. Timber stairs with 20sq.ft. Landing onto south entrance
to .dwelling during construction; set the dwelling onto new
foundation, backfill the foundation and site grading to
stabilize the disturbed areas; and to reconnect the a/c unit,
water and electric.
Located: 950 East Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-110-7-24
The Trustees most recently visited the site on October 7th
of 2025. Trustee Krupski made the following notes: Need an
overhead plan to show decks being applied for with dimensions;.
non-disturbance with line drawn off the house; non-turf 15 to 20
feet off non-disturbance and vegetated; non-turf on east side of
house.
The LWRP found this application to be consistent.
And I am in receipt of a letter from a neighbor. This is
from RC Kilbride. As direct adjacent neighbors for nearly 50
years, the Kilbride family at 860 East Road, Cutchogue, offers
their complete support for the Cornell family project to be
heard before the Trustees.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regards to this
application.
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore, on behalf of the Cornell Trust.
I was out in the field with you, and the Young Associates was
Board of Trustees 62 October 15, 2025
able to get me the location of the� deck that had been there.
The deck had been removed during the process of raising the
house. It was showing on the plans, but it was 'not clear. So I
had them add the deck back onto the footprint. That is what I
provided to you on October loth.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It' s not noted here but I am in receipt of new
plans stamped received on October 10th of 2025, and they do show
their proposed deck. In addition to a dimension off of the, I
believe it' s sort of the seaward side of the existing
vegetation.
MS. MOORE: Correct. Based on the topography on the property,
that was a raised area that the Board wanted us to identify and
measure.
Just for background, for the record, this house was raised
with a building permit. The house is, this property -- the
Building Department issued the building permit to raise the
foundation for the existing house. The property had been
identified, the wetland boundary was identified by Glenn Just,
it and was down by the bay. That was consistent with what the
Trustees have previously identified as a wetland boundary. I
went back and double checked under the tax lot numbers of the
parcels to the west. The parcel to the east is the Town of
Southold parcel. Excuse me, property owners association, and the
developed parcels of those to the west. And I went looking in
the files because for wetland permits, and for the most -part all
the measurements that I was seeing was from Peconic Bay.
So consistent with that, the building permit was issued.
The Board wanted us to come in and get a permit for the
work that was done, that is raising the house, and placing back
the. deck. That had been removed during the raising of the house.
As far as the setback, that was the setback that we could
identify from the field, so.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is that helpful, and also important because
that vegetation line of the wetland species would be considered
where we would draw that jurisdictional line. So this is
important to have that dimension there.
The existing and depicted here on the survey, there is
quite a bit of vegetation, that actually extends up to, looks
like the East Road, and there was a comment in the field notes
about maintaining that vegetation. So we would like to maintain
that area as non-disturbance as well.
MS. MOORE: I did not discuss that with the client because that
was not something I was aware of. From the field it looks pretty
natural, but I don't know if, I mean the survey, it's a very
generic line. It's not a surveyed line. So I don't want to go
by this vegetation line when it has not actually been surveyed.
Young Survey does a general measurement but they don't typically
survey --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Wait, wait. You can't have a generic line on a
survey. I don't know what that means. But for the record, that
Board of Trustees 63 October 15, 2025
is not, the purpose of the survey is to have a surveyed line
instead of measurements. So that's not, either correct or I 'm
not sure.
MS. MOORE: I'm not aware that surveyor, often times, unless you
specifically ask them, to identify the clearing areas, that they
will be very specific as, to clearing. I know that like when I
had issues of clearing, violations or whatever, the surveyor
actually has to go out and do an actual measurement and
identifying of the clearing versus non-clearing area.
This survey was done originally in March, I'm- trying to
read a number.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I have- March 11th of 2025.
MS. MOORE: March 1.1th, 2025, and there was activity after that.
