HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/12/2025 Glenn Goldsmith,President S 0 Town Hall Annex
A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski J Southold,New York 11971
Liz Gillooly Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth Peeples Fax(631) 765-6641
cou
------------
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes Z08
Wednesday, November 12, 2025
5:30 PM ca 1"511 k
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee (Absent)
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,
November 12th, 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 Peeples, Trustee
Sepenoski and Trustee Gillooly. 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' s website.
We do have a number of postponements tonight. The
postponements are in the agenda, on page three, under Wetland
and Coastal Erosion permits:
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
on top; as-built installation of two (2) untreated wood tie
planters with west planter being 50' long by 31 wide by 10" high
and east planter being 32' long by 3' wide by 10" high, with a
Board of Trustees 2 November 12, 2025
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
On page four, under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits,
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 eight, numbers 14 through 18, listed as follows:
Number 14, 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, 41x16' floating
dock, 4,'x42' floating dock, 4'x14' floating dock and 81x2l'
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 Ave. , Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-3-34 . 1
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 25 'x6' (±150sq.ft. ) Stone
driveway, a 12'x20' parking area on west side of proposed
dwelling, and an 11'x20' parking area on north side of proposed
dwelling; install a new innovative, alternative nitrogen
reducing water treatment system (IA/OWTS) ; install 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
Number 16, En-Consultants on behalf of TENFORTY CENTRAL LLC
requests a Wetland Permit to remove approximately 150sq.ft. Of
asphalt (at end of Sound Beach Drive) , from applicant's
property; remove and relocate metal Town signage pole from
applicant' s property; remove/eliminate cleared beach access path
extending across applicant' s property from Sound Beach Drive by
revegetating approximately 770sq.ft. Of cleared pathway with
native vegetation, including Baccharis halimifolia, Myrica
Board of Trustees 3 November 12,2025
pensylvanica, and Ammophila breviligulata, to be sourced from
nursery stock and plant material transplanted from new/relocated
Town beach path (to be established on Town lands by Town of
Southold) ; and install temporary (12 months max. ) Snow fencing
along northeasterly property line to protect newly established
plantings.
Located: 1940 Central Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-1-27
Number 17, 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 18, 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
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 151x40' (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 chaste tree.
Located: 1230 North Sea Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-5-10
On page nine, numbers 19 through 21, as follows:
Number 19, 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'x2l'
floating boat lift; install to the west of existing a proposed
4'x10' fixed dock off bulkhead to a 2.51x13.5' ramp to a 41x28'
floating dock situated in a "T" configuration with a 2'x4 '
floating finger dock off east side off of 4 'x28' floating dock.
Located: 480 North Riley Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#
Board of Trustees 4 November 12, 2025
1000-122-3-34 .1
Number 20, 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 25'x6' (±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 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
Number 21, En-Consultants on behalf of TENFORTY CENTRAL LLC
requests a Wetland Permit to remove approximately 150sq.ft. Of
asphalt (at end of Sound Beach Drive) , from applicant' s
property; remove and relocate metal Town signage pole from
applicant' s property; remove/eliminate cleared beach access path
extending across applicant's property from Sound Beach Drive by
revegetating approximately 770sq.ft. Of cleared pathway with
native vegetation, including Baccharis halimifolia, Myrica
pensylvanica, and Ammophila breviligulata, to be sourced from
nursery stock and plant material transplanted from new/relocated
Town beach path (to be established on Town lands by Town of
Southold) ; and install temporary (12 months max. ) Snow fencing
along northeasterly property line to protect newly established
plantings.
Located: 1940 Central Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-1-27
On page ten, numbers 22 through 23, as follows:
Number 22, 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 )
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
17 'x38 ' 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 ±401x±40' two-story garage and koi pond to
remain; with the edge of first 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
Board of Trustees 5 November 12, 2025
Number 23, 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 eleven, number 24, 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;
construct a proposed 161x36' 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 are postponed and will not be heard tonight.
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 application.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
Board of Trustees 6 November 12, 2025
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to have our
next field inspection on Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2025, at 8 :00 AM.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: 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, December 17th, 2025, at the Town Hall Main
Meeting Hall.
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
session Monday, December 15th, 2025 at 5:00PM at the Town Hall
Annex 2nd Floor Executive Board Room, and on Wednesday,
December 17, 2025 at 5:OOPM in the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of
the October 15th, 2025 Trustee meeting.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
V. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral V, Public notices are posted on
the Town Clerk' s bulletin board for review.
VI. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VI, State Environmental
Quality Reviews: RESOLVED that the Town Board of Trustees of the
Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications
more fully described in Section XII Public Hearings section of
the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, November 12th, 2025, are
classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and
regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA:
As written. That is my motion.
Travis & Sofia Garcelon SCTM# 1000-10-9-13
Board of Trustees 7 November 12, 2025
Lauren K. Calahan SCTM# 1000-6-3-8.3
Daniel T. & Justine T. Sweeney SCTM# 1000-70-5-31.2
Haywater House, LLC SCTM# 1000-103-3-7
Scott & Dorie Mehling SCTM# 1000-78.-2-38
845 Mill Creek, LLC SCTM# 1000-135-3-36.1
Donna & Gerald Zukowsky SCTM# 1000-115-11-8
Bailey Investment Group II, LLC SCTM# 1000-78-2-27
Chula Vista Home, LLC SCTM# 1000-90-3-4
Ulster Farms, LLC SCTM# 1000-78-5-14
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Resolutions and Administrative Permits.
In order to simplify our meeting, the Board of Trustees
regularly groups together actions that are similar or minor in
nature. Accordingly, I'll make a motion to approve as a group
Items 1 and 3 as follows:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, THE COX/CARLSON LIVING TRUST U/A
DATED MAY 9, 2013 requests an Administrative Permit to replace
existing deck (±1, 742 sq.ft. ) In-place/in-kind with steps.
Located: 2250 North Sea Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-5-2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, MAZI HOLDINGS LLC requests an
Administrative Permit to demolish existing two-story dwelling
with crawl space, including foundation; all demolition material
to be removed from site; regrade site to match surrounding
grade.
Located: 530 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-10-4
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE' GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, DONNA M. WEXLER REVOCABLE TRUST
requests an Administrative Permit to replace 60' of wooden
bulkhead in-place using vinyl sheathing; perform reclamation
dredging of soils lost during construction; backfill behind
bulkhead using dredge spoils.
Located: 1175 Hill Road West, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-23.1
Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection November
12th, 2025, noting the need for a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
I 'll make a motion to approve this application with the
Board of Trustees 8 November 12, 2025
condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer, and new plans depicting
the buffer.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
VII. APPLICATIONS FOR
EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Again, in order to simplify our meeting I'll
make a motion to approve as a group numbers one, three and four,
as follows:
Number 1, En-Consultants on behalf of JEFFREY ROBERT VICTOR
REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED MAY 13, 2025 requests a Transfer of
Wetland Permit #10838 from Jeffrey Victor & Lisa Hsia to Jeffrey
Robert Victor Revocable Trust, Dated May 13, 2025, as issued
February 15, 2025.
Located: 1185 Kerwin Boulevard, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-3-6
Number 3, AMP Architecture on behalf of PATRICK DILOLLO
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10680 to
revise the roof design of the proposed pool house; install
concrete basement entry staircase to pool house; relocate
approved outdoor shower.
Located: 870 Inlet Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-43-2-8.1
Number 4, Finnegan Law on behalf of JAMES & DAWN DEERkOSKI
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #9919 for
the as-built rock retaining walls; as-built slate patios;
as-built stairs; relocation of fence.
Located: 260 Deer Drive, Mattituck SCTM# 1000-114-10-2
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) . ,
Number 2, AMP Architecture on behalf of HC NOFO, LLC
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10528
for the as-built 4' and 6' fencing along property line; as-built
steel landscape edging and gravel walkway; install coir logs to
reduce runoff and soil movement into wetlands; update wetland
line as delineated by Board of Trustees.
Located: 63370 Skunk Lane, 'Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-5-3.3
Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection November 9th,
2025, it says straightforward, needs new plans to show the coir
logs that are out in the field.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition of new plans depicting the coir logs.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, Jeffrey Pataftjo on behalf of ROSS &
Board of Trustees 9 November 12, 2025
TARA BALTIC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #10667 to remove the requirement to install a 10' wide
non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 370 Fishermans Beach Rd, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-111-1-13.1
Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection November 10th,
2025, notes discuss with the Board at the work session,
recommends keeping the buffer due to the proximity to wetlands,
with runoff issues.
This was a previously-opened hearing with the condition of
a buffer that is subject for the approval. Seeing how it would
have an adverse negative environmental impact to remove said
buffer after the public hearing.
I 'll make a motion to deny this application for the adverse
environmental impacts.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 6, Cole Environmental Services on
behalf of BRIAN .P. O'REILLY requests an Administrative Amendment
to Wetland Permit #10549 to construct a 2-story 945 sq. ft.
Addition in lieu of the previously approved 1200 sq. ft. 1-story
addition; construct covered front -porch leading into covered
side deck with outdoor kitchen (total 977..8 sq.ft. ) ; install 18
sq.ft. Outdoor shower on western side of proposed 2-story
addition; extend gravel driveway; relocate drywells; install
41xl0' retaining wall consisting of small boulders; existing
251x22 ' masonry patio and 6' long by. 4" high retaining wall to
remain.
Located: 659 Pine Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-5-31. 1
Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection November
12th, 2025, notes overall reduction of structure, however
existing masonry patio needs to be removed per prior approvals;
ongrade patio is more appropriate given the slope.
I 'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition of a removal of the existing mainstream patio and the
installation of an on grade 25.,3 by 17.5 patio, with submission
of new plans depicting the new on-grade patio.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
XI. WATERFOWL/DUCK BLINDS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral XI, Waterfowl/Duck Blinds, I'll
make a motion to approve number 1, ANDREW EWING requests a
Waterfowl/Duck Blind Permit to place a Waterfowl/Duck Blind in
Hallock' s Bay using public access.
Located: Hallock' s Bay, Orient.
Board of Trustees 10 November 12, 2025
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
XII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral XII, Public Hearings, at this
time I 'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and
enter into Public Hearings.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: 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.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Under Wetland Permits, Number 1, Sam
Fitzgerald, Architect on behalf of TRAVIS & SOFIA GARCELON
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story dwelling
(25'x45" footprint) on top of concrete piers to support the
house, and in between the concrete piers are non-structural
breakaway panels, construct a 101x45' seaward deck, install a/c
units and a generator; install an I/A OWTS sanitary system
landward of dwelling; install underground electric and water
services; and to install a stormwater drainage system.
Located: End of The Gloaming Extension, Fishers Island.
SCTM# 1000-10-9-13
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: The Trustees most recently had an in-house
review on November loth, 2025. Trustee Goldsmith made the
following notes: Review plans at work session, move drywells,
move structure further landward, reduce size, need buffers,
table for ZBA.
The LWRP finds this application to be inconsistent with its
policies as follows:
Policy 4. 1 (a) (3) , move existing development. and structures
as far away from flooding and erosion hazard areas as
practicable. Maintaining existing development and structures in
hazard areas may be warranted for sites where relocation of
existing structure are not practicable.
Policy 4 .1, minimize losses of human life and structures
from flooding and erosion hazards. The following management
measures to minimize losses of human life and structures from
flooding and erosion are suggested. Minimize potential loss and
Board of Trustees 11 November 12, 2025
damage by locating development and structures away from flooding
and erosion hazards, and avoid development, other than
water-dependent uses, in coastal hazard areas.
While the proposed structures to be built on concrete
appears to reduce the impact of flooding, it is within the flood
zone.
Policy 6, protect and restore the quality and function of
the Town of Southold' s eco-system. 6.1, protect and restore the
quality of the eco-system. 6.3, protect and restore tidal and
freshwater wetlands, (a) , comply with statutory and regulatory
requirements of the Southold Town Board of Trustees laws and
regulations for all Andros Patents and lands under their
jurisdiction, and (d) , provide adequate buffers between wetlands
and adjacent or nearby uses and activities in order to ensure
protection of the wetland character, quality, value and
function. The proposed action includes constructing a new
two-story 'frame residence, and a wooden deck within 100 feet of
a tidal wetland boundary in what is currently undeveloped land.
