HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/17/2025 Glenn Goldsmith,President QF sorry Town Hall Annex
Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ��� ��� 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski J J Southold, New York 11971
Liz Gillooly G Telephone(631) 765-1892
Joseph Finora • �O Fax(631) 765-6641
ol,YCOUN1Y,�
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
s� ,� �
Minutes r���' � ��V r' -.�
Wednesday, December 17, 2025
5:30 PM
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President JAN 1
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Eric Sepenoski, Trustee ppg 1t 4r 'oRa eIM-do
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,
December 17th, 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 by announcing the people on
the dais. To my left we have Trustee Krupski, Trustee Sepenoski,
Trustee Gillooly and Trustee Peeples. To my right we have the
attorney to the Trustees, the Hon. Lori Hulse, Administrative
Assistant Elizabeth Cantrell, and with us tonight is Court
Stenographer Wayne Galante.
Before we get into the agenda, I would like to take a
moment to recognize and thank Trustee Peeples for her past four
years on this Board. Tonight is her last meeting.
Serving as an elected official takes a great deal of time,
energy and commitment, and Elizabeth has given that in spades.
Her hard work, dedication and thoughtful approach to every
application helped move this Board forward and make Southold a
better place.
So on behalf of the Board and the whole community, I would
like to thank you for your service, your leadership and positive
impact you have made on this Board over the past four years.
You will be missed and your skill will also be missed. So, thank
Board of Trustees 2 December 17,2025
you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Agendas for tonight's meeting are located in
the hall and also posted on the Town' s website.
We do have a number of postponements tonight. The
postponements are in the agenda on page six,
Number 4, 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 ±1D12 linear foot long
fixed pier with handrails; reconstruct existing 7 ' wide by 22 '
long fixed "L" pier with a ships ladder; install a new 3'x20'
hinged ramp to a 81x15' 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 10 and 11, as follows:
Number 10, EMILY & RAFAEL ROMECASTER request a Wetland
Permit to install a 201x40' in-ground swimming pool with a
1, 125sq. ft. Permeable bluestone paver patio surround; install 4'
high pool enclosure fencing with gates, a pool drywell, and pool
equipment area; install a 500sq.ft. Lower deck off dwelling with
a 12 .21x8' pergola; remove existing 8'x11' shed; existing
11.41x22' tool shed with entry platform to be maintained;
perpetually maintain the existing 25' wide non-turf buffer area
and clear at least 75' from edge of wetlands; and to maintain
the existing 50' wide non-disturbance area along the landward
edge of wetlands.
Located: 330 Shore Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-1-4. 12
Number 11, Patricia Moore, Esq. On behalf of 622 CHURCH
LANE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for alterations to the
existing 1-1-i� story 518sq.ft. Dwelling and to construct an
addition consisting of a proposed 1, 741sq. ft. Split-level ground
floor opening to a 1, 733sq. ft. Patio/raised terrace that
includes a 201x30' pool; construct internal and external stairs
that lead to the 3,762sq. ft. Second floor/main floor that
includes a 700sq. ft. Garage, a balcony, a deck, front entry with
planters, and is built around a 721sq.ft. Open-air courtyard;
install various on-grade stone paver walkways and patios;
install an I/A sanitary system in the front yard; install a new
driveway; install a stormwater drainage system; and the existing
dwelling on northwest area of parcel to be storage use.
Located: 1625 Naugles Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-4-18
On page 9, numbers 12 through 15, as follows:
Number 12, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of DAVID &
HELEN LEIS requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing fountain
and construct a proposed partially raised 141x50' in-ground pool
and 71x7 ' hot tub with a 2' high, 60' long retaining wall with
Board of Trustees 3 December 17, 2025
stone veneer; install 625sq.ft. Non-permeable patio pitched to
drain and piped to drywell; install a 41x8 ' DP drywell for pool
and patio with a load bearing top and inspection lid; install a
4 'xl2 ' outdoor shower and storage area; install a 41x8'
generator and pool equipment area with sound deadening
enclosure; install a ±121x12 ' gravel gas fire pit area; install
paver walkways; install 4 ' high pool enclosure fencing with
gates; remove three (3) junipers and one crab-apple tree that
are compromising the bulkhead; and to establish and perpetually
maintain a 10' wide by 100' long vegetated non-turf buffer area
that will be planted with salt-tolerant native non-fertilizer
dependent vegetation along the landward side of the bulkhead;
root systems of existing trees to be preserved to the maximum
extent possible; and any tree removed to be replaced with a one
to one replacement using native hardwoods.
Located: 1150 Grand Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-8-44. 1
Number 13, 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 10'x45' 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
Number 14, 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
41x30' landward ramp leading up to a 41x30' catwalk to a 4'x30'
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 6'x20' floating dock situated in an "L"
configuration and secured with two (2) pile dolphins.
Located: 500 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-10-5
Number 15, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of BAILEY INVESTMENT
GROUP II, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing
4 'x30' fixed dock and construct in-place a new 41x30' fixed dock
that includes 4 ' wide landward steps up to fixed dock and 4 '
wide seaward steps down; and for a proposed 4 'x20' 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
On page ten, numbers 16 through 18, as follows:
Number 16, 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
Board of Trustees 4 December 17, 2025
attached garage, a 21.8 'xl8 ' covered lanai, a 12 'xl5.7 ' 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 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
Number 17, 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 81x18' 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
Number 18, 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, 41x42 ' floating dock, 4 'xl4' floating dock and 8'x21'
floating boat lift; install to the west of existing a' proposed
41x10' fixed dock off bulkhead to a 2.5'xl3.5' ramp to a 4'x28'
floating dock situated in a "T" configuration with a 2'x4'
floating finger dock off east side off of 41x28' floating dock.
Located: 480 North Riley Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#
1000-122-3-34 . 1.
On page eleven, numbers 19 through 22, as follows:
Number 19, 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'x4214",
±1, 058 .25sq.ft. ) With attached 7 .3'x48 .2 ' (351.86sq.ft) deck on
Board of Trustees 5 December 17,2025
south side of dwelling; install a 251x6' (±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 20, 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
Number 21, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of
MICHAEL J. & ALEXANDRIA PRISCO requests a Wetland Permit to
remove and dispose of the existing 61x44 ' catwalk; construct
in-place a new landward 4 ' wide staircase up to a 41x5' platform
elevated 4 . 5' above grade leading to a raised 41x50' ramp
leading down to a 41x30' catwalk; reuse existing 3'x16' ramp and
6'x20' floating dock situated in an "L" configuration; remove
existing pilings and install two (2) new anchor pilings; and the
existing landward wood walkway to dock to be removed and
replaced with a mulch walkway.
Located: 905 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-139-1-17
Number 22, L.K. McLean Associates on behalf of AWC
DOCKSIDE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for Marina improvements
consisting of the as-built 61x981 , 61x218' and 61x12. 10'
(±1, 988sq.ft. ) Sections of CCA decking along top of existing
southerly bulkhead section; within a 10' wide area in front of
existing bulkhead section incidentally dredge ±140 cubic yards
over ±1, 600ssq.ft. Area to a max. Depth of 6' below Mean Low
Water (EL. -8 .86) to reclaim soil lost from behind existing
deteriorated bulkhead; excavate ±2, 015 cubic yards of material
over an area of 4, 030sq.ft. Between existing and proposed
bulkheading to elevation -8 .86 max (6' below Mean Low Water)
with unsuitable material to be removed from site; remove ±160
linear feet of existing bulkhead and install new ±161 linear
feet of vinyl bulkhead varying ±15' to ±32 ' landward of existing
bulkhead location and ±1. 8' higher than existing bulkhead;
install a 22.3' north vinyl return and a 14' south vinyl return;
Board of Trustees 6 December 17, 2025
construct a 26' long vinyl slotted breakwater off north end of
bulkhead; create nine (9) 15'x35 ' slips by installing 10 new
mooring piles and 10 new guide piles; install a 4 'x40' gangway,
one (1) 8 'x53' and one (1) 61x102' floating dock parallel to new
bulkhead and install five (5) 4'x30' floating finger docks off
of 6' and 8 ' wide floating docks; spread dredge spoil and raise
grade in area landward of new and portion of existing bulkhead
approximately 4" higher (±140 cubic yards over an area of
12,200sq.ft. ) ; in an area around existing concrete slab, spread
excess fill taken from area landward of bulkhead and raise grade
approximately 18" (±230 cubic yards over an area of
4, 140sq. ft. ) ; a proposed pump-out truck with 1, 000ga1. Capacity
with potable water washout; and with the use of a turbidity g5
Curtain during construction.
Located: 5505 West Mill Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-6-1
And On page 12, numbers 23 and 24 as follows:
Number 23, 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
15.5'xl7 ' 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 27 'x68 ' wood deck around pool
leading to a 4' wide boardwalk; abandon existing septic system
and install a new I/A sanitary system landward of dwelling;
install a permeable roundabout with stone steps at grade to main
and side entrances; relocate existing 6' high fencing and
install additional 6' high fencing; install A/C units and a
generator; install a stormwater drainage system; existing
irregular shaped ±40'x±40' two-story garage and koi pond to
remain; with the edge 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
Number 24, 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
Board of Trustees 7 December 17, 2025
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 13, Number 25, 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 16'x36' swimming pool with 8 'x8 ' spa tub; a
1, 357sq.ft. Pool patio surround with steps to ground, pool
enclosure fencing, pool equipment area, and a drywell for pool
backwash; construct a 752sq.ft. Two-story detached garage,
gravel driveway and parking areas; install an I/A septic system;
remove 23 trees and plant 25 trees on the property; and to
establish and perpetually maintain a 25 foot wide vegetated
non-turf, no fertilization buffer area along the landward side
of the wetland vegetation.
Located: 1645 Marratooka Road, Mattituck SCTM# 1000-123-3-2 .1
And on page five, Number 3, 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 3' wide by 10 high and east planter being 32 ' long
by 3' wide by 10" high, with a 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
And that' s it.
And that' s it. That' s all the postponements.
Under Town Code Chapter 275-8 (c) , files were officially
closed seven days ago. Submission any of paperwork after that
date may result in the delay of the processing of the
application.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I would like to make a motion
Board of Trustees 8 December 17, 2025
to hold our next field inspection Wednesday, January 7th, 2026,
at 8 :00 AM, weather permitting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I would like to make a motion to
hold our next Trustee meeting Wednesday, January 14th, 2026, at
5:30PM at the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: 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 January 12th, 2026, at 5:00 PM at the Town Hall
Annex 2nd Floor Executive Board Room, and on Wednesday, January
14th, 2026 at 5:00 PM in the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IV. ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I would like to make a motion to hold our
next organizational meeting Monday, January 5, 2026 to be held
at the Town Hall Annex 2nd .floor Executive Board Room located at
54375 Route 25, Southold, N.Y. 11971.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
V. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral V, Minutes, I make a
motion to approve the Minutes of the November 12th, 2025
meeting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
VI. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Trustees monthly report for October 2025.
A check for $29, 137.20 was forwarded to the Supervisor' s Office
for the General Fund.
The Trustees monthly report for November, 2025, a check for
Board of Trustees 9 December 17, 2025
$26, 932. 68 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the
General Fund.
VII. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VII, Public Notices.
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk' s Bulletin Board for
review.
VIII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII, State Environmental
Quality Reviews:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
hereby finds that the following applications more fully
described in Section XI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee
agenda dated Wednesday, December 17, 2025 are classified as Type
II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not
subject to further review under SEQRA:
They are listed as follows:
Marilyn Rosenberg Trust SCTM# 1000-10-3-13
The D.B. Robinson Revocable Living Trust SCTM# 1000-135-3-37
Catherine Pino & Joseph Licciardi SCTM# 1000-38-2-31
Peter Stein & Allison Kronick Stein SCTM# 1000-40-1-18
Philip Loria SCTM# 1000-117-7-31
William & Erica Whitmire SCTM# ' 1000-115-9-8 .1
622 Church Lane, LLC SCTM# 1000-99-4-18
1000 Soundbeach Drive, LLC SCTM# 1000-99-1-5. 1
David & Helen Leis SCTM# 1000-107-8-44 . 1
Nicholas Aliano SCTM# 1000-83.-1-11 & 12
Steven Guddat & Torrey Acri SCTM# 1000-68-4-23
Emily & Rafael Romecaster SCTM# 1000-86-1-4 . 12
Hallowell Family Trust SCTM# 1000-71-1-16.2
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion. All in favor?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
(ALL AYES) .
IX. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral IX, Resolutions -
Administrative Permits. In order to simplify our meeting, the
Board of Trustees regularly groups together actions that are
minor or similar in nature. Accordingly, I'll make a motion to
approve as a group items One, Two, Three, Five, Six and Nine, as
follows:
Number 1, Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf of TIMOTHY &
JENNIFER SCHMITT requests an Administrative Permit to remove
existing 5'x6' 4" wood landing and 11'x4 ' 4" steps and relocate to
Board of Trustees 10 December 17, 2025
the east side of the dwelling; remove and relocate existing
outdoor shower; reconstruct existing 52.8' x 8 .3' roofed over
porch in-place; construct three planting areas' and stepping
stones on grade; expand existing on grade masonry patio from 592
sq. ft. To 853 sq. ft.
Located: 15 Fourth Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-10-15
Number 2, Joan Chambers on behalf of ANVK NY HOLDINGS LLC
requests an Administrative Permit to remove existing wood arbor
over existing 224 sq.ft. Wood deck and repair deck; remove
existing masonry sidewalk and stoop on south side of dwelling
and construct a 105 sq. ft. Ramp with stairs; construct a ±12' x
5' wood stoop on south side of dwelling; remove and replace
various windows in place; reconstruct a ±26' section of windows
& wall with new windows and sliding doors; remove bay window on
north side of dwelling and replace with 8 .5' egress.
Located: 2195 Alberston Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-52-5-54
Number 3, William Scherer, RA on behalf of MICHAEL &
CATHERINE HOVEY requests an Administrative Permit for the
as-built 377 sq.ft. Addition to existing second story deck with
partially recessed hot tub to create a 449 sq.ft. Deck.
Located: 5775 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-13-5
Number 5, ROBERT J. HARRISON & PATRICIA A. KOVATCH request
an Administrative Permit to regrade existing ±70.1x15' driveway
and ±32'x36' apron; replace gravel driveway with crushed rock on
RDX base with steel edging in slightly smaller footprint, apron
to use concrete pavers; replace existing ±61x25' slate paver
path from driveway to dwelling with concrete pavers on concrete
base with steel edging; extend existing 15 'x3l' patio at rear of
dwelling to 151x41' using concrete pavers.
Located: 260 Huckleberry Road, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-16-5
Number 6, STEPHANIE PERL requests an Administrative Permit
to install a generator.
Located: 2880 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-43
Number 9, Patricia Moore, Esq. On behalf of ANTHONY &
JOANNE COLLETTA requests an Administrative Permit to conduct
construction activity within 100' from the landward edge of the
wetlands consisting of a 204sq.ft. , a 274sq.ft. And a 42sq.ft.
Addition onto existing 2, 934sq.ft. Dwelling; remove a portion of
existing screened porch and expand it to be 268sq.ft. ; a
southerly 4 .8 'x12' wood landing with 93sq.ft. Steps; a seaward
6.8 'xl2. 5' wood deck with a 6. 41x7 . 4' hot tub; remove existing
sanitary system and install an I/A OWTS sanitary system; and
remove arbor and a portion of deck for an 893sq. ft. Seaward
deck.
Located: 1657 Beach Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-4-15
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, Palumbo & Associates on behalf of
Board of Trustees 11 December 17, 2025
JALC EXPEDITIONS LLC requests a 10-Year Maintenance Permit to
cut bamboo on the property to lawn height.