So I don't know.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: 'I would also note that as we were in the field,
in the vicinity, noted that there had been clearing already of
that vegetation. So I think the reason that we are noting these
lines of vegetation here on this, that have been plotted on this
survey by the surveyor is because we do want to maintain those
vegetated areas. I mean this is` a really, you know, well
vegetated property here right off the beach.
MS. MOORE: I have no problem with the vegetation from the
pathway that we identified seaward, because that was very clear,
nothing had been touched over there.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Excuse me to interrupt. It actually had. That' s
where the clearing had happened and there was, then when we came
to actually, that was something that we were able to see, not
stepping on the property. When we were on the property, we noted
that it had been revegetated. So that is a benefit.
But I also want to know that, you know all of this work had
proceeded without Trustee review. And I do understand, you made
it very clear that --
MS. MOORE: They had the building 'permit.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. So at least from my perspective there is
a little bit of understanding there. However, we do want this
opportunity now to maintain this as natural as is possible on
this property.
MS. MOORE: That' s fine. What I -- I don't want to delay this,
but on the other hand, I can't be sure that this is accurate as
far as a clearing line, because just my knowledge of how the
surveyors go out, they may or may not have an accurate, and if I
accept this line and then is it doesn't match it, we are going
to be in a violation. And I don't want to create a violation
'condition.
So let -- would it be appropriate to create just like a
buffer, just a distance buffer, so that if it's not there we'll
revegetate post construction rather than rely on this line that
I'm not sure to be accurate. At least currently accurate.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I mean, yes and no. I also was going to sort of
not question but, you know, this is a, this property has a lot
Board of Trustees 64 October 15, 2025
of natural vegetation, which is really great environmental
aspect of this property. And then, you know, there are very
naturalized lines drawn here by the surveyor that indicate
vegetation in various areas. And then there is this non-turf
buffer that kind of just straight line drawn across. And I
mean, I don't know that as one Trustee would be willing to
accept this because it does need to have a little bit more study
here in terms of the natural topography and the, you know, what
is kind of going on here on this property. So, I mean, I don't
know if anyone else has an opinion on that.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I just, as one Trustee, would be slightly
fearful but, you know, some other actor, not you or your
applicant, might wish to manipulate the natural line of
vegetation ahead of getting this as covenant, and so that is one
of my fears. Because you are presenting us with a survey which
we have to presume is accurate. You know, so I just find that
to be a little bit concerning to say that you want to double
check the line.
MS. MOORE: I'm not trying to imply that anyone is doing anything
nefarious, because if they went and they cleared, they get a
violation. I think that' s how it started. Because they cleared
through a building permit process, not realizing, then resulting
in a violation. I think they revegetated. Is that the process
that occurred here? From what you mentioned?
I don't know -- is that Mr. Cornell, he came by my office. I
guess he's not here.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Let me speak to that. I think that you came
before us because of the elevation of the house.
MS. MOORE: Raising of the house is what I thought. Okay
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I don't know, I can't speak to the other
elements.
MS. MOORE: Then there was no violation. Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Ms. Moore, just how are they going to get
into this house? Because as we met you in the field, and as the
survey shows, the house was raised. But there is no, you know,
front steps.
MS. MOORE: No, there are plans, the Building Department has
plans for steps. And there are steps coming off the deck as
well.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So I see the steps off the deck but there is
nothing on the landward side of the house. We were in the field,
you know, the doorway is five-feet high or whatever --
MS. MOORE: There has to be an entrance.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. But- it doesn't show on the survey. And
we added the deck, which, you know, going forward, I think --
it's not part of this project description, we could potentially
MS. MOORE: No, I did have it for the project description.
MS. CANTRELL: We didn't get a revised description. We just got
Board of Trustees 65 October 15, 2025
MS. MOORE: I'm sure I wrote it. All right.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just going forward with that. The rear deck
is not necessarily in the project description. A front entrance
is not depicted or in the project description. Not that we
necessarily have a problem with it. But, you know, it's what is
presented to us, we do have, we would need that in a final set
of plans.