Conditions to consider. While the proposed action involves
installing a new IA/OWTS sanitary system that will limit
nitrogen pollution into the groundwater, helping to better
protect coastal waters. Ensure effective treatment of sanitary
sewage by requiring sufficient treatment of sanitary sewage to
avoid negative impact on water quality. Consider requiring the
installation of a ten-foot wide or wider non-turf vegetated
buffer immediately seaward of the existing rock-reinforced
shoreline. This would help limit landscape management-derived
nutrient input to West Harbor and address Policy 5.2.
We are also in receipt of a letter from a neighbor. As an
abutting property owner to the parcel currently under
application before your Board, I would like it to be on record
that I am strongly opposed to the issuance of this permit. If
approved the proposed construction will have a significant
negative environmental impact. The lot is far too small and far
too close to the water for size and scope of the home being
proposed. Historically this parcel was never a buildable lot.
It only ever contained a small shed used by lobstermen. And I
respectfully request you review this application very closely
and I urge you to vote against it. Sincerely, Kenneth L.
Edwards, Sr. , and Ann Edwards.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Sam Fitzgerald on behalf of the owners.
Well, it is a very small lot, and one of the first we are also
obviously concurrently going through ZBA with this house just
because it' s way undersized. This .property is way undersized for
its zone. There is a fair bit of variance work to do.
One of the first things that the ZBA asked of us was to
prove that it was a buildable lot. And so it eventually went
through that process, 'and it is a buildable lot, meaning you are
Board of Trustees 12 November 12,2025
allowed to build a single-family residence on this property.
So we are, with this property, it's not just because it' s
so small, we are not physically able, or it' s not possible for
us meet the 100-foot setback. What we have done is we've
designed a house that is of a size and a scale that is aptly
commensurate with the other houses along the waterfront side of
the street. And in fact our house has less of a buildable
coverage than the other houses do. Further, we also actually
brought our house back farther away from the waterfront than the
other houses on the street. So with this lot, it is, it's a
real sort of jigsaw puzzle because we have to, you know, we have
to put in a septic system, which takes space. We have to put in
drainage, which takes space. And so the plan that we have here,
we felt was sort of the best compromise to get everything in.
As for the environmental impact, you know, the house is
elevated. It' s on concrete piers and it' s elevated above the
base flood elevation. It's a dead flat lot and it' s got a very
stable man-made rock wall along the shoreline. So, I don't, and
we would be very happy to consider a buffer, of course, but I
don't necessarily understand what the other environmental
impacts would be, or any negative environmental impacts would be
here by moving it back even more or what we have already done.
The problem with moving it back, and by the way, we would
be very happy to move it back, the problem is that the septic
also has to be as far away from the waterline as we can, as
well. And we are dealing with the Health Department on that.
So the septic system now is as far back from the water as
it can possibly be, and there are setbacks from the septic to
the house. So, again, that is just a function of being a very
small lot. But again, it is a legally buildable lot, and so we
are, you know, as I said, going through the zoning process. And
I guess that' s it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. And we do appreciate the fact that
you are proposing the installation of an IA sanitary system.
Obviously that does have a positive environmental impact.
In regard to that sanitary system, I'm looking at the plan,
I'm sure it' s here, what is the depth to groundwater?
MR. FITZGERALD: I don't have that at the ready, I apologize. We
are, so natural grade is .at elevation six, hopefully it's on the
septic plan.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: 84 inches, water encountered at 84 inches.
MR. FITZGERALD: 84 inches. Yes.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : What are you seeking relief from, from the
ZBA?
MR. FITZGERALD: So we actually comply with the gross floor area,
so we are actually at -- that is not a variance we need. It' s
setbacks, it' s sky plain, and it's coverage. Lot coverage.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think it's 24 and change it' s at right now?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. So it' s, again it' s actually less coverage
than the adjacent houses. So, I mean, you know, so it' s within,
Board of Trustees 13 November 12, 2025
and it's not necessarily an environmental thing, but from a
density standpoint and from an architectural standpoint, it's
certainly better than the adjacent houses.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I would actually argue that it is an
environmental concern. You know, the reasons that you are going
to the ZBA are, kind of do answer that question that you asked
about why moving the house back and reducing the size would be
an environmental impact.
So I think that' s something that this Board is reviewing,
and the opportunity to pull the house back when you are going
through the ZBA review and reducing that size, and as Trustee
Sepenoski mentioned, the 24% lot coverage. These are all things
that we do look at for environmental review.
MR. FITZGERALD: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. I was
just responding just to more of the zoning questions.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Sure, okay.
In regards to other comments, the drywells that you have
proposed here are on the seaward side of the house. If you
could pull those back, that would be a benefit as well. So that
that is in line with the house, would be ideal..
Another comment in terms of the things that we are looking
for in an application, to have the dimension from the wetland to
the structure, the proposed structure. Also the deck is nice as
well, but if you can include that as well, that would be great.
MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, yup.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So there were notes in here about the option of
tabling for the ZBA review because I think that will actually
change the review that this Board does for this project.
MR. FITZGERALD: So if the, um, if the ZBA does approve the size
and the location of the house as it' s submitted, I guess, well,
they would probably want your feedback as to what you prefer,
too, for the location, I guess. So how does that work,
necessarily, if the --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, how it normally works is we go, we
express our environmental concerns. Obviously we can control
lot coverage and things like that. We look at it from an
environmental standpoint, as we stated. Most distance away from
the wetlands, buffers, moving those drywells back, that kind of
information, and then you take those concerns that will have on
the public record, to the ZBA, so they know where we stand, and
then based on their decision at least they know what we're
looking for.
MR. FITZGERALD: I see.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So if, for example they are looking to reduce
lot coverage 20%, if they can dial it further back away from the
wetlands, things like that, now they have an idea of what our
concerns are looking at this project first.
MR. FITZGERALD: I see.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Including the buffer, as mentioned, a vegetated
non-turf buffer, moving the drywells landward, and those now are
Board of Trustees 14 November 12,2025
all on public record.
MR. FITZGERALD: Got it.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And also, just in general, an overall
reduction of the size of the structure is always an
environmental benefit. So I think that is something this Board
would support if the ZBA decided that that was appropriate.
MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else wishing
to speak, or any others questions or comments from the Board?
(NO RESPONSE) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table the application for ZBA
review.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 2, LAUREN K. CALARAN requests a
Wetland Permit for the as-built clearing of an approximately
10-foot wide by 80-foot long area, and to revegetate this area
using native vegetation; and to establish and perpetually
maintain a 10' wide vegetated non-turf buffer area along the
landward edge of the 100-foot jurisdictional edge/line.
Located: 3038 Central Avenue, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-6-3-8 .3
The Trustees reviewed the plans at work session, 11/10/25.
Notes read: Need to use native vegetation that will survive.
The LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent
with its policies. Is there anyone here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
MR. FITZGERALD: Me again. Sam Fitzgerald, here on behalf of the
client. Of the owner, sorry.
The owner is absolutely committed to doing whatever
restoration she needs to. In fact she's already done some of
the plantings. And the 101x80' area, of restoring that,
absolutely. And the ten-foot buffer along the wetlands line,
100%.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Great. The Trustees, .we've reviewed the
application, we looked at the planting plan. Everything looks
okay, I think. We would just like to see the inclusion of a few
native species, because given that area, the native species may
have a better survivability rate than some of the wet-footed
plants that she's proposed.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, she is actually working with a wetlands
planting consultant who is actually recommending also native
plantings. So I think we would be okay there. But I'll impress
upon her all native. Yup.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right, is there anyone else wishing to
speak regarding the application?
(No response) .
Members of the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close this
Board of Trustees 15 November 12, 2025
hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application
with the inclusion of native vegetation and the replanting area
and new plans depicting.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 3, 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 61x16' floating dock;
install handrails onto landward 4' wide stairs to catwalk;
extend the catwalk 16' seaward for a total of a 41x76' 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 most recently conducted an in-house review on
November loth, and reviewed the project again.
The LWRP reviewed this project and found it to be
inconsistent, noting that the proposed action is located within
a New York State Department of State Significant Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Area, a New York State Critical Environmental
Area, and a Peconic Estuary Critical Natural Resource Area, and
that the creek has shallow water depth. They also noted a net
loss in public use of waterways is expected as a result of the
extension of the dock in or on the public waterways. And that
the extension of a private residential dock structure in public
trust lands and/or waters results in a net loss of public use of
such lands and water.
The Trustees have opened several hearings on this matter,
and voiced our concerns about extending this dock in the
headwaters of Richmond Creek, and also with limiting public
access.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
(No response) .
Any other questions or comments from. the Board?
(Negative response) ,
The Trustees are aware that this project is currently under
review by the DEC and so I would make a motion to table this
Board of Trustees 16 November 12, 2025
application for DEC review.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 4, AS PER REVISED SITE PLANS & PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 10/30/2025 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
4'x30' catwalk to a 41x30' ramp down onto a 4'x57 ' dock (4'x147'
total) using open grade decking; install a 31x14' aluminum ramp
at seaward end of dock leading onto a 61x20' 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 performed an in-house review --
excuse me, a site review, on October 7th, 2025. Trustee
Gillooly made the following notes:
Project needs to be dialed back to a pier line with
immediately adjacent neighbors. And then additional note on
10/15, open-grate decking required for entire length of dock.
And an additional in-house review performed on November loth,
2025, discussed further at work session, comments still apply.
The LWRP found this application to be inconsistent with
policy standard 6.3, protect and restore tidal and freshwater
wetlands, Section (a) comply with statutory and regulatory
requirements of the Southold Town Board of Trustees laws and
regulations for the Andros Patent and all other lands.
This application does not comply with those requirements,
as the proposed dock extends beyond the pier, line as defined in
Town Code Chapter 275. The pier line is defined as the seaward
projection created by drawing an imaginary line between the
immediately adjacent existing permitted principal structures,
docks, piers, wharves or floats. The pier line showed on the
plan is incorrect because it extends beyond the dock immediately
adjacent to a dock farther away.
Police standard 9. 4, assure public access to public trust
lands in navigable waters, the length of this proposed dock
encroaching into the navigable waters and limits access.
The remainder of the project can 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 to protect the intertidal zone.
Policy standard 6.3, protect and restore tidal and
freshwater wetlands. The catwalk is elevated at least four-feet
above grade in the intertidal zone, and constructed with
light-penetrating open-grate decking. This will minimize the
adverse impact to the tidal wetlands.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MS. COSTELLO: Good evening, my name is Jane Costello and I'm the
Board of Trustees 17 November 12, 2025
agent for the applicant.
After last month's meeting I submitted a follow-up letter
that has been added to the Town record. I hope you guys had the
opportunity to read that letter
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay, and just to briefly recap, we didn't use the
immediately adjacent dock to determine the pier line because it
didn't comply with its own permit, as noted in Town records. So
instead we relied on the dock located two properties away as a
reference point.
So this is the issue that we have. So I guess tonight I'm
` trying to get additional feedback. So I 'm here to try to
determine where the pier line should be.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. So, this Board has stood fairly
strong with the precedent of the pier line. So strong that we
actually codified it as part of the Town Code Chapter 275. And
that definition was read as part of the LWRP review that deals
with immediately adjacent structures.
So the pier line that we have here in front of us on your
drawing is not drawn with the immediately adjacent. It's drawn
with the one further to the west, I believe. So that's something
that we would need, the length of this dock to comply with the
pier line.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay, even though the dock is not built to what
was permitted in 1982, the original permit? That was the issue
that we were basically having, right? So this dock that is
there, the short of the dock, it's not, it doesn't comply to its
own permit, right. And that' s in Town records, otherwise I
would not have known. And so you are going to use a dock, an
unpermitted dock, to seta pier line?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think there are a couple of steps that we
could take here. One, that neighbor comes before the Board and
amends the permit to accurately reflect what is in the field,
and move on from there. Where the pier line is, we draw from.