Located: 1600 Hyatt Road North, Southold, NY. SCTM# 1000-50-1-6
Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection December
12th, 2025, notes straightforward. The clearing should be
limited to the top of bluff and bamboo only.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that the trimming is of bamboo only, and that there is
no trimming to occur on the bluff.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 7, MARISA CARDINALE requests an
Administrative Permit to install 6' high perimeter fencing along
eastern side of property.
Located: 500 Sound Avenue, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-67-1-3.
Trustee Peeples conducted field inspection, December 15th,
2025, notes condition no higher than six feet above grade, and
to comply with Southold Town building code.
The LWRP found this project to be' consistent.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that the top of the fence is no higher than six feet,
and the fence is built according to Building Department code.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 8, MAZI HOLDINGS, LLC requests an
Administrative Permit to conduct construction activity within
100' from the landward edge of the wetlands for the construction
of a swimming pool, pool patio, and pool fencing.
Located: 530 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-10-4
Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection December 9th,
2025, notes need for a 15 ' to 20' vegetated non-turf buffer.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is the plan cannot be properly reviewed without
further confirmation of the wetland boundary.
The plans dated October 28th, 2025, indicate a wetland line
but there is no indication of who flagged this line and when.
Given that the proposed activities are within 100.5' of the
wetland boundary, it is important that new plans with the
delineation noted be submitted and that one or more Trustees
confirm this line during a site visit.
Again, Trustee Krupski conducted a site inspection noting
the edge of the wetlands on November 9th, 2025.
As such, I 'll make a motion to approve this application
with the condition of a 20-foot vegetated non-turf buffer, which
will bring the project into consistency with the LWRP.
Board of Trustees 12 December 17, 2025
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
X. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, Applications for
Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments, again, in
order to simplify the meeting, I'll make a motion to approve as
a group Items One through Six, as follows:
Number 1, En-Consultants on behalf of JOSHUA HERRENKOHL &
JOY KILPATRICK requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #8195 from
John Montoya to Joshua Herrenkohl & Joy Kilpatrick, as issued
May 15, 2013 and Amended October 22, 2014.
Located: 750 Cedar Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-2-18
Number 2, En-Consultants on behalf of BRYAN M. & THERESA S.
PROSEK requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #8998 from Scott &
Julia Osler to Bryan M. & Theresa S. Prosek, as issued on April
19, 2017; and for an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#8998 for the as-built ±114 linear feet of wood landscape tie
retaining wall, two (2) sets of 2.71x5 ' wood steps, and 5 'x12 '
wood walk.
Located: 2480 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-57
Number 3, Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf of PATRICIA
MELE & CHERYL CHRISTIANO requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit #10706 to eliminate the approved slate patio;
remove raising the bulkhead by 18" so that it remains at 3.51 ;
limit the south return to 6' in length; that the 10' non-turf
buffer be vegetated; the approved catwalk to be extended to a
total length of 35' with an elevation of 4 .51 . Located: 1140
Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-12-16
Number 4, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. On behalf of JOHN COSENZA
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10185,
as issued July 13, 2022, for the as-built outdoor kitchen island
with gas grill, coal grill, and sink; move pool fence back to
the retaining wall; establish and perpetually maintain a
vegetated non-turf buffer seaward of the fence planted to plant
with drought tolerant native grasses and non turf cover such as
English Ivy, Irish Moss, and Pennsylvania Sedge; permitted
proposed parking pad not to be constructed.
Located: 1700 Hyatt Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-50-1-5
Number 5, En-Consultants on behalf of RICHARD & JEAN JUNG
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10855 to
modify the configuration of the floating dock to an "L"
configuration; and construct a 2'x4' ramp safety pad to the
6'x20' floating dock (below 31x14' ramp.
Located: 3675 Wells Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-4
Number 6, JOSEPH BUCZEK & CHRISTINA SPORNBERGER request an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10778 to no longer
Board of Trustees 13 December 17, 2025
construct previously approved 91 sq.ft. Second-story south
dormer addition to dwelling; no longer construct previously
approved 337 sq. ft. Second-story north/northeast dormer addition
to dwelling; no longer construct previously approved 28 sq.ft.
,First story addition to dwelling; move existing second-story
south dormer 3' northwest; move existing second-story
north/northeast dormer 5' to the northeast; construct a 12
sq.ft. Second-story dormer on south side of dwelling; abandon
existing septic system and install a low nitrogen 6-bedroom
septic system north/northwest of dwelling.
Located: 1605 North Parish Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-71-1-15
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral XI, Public Hearings. At this
time I'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and
go into public hearings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
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 & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetlands and Coastal Erosion Permits,
Number 1, Charles Cuddy, Esq. On behalf of NICHOLAS ALIANO
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
construct a proposed two-story dwelling (830sq.ft. Each floor) ,
with a 69sq.ft. Front covered patio, 61sq. ft. First floor
balcony, 78sq.ft. First' floor deck with steps to grade, 44sq. ft.
And 24sq. ft. Second floor balconies; install an I/A OWTS
Sanitary system; install water and electric services; install a
Stone blend driveway; install gutters to leaders to drywells to
contain storm-water runoff; construct a 2' high, 29' long
retaining wall with northerly return; construct a 209 linear
foot long rock revetment from neighbor's bulkhead to west to the
edge of property line to the east; excavate a small area along
toe of bluff, install fiber fabric, 18" of blanket stone 10-15
lbs. , toe stones 3-5 tons each, top and face stones 2-4 tons
each, place sand backfill raising the finished grade seaward and
over new rock revetment; install a project limiting fence prior
to and during construction along limit of clearing; any
Board of Trustees 14 December 17, 2025
disturbed areas to be re-vegetated with beach grass; and to
establish and perpetually maintain 28, 127sq. ft. Non-Disturbance
Buffer areas along both bluff faces, and 3, 022sq. ft. Non-Turf
Buffer areas along the landward edges of the Non-Disturbance
Buffers.
Located: 3705 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-1-11 & 12
The Trustees conducted a field inspection December 10,
2025, for further review, at work session.
And the LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The
inconsistencies are Policy 6, protect and restore the quality
and function of the Southold eco-system, protect and ,restore
tidal and fresh water wetlands. Setbacks, the following minimum
setbacks apply to any and all operations proposed on residential
property within the jurisdiction of the Board of Trustees. Top
of bluff residence 100 feet. The plan does not meet the minimum
set about a back of 100 feet from top of bluff for new
residential construction.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application.
MR. CUDDY: Yes, if I may, Charles Cuddy for the applicant.
I 'm here with a number of people I just need to introduce
to you. Basically, Nick Aliano, who is the owner. His sisters
are also here, that have an answer interest in the property. His
contractor is here, his real property manager is here. And I
also have Mr. Abbott (sic) , who is an attorney who has worked
with me on this matter, and Vincent Gaudiello who is a
professional engineer.
At your last visit to the site, you asked us to do several
things, and we have done those. And I just got these prints
today. So if I may, I'll hand them up. But we made these
buffer zones coincide. We moved the drainage area back as you
asked us, and I 'll hand these up to you. (Handing) .
I also would like to hand up as one exhibit a number of
items: A certified copy of the subdivision- map, a certified
copy of the deeds; Zoning Board decision, which, by the way,
have found to be in accordance, when you put the buffers, in
accordance with the LWRP. I have a tax map, DEC letter, the
engineer's letters, and the appraisals, and also a copy of the
Sack decision (sic) . I'll hand that up as one unit right now.
I know the Board has taken -- I'll let you pass those out first.
That basically shows that the buffer and the turf area have
been moved together so that there is no separation. And also
that the drainage area has been moved down.
I think the Board has been there on a number of occasions,
and I appreciated that, but I just wanted to bring to your
attention several things. That we can build a home at this site
with virtually no excavation. We can construct a revetment and
continue the existing' bulkhead that is to the west and also
revetments to the east, which have prevented erosion at these
sites.
i
Board of Trustees 15 December 17, 2025
You'll note that I said that we have included a
non-disturbance and non-turf buffer now so that there is no area
between either one of those. So that they meet.
We have reduced the house size, which you requested us to
do. It's now 1, 660 feet. We've moved the house west four feet,
we've moved it south six feet. This is also in accordance with
your request.
We've pledged, and I don't know if you are-aware of this,
but we won't take down any trees at this site. Anything that is
dead, we'll remove, but we'll leave the trees exactly as they
are.
We don't think, when you look at this site, that there is
virtually no impact on anybody. The site itself has 36, 400
square feet. Our coverage is less than 4% of that. So it' s very
minor.
The impact that we are going to make on the neighborhood is
virtually none.
We can ask that you take a second look at this, if not a
third look, and approve it. We think it' s an appropriate place
for a house. And I think that you'll recognize that the houses
that are along Glen Court are either 15 feet or less between
that and the top of the bluff.
So under the circumstances, if you have questions, we are
here, but I think it' s an appropriate application and should be
approved. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
As you mentioned, Mr. Cuddy, whether this is our third or
fourth' visit to the site, one thing that I guess in all of our
visits we are a little remiss to investigate further is the rock
revetment at the toe of the bluff. According to the plans that
are submitted, which you just handed up, and I think on the
previous one, it looks as if the rock revetment is seaward of
that toe of the bluff. Again, I don't know if that was staked at
any point in time. Again, we were so focused on the house
location. I know I didn't go down to look to see if it was
staked. So. I don't know, is that proposed rock revetment
staked?
MR. CUDDY: I don't believe it is.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. So that would be one of our concerns,
and again, I apologize for not catching this earlier. What we
have always done on this Board is where existing toe of the
bluff is, that is where the seaward projection of the rock
revetment is supposed to start. We don't want anything
projecting further than the existing toe of the bluff.
So just with that being said, I think unfortunately we are
going to need to stake that out for a site visit so we can see
that.
Do you have DEC on that rock revetment as of yet?
MR. CUDDY: No, not yet. We were waiting for the approval in
order to go into the DEC for that.
Board of-Trustees 16 December 17, 2025
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. So I'm pretty sure they are going to
say the same thing we are. And we have been dealing with rock
revetments with the DEC for years on this Board, and it is the
existing toe and landward.
And then just a question on the new plans with the non-turf
buffer and the non-disturbance buffer, the area to the east on
the Duck Pond Road side, there is no callout for what that is to
be or not to be.
Is that something we can address as well on that section of
Duck Pond Road?
MR. CUDDY: Yes, we can.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. And then one of the other things that
we touched on, I know some of the leaching galleys and
everything, but there is still that one leaching galley, it's
got a callout grade elevation 52, it' s on the southeast corner
of the proposed house. Is that something that, due to the
severity of the slope on the bluff going to Duck Pond Road, we
would like to see that relocated, if at all possible, as well,
further away from the top of bluff on the Duck Pond Road side.
MR. CUDDY: Uh, huh.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anybody else here wishing to speak in regard
to this application?
(No response) .
Trustees?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just one note, to make sure that the record is
really clear. I know that you had mentioned just before that
this would require no excavation, but I think it is worth noting
that the reason that is is because of prior illegal
excavation that received a stop-work order. So the only level
part of this parcel is due to prior illegal excavation. So I
just want to clear that up on the record.
MR. CUDDY: Okay, but I would like to add to that. The reason
that occurred is because the Town gave a building permit to the
owner and then realized afterwards that he needed to be setback
from the bluff. It was not something they did deliberately to
try and break the law. They were found out afterwards they just
needed another permit, and in that time period they did the
excavation.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Understood. Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Mr. Cuddy, so this is a new application. I do
want to state on the record that there was a prior submittal
that this Board visited on, you mentioned, several visits to the
site, so that was all in previous record.
This is a new application, and I think the environmental
concerns that this Board has had and read rather extensively
into the record about the fact that these are two bluffs that
were on the Sound, the proximity of the location of the proposed
house to the top of bluff on both sides. There are environmental
concerns here, and so I think any sort of review of this is in
order to mitigate the least amount of impact on those protected
Board of Trustees 17 December 17, 2025
natural features.
I will say that the submission that we have here in front
of us, even with the new plans that you've submitted, which,
thank you, very much, this does clear up what we were discussing
in the field, it does look very similar to the previous
submission that was under a different application.
As one Trustee, I would like to see the house reduced a
little bit. There is that portion that's sort of an angled
portion on the easterly side of the structure, on this plan, at
about 14 .3 or 14 -- yes, 14.3 feet. In my mind, as one Trustee,
again, I feel like pulling the house back by that 14. 3 feet
would be a benefit and allow for less structure closer to the
Duck Pond Road side of that bluff.
MR. CUDDY: You are talking where the retaining wall area is,
essentially.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Correct. Correct. So that way the retaining
wall could also be pulled landward, and that way everything, the
retaining wall, the house structure, could all be pulled back
further from that top of bluff.
Again, I 'm one Trustee with that opinion, but in my mind
that submission with this new application, a change like that
would make it look like a new application versus the
resubmission of a previous application. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And I just want to echo those comments, that
the overall reduction of structure so close to the top of two
natural features, you know, is something that we would like to
see, it' s something that we encourage, and in this scenario we
are really looking at essentially a three-story home on the face
of two bluffs. So, you know, I know that you said that this
would have no impact on anybody in the neighborhood, but I think
that it would have an impact not just on the neighborhood but
also on the natural feature.
MR. CUDDY: So what you're asking is to essentially remove the
area that is at 14 .3.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I don't want to design the project. I think my
statement is that that would indicate a.more significant change
to this application versus what was previously submitted under a
different hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I don't want to speak for Trustee Peeples,
but I think what she is saying, in essence, we are looking to
minimize the impact of this project. Not only on the bluff
toward the Sound, but the bluff towards Duck Pond Road. As we
have seen in the field numerous times, part of that area where
the house has already been disturbed, there is remnants of the
foundation, so basically if you use that foundation as the
seaward most projection of any construction, and tie it back
closer to the Glen Court and minimize it.
MR. CUDDY: I understand.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I would say that's an accurate representation.
MR. ALIANO: Nicholas Aliano, owner of .the property. So if we
Board of Trustees 18 December 17, 2025
move it back, you can give us a variance?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: You do not necessarily need to move it back.
You could just reduce the size of the structure. Because we are
looking at. the environmental impact, so as Trustee Gillooly
mentioned it is, from the Sound and from Duck Pond Road, it's
essentially a- three-story house. So reducing that structure
would have a benefit, an environmental benefit, positive.
MR. ALIANO: So we'll have to redesign the house is what you are
saying. Because we already came down a lot, you know, for the
1, 600 square feet, from 1, 900 and change.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Well, I appreciate that. This is the first time
we are looking at this application, though.
MR. ALIANO: We'll, you've seen it last time.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: But this is a new hearing.
MR. ALIANO: Technically, yes. Okay. So let me ask you a
question. If we just chopped that off and leave it, you are
okay with the rest of the plan? I don't want to go back and
change the plan again, but I will, and I'll just chop that off.
But are you okay with everything else?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So obviously we can't give you an answer to
that question, in a nutshell. We want, to minimize the impact and
maximize the distance from the bluff. So whatever design you
can come up with that accomplishes those goals, would be more
beneficial to the environment.
MR. ALIANO: All right, I'll see if we can do it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, just to clarify, because there was a lot of
information covered tonight, and run back to the revetment. You
know, we see the revetment in other applications on a regular
basis, so, you know, adding that fill on top is, I don't believe
DEC is going to go along with that. For it to pass mustard with
the town and DEC, you really have to ride the toe as existing.
And you can backfill on top of that as needed or you can apply
to backfill on top of that, but --
MR. ALIANO: I just, I showed you last time. I just did it at my
house, last year. I put the rock that the DEC approved, with
the netting and then blue rocks, and then they let me do nice
vegetation all the way up the bluff. So we vegetate the whole,
with logs, whatever that stuff is. It looks great. It's all
filled nice.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yup.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Coir logs and revegetate. Yup.