MS. MOORE: Yes. So -front entrance you need the dimensions that,
again, I didn't start this application, this came with Tom
Wolpert. So I 'm a little, sorry, I'm usually much more prepared.
But I don't know what Tom submitted, so.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And just, you know, as you mentioned in the
field and I think Mr. Wolpert mentioned to our office, that they
didn't know what their final project was going to be. And then
with that deck, that elevated deck, it looks like there's one
step off of that proposed deck, currently based on the survey.
So again we'll need some accurate plans.
MS. MOORE: Let me have Tom fix his drawings. So, okay, steps
from deck. I'll double check.
So it sounds like we were going to, we're going to need to
have them go back, verify the vegetation that is there. I don't
feel -- the client has no problem with vegetation. That is the
way they've had this property for generations, so.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think with the dimensions that Trustee
Goldsmith has asked for to be included and depicted on plans and
included in the project description, and with some clear
distance delineated on the plans to the vegetation that
currently exists in the field, I feel that we could move forward
on this.
MS. MOORE: Okay, that' s fine. I can get that all to you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And just to clarify that part of that would
include memorializing this vegetation, this ' area that is noted
on the survey as vegetation.
MS. MOORE: What I'm going to have the surveyor do is go and
verify that this line is accurate. If it' s not accurate, your
plan will show wherever the vegetation line is, so that way I
know, you know, we all know, what is being preserved, and if you
feel that, you know, we need to enhance it, I'm sure we can. But
I just, again, my concern is always after the permit, to make
sure that I don't have a client that, because we all assume
something, ends up with a violation. So I try to avoid that if
at all possible.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And also, so we are clear, the line drawn, we
requested a line from the house to the vegetation, so that 42 .4
is kind of drawn -- they drew it to the beginning of the
walkway. We really need it drawn to existing vegetation.
MS. MOORE: From how it was in the field the most clear line of
the natural vegetation and the topography, because the
vegetation was higher, it did run somewhat, I don't want to say
straight line, but it was a parallel line to the shoreline. And
Board of Trustees 66 October 15, 2025
it was clear where it began, which was where the pathway began,
is where, because there was actually, like cavernous effect of
the pathway.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, this is pretty accurate. If you look at
the satellite you can see it, too. - - - --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I mean, I think this is reasonable, based off
of what we observed in the field.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 100%.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And I think in terms of dimensions what we are
looking for, Ms. Moore, is from any structure to some of those
vegetated -- I mean, I think there should be a couple of
dimension lines, .perhaps the corner to one area of the vegetated
line then the opposite corner to another_ portion of the
vegetated line, just so there is some sort of reference point
for the future. If perhaps that vegetation line changes.
MS. MOORE: Okay. So let me show you what I 've drawn, arrows,
just to make sure.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Please approach. Thank you.
(Participants perusing drawing) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So what we just reviewed were three arrows of
dimension drawings so that we have --
MS. MOORE: I can make a copy and submit it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. If you could just step back to the
podium.
So the dimension lines that we referred to are from the
west corner of the deck to the vegetated buffer area, then from
the east corner of the deck to the more seaward portion of the
vegetated area, then to the east. A line there to the east.
One other thing I just wanted to mention in regard the
vegetation, again, I mentioned earlier, we did not have a
chance, the Board of Trustees, to review the house and the
elevation raising and the design of that, it is a very high
concrete wall there. I don't know -the exact dimensions, but it
appears to be a whole level, about eight feet high. So I do
think that some sort of plant screening, planted on the exposed
areas. I know that the deck will protrude seaward and kind of
mask a little bit of that, but perhaps there can be some
screening incorporating that, and we would like to see that on
the plan as well, please.
MS. MOORE: Okay, so screen foundation walls.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, please.
MS. MOORE: I'm sure they are going to do that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I can't assume. So it's important to have,
because, again, we didn't get a chance to review the height of
that wall.
MS. MOORE: So screen foundation walls with plantings, right?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, please. Okay, is there anyone else here
who wishes to speak, or any other questions or comments from the
Board?