That. Or they modify their dock to conform with what was
permitted in the 1980s, 1982. Those are two reasonable, you
know, things that could happen here. Glenn, do you see any
other options?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No, and then based on that is where we define
the pier line, and that's where your proposed dock would have to
fit in. So obviously it's going to be shorter than what is,
proposed because the legal dock you are talking about was built
longer than the permitted dock. So even if we dial it back to
the permitted length, either way your dock has to get shorter.
MS. COSTELLO: And I almost disagree. Because I looked at this
photograph multiple times, and there is just no way to tell
where the high water mark was in 1982. So I think it' s all
landward extension and not seaward extension.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So according to your letter, the permitted
dock to the west is supposed to be a 41x42 ' catwalk to a 10'x18'
Board of Trustees 18 November 12, 2025
deck, to a 51x80' catwalk. And what is there currently is longer
than that, correct?
So if the permitted dock that we need to use for the pier
line was a 4x42 to a l0x18 deck, to a 5x80 catwalk, to a ramp
and float, that is what we need to use to find the pier line.
MS. COSTELLO: So how do you know where the dock starts? That is
the question at hand. Like how do I know, if I was to go out
there right now, how do I know where the actual permitted dock
starts, to determine how far seaward it goes into the water?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So is your argument that it needs to go out
further than what is sitting there?
MS. COSTELLO: No, I'm arguing that I don't think it is extending
further seaward than what is permitted. I think the dock has
been extended landward.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, so in using that logic, why did he use
that dock for the pier line? Why did we still go to --
MS. COSTELLO: Because it doesn't conform with its own permit. I
mean, really, in order to do it accurately, there would have to
be significant data, if you could find that data, to see where
the actual beginning of the dock or where the dock should have
started in 1982. High water mark is definitely higher, right? So
I mean we come across docks all the time that we have to extend
ten feet landward, ten feet landward, to accommodate for the
rise in high water mark. So this is something that is common.
So instead of going through such an extensive research,
which is in the Town file that it doesn't comply, we just want
another dock over. I mean it just seems so much easier to me.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: How about you just go, to the dock that is
there and then we can do the research to see if the dock that is
there was built in accordance with the permit or not. Then we
can define the pier line as defined by Town Code, and then you
can propose your dock to fit in said pier line.
MS. COSTELLO: That' s a lot of work on your part.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: We are hard workers.
MS. COSTELLO: Well, you, I mean, like last month when we spoke,
and I said who is going to draw this. Who is going to, you know,
stake this and figure out where the high water mark is -- was,
in 1982. Because there is no other, back in 1982 was a much
simpler time, so there is no measurement from the beginning of
the dock to a fixed structure. You know.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Again, kind of leave that to us. We need to
go by what the code says, which is the immediately adjacent. So
if you draw your proposed pier line to the immediately adjacent
docks, we'll do the homework on the one to the west, and
determine whether that is a legitimate length or not.
But to go two docks over, you know, then we are totally
just ignoring the code and how it' s written.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And also conveniently getting a much more
favorable length overall, right?
MS. COSTELLO: Right. But here is the thing -- I mean, all right,
Board of Trustees 19 November 12, 2025
you are pulling the dock back, which I understand what you are
saying. But to what means? I mean, this particular waterway is
over 1, 100 feet wide. It' s really just going out to what the
adjacent docks is, is one, two, three other docks. It' s not
going to impede navigation in any other way. And also in Town
Code you require as to some of the other governing agencies, you
have you to have 30 inches of water underneath a floating dock.
Don't you want 30 inches of. water underneath a boat, because you
bring this dock in shore, you are taking more risk for judging,
right, disturbance of the underwater land. And I don't
understand why the Trustees would take this position all for, in
this location.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So we took this position because we've had
this discussion, or argument, on the record numerous times with
numerous people, which is why we've codified it in the code, so
we would not have to have this. Because we talked about the
creek going out, loss of public access, you go out, your
neighbor goes out, everybody is going out. Who loses is the
public. So that' s why codified it, so there is that line in the
sand where everybody knows what that mark is, i.e. , the pier
line, so we didn't have this back and forth argument every time.
MS. COSTELLO: All right, I'll take it. I just think, I mean --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I mean also you could say that the owner of
this parcel can choose a vessel of small scale, to minimize
disturbance, not need the water depth that you are suggesting
the need for a float. But we all know that is not the trend in
vessel purchases these days.
MS. -COSTELLO: It' s not the trend. It's not --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: A one-ton whaler would have fit nice in there
with a fixed pier.
MS. COSTELLO: Well, I'm of the belief to keep as much human
activity away from the vegetated wetlands, especially in an area
like this where you have such of a lush vegetation. It's the
more activity with propeller action, boat action, people
stomping the wetlands. You are destroying the wetlands.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: The lush vegetation is something that people
really do enjoy. And they enjoy it from kayaks, from paddle
boards, and the more docks that keep marching out seaward, the
harder it is to .enjoy those intertidal areas that are so
beautiful to see from a kayak, from a paddle board, if you are
not fortunate enough to own a property on the water, you still
get to enjoy the public access, which is what the Trustees are
here to protect.
MS. COSTELLO: Right. I understand that. I understand it. But
what you do have the ability to do is police what kind of boats
utilize this dock.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: No, didn't say that. That' s up to you guys.
MS. COSTELLO: Yes. And that' s what I'm saying. I'm like,
wouldn't you want these boats to stay in at least the 30-inch
minimum of water that you expect a floating dock to be in?
Board of Trustees 20 November 12, 2025
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And I would, just for argument sake here, say
that this line is, or the dock that is immediately to the west,
is an accurate length into the water, you mentioned perhaps they
were building more landward to increase that length. If we do
look at an accurate pier line, you are just about in 29 inches
or water here. So it' s within the realm of possibility for a
float. And if for some reason this dock is not in this location,
it would need to be dialed further landward, then perhaps it
would need to go to a fixed dock. So that is an option.
MS. COSTELLO: So you would entertain allowing a floating dock in
29 inches of water?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No, what Trustee Peeples said was looking at
this, without having an accurate pier line, by the information
you provided looks to be about 29 inches of water. So when you
get an accurate pier line, you go out and survey it again, that
29 could potentially be 30, you know. Wouldn't you have an
accurate pier line if you go and you find, 30 inches of water
where the float is going to be, and you are allowed a float. If
you are going to find 24 inches, then you go fixed.
So it looks like, based on the information that we have,
which is limited, where a proposed dock that fits into that pier
line would fall is very close to the 30 inches.
MS. COSTELLO: It is very close, I agree. I don't think it's 30
inches.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You might be able to shift it over one way or
the other.
MS. COSTELLO: I can't. Because I can't adhere to the property
line setbacks. And that I can't do either. So I just, you know,
it just doesn't make much sense to me. I understand your pier
line concerns, and I understand in situations, I understand, why
you want it the way you want it, but I really don't think in a
waterway this large that you, that there is any navigational
issues whatsoever.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Your testimony has been recorded and your
objection is noted, and if there is anybody else here that wants
to speak to this application, now would. be a good time.
(No response) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So based on your testimony and the conversation
here on the record, would you like to table this application?
MS. COSTELLO: I'll table the application.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much. Is there anyone else here
that wishes to speak?
(Negative response) .
Or any other questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Sure. One point of clarification. We can
regulate vessel size with respect to the distance across the
creek if the vessel and dock exceed a one-quarter extension
across a water body, the dock will need to be modified, or the
vessel has to be reduced. Just for point of clarification.
MS. COSTELLO: And my point is that the Town does not have the
Board of Trustees 21 November 12, 2025
policing power or the staffing to actually maintain that. The
DEC. So it all looks great on paper, but there is a
practicality that has to be taken into consideration.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Just noting the one quarter across the water
body is law.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. Is there anyone else here who
wishes to speak?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application at the
applicant' s request.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, 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 located inside the 100-foot jurisdictional
buffer of a designated wetland, 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 trim the phragmites down to spring high water
(el. 4 .01) .
Located: 26342 Main Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-109-4-8.3
The Trustees most recently conducted a field inspection
November 5th, 2025. Notes stipulate limbing no higher than 30
feet. Three locations to be removed of about ten trees total.
Talk about a potential non-disturbance area for the existing
vegetation. Replant one-to-one, with native hardwoods.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. DWYER: Chris Dwyer from LK McLean Associates, here to answer
any questions the Board may have, and address any comments.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Dwyer, we saw the ribbons out in the
field, we walked it with some representative from North Fork
Country Club, we took off some of the ribbons that we felt were
inappropriate. So I think it was somewhere in the neighborhood
of ten that were left. .
One of the questions that we had was in, I believe it was
answered in the field, was the pruning limbing still part of the
application?
MR. DWYER: I believe up to 20 feet. They were looking to go a
little bit higher, but if the 20 feet is what the Trustees will
allow them, I think they are fine with that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And in the field we discussed, there is a
section, I don't know necessarily know how to describe it, but
it' s further back- where they cut some trees already that were
Board of Trustees 22 November 12,2025
further landward than 100 feet, that border to the creek, that
doesn't look like anybody's utilizing, so we were talking about
maintaining that as a non-disturbance buffer, maybe changing the
plans to include that. If I'm not mistaken in the field there is
a remnant of an old chain link fence that they don't go seaward
of anyway, so just kind of put that on the new set of plans so
that way, you know, what' s there is protected going forward.
MR. DWYER: Okay, I'll discuss that with them, to identify that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, is there anyone else here wishing to
speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 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
with the condition of a non-disturbance buffer to be depicted
seaward of the native vegetation.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 6, En-Consultants on behalf of DANIEL
T. & JUSTINE T. SWEENEY requests a Wetland Permit to raise by
118" an approximately 450sq.ft. Portion of roof over existing,
approximately 1, 488sq.ft. One-story, single-family dwelling, and
construct a 41x5.75' concrete entry stair in place of existing;
construct a 9. 9'xl4.7 ' screened porch addition with 3. 6'x4'
concrete entry stair, and a 191x35' uncovered masonry patio
(raised 16" max. Above existing grade) with steps and adjacent
trench drain piped to a proposed stormwater containment system
consisting of roof leaders, gutters and two (2) 10' diameter
drywells; truck in approximately 15 cubic yards of clean sand
fill from an approved upland source to be placed and compacted
beneath footprint of porch addition; and to establish and
perpetually maintain an approximately 1, 010sq.ft. Vegetated
non-turf buffer between the tidal wetland boundary and existing
fence, and a maximum 13-foot wide, approximately 1, 129sq. ft.
Non-turf buffer between existing fence and 6-foot elevation
contour.
Located: 647 Pine Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-5-31.2
The Trustees visited the site on the 5th of November.
Notes from our visit read non-disturbance seaward split-rail
fence, remove second four-foot wide access path, since
construction of dock allows access.
The LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent
with its policies.
Board of Trustees 23 November 12, 2025
Is there. anyone here wishing to speak regarding the
application.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicants Daniel and Justine Sweeney who are also here in
the audience.
This is, as the Board saw in the field, we believe a
relatively minimal, straightforward application. It' s just
basically three elements of raising a portion of the existing
one-story roof to create sufficient head space. It is not a
second-floor addition, it's just a raising a little bit over a
foot-and-a-half of the existing ceiling height.
There is 'an approximately 1Ox14.5 roughly porch addition
that squares off the waterside corner of the house, and then the
installation of a partially-raised patio on the water side with
a stepdown to grade.
As the Board saw in the field, the patio basically reflects
the area where the outdoor recreation is currently taking place,
the outdoor furniture, grill, table, et cetera, which is
currently basically set on dirt, where the patio would be
constructed.
In order to ensure that we are being consistent with
Chapter 275, permit standards for wetlands permit issuance and
Board standard policies as we reviewed in the field, the patio
has been designed specifically to be less than two feet above
naturally-existing grade on the water side. There is a storm
water drainage system proposed that will collect not only roof
runoff but also potential runoff from the patio surface itself
through use of the trench drain that will be installed along the
seaward edge of the step, and piped to the drywells that make up
the storm water drainage system.
There were two distinct buffer areas proposed, one being a
vegetated, non-turf buffer on the seaward side of the fence,
between the fence and the wetland boundary, which is
approximately 1, 010 square feet in area, and then an additional
non-turf buffer on the landward side of the fence, 1, 129 square
feet in area, and that' s basically the un-vegetated area on the
landward side of the fence that sits between the existing woody
Vegetation seaward of the lawn that is to remain and the fence.