MR. CUDDY: I understand what you are saying.
MR. ALIANO: Yeah, we'll do that, yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And if I'm not mistaken, looking at it, the
toe of the bluff currently looked pretty vegetated, so I don't
think you need to revegetate much along the lines of that rock
revetment.
Board of Trustees 19 December 17, 2025
MR. ALIANO: For that one area.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: , Further up the bluff there is an issue. So
if you want to incorporate that, you know, I don't want to
over-complicate this even more than it is, but if you want to
put that in as part of the application for putting the rock
revetment, .potentially some coir logs and revegetation higher
up, put it all under the one, and to re-stake it so that we can
go and see where that proposed rock revetment will start.
MR. ALIANO: Okay, no problem. But you won't be here next time.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I won't be. But this is all stated on the
public record.
MR. CUDDY: We understand.
MR. ALIANO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here to speak regarding
this application?
(No response) .
Judging by all the comments and the new information submitted,
I'll make a motion to table this application for another field
inspection for staking, and revised plans.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 2, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
CATHERINE PINO & JOSEPH LICCIARDI requests a Wetland Permit and
a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct an 84 linear foot long
vinyl sheathed bulkhead with a 20 linear foot long southerly
return directly landward of the existing permitted rip-rap
revetment; provide 50 tons of new rip-rap to be placed within
the existing footprint to fortify the existing revetment, with a
maximum total quantity of 2.5 tons per linear foot; and to
maintain the existing 41x15' steps to beach.
Located: 50 Cleaves Point Road, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-38-2-31.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Trustee Gillooly recusal for personal and
professional relationship.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The LWRP coordinator found this to be
inconsistent with Policy Four, minimize loss of life, structures
and natural resources from flooding and erosion, Peconic Estuary
shoreline.
I 'm just going to summarize this. This is a three-page
document hear, which is in the file for review.
The LWRP coordinator quotes Policy Four, minimize loss of
life and structures. 4 .1 (c) (d) , under (d) , use of hard
structures, erosion protection. Avoidance of the hazard is not
appropriate because the structure is functionally dependent on
the location of coastal waters, located in an area of extensive
public investment or reinforcement, rural maritime centers or
areas for concentrated development. Vegetated approaches to
controlling erosion are not as effective. Enhancement of natural
Board of Trustees 20 December 17, 2025
protective features would not prove practical in providing
erosion protection.
Proposed hardened structure. Structural erosion protection
measures are limited to the minimum scale necessary and based on
sound engineering practices.
There is also a letter from the DEC in the file. The
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has completed a
review of your client'.s request for a tidal 'wetland permit to
construct a new bulkhead and we have the following comments: The
DEC has reviewed your proposal to construct 94 feet of new
bulkhead landward of existing rip rap and finds the proposal not
reasonable or necessary pursuant to tidal wetlands land use
regulations.
The DEC would need to see a regression analysis to prove
there has been substantial erosion of the site, as the existing
rock and stone armor are still in good conditions.
You must also provide an alternative analysis of the site.
This analysis should cover options such as but not be limited to
the following: Maintenance of the stone armor fill to create a
berm, planting native grasses, vegetation at the top and along
the berm to help hold the berm steady. Please provide at least
two hardcopies -- that' s not really applicable to this record.
It should be noted that the Trustees visited the property
on the 10th of December and talked about how new bulkheads are
prohibited and also reference the DEC letter.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. I was
also in receipt of the DEC letter, and had issued responses,
that was probably back in September, I think September 25th was
the date on that, that we sent back revised comments.
The proposed rock, as you saw in the field, it is starting
to, it' s settling, it's moving, it' s shifting. So the goal here
was to continue what the neighbors to the, we'll call it the
north or the east, as shown on the image there, they currently
have bulkheads. We wanted to place a proposed bulkhead to
protect against future erosion and something for the rip rap to
stand against and maintain its solidified affect, as you call
it; not wash out, not allow the water to overtop it and wash out
the fill from behind the rip rap, to stabilize the shoreline,
and allow the rip rap to work as it's supposed to, which is to
break up the wave energy and act as a barrier before it erodes
the land behind it.
The DEC has not responded yet to my regression analysis,
which I do have. I have a survey from 2014, and the most recent
survey, which is this year, 2025, and it does show that the
shoreline is regressing towards the residence.
The residence is, I'm going to s,ay, 20 feet away from this.
And slowly over time, the regression analysis that I did, solely
from two surveys, in a period of ten and eleven years, is
Board of Trustees 21 December 17, 2025
showing that it is moving towards the house. There is positive
regression.
So this is in an effort in continuation for the neighboring
properties to extend out the bulkhead, to reuse the existing rip
- - rap, just reshape i-t-after-the bulkhead is installed for the --.----
purpose of breaking up the wave energy. Which is consistent
with the neighboring properties and typical projects that we
have done in the past.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Patanjo, are you aware in Chapter
275-11 (d) 1 (h) , new bulkheads in creeks and bays are prohibited?
MR. PATANJO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I would just further mention, and I
understand it' s difficult sometimes for folks to look at the
neighboring properties and see that they've bulkheaded and they
want the same thing. But I want would mention that it's strictly
because of those bulkheads that there is no beach along that
whole stretch of road.
If you look to the west, there is beach there. And to
further that point, the next property over where there is
. structure, this Board has been looking at a permanent rock
revetment. Rock revetment only. And then the next property over
is the condos, which is also only rock revetment, which has
worked very well, and there is sand at low tide and a little bit
of strip of beach at high tide.
So it' s been proven time and time again, plus it' s
prohibited in the code. So between those two points, I
personally suggest you go back to the drawing board. And we
visited the site. It' s definitely fixable.
MR. PATANJO: Okay, so we'll revisit it. I would like to table at
this time, we'll revisit for other options that are more
environmentally friendly and be looked at by the Board in a
favorable manner.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. And, Mr. Patanjo, when we were
onsite, there is that boathouse or that structure that is right
there near the proposed project that you are here for, and kind
of us speaking about.
Would you just make sure that there are gutters to leaders
to drywells on that structure and if not, please do that as
well.
MR. PATANJO: No problem. We'll address that at the next
revision.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to piggyback off that. There is signs of
some erosion coming directly from that structure, because of
that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And there is that concrete pad that is kind of
right on the seaward side of that structure, so perhaps the
removal of that or some sort of pervious material there, as
opposed to the concrete will be beneficial as well.
MR. PATANJO: We'll address that.
Board of Trustees 22 December 17, 2025
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone else like to speak regarding this
application?
(No response) .
Hearing no additional comments, I make a motion to table this -
application at the applicant's request for submission of new
plans.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second, all in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 1 under Wetland Permits, Sam
Fitzgerald, Architect, on behalf of the MARILYN ROSENBERG TRUST
requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 14'x34 ' 4 ' two-story
and 10.7 'x20. 6' one-story dwelling; remove existing one-story
section, deck and outdoor shower, and construct a 42'xll. 9'
(494sq.ft. ) Two-story addition; and to abandon existing septic
system and install a new I/A OWTS sanitary system.
Located: 1952 Peninsula Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-3-13
The Trustees made a review at our recent work session, and
notes from that read extension is on the landward side of the
house, vegetated non-turf for entirety of existing vegetation to
remain.
The LWRP found the project to be inconsistent with its
Policy Six, mostly having to do with setbacks in that a buffer
landward of the wetland boundary would be a consideration that
would satisfy its review.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Sam Fitzgerald, on behalf of the applicant.
I don't have to much to add other than what has been already
submitted, but I would like to say that the proposed
construction project, it's a rebuilding of the one-story wing of
the house. That rebuilding would essentially cover the existing
footprint and there will be very little new disturbance of the
site with this project.
Also, you said, the site itself is really a heavily
vegetated, it actually has never been cleared in its history, so
I don't even know if we could even add a new buffer area from
what is already there.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Right. I mean, from the photographs that you
provided and from, I believe we have been here if not once,
twice, that, as you say, it's a lovely, well-vegetated area. I
think we just need plans to memorialize that as a vegetated
non-turf buffer.
MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Sure.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Anyone here wish to speak regarding the
application or add further comment?
(Negative response) .
Board of Trustees 23 December 17, 2025
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with new plans depicting a vegetated non-turf buffer, the
entirety of the property, outside of the building envelope,
construction area. And thereby bringing this project into
consistency with the LWRP.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 2, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of THE D.
B. ROBINSON REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to
remove remnants of existing dock and construct a new dock off
bulkhead consisting of a 41x45 ' long fixed dock using Thru-Flow
decking with a 31x14 ' aluminum ramp to a 61x20' floating dock
with untreated decking situated in an "L" configuration and
secured with two (2) 10" diameter CCA piles.
Located: 915 Mill Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-3-37
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the loth of
December, noting no discernible dock present. No new docks
permissible in this location.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent. The inconsistency states since there is no
existing dock on this property, this does not represent a
reconstruction of an existing dock and instead constitutes
construction of a new dock, which is counter to Trustee code
Chapter 275-11 (c) 2 (b) 3 (a) , which prohibits new docks utilized
for residential purposes in Hashamomuck Pond.
Is there anyone here wishing to .speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant.
I think I'll have to do a little more homework on this one
because it was a previously-permitted dock here. There was, back
in the day, I didn't did out any of the documents on it, but
there was a permit on one.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We did look back to the historical record and
found a permit allowing for a dock in 1972, however that dock
has not been maintained and the permit is no longer active. So,
in this case it would constitute a new dock and not be
permissible in this location.
MR. PATANJO: Okay. I have no further comment, if none are
permitted. It' s consistent with the neighboring, it meets the
pier line, meets the water depths, meets side yard setbacks,
meets every condition and requirement for Chapter 275. And there
was a previously permitted one, so my plan meets all of the
Board of Trustees 24 December 17, 2025
requirements, it meets all the Chapter 275 requirements.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Except for the big one.
MR. PATANJO: One little issue. So, no further comments from me.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I'll also note that we did visit the site on
the loth of September for a different application concerning the
bulkhead, and at that time there was no discernible dock
present, and no dock mentioned on the application.
So, with that, is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any further comments from the Board?
(No response) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Hearing none, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to deny this application
referencing Chapter 275-11 (c) 2 (b) 3 (a) , which prohibits new docks
in Hashamomuck Pond.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
Trustee GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 3, AS PER REVISED SITE PLAN & PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 12/8/25 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 two-story, 2, 900sq.ft. Dwelling with a
300sq. ft. Front porch and a 392sq. ft. Rear porch; the ground
level to be for parking and storage with break-away walls;
install a 15'x40" on-grade pool with 1, 970sq.ft. On-grade patio,
pool enclosure fencing with gates, pool drywells and pool
equipment area; install Cultec chambers drainage system for
stormwater runoff; install an I/A OWTS sanitary system landward
of dwelling; install a/c units and a solar system; all new
landscaping surfaces including the gravel driveway to be
pervious; no new fill will be brought on site and excavated
soils to be repurposed for elevation changes and no grading to
occur landward of the 6-foot topographical contour; install
landscaping using native species; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 30-foot wide, 102-foot long
Non-Disturbance .buffer area along the rear property boundary,
and a 20.5-foot wide side yard setback to be perpetually
maintained to preserve the 9ft and 8.4ft. Elevated areas.
Located: 1230 North Sea Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-5-10
The Trustees most recently visited the site on December
10th, 2025, and Trustee Peeples made the following notes:
Preserve dunal habitat non-disturbance for area seaward of
the pool; move drywells landward of the pool; limit retaining
Board of Trustees 25 December 17, 2025
walls to less than two-feet high and off of the property line.
The LWRP found this application to be consistent with its
policies and make the following notes:
Number one, Policy 5.1, ensure the effective treatment of
sanitary sewage, and it says that with the addition of the IA,
that has been achieved.
Number two, Policy 4.1 (a) 3, to move the existing
development and structures as far away from flooding and
erosion, and noting that while redevelopment in the coastal
flood hazard area is technically inconsistent with the LWRP,
this action is proposed for land that already is developed, with
no practical way to move the development out of the flood zone.
The house is proposed to be built with withstanding flood
and minimize loss of life and structures. With the note
"condition to consider, " to remain consistent with the LWRP and
protect the wetlands to the west and south of this parcel,
require a condition that the remaining woodlands in the rear of
the parcel remain intact and undisturbed in a non-disturbance
buffer beginning at the edge of woods shown on the survey and
landscape plan, and extending to the rear proper line.
Require that this buffer be delineated onsite prior to
construction with a split rail fence or other substantial
barrier to encroachment by vehicles, machines and materials.
I am also in receipt of two letters, one dated September
17th, 2025, from Sherry and Ted Thirlby. We are residents and
owners of 11185 Soundview Avenue, the property bordering 1230
North Sea Drive on the southeast. We are here to express our
concern about the preservation of the wetlands and dunes that
exist on our adjacent properties. Since purchasing our home in
1986, we have witnessed significant degradation of important
dunal areas as well as the loss of critical wildlife and plant
habitat.
They go on to say that there is significant habitat in this
area and they are concerned about the significant habitat
fragmentation by other development in the area. And they ask
that new construction to be designed to cause minimal
disturbance to the esthetics of this beautiful and crucial dunal
area and wetland.
There is another letter from 1130 Properties LLC, that is
in support of this project.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak?
MR. WIRTH: John Wirth, resident. Historically, the Board came
and did their first site visit a week prior to the November
meeting, which was the first meeting. They provided three
elements. Rotation of the pool, we granted that. There was a
terminology on some grass type that I'm not a botanist for, but
I agreed to and we implemented that. And then there was one
other question about the alignment of the septic system, but at
the Board hearing, from my understanding, I conveyed the
engineer' s explanation as to the impropriety of a rotation of
Board of Trustees 26 December 17, 2025
the septic system, and the Board seemed to concur with that. So
I thought all matters were resolved. And so we, at the time of
the meeting, there was introduction about the pool wall
perimeter staying under two feet. Again, we are going to comply
with that. There was another element which caused us increased
expense and redesign, between the definition of a two-story and
a three-story, you know, whether you use the FEMA regulations or
the first responder fire definitions. In the interest of being
a good neighbor we conceded on that and we redesigned the house
completely to this new level. And so we made this submission.
Currently the submission is for a total lot usage of 12. 8%
which, as you know, is a reasonable, modest development of this
scope.
Secondarily, we are trying.to balance out, as you have seen
here with everyone else, some balance between what is right for
the environment and property rights and being, you know, just
good stewards of the neighborhood.
We did provide and submission of a 30'xlO2' vegetated
buffer that was describe on the rear property line. I would
just mention in the description here, that it puts it at 30'
wide and 102' long, and I think based on the orientation of the
plot it should be 30' long and 102' wide. But just as long as we
are talking about the same rectangle, which, as you can see on
the drawing, is a 30'x102 ' vegetated buffer.
I would draw attention to the Board seeing that we have the
greatest interest in preserving our environment, where we are
going to reside, we proposed integrated erosion controls,
complied with native landscaping, IA sanitary system, CULTEC
stormwater, solar energy, no turf grass, pervious driveways,
bromide salt pools. So we are trying to do everything that
really is acknowledging that we want to preserve our environment
and the Long Island Sound. You know, we have seen the success
of some of these conservative efforts, with the reduced hypoxia
in the Long Island Sound.
So we live right next to the Sound. We want this to
continue to improve, and that' s why we don't want to pour extra
nitrogen into the environment.
So we're doing all the concessions, you know, that is
within reason, and just not at the same time depreciating the
value of the property or giving away land in perpetuity for
free. .
So I would just ask is there any sort of questions or does
this seem to answer everything that was raised in the most
recent site visit?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, Mr. Wirth. I do acknowledge and
appreciate the efforts that you and your architect have put into
noting all of the comments that this Board has made, and it is
reflected in the plan.