MS. SEBOSINOVICH: Nancy Sebosinovich, I'm a neighbor. And I'm
Board of Trustees 67 October 15, 2025
just confused. How would he get a building permit and then this
happens?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: My understanding, and Ms. Moore please correct
me, I don't have all the facts here. But they did receive a
building permit, however they were drawing the jurisdictional ----- -- —
line from the mean high water mark, which then this structure
would be outside of Trustee jurisdiction. However this Board
reviews our jurisdictional line as the line of vegetation that
we have been referring to in this hearing. And so according to
the dimensions we have in this plan, it' s approximately I would
say 35 feet or so from the vegetation to the structure. So that
would then therefore be within the 100 feet of Trustee
jurisdiction.
MS. S.EBOSINOVICH: So maybe the Building Department should be
educated on this because that is a classic old beach house and
I'm so sad to see it raised up like that all summer. And the
neighbor is a nice man. He would never destroy that vegetation
there. There' s too many deer in there first of all. And I would
just hope that you give him approval because he really does
respect- the environment. Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very, much. Is there anyone else here
that wishes to speak, or any other questions or comments from
the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, -I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that receipt of new plans that show
maintaining any vegetated areas depicted on the survey to be
identified as non-disturbance. Also including dimensions from
that vegetated non-disturbance buffer to the structure. Also
conditional of dimensions on the front entrance and the rear
steps. off of the deck. And the plants are, excuse me, native
vegetation planted for screening on the exposed parts of the
concrete wall. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 19, REVISED SURVEY, SITE PLAN AND
PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 9/26/25 Patricia Moore, Esq. On
behalf. of DKJK. FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to
relocate a 56' seaward section of as-built 110' long landscape
wall 3' north from property line (shall not exceed 2' above
grade) ; add a 3' section of wall to connect to a 60' section of
streetside wall, and restore area south of relocated portion to
pre-construction grade of property; within 100' of edge of
wetlands plant bayberry along south side of relocated wall;
Board of Trustees 68 October 15, 2025
remove the fire pit; as-built addition of 20 cubic yards of
topsoil, add a top dressing and seed a 5,500sq.ft. Lawn area;
existing railroad-tie steps along 4 ' wide path to dock, proposed
installation of a 161x24' bluestone patio on sand.
Located: 880 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-12-13
The Trustees conducted a field inspection back on September
loth, noting limit the wall height to two feet or less. The
wall should be pulled landward of the property line, and planted
between the wall and the neighbor.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies
state: The installation of a timber retaining wall on the
property line creates an open un-vegetated length of exposed
soil on the neighboring property, vulnerable to erosion. With
potential to erode into the adjacent tidal wetlands.
To minimize erosion hazard and thus be consistent with the
LWRP, wall would ideally be situated far enough'away from the
property line to have room to revegetate both sides with native
species.
We also have a letter in the file of support. We live at
795 Deep Hole drive, across the street. We support of our
neighbor's project who are very nice neighbors. Thank you, John
and Cathy Subotha (sic) . Is there anyone here wishing to speak
regarding this- application?
MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore on behalf of DKJK Family Trust.
You have revised drawings, we are proposing to remove the
wall that is within your jurisdiction, and move it three feet
off the property line. That would enable them the planting to
be to the property line, and taking your recommendations.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. And in light of the dimension
discussions from some of the previous applications, we would
request revised .plans that show some more dimensions on here.
You have the retaining wall but there is no distance between the
retaining wall and the wetlands, as well as the proposed patio.