As Eric just noted, there was a recommendation made during
the field inspections that the designation of the vegetated
non-turf buffer be changed to non-disturbance buffer, and that
the indicated path on the opposite side of the property from the
dock be removed from the plan because it would represent a
second point of access.
I discussed that with the applicants. Conceptually they
have no objection to doing that, to making both of those
changes. The only thing that they ask for the Board's
consideration on, which they articulated in a letter that they
submitted directly to the Board, and hopefully you hope employ
had a chance to review at work session this week, is that if you
Board of Trustees 24 November 12,2025
hopefully move to approve the permit with the special condition
of a non-disturbance buffer, that you do include language that
indicates that the non-disturbance buffer shall not preclude
accessing the water. They noted that when you were in the field
that that' s where they launch kayaks, and also performing
maintenance to the existing permitted structures that are in
that area, which includes the catwalk and the fence.
We understood the Board indicated in the field that you
believe that those were activities that don't necessarily need
to be explicitly preserved because they would normally have the
customary right to do that, but the applicants are concerned
because of their reading of the code, particularly in the days
now when the code is being amended, and just looking at the
plain language of a non-disturbance buffer in the code, it
essentially says that no activities are permissible. And there
is a whole section in 275-4 which are exceptions to the permit
exceptions, basically, which lists activities A through M that
don't require a permit from the Trustees, which includes
275-4 (a) (e) , which reads: The ordinary and usual maintenance
and repair on a wetlands-permitted structure of the same
dimensions as a functioning building, dock, pier, wharf, et
cetera, et cetera, but then section (b) says nothing contained
in this section -- sorry, number 2, that follows that, (a) (2)
states: Notwithstanding the above listed exceptions, operations
within the designated non-disturbance buffer are prohibited.
So, the concern is that even understanding what this Board
would naturally be inclined to enforce, potentially a future
board, code enforcement, Town Justice, whoever, the concern is
just a plain reading of this language without any "allows for"
attached to it, could put them in a position of receiving a
violation just for taking a kayak through the non-disturbance
buffer and into the water.
I understand that is not likely to happen in practice, but
that is the way the code reads. And just to give you some
context, this is not like something that seemed like a novel
idea to me because we did have an application, I don't know,
within the last year where we had gotten a wetland permit from
the Board, I think it was a property in Cutchogue, where we had
the swimming pool and the pool house, and the Board had imposed,
I think it was, I don't remember what the width was, but there
was a non-disturbance buffer adjacent to the wetlands boundary,
and then that homeowner ended up coming back to me because they
said they went to the Board to renew a Trustees permit that was
previously issued for phragmites cutting, and they were told
well you can't renew that permit now because you just covenanted
a non-disturbance buffer in connection with this other permit,
and so we ended up with the help and guidance from counsel, of
basically coming back, amending the pool permit, so the
non-disturbance buffer had added language saying, you know, oh,
by the way in allowing for this phragmites cutting being
Board of Trustees 25 November 12, 2025
separately permitted, and then we amended the covenant language
to include that allowance for something that was being
explicitly permitted by the Board, but it still was not the type
of activity that is normally .included in the non-disturbance
buffer.
So really all we are looking for, even if the Board doesn't
feel inclined to include that language in your permit condition,
that we just be, it's understood we would be allowed to include
that language in the covenant that would basically just read
something like what was stated in the letter, that would be a
non-disturbance buffer allowing for, you know, customary access
for launching of kayaks, maintenance of the existing permitted
fence and permitted dock.
MS. HULSE: Rob, I've already had a discussion with you on this
today, this specific issue, and I told you that was not going to
happen. We are not going to put something in the covenant that
is different that what the permit states. I'm going to
completely -- the example that you just gave is completely
dissimilar to what you are asking the Board to do now.
You are asking the Board to carve out specific exceptions
to the definition of a non-disturbance buffer. If they wanted to
issue a permit that included a non-turf buffer, then they could
do that. If they wanted to issue .a permit that included a
non-disturbance buffer, it has to meet the language of that per
the code. And I think that, and you and I discussed this in our
back and forth communications this morning, that I don't believe
that the interpretation you are forwarding to this Board to
consider is accurate at all. I think that you know, and you've
had a lot of experience here what the Board does and doesn't
permit, and what that means. And certainly bringing your kayak
is not something that would be considered an activity.
So the .term "activity" itself is not defined in the code.
But I think that, I disagree with you that a normal,
straightforward reading of that somehow creates confusion. It
doesn't. It is essentially requiring something greater than
bringing a kayak through that area.
As you know, often times the Board will allow for an
access, will allow for a four-foot access, which they do
routinely, but what it contemplates is not having activity in
the buffer area. Not the access point. So I think there is a
distinction to be made. And getting back to the covenant, it's
not going to differentiate at all from what the permit language
is going to, if they decide to issue a permit, is going to
state. To make that clear.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay, so, to respond to that. I want to thank you,
and I do appreciate your guidance always, but I did want to, on
the record at the hearing discuss this with the Board and try to
help the client, you know, relay the client' s position. And
they may want to speak to you in a moment directly.
We do understand that the covenant language has to match
Board of Trustees 26 November 12, 2025
the permit, which is why I had originally asked the Board to
consider including that language in the permit condition,
because then we are not doing anything unusual in the covenant
itself. And so the only thing which the applicant may want to
mention is, to try to make everybody happy, because, again, I do
find myself in a frustrating position here, because I do
understand what counsel was just explaining, I do understand how
this Board operates, how this Board has always operated with
respect to this type of thing, and I've explained to the
applicant I have never seen the Trustees issue someone a
violation for launching a kayak. But I still have to, you know,
I have to do my professional diligence and relay their concerns
to you as their agent.
So there was one alternative that they had suggested for
the Board to consider, maybe you won't consider it, that they
continue to use the, I mean we are talking about a pretty narrow
strip, right, between the wetland boundary and the fence, to
potentially impose still a vegetated non-turf buffer, but with
more restrictive language than would normally be required,
saying something, you know, I think under the new definition it
requires 50% coverage. But in this case perhaps proposed it be
comprised at 100% coverage, 100% of the existing vegetation left
in a natural state, not cut or removed, essentially. It's just a
suggested alternative. If you want to speak more to it, you can.
But I felt that I needed to convey that to the Board.
MS. HULSE: Well, I think also you need to also acknowledge that
you have been here for many, many years, and you 'know the way
the Trustees interpret the code. You know the way, and I've
worked in the Justice Court, the way the Bay Constables and
Harbor Masters, and the way they interpret it. But it's a lot
simpler than that. What she is asking to do is perfectly legal,
based on what she has articulated in her letter. Bringing a
kayak is not a problem. And everybody would agree with that
here, I'm certain, if I looked down the line.
The problem is though, Rob that this Board is not in a
position where they want to carve out exceptions to the
definition of a non-disturbance buffer.
You know, with all due respect, we have people coming in
hear asking for many, many different activities, can we do this,
can we not do that, and it would become meaningless. The
definition itself would be meaningless, and I know that you know
that, and I would hope that you would explain that to your
client.
MR. HERRMANN: I have
MS. HULSE: Okay, because I'm guiding this Board clearly to tell
them that if they wish to have the non-disturbance buffer, there
shouldn't be any conditions that they put as part of the permit
to in any way bring it away from what the definition is in the
first place.
MR. HERRMANN: I understand.
Board of Trustees 27 November 12, 2025
MS. HULSE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Herrmann, I think we are
over-complicating this issue. It' s a non-disturbance buffer.
In my ten years on the Board we have never issued a violation
for a kayak in a non-disturbance buffer. If someone wants to
use their property, use your property as you have been. It's
just to codify the Baccharus, all that wetland vegetation that
is there, that we want protected. I think Baccharus is
protected anyway, so the spirit of the law is to protect it. The
letter of the law says you can use it. I think the spirit of
the law says you can use it. We are not looking to give someone
a violation for walking through their quote unquote disturbance
buffer to the creek. And I don't think -- this Board wouldn't
and I don't foresee any future board doing that as well. It' s
just leave the vegetation alone. Activity as far as I interpret
is construction activity. Do you want to walk through it, do you
want to drag a kayak through it, go for it. Just don't touch the
vegetation and we are good.
MR. HERRMANN: Understood.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Trustee Goldsmith made the exact same point
that I would have, is that in the field, the reason we go on
field inspections is to survey what actually exists there. It's
all protected species anyway.
I think that the, per legal sticking point is that the
plans show two access points to a water body. A dock provides
sufficient access to that water body on the plans, so we would
need new plans depicting one access point and removing the path
depicted on there.
We did receive your letter, by the way, and reviewed it at
work session. Thank you, for reminding me, Rob.
MS. SWEENEY: I'm Justine Sweeney, one of the homeowners,
longtime listener, first-time speaker. I understand that
sometimes lawyers can over-lawyer things, and I do apologize if
I'm doing that today.
When I read the word "activity", as Rob mentioned, the
plain language, very broad, the town has taken the time to not
only say, not only to specify what is not allowed, no
operations, maintenance, placement of signs, but it also does
allow one activity, which is merely manmade may be removed from
such area.
So not only has it .specified no maintenance, operation,
bla, bla, bla, but it said what you can do. And it' s only one
activity. And so that is of concern because it took the time to
say what you can do. And we are really not, trying to be
difficult. You know that we are here every month, listening to
all these. applications, we are reading all these applications,
we are trying to be as environmentally friendly as we can but
still use the property, obviously, the way that we want to. And
so, you know, I appreciate the Board taking the time to put
these on the record.
Board of Trustees 28 November 12, 2025
My concern still remains that you guys are one Board.
Another Board can come. in and interpret it differently. And,
you know, sitting through these meetings, which I hear all the
time, when someone comes in for an amendment for something, they
say, that was the Board five years ago, that is not how we
interpret this today.
And so the ability to launch kayaks and paddle boards is
important to us, and so I was wondering if the definition of
"vegetated non-turf buffer", that, you know, I kind of played
around with in adding items to, and I can see that counsel for
the Trustees is growing very frustrated with me and I'm very
apologetic to take up time, but if that could possibly be
considered by the Trustees, to look at the language and give
considered thought to it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: For the record, Ms. Sweeney, the designation
of a non-disturbance buffer won't change your existing use of
the property in any way, shape or form.
MS. HULSE: And I just want to clarify, I'm not getting
frustrated but I think there is some confusion, which Mr.
Herrmann articulated. And the confusion is that this Board
doesn't interpret the non-disturbance buffer language. That is
in the code. So it's defined in the code, as you've
articulated. And this Board doesn't interpret what that means.
They are just applying this to the applications that they deem
it appropriate for. And what you are articulating, what it
sounds like you are articulating is that you are concerned that
harbor masters from local enforcement could come in and say, oh
that' s not, you know, something that we find acceptable. That
has never been done in the 20 years that I have been affiliated
with the Town, and on the enforcement level as well, because it
is not considered an activity in the non-disturbance buffer
area.
If you read the language, it' s essentially anticipating
that the work is being done in the non-disturbance buffer area,
not in the walkway or pathway that you are allowed for access.
If that is something that is granted, which is routinely
granted, then your traversing through that pathway is something
that is perfectly permissible.
The activity that I, again, I said is not defined, it' s not
defined in the code what "activity" means is, as far as my
experience has ever been, is some sort of operation, some sort
of actual work, something in the actual disturbance buffer area,
not on the pathway or not on the access point.
So I think that I understand what you are saying and I
appreciate it as an attorney that you are coming and voicing
your concern, but I think that you are overanalyzing what the
terminology is in that definition.
Now, the definition could change. It certainly could. We've
had code amendments. But it' s not for this Board to decide
between one application and another. They are applying what the
Board of Trustees 29 November 12, 2025
code says.
So it' s not that a new Board is going to come in and say,
oh, we disagree with your, what you've been doing all along.