The comments that you just made about the Long Island
Sound, I think the addition of the IA septic sanitary system,
Board of Trustees 27 December 17, 2025
and all of that, is very much appreciated.
The other habitat that we do want to just focus on is the
dunal, the rest of, the property, which is a secondary dune. And
that is a very important habitat and natural feature.
- - So the other comments that I would like to make, especial-ly- --- -
addressing the LWRP, is that while you indicated this 30-foot
vegetated buffer on the plan, the LWRP is recommending that this
line, it's noted "edge of woods", is and you can kind of see it
on the satellite there. It' s sort of indicated, by the roughly,
according to the planned area that is heavily treed. So the
request there is in order to be compliant with the LWRP, while
they do find it consistent, is to have that area a
non-disturbance. And then the rest of the area is currently, we
would like to see that remain non-turf, because there is not
currently any turf grass planted on the property.
We acknowledge that you have this pool area and perhaps
might want a little bit of, you know, some sort of area along
that area, but we would really want to see that minimized, and
perhaps we also noted that the pool drywells are on that
southerly side of the pool and patio, and we do typically like
to see those pulled back either in line with the pool or
landward of the pool area.
So in reviewing this, perhaps if the pool drywells are
moved landward, and then we have that edge of patio, striking a
distance perhaps ten feet off of that, for a demarcation line
for a non-turf buffer area, and then as per the LWRP, the edge
of woods to, will be a delineation line for the non-disturbance
area.
MR. WIRTH: Thank you., So there's just three things that I just
need clarity. Because obviously I have no experience in this,
so I 'm coming as a resident, not as an engineer.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Of course. Would it be helpful for me to show
you here on the plans?
MR. WIRTH: I kind of see your point. So you want the three
drywells somehow moved landward. I don't see how they can move
closer into the pool in their orientation. I don't know whether
it's feasible that it can be put on the, either lateral side of
the pool, along the lateral property lines. I mean, again,
that' s an engineering question.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Right. That would be ideal.
MR. WIRTH: But I mean, when they do these designs, they are
conscious of your, you know, concerns, and they don't sort of
willy-nilly just sort of put it anywhere. There is sort of a
rationale, which evades me at this time. But I will see if there
is a possibility of either moving it closer to the pool where
the walkway is, or putting it on the lateral sides. But I can't
guarantee that that is engineering feasible.
As far as defining non-turf, we have no current intention,
we've left that area undisturbed. You know, I can describe it,
you know, just adjacent to the pool. We have no intention of
Board of Trustees 28 December 17, 2025
putting grass around the pool areas, as you probably are aware,
is sort of a behavior in the neighborhood.
But as far as that, I don't think that it should be a quid
pro quo that in order to get this built I have to define the
undeveloped area as a non-disturbance buffer or a vegetated
buffer. In that interim area between what we defined as a
vegetated buffer of 30 feet, which in addition to the 25 feet
towards the wetlands, which is all property, now provides a
55-foot buffer against that wetlands, which I think is, you
know, a fair compromise.
I don't know how we have to define what is undeveloped in
going forward in perpetuity.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I understand your comments, and I think it' s
helpful to look at the satellite photo at this time. You know,
what this Board is looking to protect the environmental feature
and the natural feature on this property, which is actually the
entirety of the parcel is a dunal area and I think it' s, the
usage of a vegetated non-turf buffer simply means you may plant
additional, you know, native vegetation in that area, but it' s
not to ever become lawn. So that is kind of a way of
memorializing what you are indicating is your intention for. the
property and also to at least maintain how it is now. So in the
vegetated non-turf buffer area you could plant native species
there in the future.
Now, again, going back to the comments of the LWRP, the
area you indicated would be about 50 .feet, which is probably
about approximately correct on the southerly side of the
property, that that would remain as non-disturbance, which means
there is no removal, there is no additional planting. It just
remains as is, and that then maintains the habitat for all of
the wildlife in that area as well. It' s not that you can't walk
back there or, you know --
MR. WIRTH: No, I understand that. I'm just trying to be clear on
what the Board is trying to restrict in doing.
I see the 30 feet back from the rear property line being
defined as a vegetated buffer, which means native plantings in
compliance with every plant that you have already seen and
approved. And that there would be no sort of delineation from
that 30-foot line on out to the pool, because we have not
declared any renovation or alteration of that, but it's just
ground.
And so what we intend to do, or request to do, is to build
the house, put the pool put in all these
environmentally-conscious efforts, and what' s on the plan is
what we are going to do. Anything above and beyond that is not
declared so we are not doing anything. But I don't know
whether, for that undeveloped area, it's required that I forever
declare that to be a, you know, non-disturbance area that will
never be developed.
Is that what the Board is asking me to declare?
Board of Trustees 29 December 17, 2025
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Basically yes. So that dunal area is a
protected feature. So in order to get the house, we want to
memorialize that area that is, you know, the
environmentally-sensitive portion, which is that whole property,
to be protected. Whether it's you or future homeowners, that
they can't go back there, plow it all down, plant a lawn, put
something there. It' s a very environmentally sensitive area.
It's an interdunal swale. It's a protected feature that this
Board is tasked with protecting, that allowing you, or
potentially allowing you to have the house that would encroach
on that, part of that condition would be to protect the rest of
it against future development.
MR. WIRTH: I mean, my response would be that the development
that I 'm doing, as I said, is 12 .8 percentage. It's well within
what is declared allowable. But on top of that I don't
understand or appreciate that somehow in order to get a
development done that is in compliance with everything that
you've said, I have to memorialize a plot of land that has
value, basically donate it, analogous to how they get tax relief
from turning other plots of land into agricultural and here you
want me to sort of --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Mr. Wirth, that's a mischaracterization of
the purpose of this Board. These are natural resources that are,
I think the word is it stewarded, or Southolders, here and
abroad. So to characterize as a quid pro quo I think is a
mi'scharacterization. And to talk about --
MR. WIRTH: I just wanted to say, I respect Mr. Goldsmith when he
said to me is, in order to get the house built, as you want,
which encroaches a small degree backwards, you have to do
something with this land and declare it to be something that is
already isn't now. So to me that seems like if you want to do
this construction, this is what you have to do with the land,
and basically that is a quid pro quo. I mean, you know.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So, sir, you spoke about a house and a pool.
And a dune.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That, in essence, is what Chapter 275 is all
about. The purpose, it is the intention of this chapter is to
ensure for the citizens of the Town of Southold the protection,
preservation, proper maintenance and use of its wetlands given
due consideration to the reasonable economic and social
development of the Town.
Conditioning a non-disturbance buffer, non-turf buffer, is
basically a condition of every permit that this Board issues.
It' s standard policy, it has been for my ten years on this
Board. It predates that. That is what we want to protect. That
is what 275 is about. That is the essence of what this Board is
here for. For the protection of the natural features of Southold
Town.
MR. WIRTH: So I just want to make sure that I got the line
correct, but the line that you are drawing is just behind where
Board of Trustees 30 December 17, 2025
the pool fence is which creates about 38% of the entire land
becomes a non-disturbance buffer. And so you are drawing that
line at that point near the pool, correct? I want to make sure
we are talking about the same line. I mean if you want, I 'll
just point -- I mean, if you want,, I'll just point.
(Speaker approaches the display screen) .
The new house is going to be somewhere here. The pool is
going to be here. The line will be coming where the shed here
is. This is where the line is for the pool fence, right here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you just step back, sir, for the
stenographer, we can't get it into the record.
MR. WIRTH: (Complying) . So if you can just visually see, are you
asking that, you know, close to 40% of the property be declared
as a non-disturbance buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not asking that, but it's certainly a
recommendation of the Board.
MR. WIRTH: I mean, as I already said, you know, sort of
transferring 40% of the property, which has, you know, great
value, you know --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Great environmental value.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: You are essentially, as a landowner, agreeing
to its stewardship, in consistent with the history of this town
and Chapter 275 that we are referencing this evening.
MR. WIRTH: I mean, just as a closing point, I tried to engage
the consultive services of Mark Terry who' s tried to guide me
through, you know, the proper way to do this and to get things,
you know, achieved, you know, because again, I don't speak this
language, I 'm not familiar with some of these requirements. So
I'll rely on his guidance to tell me whether that is a proper,
you know, exchange, you know, 40% of the property to develop a
12% occupancy of the floor.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Mr. Wirth, I think, you know, there is sort of
a misunderstanding here about what the Board of Trustees is
accomplishing here, and I think what we are looking at is that
this entire property is a protected feature. So when we look
at, you know, this quid pro quo that you are talking about, what
we are looking at is your use of a protected feature for
personal enjoyment, and so the land itself is already a
protected feature. If you wanted to do something additional you
would have to come back before this Board. This Board is
preemptively telling you that with this project and building and
pool, this is the limit of the development that we would see on
this property. And I think that's some clarity, more than
anything else.
MR. WIRTH: I mean, if what you're saying is what' s on the paper
is all that will happen, that' s what I intend to do. I mean, I
don't plan on presenting something and then pulling something
out of my hat to do otherwise. The way I see it is the way that
I like it, that' s the way we are going to keep it. I just don't
want to be restricted that if I were to sell in ten, 15, 20
Board of Trustees 31 December 17, 2025
years, that it would come back to this land is now in perpetuity
dedicated to never being developed.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That's precisely our goal here because in the
transfer of properties from individual to individual, we see a
degradation of our natural features in this Town. And often,
unfortunately, the real estate agents do not disclose the
obligations of the new ownership to stewardship.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And while you stood in front of us this
evening and expressed, you know, your concerns with the
environment and wanting to steward the property, we've seen that
in the edits to your proposed plan, which we do appreciate, to
Trustee Sepenoski' s point, part of what we are doing is ensuring
that whoever the next steward is of this property that it will
move into the future, because they may not be as environmentally
aware and conscious as you are.
And I do want to just go back to the satellite image again
because I think it's very helpful to look at. The only change in
the property, if you were to proceed with this proposed project,
is that there will now be a much larger house and pool on the
property. The rest of the property will look exactly the same.
You are not losing any access or enjoyment on the property,
because it will look exactly the same, with the exception of the
new structure that you are proposing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I also think it's worth noting that any future
purchaser of this home would likely really enjoy the very
special natural resources that are a huge part of this property,
and I'm. sure will add value and not degrade value on this
parcel.
MR. WIRTH: Yeah, I mean, the only thing I have to think about is
if they want to put an in-law unit or they wanted to put a
cabana or something, I don't know what they might think. But I
just have to consider there should be potentially some type of
tax benefit to creating this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, in that case it might, and we have not
gone down this road, but do you need a pool on this property
then, or a house of that size. There is an existing house. To be
honest with you. And there is decades of experience with this
Board in buffing and transferring properties and protecting the
environment. And I don't think you have a full grasp of what
this Board is here and what we are trying to do. So then the
next discussion we can move into is if there is a concern over
wanting to do a mother/daughter and expansion of the house is
maybe that a property in a secondary dune shouldn't have a
pool. Which I 'm not so sure that it should.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It is something we discussed already. This is
not the first time that this Board is thinking about whether
that use is appropriate. And so we are, we recognize that
you've done a lot to reduce the overall size of the house and
that you are working with us, but I do think it's worth noting
that this is a comment that we, from our very first site visit
Board of Trustees 32 December 17, 2025
we are looking at, whether it is an appropriate location for a
pool.
MR. WIRTH: And I appreciate your give and take on this. And the
last thing I would leave is that while this is a smaller unit,
it's a 1950s unit, which, you know, I lived there during the
first winter of COVID, and that thing just basically leaked all
the heat out. It' s not a full season.
So we want to convert it into a livable year-round unit
which is beneficial for both the family and for the community,
putting in a better heating systems and certainly sanitation
systems. So all of those things actually are going to improve
the overall environmental quality of the unit.
So I thank you for your consideration. How do you want to
leave this? I mean I would like to personally just contemplate
what you sort of presented now, and then get the drawings
started so we can submit to the Department of Buildings and get
this project, you know, moving forward, as long as we are in
compliance with everything that you said today.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, so it sounds like you would like to table
the application then?
MR. WIRTH: I mean, what are my options?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: We could proceed based on the comments that
this Board has made and condition the permit for receipt of new
plans that show the buffer, excuse me, the non-disturbance
buffer that we mentioned, the relocation of the drywells, and I
think the comment about the limiting the retaining wall height
of no more than two feet. So --
MR. WIRTH: I mean basically it' s just the. land issue, so once I
can get that resolved, and if I say, yes, everything is okay, do
we just get it approved at the next meeting? Because, you know,
I'm coming back and forth from Brooklyn and I have to take a day
off from work, so I just want to see how much more time I have
to invest in this.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I mean, we're happy to move forward with it
this evening.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I also just wanted to mention that moving the
pool drywells is a very common thing that we see, and very often
they are just put in, you know, a place that is convenient.
But I don't foresee that being --
MR. WIRTH: I tried to make sure that you meant either on the
sides of the pool now instead of behind it, if that' s feasible.
And if we can do that an agree to the land usage and everything
like that, if I comply with all those elements, then this is
then approved as it is as far as the floor plot land, and then
we can go to the DOP to submit the drawings.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Well, you would need to go through the next
steps. But, yes, we are ready to move forward with this
application this evening.
MR. WIRTH: Okay, so your approval is based on --
MS. HULSE: You'll just have to stand by for one second. They
Board of Trustees 33 December 17, 2025
have to first close the hearing --
MR. WIRTH: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, Mr. Wirth. Is there anyone else here
wishing to speak?
- (No response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the condition to preserve the dunal habitat. There will be
a non=disturbance on the entirety of the property from a
delineation line of approximately ten-feet off the patio in the
southerly direction; no existing vegetation is to be removed
within this area; to move the drywells landward of the pool; and
limit the retaining walls to no higher than two feet, with new
plans depicting the following. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, AS PER REVISED SITE PLANS AND
PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 12/1/2025 THOMAS & JENNIFER SMITH
request a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing one-story
dwelling and construct a new 1,203sq.ft. One-story dwelling
in-place consisting of raising the existing foundation an
additional ±16 inches to meet FEMA compliance, and backfill
inside entire foundation with compacted clean fill; construct
two 19.5sq.ft. Stoops and one 15sq.ft. Stoop; remove/abandon
existing septic system; install an I/A OWTS sanitary system and
add 42.29 cubic yards of clean fill for the I/A; relocate 20
L. F. of Belgian curb; 942sq.ft. Of existing brick walks and
patios to be removed and replaced with concrete pavers and
permeable stones in-place; install a stormwater drainage system;
for the existing 12.5 'x24.5 ' garage; remove existing retaining
wall behind garage and construct a 26'L x 33"H x 10"W retaining
wall further landward; install underground water and electric;
and to establish and perpetually maintain the entirety of the
property as a vegetated non-turf buffer area except for a
380sq. ft. Lawn area.
Located: 3121 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-6-10
The Trustees conducted the most recent field inspection
December 15th, 2025. Notes concern with the location of the
septic to bulkhead; ten-foot setback is unreasonably close to
surface waters, with an already nitrogen-loaded ecosystem.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies
are: The proposed structure is located in FEMA AE and Velocity
Hazard VE Flood Hazard Zones. And structures in FEMA flood zones
Board of Trustees 34 December 17, 2025
should be avoided, relocated or minimized to prevent loss.
This is a tabled application, so the comments and the
letters that we previously received are still part of the file.
Just to recap, there' s letters here from the neighbors objecting
to the application, from a Lucille Harris, Bill Harris, Dan -
Harris, Tara Lou Simmons (sic) , Doug Hardy, Maria Vanpour (sic) ,
Patricia Buerkle (sic) and Marjorie Moffet Stevens. So those
were addressed last hearing, so they are still part of this
file.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. SMITH: Hi, there. I'm Tom Smith, the owner, 3121 Oaklawn.