So that would, if we do move forward on this, that would be a
condition for new plans with dimensions.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
(No response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
subject to new plans with dimensions, and noting that the wall
was moved off the property line, with vegetation planted on the
landward side of the wall, which would bring it into consistency
with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
Board of Trustees 69 October 15, 2025
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 20, AS PER REVISED SITE PLAN AND PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 10/9/2025 Patricia Moore, Esq. On behalf of
KEVIN KEYSER requests a Wetland Permit to raise the existing
41.2'x38 .9' two-story dwelling and raise the foundation in-place
to 4 ' in height for FEMA compliance with railings; construct
alterations on the existing dwelling; construct a 19.5'x12'
front porch, a 246sq.ft. North covered porch, a 230sq.ft. East
deck with steps to grade, extend second floor with 13. 61x8' and
13.11x9. 1' additions, and a 55sq.ft. Second story balcony;
install a 2, 130sq.ft. Patio raised 4' above grade with railings,
a 92sq.ft. Paved ramp and planters along west side of raised
patio; patio to have a 91x54' swimming pool; existing
18 .41x20.41 • garage to be repositioned and raised on a new 4 '
high foundation to be flush with proposed raised patio and
converted into a pool house with 11-� bathroom, outdoor shower and
storage; install a 4. 9'x20.4 ' shade trellis against pool house;
install sloped earth berms adjacent to pool patio with 4 ' high
pool enclosure fencing with gates on outside of slope; abandon
existing sanitary system and replace with a new I/A OWTS
sanitary system; and to re-landscape the property using native
vegetation.
Located: 1356 Grand Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-3-11. 6
grand half Mattituck.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Trustees most recently visited the property, on the 7'th
of October, questioned the pool height. Discussed that the ten
foot vegetated non-turf buffer at edge of wetland should be
installed. Limit the pool exposure to two feet or less, and then
also discussed where the pool fence is going to be located.
It should be noted I'm in receipt of new plans here from
October 9th, that show the overall height of the pool, and then
a sloped area surrounding the pool on all the sides that face
the wetlands and side yard.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak .regarding the
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. Keyser.
Actually, he' s here, and so is the architect.
So I just want to clarify, because we discussed in the
field that we would eliminate the retaining walls around the
pool, which we did. That' s the grading that you see around, the
new plans that were submitted that showed the grade, adjacent to
the pool.
The pool height has got to be, is going to be four-feet
above grade. That has not changed. The discussion was the
retaining walls. Not the height of the pool.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no, we just questioned what the height was.
Which was clarified in the field.
MS. MOORE: It was clarified. Good, good, good. Okay.
Board of Trustees 70 October 15, 2025
Do you have any other questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the only remaining thing, so we asked
for new plans depicting that, which you provided. We were also
looking to see something a little zoomed out that shows the ten
foot buffer that was previously approved.
MS. MOORE: So the site plan that .was submitted originally has
the ten foot buffer that- runs along the edge of wetlands.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we need, as you know, we are approving a
plan, so we are not approving two plans, like oh, we'll take
this from this plan and this from this plan. So we just need --
MS. MOORE: Oh, you want the one plan to -- how do we included it
all, because this plan is the design of the house, and the pool,
and it gives you the detail, otherwise it' s impossible to read.
The site plan gives you the larger kind of look. I don't
think you are going to be able to read something.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's weird how every other applicant can do
that. I think you will be able to. You just need to give us site
plans that don't have the retaining wall on it. So you just,
instead of the retaining walls from your initial site plan, all
you have to do is provide the site plan showing the sloping and
get a date, you know, get that stamped by the office.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not trying to be sarcastic --
MS. MOORE: No, no, I wasn't taking it as sarcasm.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yeah, yeah. No, if you take, so the site plan
is great, and it shows the buffer, and then the expanded plan
that you gave us is great, because it shows the sloping. So all
you have to do put the sloping on the site plan so we have one
plan to approve off of.
MS. MOORE: So the site plan was done by Twin Forks. Poor Twin
Forks. With that we get, it should be approved tonight, we'll
try.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any comments from Members of the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
subject to new plans depicting sloped area void of retaining
walls and existing vegetated non-turf buffer. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion for adjournment?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 71 October 15, 2025
R pectfully submitted by,
o
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board, of Trustees
i
r