That's, simply not how it works. You are permitted, if it is
going to be issued, and it' s going to have to meet the standards
of the current code. And that' s what it would be looked at as,
if you are meeting the standards of the current code. And that' s
what the definition says. It does not anticipate someone
bringing a kayak down. It just doesn't.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I want to add, from the Trustee perspective,
when we visited the site, it's a wetland vegetation, native
wetland vegetation there. Now, my fear is that we issue a
permit, perhaps this evening, with a vegetated non-turf buffer.
You leave it alone, but you sell the property, and'the next
person comes in and says, look, I have a vegetated non-turf
buffer, cuts all the Baccharus down, plants a couple of, you
know, day lilies, and say, look, it' s vegetated. It's not turf.
So for the maintenance of this, you ecosystem, what is
there, the habitat, and the soil erosion control, I think what
is there deserves to be kept.
MS. SWEENEY: We don't disagree with that at all, which is why I
thought possibly that other proposal, which would protect what
is there right now, by leaving the vegetation in a natural
state. 100% of it. Just letting it grow, not cutting it,
maintaining, nothing. Just leaving it, other than being able to
walk through it.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That is what we are articulating what a
non-disturbance buffer is.
MS. SWEENEY: That it's more restrictive than that, because of
the prohibition.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: In the sense, it' s more restrictive in the
sense that someone can't come in and cut it all down and call it
a vegetated non-turf buffer in the future.
MS. SWEENEY: I know that I'm still stuck on the word "activity"
but I am in all honesty getting the proverbial cane around the
neck from my husband, so I'm going to take my leave. Thank you
all.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We appreciate your diligence and your
attendance, and we, I just want to note that what Mr. Herrmann
pointed out in 275-4, with the exceptions, really expands on
that so that it's not just the removal of litter, it' s actually,
there are quite a few other activities, and perhaps the Trustees
should look at explicitly calling out. Because here the, you
know, the provisions of this chapter shall not require a permit
for ordinary and usual operations incidental to the harvesting
of fish or shellfish. Perhaps it could also include in there the
use of kayaks or the use of paddle boards traversing a
non-disturbance area at some time in the future, and that is
something the Trustees could consider down the road. So I will
be sure to bring that up at a future meeting.
Board of Trustees 30 November 12, 2025
MS. SWEENEY: Thank you.
MR. HERRMANN: So, in conclusion, if the Board were so moved as
to close the hearing, conditioned upon, and move to approve the
permit, conditioned only upon the re-designation of the
vegetated non-turf buffer to a non-disturbance buffer, and then
removal of that path, and vote on that, we will then make those
changes to the plans and submit them to get the permit.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. Any other members of the public
wish to speak?
(No response) .
Members of the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comments, 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 the application
with the new plans depicting a non-disturbance buffer seaward of
the split-rail fence, and the removal of the four-foot wide
access path on those plans. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 7, Christine Peddy on behalf of
HAYWATER HOUSE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to install a
16'x32 ' on-grade in-ground swimming pool, install 4 ' high pool
enclosure fencing with gates, a pool equipment area and a 41x8 '
drywell for pool backwash; and to establish and perpetually
maintain a 10-foot wide vegetated non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the tidal wetland boundary.
Located: 2000 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-3-7
The Trustees visited the site on the 5th of November. Notes
from our visit read: Would like to save five trees, mature
oaks, move the proposed pool to the side, and that the project
was not staked.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the
application?
MS. PEDDY: I'm Christine.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Before you speak, I just want to also say
that the LWRP coordinator found this project to be consistent.
Go ahead.
MS. PEDDY: And I'm happy to meet Rob Herrmann. I never met him
in person but he worked on this project.
Anyway, I'm sorry, did you guys have any questions? There
was just one tree that would have to be taken down that is in
the middle of the pool.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think -- was that your father we met in the
field?
MS. PEDDY: No, I'm not sure why he was there.
Board of Trustees 31 November 12, 2025
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: He was an Australian gentleman.
MS. PEDDY: Yes, I didn't know, you guys came before, and I feel
bad because I took all the flags down and I didn't know you were
coming again, but, nothing changed with the plan. The pool is in
the same spot, and Rob Herrmann actually placed it. So it would
be 75 feet from the wetlands. So nothing has changed.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Right. So we just went to the site, and like
you said, it wasn't staked, so we didn't get a chance to see
where the footprint of the pool would be, other than we'll kind
of guess off looking at the plans, taking some rough guesses.
You are saying there's one tree to be removed. Based on
the notes that Nick Krupski wrote, it says five trees. So I
think it was just some confusion around the staking and --
MS. PEDDY: No, the preference is to keep all the trees. There
is just one tree that potentially may need to be removed because
it's like in the middle of where the pool is.
I think the first time you guys came, I did a pre-visit,
and everything was staked out. And I received a note saying that
there were not any issues, save the trees except for one.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, we are talking to the one tree that is
closest to the deck, I guess would be the one that has to get
removed?
MS. PEDDY: Yes, just that one tree.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And the trees that are seaward, I guess would
have to be seaward of the pool, those would all remain.
MS. PEDDY: Yes, those don't have to be removed. The preference
is to keep them.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: The one comment I mould make about that, is
that often there is a preference to maintain trees, and then
once the applicant realizes that they, all trees cast shade,
which is why they are so beneficial -- one of the reasons they
are beneficial. They don't like that in their pool area. So
when we were looking at, when we were onsite it seemed like
perhaps there could be another location reviewed for that. It
just seemed like more trees would need to be removed than just
one, when we were there. But again, it wasn't staked.
MS. PEDDY: No, no, the pool company was there, the tree company,
there was no issues with any other trees, and the preference is
to keep them. There is just the one tree that is close to the
deck.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right, are there any exposed bays on this
pool, like a retaining wall, or is it at grade.
MS. PEDDY: It' s at grade.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is there anyone else wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Members of the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close the
Board of Trustees 32 November 12, 2025
hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application
with the plans and survey stamped received August 25th, 2025,
the removal of one tree, with the installation of the pool at
grade, and a one-to-one tree replacement on the seaward side of
the house, of native hardwood of one-inch caliper. And that is
my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 8, AS PER REVISED SITE PLANS AND
DESCRIPTION SUBMITTED 11/10/2025 Patricia Moore, Esq. On behalf
of SCOTT & DORIE MEHLING requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 1, 612sq. ft. Two-story dwelling with attached garage,
east egress window well, roofed over side entry and basement
entry; construct a proposed 7 .2'x6. 6' front covered porch, a
301sq.ft.two-story landward addition, a 416sq. ft. Second floor
landward addition; remove existing paver patio and steps,
retaining walls and a portion of existing paver walks, and
construct a proposed seaward 37'xl5' (480sq.ft. ) Irregularly
shaped upper deck with roof over and steps to ground; a proposed
seaward 37 'xll' (395sq. ft. ) Irregularly shaped lower deck with
steps to ground; a proposed raised 32 'xl5. 8' gunite swimming
pool 2 ' above grade; 4 ' high pool enclosure fencing with locking
gates; a pool drywell for backwash; a pool equipment and I/A
equipment area in stockade fence enclosure with gates against
dwelling; existing a/c units; extend existing paver walk to
pool; existing 5'x7 . 6' outdoor shower; abandon existing septic
system and install an I/A OWTS sanitary system on west side of
dwelling; existing driveway to be replaced with gravel driveway;
install additional drywells for roof, decks and pavers; install
a line of silt fencing and staked hay bales prior to and during
construction; and to establish and perpetually maintain a
vegetated non-turf buffer varying from 15' to 20' in width along
the landward edge of the tidal wetlands with a 4 ' wide access
path to the dock.
Located: 2100 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-38
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 5th of
November, noting that among other things, to reduce height of
the retaining wall per pool and that a vegetated non-turf buffer
would be needed.
We are in receipt of new plans that depict the buffer and
the reduced height of the retaining wall. These were stamped
received on the 10th of November.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent with its policies.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
Board of Trustees 33 November 12, 2025
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Good evening, Patricia Moore, on behalf of the
owners of the property, the Mehling' s.
Yes, the original submission after the inspection, we were
able to have the pool reduced down to about 2'7", which is the
grade of the property. It is not, the pool, everything is
staying 75 feet from the wetlands. The pool is actually slightly
landward of the existing .patio, which that patio is also at the
same level as the pool.
This property has a lot of slopes in the back, and as the
slope goes down to the creek, the structures are brought down to
that grade, to follow the grade of the property. So the
structures are above grade but lowered to meet with your
standards.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. A couple of things we noticed. One
is thank you for adding the vegetated non-turf buffer here. It
does look like the measurement is taken from the property line
rather than the wetlands line.
MS. MOORE: Are you talking about the 75 feet?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Sorry, no, the measurement of that buffer,
saying 15 feet on one side --
MS. MOORE: Oh, you're right. Yes. That's interesting. I had not
caught that. Okay.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes. So if we can just have that, we are okay
with the varying width, as long as it is a minimum of 15 feet.
And I think we would want to see that on new plans.
Also, just one question regarding the, I see the proposed
septic system location. I guess this is outside of jurisdiction
most likely.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: That' s hard to say, actually.
MS. MOORE: A point. I mean, I don't know if it's a linear
system, so.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, I guess it's just sort of a shaded area,
and it doesn't specify where the actual system is. I guess it's
still being designed.
MS. MOORE: Yes, still being designed.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, so I think from our perspective we would
not want to see it go any further seaward than where it is. So,
you know, as long as it accurately represents the location, you
know.
MS. MOORE: Yes, that' s fine. Generally we always recommend
keeping 100-feet back because the DEC also, so you have common
interests there.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes. Is there anyone else here wishing to
speak regarding this application?
MS. FOGARTY: Hi, my name is Julie Fogarty, I 'm a neighbor across
the street at 2175 Glenn Road, and I just had a couple of
questions.
My main concern with this is, I don't know if you guys have
Board of Trustees 34 November 12, 2025
been on the site. It' s a really narrow, narrow street. So much
so to the point that when the neighbors have landscaping trucks
parked, it takes up more than one lane on the street, and my
driveway is right across the street from theirs. And whenever
any, when .they had renovations previously, it was just very hard
to get in and out of my driveway. And the road has a tendency to
flood a little bit. Two houses down from the neighbors is a
small marina, and one of the houses that is near the marina,
when they did renovations, it seems like they covered up with
grass a storm drainage, so we get a lot of flooding there. And
when we get heavy storms that side, the creek side of the street
tends to flood. And I'm just worried about this construction
there. I don't know how long it' s anticipated to take. I'm just
worried about, (a) , access to getting into my house, and getting
in and out of it, there is not really any place on the street to
park giant construction vehicles that you're going to need,
especially if you are ripping out the existing septic system and
putting in a new one. It's just, you know, when they have done
renovations on that house, I've lived at my property since 1998.
And the previous owners of that house, they basically, when they
bought it, they gutted it, and when they were doing the
renovations, remodeling on that, there was a lot of issues with
the construction debris was not really secured on their
property, so it would blow over either into my driveway or onto
my property. So that's also a concern. And I'm just, I don't
know, I'm wondering also if -- the homeowners not there all the
time, either. It seems to be kind of like a weekend thing, so
when they would come out on the weekends, especially during the
summer, you know, the season, many, many cars. And they have a
raised existing planter, it's like a semi-circle in the
driveway, and that is right up to where the street starts. So
if somebody parks front of that, then.there is really no way to
get around.
So I just really am concerned with the length of the
project. I don't know if there is an estimate on how long it
would take, and getting access into and out of my driveway.
That's really it.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: We totally appreciate all of those concerns.
A lot of that falls outside of what we are able to regulate. But
you do bring up the storm drain, that might be, that might be a
public road, you might want to give Dan Goodwin at the Highway
Department a call, tell him to come and check that thing out.
Because if that's blocked and it's not allowing draining on the
street, that is something that the Highway Department can take a
look at and possibly correct it for you.
It' s up to the applicant to be a good neighbor, to make
sure that you have access in and out of your driveway, and
construction vehicles are not blocking the street. If that' s
done in reasonable timeframe, I think that's all reasonable
requests.