So maybe just a couple of quick comments. When we met four
months ago, there were really two concerns that were expressed.
One was .the LWRP and the lot coverage, and all of the comments
relative to my neighbors also coincided with that expansion of
lot coverage. There was a pergola being added, there was a
jacuzzi, a shower, second-floor to the garage. And since then
all that has been removed. So lot coverage is now remaining
where it is today, 21.9. So we were looking to go up to I think
it was 24. So we removed all of that.
This was discussed with the ZBA last month and they
approved on that basis. So that was, again, the issue of lot
coverage.
The other issue that was addressed by this Board was the
location and the configuration of the IA sanitary system. With
the help of Jeff, we did a comprehensive feasibility study.
This parcel, again, is maybe 851x851 , under 7, 000 square feet.
So there is just not much in the way of options. But we did do
a comprehensive study, looked at every quadrant of the parcel,
essentially, and found that based on the Suffolk County Health
Department guidance, square footage you would need, really the
only feasible location is still that front yard. But we were
able to make some significant changes by moving the infiltrators
north and south. We took away some of the driveway as well, and
by doing that we lose some driveway, it would provide more of a
buffer between the bulkhead. I think before it .was maybe six
feet, and now it' s between ten and 12 feet. And we also there
was a retaining wall that was going to be right up against that
bulkhead. Now by going north/south with the infiltrators we can
avoid having a retaining wall at all. So that was the change
relative to the IA septic system.
And again, all the things that were mentioned before
relative to the neighbors, that all had to do with those things
that have now been tabled and are removed from the application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anybody else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
So we've got a couple of questions, probably more geared to
Mr. Patanjo. In regards to that septic system, how much fill
Board of Trustees 35 December 17, 2025
are you proposing to bring in for that septic system?
MR. PATANJO: Let me look at the profile. I think it's less, it' s
about 20 to 25 cubic yards. We didn't do a calculation on that.
So we have groundwater separation requirements to the bottom of
these proposed infiltrator systems. And I'm trying to -- here' s
my latest profile. Existing height, we can give you a
calculation on that, if needed. I'm trying to find it on these
plans. 42.29. We did a calculation on it. My office did. 42.29
cubic yards. And that is to maintain the proper groundwater
separation of two foot below the bottom of the infiltrators. You
need one foot above the infiltrators. So we want the system that
will be the minimal disruption to the area and still meet
Suffolk County Health Department code, and also have the
requirement for the bedroom size, which is the minimum system
you have to do for a sanitary system is a three-bedroom system.
So this is only .a two-bedroom house, however you have to design
a system for the minimum standards for the Suffolk County Health
Department, which minimum standards for groundwater separations
and coverage on the tops of the infiltrator systems.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So can you explain to us why that proposed
location is the only one that you say this septic system can
fit?
MR. PATANJO: Yes,. As you may or; may not be, I believe we
submitted --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, we have it.
MR. PATANJO: So you have this grayed-out area with the X' s on
it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
MR. PATANJO: All right. So those are, what we did is we have
certain offsets to property lines. Five foot to a property
line. We have ten foot to the house -- sorry, no foundation.
So five-foot to the house, we have offset distances, mainly
five-foot for this property.
We also have certain footprint requirements for the IA
tank, the feedbox and then the infiltrator systems. What do we
have, three 17' rows on this job, I believe. Yes. Three 17'
rows, the minimum system requirement for a Suffolk County Health
Department system. I want to add on to that also is this system
for the Health Department is going through a variance, because
of the limited lot size, you typically need 50% for future
expansion. We don't have future expansion, so we'll never be
able to expand this house. So that is the maximum bedroom count
this will ever be. Maximum of three.
So, if you look at rear of the property, did she label it
-- usable patio -- no, back corner and that' s going to be the
northeast corner of the house, which is the corner of the
bulkhead. No room to put a sanitary system. Come behind the
house, behind the garage and the house, and the rear yard.
Number one, the Health Department doesn't want sanitary systems
in the rear yard because there is no way to access them for
Board of Trustees 36 December 17, 2025
maintenance and, again, no usable footprint for any sanitary
disposal system. Setbacks to the retaining walls, setbacks to
the property lines and setbacks to the garage, it' s not usable.
The third with the "x" through it would be in the front of
the garage area. If you did a system there, there would be no
access into the site because you would have to bring up the
grade to the point where you would be ramping up into the house.
You would not access the garage, number one. There would be a
big berm, you would not be able to access the site because you
would have to grade out onto the neighboring properties, because
now your grade is going to be three-foot higher in the driveway
area. So it would be three-foot higher than the garage first
floor. You would have a mound three-foot high, so that you
couldn't get into the site.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So let me just stop you there for a question.
If you have to mound it for the driveway area, the other area
you are saying you are only doing 42 cubic yards and you don't
have to mound it.
MR. PATANJO: It's coming up and then it' s leveling out. Then
it's coming back down. It will be mounded, yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 42 cubic yards.
MR. PATANJO: Yes, correct. It' s really like laying the
infiltrators on the existing ground, which is two foot to
groundwater. Let me look at this. I'll design it for you right
now. We have 2. 6 foot down to groundwater from elevation 3.7. So
if you look at" the site plan in that location, you are at about
elevation -- if somebody has good eyes, there' s a contour
running through there. It's like four --
MR. SMITH: I think the current grade level where the garage is
like three-and-a-half feet. You would have to take it up to like
seven-and-a-half, maybe eight-and-a-half.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So that is the part I'm not understanding. If
you have to go up seven to eight feet where the driveway is, why
don't you have to do that ten feet from the bulkhead?
MR. PATANJO: Well, if you're,. to Tom's point, if it's load
bearing, you can't drive on an infiltrator-style system.
Infiltrators are plastic. They are not load bearing. If you did
it in a driveway you would have to use a leaching galley system,
which is a concrete chamber. That' s the only way you can do a
sanitary system in a driveway.
So there are different rules for a leaching galley system
which is concrete caskets or whatever you want to call them
four-and-a-half foot wide by eight-and-a-half foot long, with
holes in them. They are like rectangular leaching pools.
For those, those are H2O load-rated, usable for a driveway.
If you did that, you would have to raise those up. There's a
three-foot minimum separation, you can probably get away with
two, but two-foot minimum separation. Minimum height on those is
going to be two-and-a-half to three feet, then you would need a
foot of cover on top of those. So now your garage is at grade.
Board of Trustees 37 December 17, 2025
You have, like Tom is saying, you're going up to seven,
eight elevation. With infiltrators where they are, you only
need, I think we used the eight-inch infiltrators on this job --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That's what the plans show. '
MR. PATANJO: Yeah. So that's the minimum. Yes, eight-inch ones.
So quick-floor plus. Those only have eight inches, again, here,
what we are trying to do is to minimize the amount of fill,
minimize the impact, and again, minimize -- everything is
minimized on this job. We squeezed it as tight as we can get it
to the house, as far away as we can from the bulkhead. We used
the lowest profile sanitary discharge system as possible, kept
everything to the bare minimum. So we limited the fill. Limited
the footprint, and also he still needs a usable driveway. You
couldn't put these under a driveway. You would have no driveway
and the property becomes effectively useless, because if you did
want to raise this and say put this in the driveway, you
couldn't do it because the grading would not work. You couldn't
get a car into the driveway.
MR. SMITH: We only have about 27 feet on the property line to
the garage, and if you have to lift that by four feet or so,
it's --
MR. PATANJO: It doesn't work.
MR. SMITH: It' s physically impossible.
MR. PATANJO: The Health Department has reviewed this several
times and made comments. We went back and forth with the Health
Department. Came up with redesigns. The Health Department right
now, the last pending requirement we need is we have DEC,
right? We have DEC non-jurisdiction letter. The last thing is
Southold Trustee permit, and then we'll have Suffolk County
Health Department permit for this project.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So what' s the Suffolk County Health
Department setback?
MR. PATANJO: Suffolk County Health Department setback?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
MR. PATANJO: For every sanitary system? 100 feet. We are going
for a Board of Review variance, which they already said is
granted because of the lot size. Substandard lot, but it meets
the requirements. And this is typical for many, many projects
that my office works on. They give Board of Review approvals for
substandard loots. And the way they look at it is, you have,
currently you have, I don't want to say non-functional, but you
have an outdated, single-pool septic system which is right on
the water. We are putting in a new IA treatment tank, we are
moving the entire disposal system further away, we are also
offering, you know, now it has proper groundwater separations.
Also these old systems out, here, as you know, the initiative
with the waterfront, what do they call them, the SIP grants, all
these grants is to remove all of the failing sanitary systems
that don't have adequate groundwater separation, that don't have
proper removal of any of the nitrogen. All of the impacts that
Board of Trustees 38 December 17, 2025
are to these waterways are being remediated due to this new IA
system, new groundwater separation, and pulling it as far back
as possible to make this property usable.
In addition, is, you know, this berm, I don't want to say
"bermed area", it's not a major berm, we are offering a ten-foot
wide non-turf buffer, which would be vegetated around the
perimeter of the bulkhead also, so anything that does runoff,
potentially is going to be maintained in that buffer area.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So this, again, as we've gone through, it' s
difficult with the fact of the septic system, the proposed
septic system, being so close to Jockey Creek. You know, you
are talking about a separation from the bottom of the leaching
galley to groundwater, but we also have a concern with the
leaching galley to the creek.
MR. PATANJO: Well, we're not proposing, it might be a little
nuance here, but we are not proposing galleys, we are proposing
infiltrators. So if you are looking at the plan and this is --
thank you, Tom -- on that, what do we call this, allowable
sanitary layout per Suffolk County Health Department, the grade
out along with the access, there is the typical detail, and I
just noticed it now, of a leaching galley setup like I just
previously described, showing the two-foot separation, we could
do two-foot galleys, it will be up to elevation 7.31.
So the garage floor elevation is 3.59. So we can do some
math there, and that' s say, it's four, almost four feet. Yes. So
it would be a four-foot raise in front of the garage.
MR. SMITH: And you only have a 27-foot run from the property
line. You would hit a wall.
MR. PATANJO: Yes, you couldn't do it. It can't be built. It
can't, in an engineering world, it can't be built.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there any opportunity to reduce the overall
size of the driveway and make it just so that you can have a
little bit of extra space?
MR. SMITH: We did move six feet already. Now we are at the point
where, it' s also a safety issue which you can't really turn
around. Backing out eight-hundred feet to the main rode, and
there' s a lot of kids and family is there, so we are sacrificing
six feet already by flipping these infiltrators north and south.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Understood.
MR. PATANJO: You've been there, it's a one-car garage. You pull
in, you can you fit two cars in this property. This isn't a
party house. This is a family house. It' s two-car parking, and
again, it' s unsafe because there is no turnaround room. If you
try to maintain your own property, your own right-of-way. This
is a weird property. You all know it's a weird property. So we
are doing the best we can to create a sanitary system that fits
on the property and you can still have two cars parking.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And, yes, we are trying to work with you, and
we do appreciate the addition of an IA sanitary system in this
location, obviously, but trying to reduce the proximity to the
Board of Trustees 39 December 17, 2025
bulkhead is the goal.
MR. PATANJO: We tried it.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And we are looking at the same tough map
problem.
-- -- - MR. PATANJO:- And we don't do this plan with all these X's and
these, we don't do that. That' s not normal. This is a weird lot.
And that' s in an effort, so you realize the fact there is no
other options for this site for a sanitary system.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So where the proposed arbor and patio and hot
tub --
MR. PATANJO: That' s not here. You're looking at an old plan.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I know, but between the house and the garage,
couldn't that be a location for the infiltrators?
MR. PATANJO: No, it won't fit because of setback requirements
and then also grading. So the house is, the heights of
everything. You would not be able to do it because of setbacks
to retaining equals, you'd need all retaining walls, you'd need
full retaining walls, you'd need a full retaining wall system.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But you are saying you don't have to put
retaining walls where it is proposed.
MR. PATANJO: No.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But if you move it further backwards, you
have to.
MR. PATANJO: In the backyard, you would need retaining walls in
the backyard, yes. You are talking in the back, in the
southeast corner. In the rear of the house.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Mr. Patanjo, why would retaining walls be
required on the landward portion of the property and not on the
seaward portion?
MR. PATANJO: Because you don't have enough area to grade out.
You need a minimum of 12 inches cover on top of the infiltrators
and you would need to create a 5% max grade for 20 feet outside.
So you don't have enough footprint in this area to create three
rows, 17 feet long, and then grade out the system. It won't
work.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Essentially here the bulkhead serves as the
retaining wall that gives you the ability to grade it out.
MR. PATANJO: No, the grading does.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: You have the area.
MR. PATANJO: We have more area, so you build it up here and you
flatten it out in each direction.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So the location of the garage would actually be
a good location for the IA system.
MR. PATANJO: Well, anywhere is a good location if you have the
area for it, however the garage is existing, it' s pre-existing
and it' s part of the project. It' s part of the site.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I understand. And we are looking at this as,
we've already reviewed this property for a different permit, and
now we are reviewing it as a full demolition. So while I don't
necessarily want to propose that, that would be a potential
Board of Trustees 40 December 17, 2025
location, correct?
MR. PATANJO: Anywhere where there is free land would be a
potential location.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And, Mr. Patanjo, looking at your plans here,
on the southeast side, retaining wall to be relocated and
retaining wall designed by others. So you're going to build a
retaining wall in that southeast corner already.
MR. SMITH: I can comment on that. That was part of the plan when
on that berm we were going to have all those ancillary
structures, and there was no mention of that having to be
removed by the ZBA, so I kept it there. But it was really there
because you are going to have the jacuzzi, and --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And my question is if you need to build a
retaining wall in that area, you are proposing to build a
retaining wall in that area anyway, wouldn't that be a suitable
location to build a retaining wall for a septic system?
MR. SMITH: But just one comment, if you look at this, the
numbers to the right that shows how much square footage you need
for the system per Suffolk County, and that area of the
southeast corner is 40% shy. It's like 270 versus 417.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But I'm also seeing a 7 .14 over
six-and-a-half feet, 7.1 elevation in that corner. So the depth
to groundwater obviously will be a lot greater than that 3.7. So
therefore you could potential go with the traditional instead of
an infiltrator.
MR. PATANJO: No. So if you look on that sheet with the "X" and
the area we are talking behind the house and behind the garage,
the total area that is highlighted with that "X", usable side
yard area, based on the offsets, you'd need ten-foot from a
retaining wall, you'd need five-foot from a property line that
doesn't have a retaining wall. Right?
So usable area based on that is only 252.37 square feet. If
you go to the right of that, if you have, it requires three
rows, 17 foot long infiltrators, that' s 417. 17 square feet. It
doesn't fit there because of the setback requirements needed for
an infiltrator system.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But my question would be with that elevation
do you need the infiltrator system, or do you have enough depth
with the proposed retaining wall to then do something different.
MR. PATANJO: Yes, so here is the thing. You need, now if we did
it, you are proposing to put that infiltrator system back there?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Not necessarily the infiltrator system.
MR. PATANJO: Well, leaching galley system. You can never do
conventional. Conventional will never happen.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Exactly.
MR. PATANJO: So you need an infiltrator or a leaching galley.
It wouldn't work because now you would have to do a retaining
wall because the first-floor elevation of the garage is 3.59.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But you are already proposing a' retaining
Board of Trustees 41 December 17, 2025
wall.
MR. PATANJO: Well, you need a retaining wall around the whole
perimeter. You need a perimeter retaining wall. If you look at
the elevations on the property line, it' s like 4 . 5. Now I need a
retaining wall on the property line.
Well, good point. If you -- you are not really gaining
anything because of the separation distance to the waterbody on
that side of the yard also. And those elevations, if you look at
the existing elevations on the property lines, 4. 42, 4.7. You
go down behind the house, 4.4, 3. 97. You are still at the fours.
We are all at fours. This whole property is pretty flat on the
fours. It' s all four elevations. There' s no sevens. The sevens
you are looking at, I understand what you are looking at. You're
looking at the sevens, that's above that existing retaining
wall.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And the reason we are at fours instead of
marsh is because of that bulkhead, right?
MR. PATANJO: It' s been there before I was alive, so I don't
know. Probably not. It was probably built after I was born.
Yeah, and that' s a good point. I understand where we are going
with this, trying to maximize the separation distance, but based
on that we are meeting groundwater separation, you still are
going to have two-foot groundwater separation. Is that a major
environmental benefit of moving it back here, when again, it' s
not going to fit back there, and we can do an evaluation of that
if you would like. But there is no room back there. We already
looked at it. We looked at all the options. And we can do a
layout, and I 'll show you, and we can have the office prepare
this corner and show you what is required and show you what
retaining walls you need. . I mean, it' s an effort that is not
necessarily required because I know it won't work.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So our concerns, obviously, you stated
Suffolk County Health setback is 100 feet. Chapter 275 sanitary
leaching pools is 100 feet. And we are proposing one ten feet
from an already nitrogen-loaded creek.
MR. PATANJO: Correct. And this is going to help with nitrogen
loading. Because if this house remained and you utilize that
existing sanitary system, which isn't a sanitary system. It's a
pool in the ground, and remained in place it would be a negative
effect. This right here is an increase in environmental
significance as the county and everybody wants. IA systems. IA
systems are good for the environment.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 1000. And I don't disagree with you on that
at all. Everybody is going to the IA systems. However I have
never seen on our ten years on the Board an IA system or any
system ten feet from the creek.
MR. PATANJO: And I've never seen a lot this small.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That's the concern that we have. And we want
to exhaust every possibility. Again, you are talking about
building retaining walls on a section of the property, you are
Board of Trustees 42 December 17, 2025
saying you can't do certain septic systems because of the need
for a retaining wall. However you are proposing a retaining
wall. So potentially there is an option there. If you are
building retaining walls already, to relocate the proposed
septic system, whatever configuration that would be, infiltrator
or not, to a different location that is further away than ten
feet from the creek.
MR. PATANJO: Right. So I respect what you say. The retaining
wall that is in the back that is shown on this plan was solely
for the purpose to maximize space to get the hot tub. It' s not
necessarily a retaining wall for the purpose of sanitary
systems. Sanitary system retaining wall, ,the Health Department
requires ten-foot away from a retaining wall.
The proposed plan, again, there is no room to put this
leaching galley system or infiltrator system in that back
corner. I would be happy to have you come to the office and we
can --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No, I'm listening to you, but at the same
time what I 'm hearing with that is if this property doesn't have
room for a septic system, maybe this property doesn't have room
for a house, which is the difficult part.
You know, if you can't fit a septic system, IA or
otherwise, on this lot, that is the challenge. And just ten feet
from a creek in today's day and age, when the setback is 100
feet, it's just --
MR. PATANJO: So, I understand that. The Health Department
follows Suffolk County codes, right? New York state codes, they
have their requirements. They understand and they are cognizant
of the fact that there's substandard lots there are pre-existing
uses, there are pre-existing sanitary systems on them. They are
trying to better the environment. They are making their
judgments and their rulings in our favor to increase the
environmental efficiency of this proposed sanitary system, which
meets current codes, current requirements, other than the
setback. There' s many setbacks --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Therefore, it doesn't meet all of them.
MR. PATANJO: Many setbacks, some setbacks are not being met,
however the county is okay, that's not really a fancy word to
say. But the county has no objections to this system. They
reviewed it multiple times. They are waiting for your permit,
then it goes to the Board of Review and we've already talked to
them and they said you guys are good, as soon as you get a
Trustees permit you are good to go. This meets all of our
requirements, and we are understanding of the fact that you are
faced with a burden here. You have an existing house, and
existing garage, a failing sanitary system. You are doing
upgrades, you are bettering the environment. You are moving it
further away from the waterbody, you are including a non-turf
buffer and you are doing the best you can to keep the house
as-of-right utilized.
Board of Trustees 43 December 17, 2025
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I do, as one Trustee, understand the benefit
of an IA system, but I think it' s worth. noting _that there still
will be effluent that will be reaching the creek in this
scenario. If you install the ten feet from the creek, likely
there will not be enough space to treat the effluent before it
reaches the creek, which is what we are trying to avoid.
So I do appreciate the IA systems. I don't think they are a
silver bullet in every area, so I think that' s why we're being
thoughtful about this.
I would request that you review all possible options on the
landward side of the house because in this case I think that we
are finding ourselves in a situation where you are saying there
is one option and we are saying that option will degrade this
natural resource, and so we are, I think that this Board wants
to work with you and find a solution that would work for
everybody. And we do understand the constraints of this lot.
So I think further exploration would be needed here.
MR. SMITH: I guess my only struggle is we did an in-depth
feasibility study of every quadrant here. There is just not
enough square footage. I mean, it says we need, if you do the
infiltrators, you need like 430 square feet. That southeast
corner is like 260. There is just not enough space there. The
northeast corner doesn't work. The driveway just, from the
elevation and space, it's just, you would have, you would have a
mound four-feet high where a small driveway is. It just leaves
one location that we've identified. We have improved that from
what was submitted before. So we are doing the best we can with
not a great situation. I just don't, we can say we can go back
and look further, but honestly there is just, honestly, there is
no other option. There is just no space on a 6, 900 square-foot
parcel.
Just one other question. Is there that much more of an
environmental benefit if essentially, because there is bulkhead
on 70% of this parcel. It's all bulkheaded. So suddenly if you
move it somewhere else, and you could do it, are you benefitting
at all? You are still going to be next to a bulkhead. So it' s
just the nature of what we are dealing with.
MR. PATANJO: Right. So if we did another evaluation of this, we
can do that. We can color code it and we can show the existing
ground. We can show the proposed leaching, the infiltrator
units, the three -rows, 17 feet. Perhaps we can reconfigure it
with different row lengths, you know, three or four at ten foot
or four at nine foot, or whatever it might be.
But again, we are going to come up with the same outcome.
And we would be happy to do that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I for one would like you to take another
look. I know we talked 'a lot about retaining walls and things
like that tonight. And potentially a retaining wall in a certain
section of the property that, where one is currently proposed,
if there could be a different configuration of retaining wall,
Board of Trustees 44 December 17, 2025
of whatever you can do, to maximize that distance between any
proposed system and bulkhead, depth to groundwater, whatever the
case may be. We just need to exhaust every option before we
allow a system ten feet from a creek.
And, like you said, if you can go up in elevation and use
something other than an infiltrator or whatever, Mr. Patanjo,
I'll put in on the record, you are a smart guy, I'm sure you can
figure something out. So --
MR. PATANJO: So, you mentioned something, you mentioned raising
the grade in separation to groundwater. If we can do something
with regard to raising the grade and separation in the current
location, to separate the distance from groundwater, if we
raised it six inches, if we raised it eight inches, to gain
instead of two ,foot, which is the minimum and the accepted by
Suffolk County Health Department, if we had three separation of
groundwater and we had more of a berm and more of a non-turf
area, is that something that we can discuss?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Explore every option. We want the maximum
distance possible. Given the constraints, obviously, of this
lot, we know it's a very constrained lot, but whatever we can do
to maximize the protection of the creek and the wetlands and the
environment, we want to explore all those options.
MR. SMITH: And when you say maximum distance, are we talking
groundwater, or creek?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. And all of the above.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Mr. Patanjo, I would make one note, that while
the previous permit issue by this Board is not relevant
necessarily in this hearing, there was a non-turf on the
entirety of the property. So in terms of your comments about
buffer, that' s kind of something that at least based on the
previous permit, that I for one, as a Trustee, would want to see
that. I know maintained a very, very small piece of lawn, but I
don't know that trading distance for a non-turf buffer is really
relevant in this conversation.
And I know that this, again, not wanting to design this for
you, and not wanting to create any headaches for the ZBA or
anything, but perhaps shifting the garage so that the setback
from the property line is the same distance, but maybe that
combined with what Trustee Goldsmith was talking about in terms
of retaining walls and, you know, utilizing that depth, please
expand all options.
MR. SMITH: And when you say shifting the garage, what exactly
are you -- okay, nothing specific in mind.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Perhaps that might help. Yes. Just because
obviously that usage is already currently on the property and we
would not want you to lose that, however that seems to be a very
good location. So if there is something that could be done.
That's all.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
Board of Trustees 45 December 17, 2025
(Negative response) .
Any other questions or comments?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table this application for
further review regarding the location and separation of those--
septics.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 5, Joan Chambers on behalf of HALLOWELL
FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove the 262sq.ft.
Pergola from the existing 548sq.ft. Seaward deck; on existing
2,248sq. ft. (First floor area) two-story dwelling, install new
windows, doors and sliders throughout first and second floors,
and replace existing where needed; construct three second floor
additions for a combined total of 1,349sq.ft. Second floor;
abandon existing septic system and install a new I/A OWTS
sanitary system landward of dwelling; install gutters to leaders
to drywells to contain roof runoff; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 15 ' wide vegetated non-turf buffer area
along the landward edge of the top of the bank.
Located: 1745 North Parish Drive, Southold. SCTM#
1000-71-1-16.2.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Trustees visited the property on the 10th of December,
and noted that potentially the drywell on the west side should
be moved landward or to the line with the landward side of the
deck.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. CHAMBERS: Joan Chambers, I live at 895 Greenfield Lane in
Southold, and I'm here to represent the Hallowell's.
Just as a little overview, the Hallowell's lost everything
in a California fire, and they relocated to the wonderful North
Fork. What a great choice. But I was really happy to see that
they are understanding of our unique environment here.
One of the first things they did was decide to put in an IA
system, which has been approved. We have the permit for it. And
they hired a very good architect who managed to give them what
they want to do with that house without expanding the footprint
of that house, by going up with the three dormers, and doing a
renovation on the inside and some repairs to the house, with the
exception of the old rickety pergola which they want to tear
down.
So basically we are all here to answer any questions you
may have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any questions or comments from the Board? Or
anyone else that wishes to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Board of Trustees 46 December 17, 2025
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MS. CHAMBERS: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 6, Sean Madigan, AIA on behalf of
STEVEN GUDDAT & TORREY ACRI requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 203sq.ft. Two-story addition onto the existing
two-story dwelling for a total gross floor area of 2, 193sq.ft. ;
demolish existing 782 deck and replace it with a new 1, 671sq. ft.
Deck with a bbq area; construct a 827sq. ft. Pool with a
465sq.ft. Surrounding pool patio, 4' high pool enclosure fencing
with gates, pool drywell and pool equipment area; construct a
new 2, 365sq.ft. Permeable gravel parking court with 55sq.ft.
Cobblestone entry apron; and to establish and perpetually
maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer surrounding the landward
edge of freshwater wetlands.
Located: 36581 County Road 48, Peconic. Located: 1000-68-4-23
The Trustees visited the site on the 10th of December.
Notes from that inspection read: Two-story addition appears to
have been built already. Confirm as-built fees. Ten-foot
non-turf buffer should be vegetated
The LWRP found the project to be inconsistent with Policy
Six, recommending a buffer to ameliorate the environmental
disturbance.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the
application?
MR. MADIGAN: Sean Madigan, on behalf of the applicant.
So this was a previously-approved application back in 2021.
I'm not sure .who of you were on the Board then, but what
happened was this project timed-out in terms of construction
variation and so we had to re-apply for this permit.
In the re-application process we also eliminated some scope
due to budget overruns, and so several of, and I won't list
everything, but you see it in the application. But the
previously-proposed garage, previously-proposed pool cabana and
associated roads and driveway gates were removed from the
previous application. That was also a pretense for needing this
new application because the final design no longer matches the
previously-approved application.
So we ran out of time and we are changing the design to
reduce the impact on the environment. But other than that, the
application is essentially the same as it was. The current
progress is the house addition has been built as you saw onsite
and really what remains to be done that is within this Board' s
Board of Trustees 47 December 17, 2025
jurisdiction is the deck and some exterior cladding that has not
been done.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Could you speak to the as-built fees for the
visit? The whole thing is built, right?
MR. MADIGAN: What do you mean the whole thing? The whole
project?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: When we went here it says requests a wetland
permit to construct a two-story addition onto the existing
two-story dwelling. And we went into the field and noticed that
it seemed to be already built.
MR. MADIGAN: Yes, the two-story addition is constructed and
complete other than the cladding on the exterior, and some
interior work.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Perhaps it' s a question for legal. This
project was already built, but subject to a previous permit, so
would this new permit -- sorry, Lori. This project was already
built pursuant to a previous permit in 2021, however the permit
expired and so they are reapplying. And in the meantime the
house was built. So would this be subject to as-built fees,
or --
TRUSTEE HULSE: Did it expire with the two-year or the
three-year? Was it given that one-year extension?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's well past that point.
MR. HULSE: Okay.
MR. MADIGAN: September of 2021 is when this was approved
originally.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Would it be subject to as-built fees subject
to a new permit, or is it --
MR. MADIGAN: So, I just want to clarify. The construction
stopped. All exterior work stopped when our permit expired, so.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And you did not apply for a one-year extension?
MR. MADIGAN: I'm sorry, I was -- this was under Bruce Anderson,
and he retired. So I'm the architect on the project, so I don't
know what happened. I do know one one-year renewal happened. I
don't know how many of them. But there was at least one renewal
that I have )on file.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: All right. Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right, so put that aside for a moment. -I
think your plans from October loth, 2025, do show a ten-foot
wide vegetated non-turf buffer surrounding the freshwater
wetlands. That speaks to the LWRP' s concerns. I have no other
comments to make on this but I welcome comments from the public
or members of the Board, if they have any.
(Negative response. `
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Hearing no further comment, I make a motion
to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application as
Board of Trustees 48 December 17, 2025
submitted, noting that the addition of that ten-foot wide
vegetated non-turf buffer surrounding the freshwater wetlands
speaks to the inconsistencies that the LWRP coordinator found
and has reviewed the application, so thereby this plan brings it
into consistency with that policy of the LWRP. .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 7, David Snowdon-Jones on behalf of
PETER STEIN & ALLISON KRONICK STEIN requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish and remove the existing dwelling, foundation, wood
decks, wood fence, low stone wall, and stone path; construct a
new 3, 135sq. ft. Two-story dwelling that includes a 16.21x10. 10'
covered porch, a 211x4. 6' northwest covered porch; a 5.5'x8 .3'
front deck, 5.1'x9.2 ' front entrance steps, 51.81x10. 1' at grade
patio, 38 'x2' wood steps, 15.5 'x4.5' and 12. 4 'x4 .4 ' second story
balconies; install a new permeable gravel driveway; install a
new I/A sanitary system landward of dwelling; any excavated fill
to be graded out on the landward side of the property; existing
15' wide non-turf buffer; and to remove three (3) trees and
replace with three (3) native hardwood trees.
Located: 63417 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-40-1-18.
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 10th of
December and noting that a vegetated non-turf buffer should be
placed at the top of the bluff. We are in receipt of updated
plants depicting that buffer.
The LWRP reviewed this application but perhaps a previous
version of the plans, because it found it to be inconsistent,
noting lack of IA system, which actually is part of this project
now, and noting the need for a buffer, which now is part of the
application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. SNOWDON-JONES: Yes. David Snowdon-Jones, 85 Willow Street,
Orient, on behalf of the owners Peter and Allison.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Great. I think the only outstanding question
we had after reviewing this at work session is regarding the
trees at the top of the bluff. Is there any intention of
removing any trees within the Trustee jurisdiction?
MR. SNOWDON-JONES: There is not.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay. Is there anyone else here wishing to
speak regarding this application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore. I'm actually, I represent the two
neighbors on either side.
My clients on the west are Spillane. Their house is -- both
neighbors are precipitously on the bluff. So, but their homes
are pre-existing. The Spillane' s on the west has been there for
40 years, and the Campbell' s on the east have been there for 25
years. Both of their homes are pre-existing. They understand
Board of Trustees 49 December 17, 2025
that they have to be very careful with doing anything to their
property because their properties, the homes are, really can't
be modified. They are right there on the bluff.
They met with the applicants, so what I'm telling you is
what they also told them, because of the concerns they had.
First, they ,wanted everyone to know that they support their
neighbor' s efforts of putting a house here. That is not the
issue here. What happened is that they bought the property from
the prior owner, and at the time -- looking for the woman's
name -- I'm looking for her name.
In any case, she was elderly. She could not afford to put
a revetment, but after the last storm the bluff was affected,
and for me, both my clients and their owners on either side of
them put in a rock revetment at the toe of the bluff because of
the erosion that has been occurring to the bluff.
This particular property was, that work was not done. The
prior owner could not afford it. And the first thing that my
clients, when they sat down with this, with Mr. and Mrs. Stein
was, listen, before you invest and put all this money into the
house and build what you want to build here, please address the
bluff, address the erosion that is occurring, and please, go in
with an application, submit an application, because it does take
a long time for the rock revetment to continue 'from the east to
the west. What you have is a bite mark of this property that
doesn't have the rock revetment, and you have the rock revetment
on either side.
So this property, what has happened is between the
stormwater at the top, which is creating gullies down the bluff,
and erosion of the toe of the bluff, this property has erosion.
And their erosion is impacting the adjacent properties that have
actively tried to prevent this erosion.
So first and foremost, both neighbors are asking the Board
to please consider pausing this application until the owners
submit an application to DEC and the Trustees to complete the
revetment at the toe of the bluff. That will protect this
property, it will protect ultimately this investment of the
family to put in a new house. It seems crazy to invest that kind
of money, what could be easily a million dollars to build a
house here. It is a demolition, a reconstruction.
So the fact is that there is a new foundation going in,
which means that the existing -- I'm sorry, are you listening or
are you being advised?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are definitely listening.
MS. MOORE: Okay. Sorry, Lori. I'm not usually here on behalf of
opposition. Here, it' s, they spoke to the owners, they tried to
emphasize to the owners, that they have been there for, as I
said, 40 years. They know the condition of the bluff, and for
their own protection, please protect the property.
So in this, the plan that has been submitted is a
demolition/reconstruction. So the existing house where it is
c
Board of Trustees 50 December 17, 2025
proposed, they are being sent to the Zoning Board because of
setbacks. With a new foundation, the location of the house could
be put in a conforming location. If they want to be closer to
the top of the bluff, well if they had a protective --
protection of the toe of. the bluff, then the Board certainly
would consider it. But the fact is that where they are
proposing to build the house, with the condition of the bluff,
is risky.
Ultimately we are hoping that when they get to the Zoning
Board, because, again, that's an issue for the Zoning Board, the
side yard setbacks, we are hoping that they will be persuaded
that since it's a brand new house, fix the setbacks, don't build
on top of your neighbor.
And I explained to my clients that is really not your
purview, although the fact is that its location, where it is,
even the side yard setbacks, are within your jurisdiction. So
that is something you could consider. But more importantly the
setbacks to the top of the bluff, when the bluff is not
protected, is of utmost concern to my clients.
I did notice and I don't know if the Board has, and I'm
sure from your inspections you've observed the condition of the
bluff, but the survey here has no topographic feature, so you
don't see where you have the gullies running through the bluff,
and the topos don't show the eroded toe of the bluff. If that
was on the survey you would be able to see it very clearly, the
condition of the property.
Last but not least, again, an issue that I'm letting you
for when you go to the Zoning Board, the prior owner built their
pool equipment right on top of, over the property line, she was
a little loose in her construction. So we, again, these are
things that they've talked to the owners about. They don't have
any indication that it' s going to be corrected, but you have
pool equipment that is encroaching on the neighbor' s property.
We hope that that will be addressed.
Those are our major concerns. Really, the protection of
their properties is, of my client's property, relies on the
preservation of this property. And we are hoping that you will
try to persuade them that in their best interest they should
look to preserving this property, controlling the runoff and the
erosion before they invest as they are with a brand new house.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Was it ever part of the discussion with the
prior owner to finance the construction of a revetment at the
adjacent owner' s expense?
MS. MOOR: Yes, I've had clients that have done that, but these
clients are not quite to that level of wealthy. They have been
there for a long time, 40 years before the houses were
multi-million dollar homes. So, yes, the prior owner, that' s
been a solution in other cases where very wealthy neighbors are
able to subsidize or at least pay for.
Board of Trustees 51 December 17, 2025
In this case the owner I think was planning on selling it,
and the condition, I mean the signs saw the condition of the
property and I'm sure it's part of their consideration as how
much of an investment they have to make to preserve this
property, so.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Well, thank you, very much, for your comments.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I will say that in previous projects we have
encouraged homeowners to take a look at the toe of their bluff
because, you know, as Ms. Moore just said, this is the way of
ensuring the longevity of the investment that you are making
here.
In this particular case, we are bound by the pier line, and
we are looking at the pier line in this case, and the two
adjacent neighbors who are making the request of further
marching landward, I. understand, but they are also at the same
time creating a very generous pier line. And in this case,
while it is a demolition, and we always do encourage property
owners to look at the possibly of relocating landward, I as one
Trustee believe that this 76-foot setback is reasonable,
considering the location of the existing house. And I welcome
other comments.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Mr. Jones, do you want to respond to any of
the comments?
MR. SNOWDON-JONES: Yes. Thank you, so much for sharing the
neighbors' concerns.
So one of the things we actually did when we were doing
this, we actually did look at the toe of the bluff with an
environmental specialist who pointed out that a lot of the
erosion was actually coming from the top of the bluff. So in
designing this what we have done is all the rainwater that is
captured on the roof, which had shared with you on the side,
will be captured away, landward side. So because of the nature
of the soil consistency on the top there, it pours on top of the
clay and creates these gullies down the bluff. So by capturing
all the roof water runoff and putting the drywells on the
landward side of this, which is on your drawings, we are able to
address that to the best degree that we can.
The other thing we wanted to do is as this hole in the
ground, with a substantial foundation where that house is, we
want to keep the house exactly where it is.
We don't want to mess with the topography, so I showed you
all where the topography goes off on one side of the house. It' s
awesome. We want to keep it like that, not add land there and
move the house over into it.
So we have been mindful of all this, and we completely get
the neighbor' s concerns. And, yes, they've given us a generous
pier line to kind of work behind. I promise you, we are being
as mindful as possible, and thoughtful on working with you on
this. That is their concern as well. They intend to have this
Board of Trustees 52 December 17,2025
for generations, and so we have been thoughtful and mindful of
our neighbors.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I appreciate that. And we did discuss some of
the runoff, and in this case, you know, have the current owners
considered the idea of a revetment at the toe or is that not
something that is being considered in the future.
MR. SNOWDEN-JONES: They are considering it in the future. The
next step in this process would build to build them a family
home. You know, so this is where they would like to invest.
Currently building a family home, it gives them time to study
the bluff, study the revetment and everything else. So in the
future I 'm sure it will be on the table. I don't know when that
is, but for now the focus is on being mindful of placing the
house in a location that has the least amount of impact on the
environment.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. 'Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak? '
MS. RIGDON: Agena Rigdon, DKR Shores.
I will be actively, I was hired as the environmental
consultant and bluff stabilization expert. I have been doing
this for 35 years. I will be working with the homeowner to
design the revetment for them, with typical terracing and
restoration plantings.
Also we have had current surveys, and engineers have been
hired to plot existing topography, to aid in that project in the
future. The project has as letter of non-jurisdiction from the
DEC. We also have an engineering plan to the Health Department.
We are going before the Zoning Board on the 8th and they are
looking for this Board' s blessing before they hear the project.
If in fact we have any changes upon that hearing we will
come back before the Board, of course, with any revisions.
The engineer that was hired has planned some substantial
runoff and drainage for the project as well as the new IA
sanitary system. So the goal is to minimize the disturbance.
The owners are okay with the 15-foot non-turf buffer area,
native plantings at the top of the bluff as well. So we have
consider that and consented to that as well. And also gutters
and leaders leading to drywells. That' s also in the plan.
Keep in mind a lot of the stuff is outside of your
jurisdiction but we wanted to advise you that all of this is
potentially going on to reduce the amount of runoff going over
the top of the bluff and in the ground seeping through to come
out to the bluff.
So we are looking at this from all aspects and all corners.
And I'll talk to them about that pool equipment, moving it
ten-feet away from the property line. We'll have to add that.
If the Board has any other comments or questions,
environmentally or otherwise, I'm always available.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Are there any other questions or
comments? Anyone else here wishing to speak?
Board of Trustees 53 December 17, 2025
(No response) .
Hearing none, I 'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I'll make a motion to approve this application
subject to the preservation of all trees present within Trustee
jurisdiction, and if any tree must be removed in the future, it
will be subject to review by the Board of Trustees with a tree
letter, and with the inclusion of the IA system as discussed;
inclusion of the vegetated non-turf buff, will thereby bringing
this into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 8, AS PER REVISED SITE PLANS RECEIVED
12/15/2025 Krista Jones on behalf of WILLIAM & ERICA WHITMIRE
request a Wetland Permit to construct additions and alterations
to the existing two-story dwelling consisting of removing
existing screened porch, extend foundation ±56 sq.ft. And
construct a new ±101x20' screened-in porch with entry steps;
construct a 47sq.ft. (Footprint) one-story addition; construct a
95sq.ft. (Footprint) two-story addition; reconstruct portion of
a ±14' long wall to add a sliding door and a proposed ±8 'x6'
entry platform with steps; and to install a drywell to contain
roof runoff; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 15'
wide non-turf buffer along the northern property line.
Located: 960 Marratooka Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-9-8.1.
The Trustees most recently visited this site on December
loth, 2025, and Trustee Goldsmith noted a 15-foot buffer from
northerly property line.
The LWRP finds this project to be consistent.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak?
MS. JONES: Hello. Krista Jones, on behalf of the homeowners,
here to answer any questions.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So, just to address the comments made in the
field, I do not believe we received any updated -- the 15th.
Yes. Hold on. Bear with me.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I believe we did get new plans that show the
buffer as indicated
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, they do show. Thank you. I put these
aside. They are quite large. So, thank you.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak, or any other
questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 54 December 17, 2025
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted with the revised plans dated 12/15/2025
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 9, Karen Hoeg, Esq. On behalf of
PHILIP LORIA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new
two-story dwelling (1, 023sq.ft. ) On pile foundation with a
57sq.ft. Covered front entry deck and steps, a 90sq.ft. Rear
balcony and steps; install a gravel driveway and parking area;
install an I/A OWTS sanitary system; and proposed 219sq.ft. ,
217sq.ft. , 883sq. ft. , 92sq. ft. And 47sq.ft. Areas to be
vegetated using native plantings.
Located: 1090 First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-7-31
The Trustees conducted a field inspection December loth,
2025. Notes: The project was not staked. Very large scope of
project given the size of the lot and proximity to wetlands. The
project is located +/- 30 feet from Cutchogue Harbor. Septic on
a house of this size would be major concern. Question on
retaining walls. Question depth to groundwater.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
-- wrong one. The inconsistencies are, under Policy One, the
proposed actions will significantly alter the character of the
historic New Suffolk working waterfront.
Under Policy One, excuse me. Under Policy One, the proposed
actions are inconsistent with the historic, rural, maritime
character of the adjacent property and the overall esthetic of
the New Suffolk waterfront. In addition to this the proposed
structure will significantly block a longstanding view of
Peconic Bay.
Policy Two, preserve historic resources of the Town of
Southold, the proposed actions will significantly alter the
character of the historic New Suffolk waterfront.
Policy Three, enhanced visual quality and protect scenic
resources throughout the Town of Southold. The proposed actions
will significantly degrade the visual character of the historic
maritime waterfront of New Suffolk.
Under Policy Six, protect and restore the quality and
function of the Town of Southold's ecosystem.
The plan includes property improvements that are
inconsistent with the requirements of Chapter 268 Waterfront
Consistency Review, based on construction of a residence less
than 100 feet from the wetland boundary.
And Town Code Policy 275-3 findings, purpose, jurisdictions
and setbacks.
The plan does not meet the minimum setback of 100 feet from
the wetland boundary for new residential construction.
Under Policy Nine, provide for public access to and
recreation use of coastal waters, public lands and public
Board of Trustees 55 December 17, 2025
resources of the Town of Southold.
The proposed actions will significantly block an historic
view of Peconic Bay.
We also have a number of letters in the file objecting to
the application, the first one is from a Linda and Paul Oriamma
(sic) , they have concerns about the flooding and the great harm
to our waters and the marine life that live in it.
There is an extensive letter here from Andrew J.
Campanelli, Campanelli & Associates PC, on behalf of Steve
Katsoulas, objecting for a number of reasons to the proposed.
And then there is also a letter in the file from Arlene and
Frank Castalano objecting to the proposed project as well.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. HOEG: Yes. Good evening, Board members, Karen Hoeg,
from Twomey Latham, on behalf of the applicant Philip Loria.
I just wanted to make some comments. I know the field
inspection on December loth, the property was not staked. I was
able to get a surveyor out there yesterday. The property is now
staked. I submitted a photograph of the staking as well as a
sketch plan showing the location of those stakes. And each stake
is denoted with what area it staked. So it will be easy for
everybody to see exactly what the stakes are referencing.
I just wanted to give a little background here. We did get
ZBA approval on June 18th of 2025, after the result of several
public meetings and modifications which were made to address
neighbors' comments. Most of the neighbors sounds like are part
of those letters, which I have not seen.
The ZBA granted variances for a front yard setback of 13.2
feet to the dwelling, and 8 .2 to the entry steps and stoop,
where 35 is required. And rear yard setback of 31. 6 feet was
granted, where 35 minimum setback is required.
The rear yard setback on the westerly corner of the
proposed dwelling is conforming at 35.2 feet. The project
complies with lot coverage and also complies with the side yard
setback.
In the Zoning Board determination there was a reference to
the LWRP at that time, which contradicts a little bit of some of
the comments that you read in the LWRP a few minutes ago. That
LWRP determination and as referenced in the ZBA decision, noted
that the proposed residence which is subject to FEMA height
requirements and installation of a Health Department approval IA
sanitary system is consistent with the Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program.
There was a DEC letter of non-jurisdiction which we
submitted as part of the application. We did also submit the
Zoning Board determination as well.
In terms of the Health Department, as we know the Health
Department is charged with the responsibility of safeguarding
our groundwater. They granted approval for an IA system. Over
Board of Trustees 56 December 17, 2025
the course of several years with the Health Department
engineers, myself and Butler Engineering regarding trying to
find a location to site a compliant IA sanitary system, we were
also able to convince the Health Department to move forward with
- a Board of Review variance hearing, as opposed to getting the
standard letter of NOI waiting for approval from the Trustees so
that we can get the Health Department to look at the system.
We had set the system back at, you know, it' s as far
landward as it can possibly be sited on this property. And the
Board of Review issued a decision on December 12th of 2023,
after having a hearing. That is also part of the submitted
application.
The reason for the Board of Review hearing was to seek a
variance as the 100-foot distance could not be maintained for
the sanitary leaching structures and surface waters could not be
met, and that the effluent pump station to surface water needed
to be at least 75 feet.
The Board approved the low nitrogen sanitary system as
designed and noted the soil conditions were acceptable. But most
importantly they noted that the separation distances between the
proposed sanitary system and surface waters have been placed in
the best possible location to maximize separation distances for
the protection of surface waters.
The site of soil and groundwater conditions that will
permit the operation of the new IA system and the proposal
should not result in the degradation of groundwater quality.
The Board of Review determination also stated that the
variance should not impair groundwater, surface water and
drinking water supplies and was consistent with the sanitary
code
criteria. It noted that the granting of variances would not
adversely affect the design of an adequate onsite water supply
or sewage disposal system, taking into account soil conditions,
depth of groundwater and site-specific physical conditions.
The last Health Department notice we received was July 17th
and that stated that the Board of Review approved the variance
request, and prior to issuance of a permit to construct by the
Health Department, a Town of Southold Trustees wetland permit is
required. And the Trustees permit is the only open item.
I did confirm with our engineers after seeing the field
notes that the system that was approved is the minimum system
for an IA system. So whether it's a two-bedroom house or
three-bedroom house, it doesn't matter. The minimum system that
can be designed is for a three-bedroom house, and that is in
relation to a pre-cast system as well as a low-nitrogen system.
The field notes also asked about a retaining wall, and
there was none proposed. The applicant is also proposing native
plantings. I believe they are shown on the site plans as the
front and the side. They were happy to, you know, if the Board
Board of Trustees 57 December 17, 2025
wants to have any conditions regarding or discussion regarding
any further buffering, you know, that is something that we are
agreeable to as well.
So, I'm available to answer any questions that the Board
may have. I know there is a lot of history here between the -
Health Department and the Zoning Board of Appeals, and I know
that, you know, there was not much discussion at the work
session since the property was not staked.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application? Yes, ma'am. State your
name, please.
MS. AURIEMMA: Good evening. My name is Linda Auriemma. I live
in New Suffolk. I lived in New Suffolk now for 40 years, the
last 15 full-time. And I wrote a brief little letter today but I
have a few more things I need to say.
I live about a half mile from the property, so it doesn't
affect what my water view might be since I don't live over
there. But, the last four years, the residents of New Suffolk,
myself included, have been fighting this house that we feel is
so wrong for our Main Street on New Suffolk. It' s two floors of
living space but when you look at it, it's a three-story house.
Because the first story is raised on pilings. So it's very tall,
not pretty, and it will block our views. Everyone' s views.
Visitors and residents alike.
.We. feel like it' s a catastrophic environmental impact, not
only for the views but also for our water because this lot is
maybe 60-something feet deep, and there is no way they can meet
any of these setbacks for the septic system. And as Ms.
Gillooly mentioned before, effluent is going to go into the bay.
It's only 30 feet away from the water.
The whole thing is woefully short on the septic setback.
During Superstorm Sandy, this area was wrecked by flood
waters. The house next door suffered severe damage. Right next
door to this property. It flood the terribly. They had to get a
whole re-do, which turned into sort of a disaster as well
because now the house got even higher because of the flooding
that took place there, and it's, you know, an eyesore, to say
the least.
Sometimes a house shouldn't be built because the lot is not
big enough for a house. Does that ever happen? I mean, this is
0. 14 of an acre. When is a lot too small? It can't meet any of
the setbacks for the septic. It still didn't meet the setbacks
for the front and the rear. There is no existing house there.
There is no septic system to upgrade, to make it better. There
is nothing there.
So we hope you'll deny this permit and not allow them to
build this house in our Village. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
MS. HOEG: Can I make a few comments in regard to the neighbor' s
comments that she made?
Board of Trustees 58 December 17, 2025
So, one, the reason, there was no height variance required
by the Zoning Board. The house is compliant with height.
In terms of the water views, there is New York case law,
you are not entitled to a view of light and air. That has been
well-discussed, and the Zoning Board even mentioned that as well
in their determination.
It' s a buildable lot. It' s in an M-2 zoning district.
Residential use is a less intensification of the use than any of
the other uses that are or could be possibly in that zoning
district, such as a residents, a marine repair shop, a boat
storage facility. Any of those kind of uses would also likely
require a sanitary system of some form. And as I mentioned
previously, the Board of Review of the Health Department has
reviewed this and has issued its approval.
So, you know, this was not taken lightly when we were
designing this house. Essentially what we ended up doing was
designing the house around the sanitary system. We needed to be
five feet off the road, and we needed to meet the five-foot
separation. We were able to get an expansion galley in here as
well.
So great care was taken into trying to keep the house as a
modest-sized house, maintain all the setbacks as much as we
could from the bulkhead. And, you know, if you look at the site
plan you can pretty much see the house and the sanitary are as
close to the road as possible. And, you know, we are in line,
well, we are actually landward of the pier line in connection
with the neighbor's house.
In regard to the flooding, that is the reason why we are
raising the house, to comply with any potential flooding issues.
The house is going to be set on pilings.
And that' s really all I have to say. As I said, I have not
seen all the neighbors' letter. I would like an opportunity to
review those. I'm happy to answer any questions the Board may
have.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Ms. Hoeg, just one question. I think you
mentioned that this property was not subject to the pyramid law,
which was set in place in April of 2022.
MS. HOEG: That's correct. The Building Department determined
that the property, because it has been held up in Health
Department for so many years, was grandfathered under the old
code. That was determined by the Building Department.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So three-and-a-half years after the
legislation was passed it has no bearing on this project.
MS. HOEG: That was the determination. That' s correct.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: That' s unfortunate, in my opinion.
MS. HOEG: Well, we just, no one expected the Health Department
to take so long in their review process, and as I said --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you know why they took so long? Because
it's 30-feet from the bay. At very low elevation.
So while your original testimony here tonight is
Board of Trustees 59 December 17, 2025
insinuating, oh, it was no big deal, the Health Department said
it was no problem. It took five years for you to get it through
the Health Department. So it is a big deal and it is a problem.
MS. HOEG: Well, the issue with the, and not that it' s an issue,
but in designing a house on a property such as this is that when
the engineers put the sanitary system in place it was in line
with the neighbor' s sanitary system, which is a conventional
system, and when we met with the Health Department engineers,
that was not satisfactory. So we were coming up with
alternatives. And this was even before the house was designed,
on where you could place the sanitary system, where it would be
as far from surface waters, where it would meet the Health
Department requirement, meet the two-foot separation to
groundwater.
So there was a lot of engineering involved, which is a
little bit out of my wheelhouse, but the engineers took great
care in coming up with a system that was satisfactory to the
Health Department, and explaining to them the concerns we knew
that the Town would have, they agreed to allow us to proceed
with Board of Review prior to that.
So if there is any specific engineering questions that the
Board has, you know, I can try my best to answer them but if
not, I would have to ask one of our engineers come to the
meeting
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, Ms. Hoeg, obviously we have a very
extensive inconsistency from the LWRP. And, as you know, this
Board needs to have something consistent in order to approve it
going forward. So I know you asked about reviewing the letters
from the neighbors --
MS. HOEG: As well as the LWRP since I have not been provided
with a copy of that as well. And I notice that the pending
application is not listed on the Town' s web link.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: That' s due to a recent cyber attack.
MS. HOEG: No, I understand that.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And I also just want to mention that any time
you would like to see a copy of an LWRP, please reach out to our
office to be provided with a copy.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And while we are waiting for other public to
comment, I would like to just add that while this is zoned M-2
and residential is an allowable use on this property, I, as one
Trustee and an oyster farmer, there is an incredible
diminishment of working waterfront available in this town and
the ability for this to be used as working waterfront parcel I
think has great value for the town for its heritage and going
into the future, so.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, sir.
MR. KATSOULAS: My name is Efstathios Katsoulas.
Okay. Good evening. I live across the street. Okay, at
1175. I see that place there for 40 years. I bought the place
actually 39 years, back in ' 86. I did some improvements. Every
Board of Trustees 60 December 17, 2025
nor'easter it floods. With Gloria, not Gloria, the last, 2012.
Sandy. Gloria was older. The water was five feet in that street
there. I mean it was a disaster.
Now, she mention something about the neighbor David Becker.
He just bought the house. Well, actually, the previous owner
did that, they raise the house and the new sanitary system.
Okay, that is existing house. It was there from the ' 40s. So
they had to upgrade the system. What are they going to do, knock
down the house?
Now this is a new house and we have new codes, building
codes, and how can the Board of Health approve that? Oh, it' s
fine, it' s good. Yes, who knows. They going to live there? No.
We going to live there. So how can they approve, when the area
is 75 feet from the water, the septic tank. Between 75 and 100
feet. It has to be.
I mean the property that small, I 'm sorry, I mean it was
bigger. I bought the house from Phil' s father, and I know Phil
for 40-something years. More than that. So, but the property is
just too small to build a house. And it' s going to look
monstrosity there. Because 35. Thank you, for listening.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir.
MS. SCHNITZLER: Hi, my name is Barbara Schnitzler, I live in Old
Harbor Road and New Suffolk.
When I was listening to the LWRP, I was reminded of all the
reasons that the New Suffolk waterfront fund, which many of you
are familiar with, did what we did and worked so hard to
preserve our waterfront in our historic town. We raised money
from over a thousand people. So this is not just a little board
making a little decision. This is a very widespread effort. And
that effort paid off. We have a lot of open space. I think our
lot coverage is about 4%. Anyway, I could give you a lot more
statistics, but I won't bore you.
We did the right thing. And the right thing to do on this
tiny little parcel of land that Phil Loria owns, is to convert
it to working waterfront again. There is even, as you know,
there is money available to do this, sort of like the farm
preservation money.
We just, also, the same list of items that the LWRP brought
up, were some of the same things that we said in our letters to
the ZBA. There were a lot of letters to the ZBA. I thought they
would be passed to you guys, too,. but I guess not. So we can get
you those letters if that is helpful. We can get them for you,
too. You probably read them. There were lots. There was a lot of
community outcry about this project, so, thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Ma'am, what was the result of the ZBA again?
ZBA approved it?
MS. SCHNITZLER: The ZBA approved, yes. With variances. They had
to give them, I think you needed two variances.
MS. HOEG: Yes, the ZBA decision, there was a grant of a front
yard setback as well as a rear yard setback on the northeasterly
Board of Trustees 61 December 17, 2025
side where it hit the stairs going to the rear of the house. '
The side yard to the south was compliant at 35 feet and
then we also needed a front yard variance in order to get to the
stairs to get to the access into the house.
__ . MS. SCHNITZLER: Right. And there was no height variance
required, but the house is, although it' s considered a two-story
house, because the piles are going to be covered, it appears to
be from the street, which is I don't know how many feet away,
it's very close, a three-story house.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
MS. HOEG: I just wanted to comment that if it was a three-story
house we would have had to get a variance for it, and that was
not required.
MR. KATSOULAS: Hello again. Okay, can I speak?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, sir.
MR. KATSOULAS: Also about three, four years ago, we got about
couple hundred signatures from residents in New Suffolk to deny
this project. And if you are interested, I have the letters from
the people who sent on May, I have them actually outside. If
you want I can go to my car and get them and hand it to you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, sir --
MR. KATSOULAS: If that's --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You can submit any information you want to at
the Trustee office. We can't accept it right here at the dais.
But we have a request from the applicant for time to reference
those letters that were stamped received today. So --
MR. KATSOULAS: Those letters are previous from ZBA.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yup. So if there is going to be a potential
table on this for more information, this hearing, this file,
this everything, will be kept open for at least another month
for submission of any additional paperwork, for review of the
current paperwork that we have received, and give another
opportunity for public comment potentially at a future public
hearing.
MR. KATSOULAS: Okay.
MS. HOEG: I would just like to comment that the petition that
was circulated was for a different project. The house had been
significantly, this application that was before the ZBA an
approved, that also went to the Health Department, was for a
smaller house, was for a house with greater setbacks. At the
time that that petition was circulated, there was no Health
Department approval, there was no sanitary system even designed.
That approach to designing that project was let's put a house,
let' s go to ZBA, without taking into account where are we going
to put the sanitary. And I will tell you, when Mr. Loria came
to me on this project, I said to him, before we start, you know,
talking about your house and your footprint, we need to figure
out where we can put a compliant sanitary system on this
property, because of the complexities of it.
Board of Trustees 62 December 17, 2025
So what' s being referenced was all part of the Zoning Board
application, it was a prior application. It was not the one that
they just approved. It really had no relevance here. And some of
the signatures were, you know, I saw the sign myself up at Handy
Pantry years ago. So people were just signing it, whether they
agreed or disagreed, they were just people from all over town
signing it, and it was there. But it was for a different
project.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, it was for the same house. They just
made it a little smaller. So what, they going to build a house
with no septic system? So you try to say you build a house with
no septic system? You got to put a septic system. So now is
the whole thing about the house, was the petition, it was the
property was too small to build a house. You going to do a
septic system anyway.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, sir, if we do end up tabling this
application for future, you can submit any information that you
feel is relevant and we'll include it as part of the file.
MR. KATSOULAS: You have all the brief there, my attorney has,
you know, wrote everything down.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, sir, I reference that. It' s an
extensive letter that has been reviewed, but we didn't read the
whole thing in tonight. Obviously. But again, we have received
that letter today, December 17th, and so --
(The speaker is asked to not speak over the Board members) .
pursuant to 275-8 (C) , files were closed seven days ago. So we
don't have and the applicant didn't have time to review your
letter in its entirety.
So that' s the point of tabling it, to give us, the
, applicants, whomever, an opportunity to review. I know there was
an issue with the laser fiche system being down. This file is
always available, to walk into the Trustees office, between
8: 00 and 4 :00, Monday through Friday, to review it. Hopefully we
get the laser fiche up and running so that people can see it
online. But that' s the point of it, so that information is
available for everybody to review prior to a hearing, prior to a
decision.
MR. KATSOULAS: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir. Anyone else wishing to
comment regarding this application?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I would just like to say one more thing for
the record, that I as one Trustee am a firm believer in taking
great care when developing a lot that has never previously been
developed, and looking at it with the lens of 2025.
And so I think that what has been proposed here, though
technically was able to avoid the sky plane review, I think
that's something that I'm going to look at thoughtfully.
Because we are in the year 2025, and we are able to think about
these problems and these issues that were addressed
appropriately three years ago with legislation.
Board of Trustees 63 December 17, 2025
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I will make a motion to table this application at
the applicant' s request for time to review the file.
MS. HOEG: May I ask before a motion is made to table it, does
any of the other Board members have any comments on the
application or things they would like to see changed?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You already made a motion. Do you want to
rescind your motion?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I will rescind my motion. So I 'm free to
comment.
So we obviously have an extensive LWRP report. So that
needs to be addressed, all the inconsistencies in here. I think
the neighbors have brought up a number of concerns, a lot of
which the Trustees do share, with the proximity to the wetlands,
flood damage. So, you know -- anybody else?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I mean the LWRP speaks volumes. I think it's
a decision of whether we want to live in a town where we have
working waterfront or residences right up against the bulkhead.
That's where I stand.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All right, so now I'll make a motion to table
this at the applicant's request.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MS. HOEG: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: May I?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I just wanted to say as my last hearing here as
a Trustee that it has been an honor to serve Southold town, our
community, and protect the environment in the last four years.
I hold each of my fellow Trustees in the highest regard. It's
been an absolute pleasure to work alongside you.
Also, legal counsel Lori Hulse and Elizabeth Cantrell, Tom
Hobson in the office, and Wayne Galante. Thank you, so much.
I didn't think I would do this but, to have a front-row
seat in protecting our valuable natural resources has been the
greatest pleasure. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, for your incredible hard work and
dedication. It has meant the world to all of us.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I will now make a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
4:�ull s itt y,
Glenn Got smith, President
Board of Trustees