Board of Trustees 35 November 12, 2025
MS. FOGARTY: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: I'll certainly pass that on.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
I just want to thank you for your testimony. I think it' s
always important, you know, with all of these projects to be a
good neighbor and to understand the impact that construction has
on the neighborhood. So I appreciate you speaking on it. I think
it' s relevant for everybody here, and, you know, it's outside of
our jurisdiction and outside of -our purview, but I think your
comments on the record are noted.
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application
subject to new plans depicting a buffer beginning from the
wetlands, in varying width, at least 15 _ feet, and that the IA
system not be brought any further seaward.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 9, REVISED SITE PLANS AND PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 11/10/2025 Cole Environmental Services on
behalf of 845 MILL CREEK, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 1, 395sq. ft. (Footprint) one-story dwelling and to
construct a 447sq.ft. Seaward wrap-around deck with an outdoor
kitchen area; remove existing 253sq.ft. North deck and construct
a 12 'x21.1' (253sq.ft. ) Sunroom in-place; reconstruct a portion
of the second story reducing it by 64sq. ft. ; construct a
proposed 121x18' (216sq.ft. ) Carport with PV panels landward of
dwelling; remove existing septic system; landward of dwelling
remove two trees and install an I/A OWTS sanitary system;
reroute existing underground water line; install an 3.5'x6'
outdoor shower; remove existing asphalt driveway and install a
permeable driveway; install an 81x12 ' (96sq. ft. ) Shed landward
of dwelling; install gutters to leaders for roof runoff to lead
to rain barrels and/or rain gardens; install a 4 ' wide raised
planting bed on south side of dwelling; in the rear yard area
remove existing non-native plants and trees, install a
±1, 180sq.ft. Permeable gravel or oyster shell area, and along
the landward side of the concrete seawall establish and
perpetually maintain a 2, 570sq.ft. Vegetated non-turf buffer
area using native plantings with a 4 ' wide access path to water.
Located: 845 Mill Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-3-36. 1
The Trustees most recently visited the site on November
5th, 2025, and Trustee Gillooly noted Trustees would like to see
Board of Trustees 36 November 12, 2025
the trees preserved, removal of trees for a shed or driveway may
not be appropriate. New plans needed to show buffer and final
deck configuration.
And the LWRP found this proposal to be consistent.
And the notes in the field inspection report were prior to
the receipt of the new plans that are stamped received November
10th, 2025.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak?
MR. RUMMEL: Kate Rummel, Cole Environmental, on behalf of the
homeowners who are also present. The new plans that you are in
receipt of do show the new configuration of the deck, as well .as
permeable area, and the significant non-turf buffer that is
proposed in the rear yard.
The shed has been moved to preserve the oak tree. And the
applicants are now going to propose an IA system in the front
yard.
There is a proposed removal of two trees and then as well
as the carport and the sunroom which was previously proposed as
a screened porch.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So you just confirmed the removal of trees in a
quantity of two.
MS. RUMMEL: Yes, for the installation of the IA system.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. And the shed was removed.
MS. RUMMEL: The shed was removed also for the installation of
the IA system.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And the shed was removed also.
MS. RUMMEL: To protect that oak tree, yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. Great. And then I believe we were
speaking about this at work session. I'm not sure that it came
up onsite. But in the project description you include install
gutters to leaders for roof runoff, to lead to rain barrels
and/or rain gardens.
MS. RUMMEL: Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Could you explain that a little further,
please.
MS. RUMMEL: Well, we noted there will be additional runoff for
the carport and the existing, I mean the sun room. And as well
as what was noted on site as well was the rear gutters just
drain onto the lawn. So we would be capturing the stormwater
and hopefully, you know, green waste. The rain barrels were
discussed with Trustee Krupski, or rain_ gardens.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And where would those be located then?
MS. RUMMEL: Two are noted for the rear yard where the gutters
are, and then we would just have to figure that out for the,
with the construction, where would be an appropriate site, like
in front yard, and across the side yard.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So where you noted raised planting beds, is
that at the rain gardens?
MS. RUMMEL: No, they are not shown directly on the site, but
they are noted on the site plans. Just not drawn out.
Board of Trustees 37 November 12, 2025
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I see. I just saw a notation.
And there is a significant non-turf buffer as that will capture
some water as well.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Personally, I applaud an innovative use of
rain garden or rain barrel. I think it's an environmental
benefit. And I think if there are concerns about the overall
Chapter 268 or something like that, I think that's for us, not
for us to review, maybe.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just for clarification, with the barrel, how
big a rain barrel are we talking?
MS. RUMMEL: We would have to do some of those calculations. I
don't have a number offhand.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Obviously we don't want a little
five-gallon bucket that will overflow. That defeats the whole
purpose.
MS. RUMMEL: No, and I can also consult with the architect to
what exactly would be needed to control and collect all the
storm water.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think the idea of a rain garden is
essentially what serves the purpose of what is served by a
vegetated non-turf buffer. So I think that very much fits in
with the plan. I think that, you know, to the five-gallon bucket
comment, you know, if there was going to be something larger
proposed, which I agree with Trustee Gillooly, I think it's a
wise way to use sort of this gray water, that sort of thing, but
I think it' s just a little concern about what size that would be
and, you know, if it did overflow. So is that something where
you definitely want to incorporate the rain barrel or, because
it says and/or, I believe, in the main description.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We can change the language if the Board is
more comfortable to just include the rain garden so we can make
sure that the capacity of the rain gardens again would hold the
storm water being created.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I mean as one Trustee, I would be more
comfortable with that. And then I Pike the idea of a rain
barrel, but I think that a little more study might beneficial
for that.
MS. RUMMEL: Sure.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, is there anyone else here wishing to
speak? Or any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(All ayes) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition of a one-to-one tree replacement for the two
hardwoods that are to be removed, of two-inch caliper, and that
the area seaward of the deck, proposed deck, is non-turf,
vegetated non-turf buffer area. And that if the project scop
changes and it is deemed to meet the Town Code definition of a
Board of Trustees 38 November 12, 2025
demolition, the applicant must return to the Trustees to
reapply. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 10, 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
The Trustees conducted a field inspection October 7th,
2025 . Notes read: Keep existing vegetated non-turf buffer a
minimum of 15 feet; no extra fill or grade change;. and to keep
and/or replace cedar tree.
The LWRP found this to be consistent, with a few notes: No
fill or grade change, replace any trees removed with native
trees species, and require turbidity controls during
construction.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant.
No problem modifying the plans to include a 15-foot wide
non-turf buffer in lieu of the ten-foot wide non-turf buffer
that is indicated on the proposed plans. And we will make a note
to replace any trees removed with a tree one-per-one, of
two-and-a-half inch to three-inch caliper at time of planting,
on the property.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just .for clarification, Mr. Patanjo, is there
any proposed grade changes or fill?
MR. PATANJO: No proposed grade changes or fill.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else here
wishing to speak regarding this 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) .
I make a motion to approve this application, with the condition
of a minimum of a 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer, tree
replacement at a one-to-one basis with native hardwood, minimum
of three-inch caliper, and the use of turbidity controls during
construction. And submission of new plans depicting. That is my
motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 39 November 12, 2025
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 11, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of BAILEY
INVESTMENT GROUP II, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove
existing 41x30' fixed dock and construct in-place a new 4 'x30'
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
The Trustees most recently visited the site October 7th,
2025, noting that the non-disturbance area must be allowed to
revegetate; remove fire pit and the wood piles in sitting area.
Dock cannot extend beyond existing footprint. Applicant may
propose a "T" if the boat would still fall within the existing
footprint.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent. The proposal is to extend the dock's footprint,
which is inconsistent with policy standard 9.4, assure public
access to public trust lands and navigable waters. The creek is
very narrow at this location with less than 40 feet between the
end of the existing dock and the structure on the opposite
shore. Adding the "T" section extends the length of the
structure into the creek by an additional six feet. The
remainder of the project could be found consistent if the "T"
section is not added and the new dock after construction remains
in the same footprint as the existing.
It also was inconsistent with policy standard 6.3, noting
that the catwalk is elevated at least four feet above grade in
the intertidal zone, and constructed with light penetrating --
it sounds consistent. Light-penetrating open-grate decking so as
to not impede the potential growth of vegetation beneath it.
This will replace the existing solid dock.
So that sounds positive. Maybe it is consistent with
policy standard 6.3.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. No
problem removing the firepit, and no problem allowing the
existing vegetation within that non-turf buffer and the
non-disturbance buffer, which equals a total of 40 feet to
revegetate naturally.
As far as the proposed project is to, as we all know, there
is an existing dock there now, not super beneficial to tie up a
boat to. So we have no objection to scaling back the length of
the dock, as long as it can be fixed "T" going out to the same
ultimate length going into the water body as it currently
exists.
As mentioned, it's going to be all thru-flow decking. It' s
Board of Trustees 40 November 12, 2025
going to be four-foot above grade, which is New York state DEC
code, and your code, so it's really just the replacement of
existing and the addition of the "T" section, which would allow
for more safer vessel tie-up area.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Speaking from my perspective, I
think I would want to see new plans before making a decision on
that. So I would appreciate submission of new plans depicting
what you just described, prior to any action on this
application. Unless the other Trustees feel ready to move on
this.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yeah, I feel that's appropriate, too. And I
,don't have it in front of me, but I believe the hydrographic
survey was only in the area of the dock. I would like to see it
extend a little more, just because I believe where that dock is
located is actually the channel that heads up to the headwaters
of that creek. So I just want to make sure that putting a "T"
with a boat is not going to interfere with existing navigation
for that channel.
So if we are doing submission of new plans with the "T", I
would like to see some more depths all the way for the width of
that creek as well.
MR. PATANJO: Right. We can do that. So one of the points I
wanted to say, I think it was mentioned earlier in the hearings
tonight, was the, if- we did just want to add a "T" on and not
extend any further into the canal or channel or water body, you
know, there would be no further projection. Right now they are
permitted to tie up the boat. They have an eight-foot beam,
ten-foot beam, whatever it might be. If we just wanted to put a
"T" for safer boating and safer egress, you know, onto their
boat, there would be no further penetration in projection into
the water body. So water depths really shouldn't apply to this.
We have them, they were provided to you as part of the
application. But if we do scale back the application to have no
further seaward projection of the proposed end of dock, it
really should be a moot point.
Now we are just really trying to make this dock better by
adding a "T" to it, safer access, and then also making the dock
better for the environment by adding thru-flow decking onto this
existing dock, which currently doesn't have thru-flow decking.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Mr. Patanjo, so what you just described was
just putting, adding a "T" to the end of the dock that would
extend no further seaward than the current dock.
Now, what we also have to account for with that "T" is the
beam of the boat.
MR. PATANJO: Gotcha.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So what we need to see in addition to the
comments made by Trustee Gillooly and Trustee Goldsmith is that
the distance to the, we need to see the distance of the width of
that water body, and then understand what the distance would be
and ensure that that is 25% or less of the distance across the
Board of Trustees 41 November 12, 2025
water body.
MR. PATANJO: That's shown on the plan already. Because the DEC
asked same thing, DEC regulation is 25% of the water body width
is your requirement. So you have 42 foot from the neighboring
water body to the face of the proposed dock, 49, I'm very blind,
49 feet. So you only have seven-foot projection into the water
body, which is well less than the 49-foot width of the water
body. So technically you are allowed 25 -- hold on, you are
allowed 12 . So 12 .35' out projected. We are only projecting out
currently seven feet.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: No. So that' s the part, we are missing the
beam of the proposed vessel. And I think when you are talking
about being in about half a foot of water, I'm assuming that we
are not talking about a large vessel. You know, I would hope.
And the difference is that when you put the "T" out, instead of
tying a boat to the side of the dock, you are now extending out.
So I think there is a difference, rather than having an "I"
configuration, the "T" creates that additional need for the beam
of the boat. r�
MR. PATANJO: I can fully understand and respect that. The photos
I submitted show a boat broadsided to the end of the "T" . That' s
how they tie it up. It' s a little sketchy, but I understand what
you are getting at, and we'll show a boat on there.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Oh, I do see that. So, thank you. Is there
anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Are there any further questions or comments from the Board
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application for
submission of new plans.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 12, Islandwide Engineering & Land
Surveying on behalf of CHULA VISTA HOME, LLC requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a proposed 3,325sq.ft. Total square footage
two-story, single-family dwelling with a 32sq.ft. Front covered
porch and attached garage, a 21. 81xl8' covered lanai, a
12 'x15.7 ' covered on-grade patio, install a 285' long by 4 ' high
(maximum height) concrete retaining wall along the seaward side
and side yards of the property with 61x4 ' seaward steps down;
plant 3' high native plantings along the retaining wall; install
an I/A type sanitary system landward of dwelling; install a
stormwater drainage system; install a/c units with a 5' high
privacy wall; install underground electric and water service;
install a gravel driveway; approximately 200 cubic yards of
clean fill to be added surrounding the proposed dwelling to
raise the grade; install silt fencing prior to and during
Board of Trustees 42 November 12, 2025
construction; and to establish and perpetually maintain a
50-foot wide Non-Disturbance Buffer area along the landward edge
of wetlands, and the area between the retaining wall and buffer
to return to its natural state of vegetation.
Located: 500 Lakeside Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-3-4
The Trustees visited the site on the 5th of November, the
notes from our visit read review pier line, no retaining walls
on property line and no fill.
The LWRP coordinator found the project inconsistent. Points
to Policy One, about minimizing the adverse effects of
development.
Policy Six, make sure habitat is not fragmented. And, 6.3,
protecting and restoring tidal freshwater wetlands.
There are subsections quoted in the LWRP. I will not read
them all here, but the final paragraph reads: That the proposed
action include constructing a residence, covered patio, and
lanai within 100 feet of tidal wetland boundary in what is
currently an undeveloped land area with a native tree and shrub
cover.
The proposed structure, while the scale similar to the
adjacent homes, encroaches closer to the wetland shoreline than
the adjacent homes and is significantly closer to the wetlands
than the previously-approved residence of Trustee permit #10343.
The lot is deep enough to allow for all proposed construction to
be moved away from the water and outside of the 100-foot wetland
setback.
So during our review of the application and our work
session, we did note that in 2023 there was Trustee approval.
That is shown on the proposed plans here, aerial, an aerial
photograph shows the original footprint, and with I welcome
comments from the public. Meaning Jeff Patanjo.
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the public.
So this proposed plan, as you may or may not have been on
the Board at the time, I submitted the applications and received
approval on the previous applications for the proposed house
that was currently approved under Permit #13 of whatever it was.
So the new owners of the property, had different visions in
mind for a different house with their five children, and
hopefully 25 grandchildren, so needed a larger house.
The proposed house is a single-story -- no, two-story home,
and it takes up a larger footprint. Again, this proposed house
is going to have an IA sanitary system. There is a proposed
retaining wall, along the wetland line, which very much
delineate that wetland line, in addition to adding fill behind
that proposed retaining wall, which will also have storm
drainage behind it, to pick up any runoff.
So right now as it is proposed and approved, it could be
potential runoff from the permitted house. There could be
runoff that runs beyond the house. It doesn't get protected, it
doesn't get it treated if the storm drains. The proposed house
Board of Trustees 43 November 12, 2025
as we have it with the proposed retaining wall picks up all the
runoff so no there is no potential for runoff into the wetlands.
We also are providing, as mentioned this already, an IA
sanitary system, which is part of the original approval as well.
And the proposed idea here is to just really have a single -- a
larger footprint for a larger house on the proposed property, as
opposed to what was originally proposed.
We would be happy to talk about some comments from the
Board with regard to the lanais or the back patios or the
suggestions from the Board to, you know, make something that
would be amenable between both of us.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Sure. I think the straightforward answer to
all of those points is that pull the house further landward.
You've got a footprint here of the previously-approved
structure. I don't think the Board here has any significant
opposition to the house size that you are proposing. I think it
just needs to be pulled further landward to address all of the
LWRP concerns that are outlined in the report that they
furnished us.
The concern about habitat fragmentation, the character of
the community, you know, minimizing adverse effects of
development. We have to meet those concerns with significant
change. So, don't want to design the project for you, but I
think given what we've said here in our notes, and the LWRP, you
can make a modification that would pass mustard.
MR. PATANJO: Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think the only other question we have is
with the retaining walls. It looks like they were on or close to
the property line, and then going the whole width of the
property.
MR. PATANJO: We can pull those back three or four foot away from
the property line.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The other question is the necessity for them.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes, I agree with Trustee Goldsmith. I don't
see the need for it. There is a significant natural buffer in
this location that would absorb any runoff. I think if you were
to pull the house in further landward, you would have room to
work in some kind of lawn, I think that' s what you are trying to
achieve there, but with a significant natural buffer between
that lawn and the wetland to prevent the nitrification of the
waterbody.
MR. PATANJO: Okay. As part of relocating the home, again, it' s
going to require ZBA approval, so we'll have to go through those
_routes before we come back. We'll re-analyze the need for
retaining walls as part of that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much. I mean, the section that
you have provided for us shows a retaining wall height of four
feet. And that, and where it' s shown on the plan is that that is
the entire length of the wetland boundary, and on the, each side
of the property line. So it seems quite significant, and I'm
Board of Trustees 44 November 12, 2025
concerned about all of the fill that would be required to go
along with that retaining wall.
MR. PATANJO: Yes, we have top wall, bottom wall elevations, it' s
four foot on the north side, it's three-and-a-half in the center
and 3. 6 feet on the south side. But we'll re-evaluate that. If
we move the house back, we won't need to install retaining
walls. We can minimize those to max three foot.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Great. Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Are there any other comments from the public?
Members of the Board?
Do you wish to table?
MR. PATANJO: I wish to table on behalf of the applicant.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'll make a motion to table at the
applicant' s request.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 13, Islandwide Engineering & Land
Surveying on behalf of ULSTER FARMS, LLC requests a Wetland
Permit to construct an irregularly shaped 33.50'x42 .50'
two-story, single family dwelling with a 14.51x21 ' attached
garage with 61x6' rear entry platform and steps, a 51x27.5'
(irregular) covered front porch with 21x8.7 ' steps, an 111x20'
rear covered porch with 3. 40'xl6' steps; install an 8'x18 '
in-ground pool with at-grade paver patio surround (19.41x40'
irregular) ; install pool enclosure fencing; a pool drywell for
backwash, a pool equipment area, two a/c units; install a
stormwater drainage system; install an I/A OWTS sanitary system
landward of dwelling; add 15 cubic yards of clean fill to raise
the grade surrounding the new sanitary system area; and to
establish and perpetually maintain a 15' wide Non-Disturbance
Buffer along the landward edge of the wooden decking along
bulkhead.
Located: 225 Williamsberg Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-14
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 5th of
November, noting confirm accuracy of pier line, keep trees,
research buffer already in place, and increase vegetated
non-turf buffer, review distance from pool.
We are in receipt of a letter from a neighbor, a Lester and
Edna Lay, saying that they are hopeful that the property lines
are respected. The property lines on the left side of the
Williamsberg Drive, go across Williamsberg Drive and continue
several feet on the east .side of Williamsberg Drive. Any
construction should cease at the property line. The site plan
does show construction over the property line.
Additionally there is a tree on our property which should
not be removed.
And the LWRP did review this application and found it to be
inconsistent. The inconsistencies include, with Policy 6,
protect and restore the quality and function of Southold Town' s
Board of Trustees 45 November 12, 2025
eco-system.
The plan includes property improvements that are not
consistent with these requirements. And these include
constructing a residence within 100 feet, and a pool and paver
patio within 15 feet of the tidal wetland boundary.
The installation of a 15-foot native vegetated buffer is
beneficial but the specifics of this plan are not provided.
The installation of an IA septic system is also beneficial
as it should help to protect the surface inground water quality.
Is there anyone here wishing .to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of Islandwide Engineering,
on behalf of the applicant.
So the proposed plan is a new proposed home on the
currently vacant site, which is similar to -- I did the house
right next door, which is currently 145. But that's actually
labeled 225. The numbering system here is really weird.
The proposed project is a proposed two-story, four-bedroom
home, proposed gravel driveway, proposed at-grade patio and
proposed inground pool. It includes all roof drainage to collect
any stormwater runoff,from the proposed roof. It include a new
IA sanitary system. It includes a proposed inground pool, which
is fairly small. It' s only 81x18 ' long, and it also has a
backwash drywell, and all of the pool equipment. Everything is
outside the pier line.
The pier line was established by way of survey in
combination with aerial photography, just to confirm that.
The DEC requirements, we have met those with regard to lot
coverage. They have a requirement for lot coverage with a
maximum of 20% of impervious surfaces. Lot coverage, we met
that. We are at 19.92% for lot coverage.
The DEC had also asked us to increase the non-disturbance
buffer of 15-foot from the existing deck. So there is an
existing deck on this existing site. I did the permits for the
bulkhead. Prior to that was Sherry Clary (sic) and Parker.
So originally when we did these permits, this bulkhead used
to come straight across. We cut back the bulkhead thereby
giving more waterbody and including the floating dock, that had
a six-foot wide deck landward of that. It only had a ten-foot
wide non-turf buffer. We had increased that as part of the DEC
requirements.
So total right now, it's a 21-foot wide buffer in the eyes
of the Trustees office. This buffer is going to be planted with
native plants, no gravel, they want native plants and that' s it.
So it' s going to be a non-disturbance buffer with a small
walkway to get to the deck.
I mentioned the IA system, I mentioned the pier line
already, we talked about roof drains. The driveway is going to
be a pervious gravel driveway that allows all the runoff to
leach into there.
Board of Trustees 46 November 12, 2025
We meet all of the town code requirements and setbacks.
There is no ZBA variance needed for this site, so it meets the
Town Code for building a house on this lot. And the site, it's
not shown on here but it's on the proposed building plans.
During construction we will have a silt fence in requirement
with the Town Code, silt fence surrounding the entire property
to make sure no runoff leaves the site during construction.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Patanjo, quick question. You mentioned a
non-disturbance buffer?
MR. PATANJO: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Where is it?
MR. PATANJO: It' s shown on the plans, 15-foot wide
non-disturbance buffer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It's disturbed. I mean --
MR. PATANJO: Well, it's ultimately going to be non-disturbance.
So the proposed plan is to re --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Revegetate?
MR. PATANJO: Revegetate. Correct. So the proposed plan, you may
not have translated to this, but it is translated on the DEC
plan. 15-foot away from the existing deck. Existing
deck/boardwalk, we'll call it, the boardwalk is six foot
landward of the bulkhead. We have an additional 15 feet that
will be revegetated with native plantings. So it is going to be
a full 21-foot wide non-disturbance buffer for the entire parcel
length.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because I think there is stone or something
there right now.
MR. PATANJO: Yes, there is. And that' s going to be removed.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
MR. PATANJO: Sorry, maybe you don't -- my fault for not giving
you the latest plan.
The proposed plan for the DEC is to remove that stone and
gravel, remove those boulder edgings, and do a 15-foot wide from
the landward side of the existing deck, 15-foot towards landward
of that, all non-native plantings, non-disturbance buffer.
So it' s a full 21-foot wide non-disturbance buffer for this
proposed project. In addition with collection of roof drainage.
So there is no runoff leaving the house, there is no runoff
leaving the driveway, because of the gravel. You have an IA
sanitary system. And everything is within the pier line for the
proposed project.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
MR. GROENEVELD: Jim Groeneveld, 250 Williamsberg Drive. I live
adjacent. I'm against the issuance of this permit. I'm against
the issuance of this house being built. Certainly the pool, at
the size that it is currently, it's simply too large, especially
with the pool from a noise standpoint. Pools obviously create a
lot of noise. Currently I have numerous trucks going up and
Board of Trustees 47 November 12, 2025
down my road. And I apologize, I'm here -to see you all again.
And so I just want them to start, you know, I had this house
almost 20 years with my wife. We take care of our property, we
are very environmentally conscious. My family has had property
out here since 1967 in Orient Point. We, Brad Reeve bought his
big farm in Aquebogue,. in Jamesport from my parents. My dad
owned that whole property. He was a landscaper. My mom currently
resides in Cutchogue. Obviously we are in Southold, so we have
been a part of it.
I grew up clamming and crabbing and scalloping, when there
used to be scallops in Orient Point. I know the north fork very
well. Some of my fondest memories are going clamming with my dad
on Saturday, and if there were five cars on the north road while
we were going out there, traveling from Smithtown, that was a
lot. It was all the prop planes up above and the potato farms.
But we had the property and from Memorial Day to Labor Day
we would go out there clamming, during the day we would go
fishing, and crabbing when the crabs came out. It was very
important to me.
We came out here because of the peace and quiet. We live on
a private road. As you know, I own approximately ten to 15 feet
of the proposed builder's property line. We came here for,
again, like I said, for the peace and quiet. Unfortunately,
Williamsberg Drive, which is a private, you know, private road,
has basically, someone here before had said, we don't want the
North Fork to become like Nassau County. Well, our road is
becoming like Nassau County, for sure, okay. It' s just house on
top of house on top of house. So we have a small house that we
maintain, okay. Now, I step outside the house, I have this big
McMansion in front of it, and now I'm about to have another big
McMansion put in front of it.
So I own land that will extend on this proposed building,
as well as the one that is currently being built, okay. I do
also just want to mention, just in case, and I know, in terms of
the jurisdiction, et cetera, based upon your counsel, when we
spoke, I did go to the Building Department, followed up with
him. He went and looked at the property. John was his name. John
Jarski. I went back on Friday to follow-up and just to get his
counsel, as you advised, and he had actually gone to the wrong
place. So we scheduled to make a meeting for Monday at 2:30.
Any issues he would call my cellphone. I left work early,
waited until four o'clock. He never showed up.
So I'm saying that because if there is something where I
need to understand better. You know, my main concern here is
that there are very large Silver Maple trees on the property,
okay, and they are not to be touched. They will provide
screening, I take care of them. You know, when all the leaves
are down, I 'm raking and blowing out the leaves on that side of
the property.
I knew this day would come, and years ago I did go to the
Board of Trustees 48 November 12, 2025
Building Department because what I wanted to do was put in
Leland Cyprus, or some type of screening just to screen out the
other side of it. If I had the right to. Which from what I
understand, what I was told back then, I do have that right.
So there is that concern with the trees and making sure
that those trees are not touched, because they are on my
property, as well, part of the reason I wanted to have the
building because I wanted him to explain to me explicitly, okay,
what these plans mean. Because as I understand it, okay, if a
driveway, which I understand I have to allow the driveway to be
built, okay, I know that I have the right to make sure that
these trees are not harmed, and that the driveway would need to
be moved accordingly to preserve the life of these trees, which
I maintain, okay. Outside of that, for over four years now
there has just been nothing but construction. You. have seen the
road that I'm responsible for. It is destroyed. Okay, while I
appreciate the runoff and everything else that they say, okay,
currently what we face, and it's extremely dangerous during the
wintertime. And I say that because the owners .that are building
the house are typically not there, okay. There' s only two
people on the road. Two houses, which live there year-round,
okay. That' s myself and the first house which is Irene
Markotsis.
So what happens is because there has been so much
construction and trucks, and unfortunately you were not able to
see it otherwise I certainly would have pointed it out to you,
is that we get Lake Williamsberg, and it starts from the end of
the street, and now it' s coming up about 15 feet onto my
property. So that's a long distance. So much so that gas
delivery, fuel delivery, et cetera. So a big portion of that
sits right in front of the builder' s house, which again, he
doesn't own the property, okay, but it is a. problem in terms of
the amount of trucks that went. And what happens with that?
You are packing down the clay, okay. They have not figured out
how to resolve the water problem, but it comes significantly
during the winter, it's a sheet of ice, okay. And so cars won't
stop. So what does that mean? Cars are stopping and parking
themselves in front of my house, okay?
The $22, 000 that we paid to have the Belgian block put in
front of our house to make it look nice, okay, as well as
outline our driveway, has been destroyed in certain sections
because of all of these trucks.
Like the woman said before, I have no choice, okay, on
Friday night, all the landscape trucks come, okay, 'til seven
o'clock at night. You can't get up and down the street. None of
them are home. We are the ones that are home, okay. So this is
our life, okay, this is where we live year-round, and it is
absolutely being destroyed, okay.
What I ask is that, you know, I want to make sure, in terms
of all of this, that I have the rights, okay, and again, you
Board of Trustees 49 November 12, 2025
guys, if it becomes a civil matter, I do have counsel already,
SO.
MS. HULSE: Can I step in for a second, sir. You've articulated
that some of the property is on the other side of the street,
which is where their proposed work is being done, correct?
MR. GROENEVELD: Correct.
MS. HULSE: So this Board can't approve or act on an application
unless it is within their property or they have the written
consent of the owner of the property that they propose to do
work on that is not their own.
MR. GROENEVELD: So they would need my consent.
MS. HULSE: Correct. So if they don't have your consent, which
I'm hearing they don't have your consent, then that part, if
that is part of their application, is not something that this
Board can even act on. Okay?
So I guess one question I'm going to pose to Mr. Patanjo is
are you conceding that some of this property that you have
included in the application on plans is in fact not owned by
your client?
MR. PATANJO: No. In fact I actually just pulled up the survey
right now, and all the work, minus the proposed water service
connecting to the existing water main on Williamsberg and the
projection of the driveway out to Williamsberg from the property
line is all within our subject property. And in addition to
that, none of the trees along Williamsberg, the Silver Maples
which were referred to, will be disrupted, and we can make
comment to that on the proposed plans.
I did include the survey, property survey completed by our
office. It' s 14,728 square feet, 0.338 acres, and it
specifically shows the proposed property line on the east side
of Williamsberg Drive. It might be a right-of-way that could be
in question, or something. . I would be interested in seeing .
anything different, but we are licensed land surveyors in New
York State and we show all of our proposed, existing conditions
surveys, is consistent with the plans submitted to this Board
which you have in front of you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
MR. GROENEVELD: The two previous owners before, the previous
owner Tom, who unfortunately is deceased, he had it surveyed,
okay, so I saw the markers clearly, okay, and,. again, how do I
know? Because it' s my responsibility during the snow and
everything that I'm responsible for maintaining it. ,
In addition, when we first bought the house, okay, we were
not informed about this. So then I went down, again, to Town of
Southold, to go through this, you know, it said, and I actually
said, well, I'm being taxed on it, why can't you guys just plot,
and, you know, and you guys yourself said, when I explained this
to you, you said how can this be.
Again, I don't necessarily appreciate the extra land or
whatever, but if it is mine and I'm paying taxes on it, as it' s
Board of Trustees 50 November 12, 2025
been, and again, I'm not questioning his survey, okay, but I
know it' s been surveyed before, and I've seen mistakes. In fact
my utility line for electric is over on that side of the street
along with theirs. And when they put is, the house you saw being
built. And when they were there .putting it in, they had said we
know that it' s just literally on the property line.
So, again, I 'm sure we can find out for sure, one way or
another, but if that' s the case --
MS. HULSE: So what this Board is bound by, is they're bound by
what they are receiving. So if they are receiving stamped plans
from a surveyor, indicating that that is the applicant' s
property, that is what this Board is going to act on.
MR. GROENEVELD.
MS. HULSE: If, however, you have something different, then I
would suggest that you submit what you have, because that would
be something important for the Board to consider. We don't
typically question, obviously, a stamped plan from a
professional, because it is stamped by a professional, and this.'
Board' s .job is not to interpret which plan they should follow.
It's whatever the stamped plan is that is before them.
And obviously if you wish to present anything, you can,
that is .different than what Mr. Patanjo has just articulated,
obviously now is the time you could do that, if you have that.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes. I just also wanted to note that we also
do have several other comments about the project itself as well.
So this is not the end of the hearing. So, you know, feel free
to finish your comments, but we also do want to go over some of
your other concerns regarding the pool and the proximity to
wetlands.
MR. GROENEVELD: The plan, as far as that, again, so I will, I
actually do believe, I'm almost certain I do have the original
plans of the property when we bought the house. So, again, I'll
refer to that, and then again I will seek further on that.
So can I just ask one other question to counsel?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Legal Counsel Lori. Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, Mr. Patanjo, based on the plans and the
survey you submitted, it shows the proposed driveway.
MR. PATANJO: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Now, in reference to the existing trees,
where does that proposed driveway fall?
MR. PATANJO: We didn't survey the existing trees, but we have no
problem rerouting the driveway so we don't have to remove any
trees. And if any of those existing trees are removed, we would
replace one or two as needed, at the same, I don't know how big
they are.
MS. HULSE: I'm sorry, are you talking about -- whoa. Stop. Are
we talking about the trees that are not on your property but
that are on his property?
MR. PATANJO: Yes.
MS. HULSE: Okay, you can't remove those. You are subject to
Board of Trustees 51 November 12, 2025
treble damages civilly if you do that. He' s standing here saying
he is not giving consent to that. So you need to be very clear
what you are authorized to do and what you are not.
MR. PATANJO: All right. So it be not necessary to remove trees.
We'll make the driveway fit around those trees. No disruption to
the existing --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Well, from our perspective we would- want to
see trees surveyed and put on the plan, and the plan to depict
the driveway that clearly- was not interfered with.
MR. PATANJO: Absolutely. Happy to do that. Add those trees to
the existing survey, and we would at the same point like to see
justification that the land is owned beyond this, piece, as on
our proposed survey and tax maps that' s showing the property
line with a right-of-way down Williamsberg.
So what happens sometimes on these properties, on these
private roads, is the adjacent property owners own up to the
center of the street, as of right-of-way.
So we would be interested in doing a little more research on
that as well.
MS. HULSE: That's important because it doesn't sound like that' s
the case here. As he's concerned. So.
MR. PATANJO: Right.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think we also have several other concerns,
but the first being the pier line that was drawn here, appears
to be from, you know, a deck or covered patio or something that
doesn't appear in the field. So I just wanted some clarification
on the house that is to the north.
MR. PATANJO: Yes, that' s #145. I did that permit application for
the proposed house, proposed residence, might be the one under
construction right now, actually. That' s the proposed house, and
that's based off of the permitted drawings that are under this
Board, I believe, permitted those. So it's not existing, but
it's the proposed approved plans with- the Building Department
and Suffolk County Health Department and the Town of Southold
Trustees and New York State DEC, so.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It's built?
MR. PATANJO: It's in the process of being built, as I
understand.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I'll have to double check that permit because
the extended deck area, like I agree with the two-story
residence here, but this, the line appears to be drawn from
something with like sort of a bay window that is going over the
decking outside. So it's a bit, it doesn't jive with what I
recall, so. I will have to do a little further digging on that.
I also want to note that the proposed in-ground pool here
is actually closer than 50 feet, if you took a straight line
from the closest distance, and in my opinion, inappropriate for
the location, to have a. pool here., especially if you -are talking
about constructing a new residence in 2025, on an unbuilt lot,
you know, of this size and scale, I think we have to dial back a
Board of Trustees 52 November 12, 2025
little bit the ambition of this project.
MR. PATANJO: Right. I have no objection to scaling down the pool
a bit. You know, it' s really big in the heart of the applicant
to have a pool at this location. You know, there is talk of
scaling it down to a typical plunge pool, which is seventeen by
I think sixteen. And in addition to that, we could probably pull
it back closer to the house, to move it another three or four
feet away from the existing bulkhead line, which would be a
minimum of 50 feet, well within the pier line.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Again, we have to double check the pier line.
Is there anyone else that has comments on this from the
Board?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: No, it' s pretty thorough.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think in addition to this we have some
confusion about the buffer that you are proposing here. You had
mentioned that it's a non-disturbance buffer and that it will be
planted and, you know, what we see in the field is it's been
cleared; and so I think we would definitely need to see a full
vegetation plan for what is intended within that buffer.
MR. PATANJO: No problem.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Again, we are going to do a further pier line
study, and we would like to see all trees on the property, I
guess it' s just those, surveyed and appearing on a plan for
further discussion.
We would also encourage, you know, require limiting of all
activities that would disturb any trees that are on this
property. And overall, I think the project could be scaled down
for environmental benefit. -That would be something I would be
interested in seeing. And those are my comments for now.
Are there any other questions or comments?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application for
submission of new plans.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion for adjournment..
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Respectfully submitted by,
q
,Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees