HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-01/14/2026 Glenn Goldsmith,President �QF SU(/T Town Hall Annex
Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ,`O� ��� 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski l Southold, New York 11971
Liz Gillooly G Telephone(631) 765-1892
Joseph Finora • �O Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD r �.3
Minutes
Wednesday, January 14, 2026 FFP f 2
5:30 PM
t
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee -
Eric Sepenoski, Trustee
Liz Gillooly, Trustee
Joseph Finora, 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,
January 14th, 2026 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) .
I'll start off the meeting by announcing the people on the
dais. To my left we have Trustee Krupski, to his left, welcome
back, Trustee Sepenoski, welcome back Trustee Gillooly, and all
the way to the left, welcome for his first meeting, Trustee Finora.
To my right we have attorney to the Trustees, the Hon. Lori
Hulse, Administrative Assistant Elizabeth Cantrell, and with us
tonight as well is Court Stenographer Wayne Galante.
Agendas for tonight's meeting are in the hallway and are
also posted on the Town's website.
We do have a number of postponements for tonight. The
postponements are in the agenda on page six, under Wetlands and
Coastal Permits, Items 2 and 3, listed as follows:
Number 2, 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
Board of Trustees 2 January 14, 2026
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
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
Number 3, 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 4 'x15'
steps to beach.
Located: 50 Cleaves Point Road, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-38-2-31
On page nine, number 11, 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 2 'xl4' ramp, 41x16' floating dock, 4 'x42 '
floating dock, 41x14 ' floating dock and 81x2l' 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 41x28 ' floating dock situated in
a "T" configuration with a 21x4' 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 10, numbers 12 through 16, as follows:
Number 12, 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
Number 13, 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 'xll' 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 .
Board of Trustees 3 January 14, 2026
Located: 330 Shore Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-1-4.12
Number 14, Patricia Moore, Esq. On behalf of 622 CHURCH
LANE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for alterations to the
existing 1-1-� 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
Number 15, Sam Fitzgerald, Architect on behalf of TRAVIS &
SOFIA GARCELON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
two-story dwelling (251x45' 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 16, AS PER REVISED SITE PLANS & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED 10/30/2025 Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf
of 500 BROADWATERS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
4 'x30' landward ramp leading up to a 41x30' catwalk to a 41x30'
ramp down onto a 41x57 ' dock (41x147 ' total) using open grade
decking; install a 31x14 ' aluminum ramp at seaward end of dock
leading onto a 61x20 ' floating dock situated in an "L"
configuration and secured with two (2) pile dolphins.
Located: 500 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-10-5
On page 11, numbers 17 through 20:
Number 17, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of BAILEY INVESTMENT
GROUP II, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing
4'x30' fixed dock and construct in-place a new 41x30' fixed dock
that includes 4' wide landward steps up to fixed dock and 4 '
wide seaward steps down; and for a proposed 41x20' long fixed
"T" section off seaward end; all decking to be Thru-Flow; and to
maintain existing 25 ' wide non-disturbance and 15' wide non-turf
buffers.
Located: 910 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-27
Number 18, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED
8/13/2025 South Fork Environmental Consulting, LLC on behalf of
106 MULBERRY CORP. , c/o STUART MOY requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a two story, single family dwelling (25'x42 ' 4",
±1,058.25sq. ft. ) With attached 7.3'x48 .2 ' (351.86sq.ft) deck on
south side of dwelling; install a 251x6' (±150sq.ft. ) Stone
driveway, a 121x20' 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
Board of Trustees 4 January 14, 2026
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 19, 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 20, 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'xl6' 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
And on page 12, numbers 21 and 22 :
Number 21, L.K. McLean Associates on behalf of AWC DOCKSIDE, LLC
requests a Wetland Permit for Marina improvements consisting of the
as-built 6'x98 ' , 61x218 ' and 6'xl2. 10' (±1, 988sq.ft. ) Sections of
CCA decking along top of existing southerly bulkhead section; within
a 10' wide area in front of existing bulkhead section incidentally
dredge ±140 cubic yards over ±1, 600ssq. ft. Area to a max. Depth of
6' below Mean Low Water (EL. -8 . 86) to 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;
construct a 26' long vinyl slotted breakwater off north end of
bulkhead; create nine (9) 151x35' slips by installing 10 new
mooring piles and 10 new guide piles; install a 41x40' gangway,
one (1) 8'x53' and one (1) 61x102' floating dock parallel to new
bulkhead and install five (5) 41x30' floating finger docks off
of 6' and 8 ' wide floating docks; spread dredge spoil and raise
grade in area landward of new and portion of existing bulkhead
approximately 4" higher (±140 cubic yards over an area of
Board of Trustees 5 January 14, 2026
12,200sq.ft. ) ; in an area around existing concrete slab, spread
excess fill taken from area landward of bulkhead and raise grade
approximately 18" (±230 cubic yards over an area of
4, 140sq.ft. ) ; a proposed pump-out truck with 1, 000gal. Capacity
with potable water washout; and with the use of a turbidity
curtain during construction.
Located: 5505 West Mill Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-6-1
Number 22, AS PER REVISED SITE PLAN & WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED 12/23/2024 Twin Forks Permits on behalf of THE WILLIAM
E. GOYDAN REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST, c/o WILLIAM E. GOYDAN,
TRUSTEE & THE KAREN B. GOYDAN REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST, c/o
KAREN B. GOYDAN, TRUSTEE requests a Wetland Permit to demolish
the existing two-story dwelling, detached garage and other
surfaces on the property; construct a new 3, 287sq. ft. Footprint
(5, 802sq.ft. Gross floor area) two-story, single-family dwelling
with an 865sq. ft. Seaward covered patio, 167sq. ft. Side covered
porch, and 149sq. ft. Front covered porch; construct a proposed
161x36' swimming pool with 8'x8 ' spa tub; a 1, 357sq.ft. Pool
patio surround with steps to ground, pool enclosure fencing,
pool equipment area, and a drywell for pool backwash; construct
a 752sq. ft. Two-story detached garage, gravel driveway and
parking areas; install an I/A septic system; remove 23 trees and
plant 25 trees on the property; and to establish and perpetually
maintain a 25 foot wide vegetated non-turf, no fertilization
buffer area along the landward side of the wetland vegetation.
Located: 1645 Marratooka Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-3-2. 1
All those are postponed tonight and will not be heard.
Under Town Code Chapter 275-8 (c) , files were officially
closed seven days okay. Submission of any paperwork after that
date may result in a delay of the processing of the application.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to have our
next field inspection Wednesday, February 4th, 2026, at 8: 00 AM,
subject to weather.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I 'll make a motion to hold our next Trustee
meeting Wednesday, February llth, 2026, at 5 :30 p.m. at the Town
Hall main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
III. WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to hold our next work session
Monday, February 9th, 2026, at 5:00 PM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd
Board of Trustees 6 January 14, 2026
floor Executive Board Room, and on Wednesday, February llth, 2026,
at 5:00 P.M. in the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve the Minutes of the
December 17th, 2025 Trustee meeting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
MS. HULSE: And that reflects your amendment.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes.
MS. HULSE: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Trustees monthly report for December 2025. A
check for $30, 927 . 66 was forwarded to the Supervisor' s Office for
the General Fund.
VI . PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk' s
Bulletin Board for review.
VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral VII, State Environmental Quality
Reviews:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby
finds that the following applications more fully described in
Section XI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated
Wednesday, January 14, 2026 are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to
further review under SEQRA:
Michael & Erin Mangan SCTM# 1000-57-1-25
Blue Marlin Realty, LLC SCTM# 1000-57-1-26
Wamsley Family Trust SCTM# 1000-78-5-10
Alexander Friedman & Erica Tennenbaum SCTM# 1000-145-4-14 . 1
Douglas & Leslie Hirsch SCTM# 1000-115-10-2
Philip Loria SCTM# 1000-117-7-31
Rolando & Michelle Adamovicz SCTM# 1000-31-8-12 .2
1670 Leeton Drive, LLC SCTM# 1000-58-2-7
William E. Goydan Revocable Inter Vivos Trust SCTM# 1000-110-7-21
Ulster Farms, LLC SCTM# !000-78-5-14
Chula Vista Home, LLC SCTM# 1000-90-3-4
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: As written. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 7 January 14, 2026
VIII. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII, Resolutions -
Administrative Permits.
In order to simplify our meetings, the Board of Trustees
regularly groups together actions that are minor or similar in
nature.
Accordingly, I' ll make a motion to approve as a group,
Items 2 and 6 through 8. They are listed as follows:
Number 2, DHC LAND, LLC c/o WILL PECKHAM requests an
Administrative Permit to install a 12 ' x 9.4 ' FLUPSY (Floating
Upweller System) at end of dock in Deep Hole Creek to hold
shellfish seed.
Located: 4180 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-10-1
Number 6, William Conway on behalf of 1175 BRIDGE LLC
requests an Administrative Permit to install two exterior air
conditioning condensers on small pads next to existing dwelling.
Located: 1175 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-2-16. 1
Number 7, AMP Architecture on behalf of DHC LAND LLC c/o
WILL PECKHAM requests an Administrative Permit to demolish
existing dwelling and abandon septic system and oil tank;
install buried electrical wires and water supply lines;
construct circular pervious driveway.
Located: 4180 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-10-1
Number 8, TAMMY McCORMACK requests an Administrative Permit
for two (2) as-built 3.5' x 15.5 bridges; and a 10-year
maintenance permit to trim vegetation around pond.
Located: 640 Mechanic Street, Southold. SCTM# 1000-61-4-12
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, Howard Ruben on behalf of LESTER &
ETHNA LAY requests an Administrative Permit to remove wood
pergola at rear of dwelling; replace bricks of patio which
supported pergola with pavers; expand patio footprint eastward
by 4 ' adding an additional 72 sq. ft. ; install two removable
posts to support seasonal sunshade.
Located: 370 Williamsberg Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-9
Trustee Finora conducted a field inspection January 11th,
2026, noting patio expansion is to the west, not east, room for
drainage and percolation.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is that the expansion of the patio is within the hundred-foot
setback.
I will make a motion to approve this application, because
the patio is not going go further seaward, so there is no
adverse environmental impact, which will bring it into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in' favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 8 January 14, 2026
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, Quarty Construction on behalf of
ANNA M. TEN NAPEL requests an Administrative Permit to extend
existing deck 3' x 61 ; deck to be 398 sq.ft. After extension.
Located: 320 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-21
Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection January 12th,
2026, noting it is a straightforward, modest expansion of the
existing deck.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is the exposed expansion of the deck is bringing it closer to
the 100-foot setback.
Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection, noting it' s
only a minor expansion of an existing deck that' s 31x6' , with no
adverse environmental impact.
Therefore I ' ll make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, which will bring it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, CUTCHOGUE NEW SUFFOLK PARK DISTRICT
requests an Administrative Permit to install a 10' x 14' shed.
Located: 55 West Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-110-7-13
Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection January 12th,
noting it' s okay to install. No cedar trees are to be removed.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
I will make a motion to approve this application with the
condition of no tree removal.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, Creative Environmental Design on
behalf of LUCKYFRONT LLC requests an Administrative Permit to
plant and revegetate within Trustee jurisdiction.
Located: 38015 Main Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-2-15.8
Trustee Sepenoski conducted a field inspection January
llth, noting it was straightforward.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is since no pictures or species lists have been
provided, it is not clear what species are intended to be
cleared to make way for this work.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that all vegetation used is native vegetation, which
will bring it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral IX, Applications for
Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments.
Again, in order to simplify the meeting I'll make a motion
Board of Trustees 9 January 14, 2026
to approve as a group items 1 through 8, listed as follows:
Number 1, En-Consultants on behalf of SEAN & JENNIFER
McCOYD requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #1982 from Seymour
Stiber to Sean & Jennifer McCoyd, as issued August 2, 1985.
Located: 3360 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-66. 4
Number 2, Davis & Prager on behalf of KEVIN J. & SUZANNE M.
DELANE requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #10551 from Ben &
Christina Hansen to Kevin J. & Suzanne M. Delane, as issued
February 14, 2024.
Located: 305 Narrow River Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-3-1
Number 3, KENNETH EHRLER requests a Transfer of
Administrative Permit #9244A from Irene Kosel to Kenneth Ehrler,
as issued on June 20, 2018 .
Located: 220 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-20
Number 4, Young Associates on behalf of GOMB BEACH, LLC
requests a Final One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit
#10047, as issued December 15, 2021; and for an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit #10047 to construct a 2-story
dwelling with garage (1, 532 sq.ft. ) , front entry structure (18
sq.ft. Stairways and 32 sq. ft. Of top landing) , 105 sq.ft. Rear
deck and elevated pool/spa (231 sq.ft. ) 1, 942 sq. ft. Stone
driveway, public water service connection, new sanitary system,
i.e. one 700 gallon wastewater treatment unit and two 8' dia x
8 ' effect depth sanitary leaching pools (IAOWTS) , and new storm
water control structures for roof runoff and driveway runoff;
construct one 21' linear foot reinforced concrete retaining wall
on each side of driveway, ranging in height from 5.2' to 6. 4 '
and excavation and removal of approximately 812 cubic yards of
excess soil materials; establish and perpetually maintain a 10'
wide non-disturbance buffer landward of the top of bluff.
Located: 54205 County Road 48, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-1-3
Number 5, AMP Architecture on behalf of JATIN GORADIA &
RAJALAKSHMI RAJA requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #10458 &
Coastal Erosion Permit #10458C from Little Poquatuck LLC to
Jatin Goradia & Rajalakshmi Raja, as issued September 13, 2023;
and for an Administrative Amendment to Wetland & Coastal Erosion
Permit #10458 & 10458C to increase the size, of previously
approved swimming pool to 531 sq.ft. , increase size of basement
entry stair to 68 sq. ft. ; construct a 246 sq.ft. Wood patio;
remove approved dormers at rear of existing dwelling.
Located: 960 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-2-21
Number 6, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of
MAUREEN DACIMO REVOCABLE TRUST requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit #10756 to remove existing 6' x 40'
float and two anchor piling, 2' x 18' ramp, 26' piling storage,
kayak ramp, and 165sq.ft of debris; revegetate any disturbed
area with native plant species.
Located: 5240 Narrow River Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-27-2-4
Number 7, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of
JOSEPH & CAROLYN FERRARA requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit #10730 for the existing fixed dock, ramp & float
to remain as-is; raise bulkhead by 2" instead of previously
approved 14".
Located: Property off of Osprey Nest Road, Greenport. SCTM#
Board of Trustees 10 January 14, 2026
1000-35-7-12
Number 8, En-Consultants on behalf of JOSHUA HERRENKOHL &
JOY KILPATRICK requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #10797 to construct a 4' x 10.5' enclosed 1-story front
entry porch; a 3' x 6' waterside stoop and steps; and a hot tub
within the footprint of the proposed 15 ' x 34 ' swimming pool, to
be relocated to the east less than 6 inches.
Located: 750 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-2-18
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
X. MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, Moorings/Stake & Pulley
Systems,
I'll make a motion to approve Number 1, as follows:
Number 1, DAVID THOMPSON requests a Stake/Pulley System in Narrow
River for a 15 ' sail / outboard motorboat, replacing Stake #10.
Access: Public
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
XI . PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral XI, Public Hearings,
At this time I 'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting agenda
and enter into the Public Hearings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter of the
following applications for permits under Chapter 275 and Chapter 111
of the Southold Town Code. I have an affidavit of publication from
the Suffolk Times, pertinent correspondence may be read prior to
asking for comments from the public. Please keep your comments
organized and brief, five minutes or less, if possible.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Amendments, number 1, Jeffrey Patanjo on
behalf of MICHAEL & ERIN MANGAN requests an Amendment to Wetland
Permit #10731 to install a 104' long by 2 .5' tall CCA timber
retaining wall along the landward edge of the 15' wide non-turf
buffer area.
Located: 350 Blue Marlin Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-57-1-25
The Trustees conducted a field inspection January 7th, 2026.
Notes read:
Retaining wall limited to two-feet in height, and to add a
five-foot vegetated, non-turf buffer landward from the top of the
new retaining wall.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
Board of Trustees 11 January 14, 2026
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicants. We can
conform to those conditions and offer revised plans.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that the retaining wall be limited to no more
than two feet in height, and that a five-foot vegetated non-turf
buffer to be installed landward of the new retaining wall, with
new plans submitted showing the modification.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 2, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of BLUE
MARLIN REALTY, LLC requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit
#10821 to install a 100' long by 2.5' tall CCA timber retaining
wall along the landward edge of the 15' wide non-turf buffer
area.
Located: 450 Blue Marlin Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-57-1-26
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Trustees visited the property on the 7th of January,
noted that the retaining wall should be limited to two feet in
height and that a five-foot vegetated non-tur buffer landward
from the top of the new retaining wall to be installed.
Is there anyone here to speak regarding this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. I am in
agreeance with to the conditions and the revised plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like
to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the stipulation of new plans depicting a wall no higher
than two feet in height, and a vegetated buffer five foot with
native vegetation be installed.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Under Wetlands and Coastal Erosion Permits,
Number 1, REVISED SITE PLAN RECEIVED ON 1/6/2026 Stephen Kiely, Esq.
Board of Trustees 12 January 14, 2026
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 an as-built fireplace on beach path side of each
planter; remove sod egress to beach and existing retaining walls
along path to beach, not to be replaced; the outer sides of the
existing path to beach to revegetate naturally while maintaining a
4 ' wide access path; for the as-built 14 .3'x22.3' detached garage;
and landward of the as-built planters establish and perpetually
maintain a ±9' wide (approximately 864sq.ft. ) Vegetated non-turf
buffer area by removing sod and planting salt meadow cordgrass
(Spartina patens) , and/or other ecologically appropriate native
species.
Located: 1000 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-1-5. 1.
The Trustees visited the site on 1/12/26. Notes from our visit
read: Need to move wall landward and replant seaward. Need to add
garage to plans and application.
The LWRP found the project inconsistent. In it' s review on
October 14th, 2025. The inconsistencies stem from Policy
standards 4. 1, 6. 1 (b) and (c) .
The gist of the LWRP's notes is that the coastal erosion
hazard line presents the line at which any disturbance of the
ground fill or planting should occur, none should occur further
seaward from the coastal erosion hazard line. To be consistent,
the land seaward of the CEHA should be revegetated with native
beach vegetation and need for using land in the CEHA is unclear
because of the available outdoor living area in the rear and
side yards of the parcel that is landward of CEHA is around
3, 600 square feet.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the
application?
MR. KIELY: Yes. Stephen Kiely. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and
rest of the Board. Again, my name is Stephen Kiely and I
represent the applicant 1000 Soundbeach Drive LLC, also
representing the applicant here tonight is Christopher Cole from
Cole Environmental Services, Inc.
The subject property is an approved sound-front property
located at 1000 Sound Beach Drive in Mattituck, just shy of an
acre. We are here tonight to respectfully request a wetlands and
CEHA permit to maintain a grass turf area, fill for same, and
two wooden tie planters ten to 12 inches high, three-feet wide,
and 82 feet long, respectively.
In or about 2021, my client installed the subject grass
area and planters to provide his family with some modicum of a
useful backyard. He did so in harmony with his neighbors'
historically-established backyards. He did so without any
knowledge that a permit was required to do so.
To further substantiate this claim, in full transparency
submitted a building permit application for a detached garage
with a survey that showed this area in or about 2023.
Board of Trustees 13 January 14, 2026
It was not until the final inspection for the garage that
it was uncovered that a wetland and CEHA permit was indeed
required. To procure said permits we first applied to the DEC to
who ultimately approved less than what was originally there, but
what is existing on the ground now.
During the site visit with the Board it was determined that
an alternative proposal for the area was more appropriate, a
proposal which we feel will not have any negative environmental
nor esthetic impacts on the Long Island Sound, nor the beach
area, nor a measurable increase erosion, nor negatively impact
any shoreline protected feature.
I'll now turn it over to Mr. Cole to present same.
MR. COLE: Good evening. Chris Cole, Cole Environmental.
To follow-up on Stephen's presentation, we met the Board
onsite to discuss the buffer in October. And the discussion with
the Board was to bring the buffer landward of where we had
originally proposed it to be in line with the retaining wall to
the west.
So during receipt of updated plans showing the increased
buffer, the buffer is going to be nine feet the whole way across
the property, and just maintaining the four-foot wide access
path. We are also removing the timber walls that are affronting
the beach access, leaving the wood planters there.
So, I'm here to answer any additional questions you have in
regards to the buffer.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Anyone else wish to speak regarding the
application, or members of the Board?
(No response) .
So one of our site visits over the months leading up to
tonight' s hearing, we met with the owner onsite. The owner
agreed to return this property towards what was prior to what
was previously submitted, and that included some of the changes
that you made here, which is narrowing the access path to the
beach to four feet, and replanting with native vegetation. The
wood retaining walls at the beach entrance to be removed. And it
was spoken that the ATV access was not necessary at this
property.
And I think more to the point, the Trustees discussed
pulling the wood-tie planters back from the dunal system because
they had artificially interrupted that dunal feature, and we
agreed on a compromise of holding it back to where you are
currently showing the wall at 0. 6 elevation.
So the area depicted in your plans in green should be
returned to a salt meadow cord grass, Spartina patens. And the
wood-tie planters, in my view as a Trustees should either be
removed or pulled back to that line where you propose
vegetation. And in fact the further review of the coastal
erosion hazard line and the LWRP is perhaps the place for that
revegetation to take place.
And in conversations with Mr. Kiely in the fields, he said
it 's no problem, let' s do it. We waited for updated plans. We
reviewed these and found them didn't quite come to muster.
MR. COLE: If we remove the wood planter and bring that landward
of the Spartina Patens buffer, would that be acceptable to the
Board of Trustees 14 January 14, 2026
Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think after a review and going back and
forth, and it seems like some pushback showed up, I think it
might make sense to move the natural vegetation back to the CEHA
line at this point. And back to where it was prior.
And I, you know, someone with the name of Cole Environmental who
stands here and says, oh, we can put planters in the middle of a
dune, and remove native vegetation and put sod, if we brought in
another consulting firm that we hired on our behalf, I think it
would be pretty embarrassing for the record.
MR. COLE: Well, we are not suggesting, you know, that the
planters be -- they were installed --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was just suggested, though, on the record
tonight, that there was no environmental impact.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think one of the problems in this location
is the neighboring properties have sprawled into the dunal
feature, leading a homeowner to believe that this is how it' s
done here. And I think, environmentally speaking, Trustee
Krupski is right that the wood-tie planters don't belong there.
They should be, this entire property should be revegetated back
to the coastal erosion hazard line in order to restore that
feature. And as the LWRP points out, prevents erosion and
further undermining of lateral lands.
MR. COLE: So the beach grass that is there is very, it stands
very far into, you know, toward The Sound. It' s healthy, it' s
established. And just one second.
If we remove the wood planters entirely and revegetated the
area that the wood planters are in, would that be acceptable to
keep the buffer as presented?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I just want to say one more thing for the
record here. I think it' s also worth noting that Mr. Kiely
stated that the applicant was not aware that they had to come
into the Trustees office for a permit. And it sort of creates
the illusion that this is something the Trustees would have
permitted; removing native vegetation in favor of sod grass.
Which is not something that this Board would have approved in
the first place.
So, and this idea that they would like some modicum of a
usable yard is a little bit rich given what they already had
previously --
MR. KIELY: Okay, I would like to make a request to table this
because this is a complete 180 from what was said to me on the
site. Complete 180. And I hope you have Minutes of when you
discuss this at the work session because I would like to FOIL
those or get a copy of those, because this is ridiculous.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, Mr. Kiely, just to counter that --
MR. KIELY: We had a site visit. We all had an agreement, just
move it here, everyone, Kumbaya. And then at this point you now
do an about face. And you are talking about a dunal feature.
We are all out there. There is no dune. You're making up a dune.
There is no dune there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There actually is a dune --
MR. KIELY: That does not meet the definition of a dune pursuant
to your code. So, but, I would like to table this, please.
Board of Trustees 15 January 14, 2026
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just for the record, Mr. Kiely, the site plan
survey that you submitted showed where the yard used to be back
in 2001. Like the picture that is up on the screen right now.
That is the way it was. Your client --
MR. KIELY: (Interrupting) .
(Participants speaking over each other) .
MR. KIELY: With all due respect, I would like to table this.
With all due respect, I would like to table this.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: (Continuing) and now you are trying to --
MR. KIELY: With all due respect, I would like to table this.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I 'm sorry, please don't speak over the
Trustees.
MR. KIELY: I 'm not asking for anything at this point.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We understand what you're asking for and we'll
make our record clear.
MR. KIELY: I'm asking for a table. I'm asking for a table.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just one more point while we have you on the
record here. You said you submitted to the Building Department
for the garage. We, the Trustees --
MR. KIELY: You have no jurisdiction over that. You have no
jurisdiction over that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It' s 100% within 100 feet of a dunal feature.
MR. KIELY: I wholeheartedly disagree.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Excuse me, Mr. Kiely --
(Stenographer notes Mr. Kiely is interrupting the Board members) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Please stop interrupting the Board.
MR. KIELY: I wholeheartedly disagree. I asked for it to be
tabled.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Kiely, we do not have to abide by your
request.
MR. KIELY: I'm building a record and keep talking. I want this
tabled. That is my request as the applicant.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In a second I'm going to ask you to leave.
MR. KIELY: That' s fine. Then it will be tabled.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is up to the Board.
MR. KIELY: I 'm going to leave now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is totally up to the Board.
MR. KIELY: It is totally inappropriate that you guys did a 180
and then, I'm assuming you had the conversation at a work
session, and I'm demanding to have those Minutes. And you
better have those Minutes of those meetings, if you're
discussing applications.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Kiely -- Mr. Kiely, we are trying to have
a discussion right now, and you are informing us that you are
tabling it. And we can not have that discussion.
You are talking about removing dunal vegetation. That is a
dune. By Town Code Chapter 275 -- Mr. Kiely, please stop
interrupting as we are speaking. It' s a dunal feature. It' s been
n record as a dunal feature. In Chapter 275 it' s listed as a
on dunal feature. And you can get any expert you want --
(The reporter notes the applicant is speaking over Trustee
Goldsmith) .
MS . HULSE: MR. Kiely, we are just going to -- Mr. Goldsmith is
just going to complete what he is saying, just for the record,
Board of Trustees 16 January 14, 2026
because our stenographer can't possibly take, as you know, as an
attorney, multiple people talking at the same time.
So I'm just going to ask if we can have one at a time.
Mr. Goldsmith was actually in the middle of talking. Let him
complete his thoughts on that, if you would. 1
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, Mr. Kiely, again, setbacks, jurisdiction,
Chapter 275. It is a dunal feature. The trustees have
jurisdiction within 100 feet of a dune. This is a dune.
MR. KIELY: I don't agree that that' s a dune. It' s a beach.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Again, please stop interrupting, Mr. Kiely.
MR. KIELY: I'm making an application --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Again. Stop interrupting.
MR. KIELY: Be adjourned. Don't worry about it. I'm leaving. I'm
leaving, Nick.
MS. HULSE: So Mr. Goldsmith is just going to finish his
comments. Go ahead, Mr. Goldsmith.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, again, we can read Chapter 275.
(Mr. Kiely is speaking over Trustee Goldsmith and the
stenographer notes an accurate record can not be made) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Stop talking for a second.
(Mr. Kiely exits the hearing) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Again, Chapter 275 specifies what is and is
not jurisdiction based on vegetation, and "dune" being one of
them.
We had the discussion, as you can see on the screen and
what was submitted in the paperwork where that lawn was back in
2021. They put sod and replanted, removed the dunal feature, and
that, if that was not done, that garage where it is located is
within 100 feet of the edge of the dune, which brings it into
Trustee jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Before Mr. Kiely took his ball and went home,
I was going to read the LWRP a little more closely for the
record.
The retaining walls and fire places and addition of fill
and sod seaward of the coastal erosion hazard area destroyed the
natural community and native plants immediately adjacent. And in
the future storms will cause the potential for floating debris
to enter The Sound. This could also lead to additional erosion
when the retaining wall fails and there is no native beach
adapted vegetation to hold the sand in place.
To be consistent with the LWRP, which like the members of
the public here this evening to understand that the role of the
Trustees is to bring things into consistency with the LWRP --
pardon the pause.
To be consistent with the LWRP, construction and fill of
any type should be landward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area
line. And the land seaward of the CEHA, Coastal Erosion Hazard
Area, should be revegetated with native beach vegetation.
So, having reviewed the LWRP, I think it' s important to
recognize that finding and try to find a way to bring this
project into conformity with its findings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it's important to state that having
reviewed this site and having been very familiar with this site
Board of Trustees 17 January 14, 2026
and visiting neighboring properties for the last decade or so,
it's very clear that the applicant removed native species and
native habitat of a dune which leads up to a sound beach,
replaced it with retaining walls, planters and gas, two
gas-powered fireplaces. Backfilling was brought in with
untested materials, irrigation and sod grass.
The application tonight was to restore a portion of that,
but ultimately we're here to try to look out for the environment
and, you know, maintain a fair property use and balance of the
environment. And I think that is what this Board is trying to
do, and that's where my thoughts, at least, came from tonight,
with trying to find a restoration project here.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Anyone else wish to speak regarding this
application, or Members of the Board wish to comment?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion to table this
application at the request of Stephen Kiely, Esq.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Under Wetland Permits, Number 1, 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 14.5'x21' attached garage
with 61x6' rear entry platform and steps, a 5'x27.5 ' (irregular)
covered front porch with 21x8.7 ' steps, an 111x20' rear covered
porch with 3.401x16' steps; a 101x20' on-grade paver patio off rear
of dwelling; two a/c units; install a stormwater drainage system;
install an I/A OWTS sanitary system landward of dwelling
and 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 to be fully vegetated with
native plantings and with a 4 ' wide access path to the bulkhead.
Located: 225 Williamsberg Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-14
The Trustees most recently conducted an in-house review of this
project, noting to check buffers, save trees and confirm that the
pool is removed.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent, noting Policy 6 and stating that this proposal
includes constructing a house and a pool that do not meet the
setback requirements . The house is within 56 feet and pool is at
50 feet or less. For this reason the proposed activities are
inconsistent.
And with regard to the proposed non-disturbance buffer,
species and details of plantings should be listed on the plan
prior to approval.
I will note that since this was reviewed, we have received
new plans that show removal of the pool and some details of the
planting plan.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
Board of Trustees 18 January 14, 2026
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant.
This is our second hearing for this. We've made a bunch of
changes from the previous application, the previous hearing, as
you see on the revised plans I provided to the Board.
Some of the items that I can just summarize are: You
wanted to see all of the existing trees indicated. So we
surveyed all of the existing trees, labeled them all to remain
untouched. We also corrected the property line error, and for
the record I was incorrect last hearing, that the property line
is in fact, the whole road is the adjacent owner' s property
line. So, on the record, I was wrong in that statement. But we
did correct it on the proposed plans. We do continually have a
gravel driveway, and the proposed location of the driveway
doesn't impact any of the trees on the street. That would be the
property owner had asked that they remain.
We corrected the pier line. The pier line had some issues
with regard to house number 145 that was permitted, so we
adjusted the house number 145 plans to meet the currently
approved plans that are on record with the Board, adjust the
pier line, and now as shown the connection of the pier line for
the residence between house 145 to the north and house 305 to
the south, all of our work is beyond the proposed pier line,
including all of decks and the steps as well. There is no
proposed work beyond the pier line.
We are providing proof drains, as originally proposed. All
the patios and decks, as mentioned, are behind the pier line.
The proposed pool that was part of the original application
has been removed, and the planting plan for the non-turf buffer,
which is a total of 15-feet away from the wood deck. So it' s a
total of 20 feet away from the existing bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, so much, for the updates and for
updating us on some of those issues that we were having on the
previous application.
I should also note that we are in possession of a letter
from the neighbor which we have reviewed, and the neighbor was
present at the last work session. I'm sorry, at the last public
hearing.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
(No response) .
Any questions or comments from the members of the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor":
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application
and with the condition that the applicant preserve the trees
along Williamsburg Drive, and with the removal of the pool and
house set within the neighboring pier line, I am thereby
bringing this application into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 19 January 14, 2026
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, Islandwide Engineering & Land
Surveying on behalf of CHULA VISTA HOME, LLC requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a proposed 3, 325sq.ft. Total square footage
two-story, single-family dwelling with a 32sq. ft. Front covered
porch and attached garage, a 21.8 'x18 ' 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.
The Trustees most recently went back there January 7th,
2025, notes all the concerns from the previous site visit
remain.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is the proposed actions include constructing a
residence, covered patio and lanai within 100 feet of tidal
wetland boundary, in what is currently undeveloped land, with
native tree and shrub cover.
The proposed structure, while of scale somewhat similar to
the adjacent homes, encroaches closer to the wetland shoreline
than the adjacent homes, and is significantly closer to the
wetlands than the previously approved residence under Trustees
permit #10343. The lot is deep enough to allow for all proposed
construction to be moved away from the water and outside of the
hundred-foot wetland setback.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, Islandwide Engineering, on behalf of
the applicant. Again, this is a carryover from last month or the
month previous. Plans were modified based on comments received.
We did move the proposed house an additional ten feet further to
Lakeside Drive, which pushes it ten feet further away from the
wetland line.
We minimized the height of the retaining wall to a maximum
three feet height, as recommended by the Trustees. We also
minimized the sizing and the requirements of the retaining wall
for the lengths of it on the sides, the north side and the south
side.
We then relocated the sanitary system further away from the
wetlands as part of the moving the proposed house further away
an additional ten feet. So there is additional separation of
the sanitary system.
The other thing we did is we added in proposed area drains
at the seaward side, in between the proposed residence and the
Board of Trustees 20 January 14, 2026
proposed retaining wall. And this, under this application, it is
better for the environment, in our opinion, is that all of the
work is outside of the wetland area, all of the work is outside
of the buffer area. We did also have an additional 469 square
feet of area outside of the buffer, but in between the buffer
line and the proposed retaining wall that we are going to allow
to return to natural. So the project is going to gain an
additional 469 square feet of buffer, of vegetated buffer area.
These drains are going to pick up any of the potential
runoff from the site prior to it entering into the wetlands.
On the previous application, that's currently approved,
although there are roof drains, there is no provisions to
capture any runoff from the property itself into the wetland
area. Under there application, everything will be contained
within the retaining wall. There will be no runoff at all.
That' s the changes on this. If we address the concerns of
runoff, all of the roof leaders are going to be connected to
drywells. The proposed driveway is going to be a gravel
driveway, and it' s also going to have a drywell in it to capture
any runoff. And it' s going to have an IA-style sanitary system.
And we did as much as we can to be within what could potentially
be approvable by the ZBA for the front yard setback.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Patanjo, I must be looking at, what is
the latest set of plans that you have? Because the latest ones
that I have in this file are stamped December 8th.
MR. PATANJO: Stamped December 8th?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, sir.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: By the office.
MR. PATANJO: Oh, yes. Mine, good luck reading this. It's
December 1st on the revision dates. Which potentially could be
the December 8th plan.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. So, luckily my eyes can still see that.
December 1st.
So, with those same submitted plans on the second sheet,
two of two, you have a pier line, a proposed pier line which is
not accurately depicted, but even in that depiction your house
is halfway, the pier line goes right through the middle of the
house.
MR. PATANJO: Yes, those are -- are those correct?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The line you drew is going off of the deck,
and as you know, the pier line is supposed to go off liveable
structure. But either way, even with the use of the deck, the
house is still too far seaward, and is well seaward of the pier
line.
MR. PATANJO: Right. So if you look at that, the pier line plan,
and it does look like it's correct. So we did a pier line, a
straight across line, and we also did the projected shoreline as
the pier line. Two different methods.
So if you look at the house that was previously permitted,
it' s the rectangular footprint underneath it labeled:
Previously approved residence, prior application permit number
10343.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So I don't think that is accurate because we
have the previously-approved permit in the file here, and that
Board of Trustees 21 January 14, 2026
structure was located 103 feet from the wetland line. Yours is
proposed at 77 feet.
MR. PATANJO: Right.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So --
MR. PATANJO: It' s about 30 feet additional. Because that whole,
that' s accurate. If you look at the size of that, the addition,
if you look at that little bump-out that is 19.7 feet, and the
covered patio at grade is another 12 feet. So that's 30 feet,
32 feet. And if you look at the plan it' s about 32 feet on the
overlay of the old original approved and then the proposed.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So going back to the old permit that was
approved, it was at that location because I believe that was the
only location they could get- it where it adhered to the pier
line.
MR. PATANJO: Actually -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, just to interject. I think, you know, we
have the pier line in the code that we deal with on a monthly
basis and don't, we can't flex on that.
I believe what happened with the prior application, which I
don't even know if it' s largely applicable to this application,
but by pulling the structure out of our jurisdiction and just
applying for the construction portion and the buffers, we were
able to not work around the pier line, but then that pier line
does not apply. So that is how we ended up with the last
project.
MR. PATANJO: Yes, I did the last application a couple years ago,
and then he sold the property and the new homeowner wanted a
slightly different house.
So, yes and no. It' s a couple years back and a couple jobs
back, so I don't fully recall if that was the case.
One of the things that I have done in the past and has been
accepted by other boards, not necessarily this one, is with pier
lines we also take into consideration the curvature and the
buildability, a word like that, on the site. Because this, where
this property line is, if you look at the road, it comes to a
point, and you could see, even on the aerial that we provided,
that this is the bend in the road, the shoreline bends out in
the road. So we are kind of faced with a situation here that we
have zoning setbacks to adhere to with, for the front yards of
the houses, and we also have the issue of, the other houses
inherently, by the curvature of the road, are forward of this
proposed house and the use ability of the property meeting
codes.
So essentially if we did a pier line we would not be able
to build a house here because it would be so narrow to meet
house to house. If you get what I 'm saying.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And as Trustee Krupski mentioned, that' s
where we ended up last time, and it feels like deja vu all over
again, as we are right back to where we were previously, and we
worked with you and the applicant for months to come up with a
suitable application that was granted the permit. And here we
are, you know, less than two years later going right back and
trying to push something forward that had been worked over for a
couple months.
Board of Trustees 22 January 14, 2026
MR. PATANJO: Yes. One of the things that I think we could do to
kind of assist with this would be to, you know, remove that
proposed at-grade covered patio and get a separation from the
wetlands of, at the 77 .82. And again, there is additional
environmental positives for this proposed project, and the
environmental positives are building the actual retaining wall
putting in the area drain, stopping all the runoff, and, you
know, it always had an IA system, so that' s not an added
benefit. But if we did remove that covered patio on that side
to remove the separation distance.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It' s really, I mean, looking at the plans, my
read is the covered patio is the small white portion.
MR. PATANJO: It' s a dashed portion, right. Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. So it' s really, your project is so close
to being, and just outside of jurisdiction to where the last
project was, it' s really just that home, that finger that comes
off the house there.
MR. PATANJO: Which is the master bedroom.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
MR. PATANJO: It' s a big part of this house for them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. PATANJO: And I can't, we are going to have to go for ZBA
approval for the front yard setback regardless. So we are
trying to come into some sort of a workable plan prior to going
to the ZBA. And the client said if you have to remove the back
covered at-grade patio, remove it. If we have to shorten up the
master suite a little bit, they don't want to do that,
obviously. That is their whole bread and butter is that
backyard.
And again, the environmental, the benefits of this is not,
during the construction, there are going to be retaining walls,
I'm sorry, silt fences surrounding the whole work site.
But we are building, elevating the ground, building a
retaining wall, putting in area drains, and swaling it back toward
the house.
So there will be no runoff from the site. So any of the
contributory area from this being a couple feet closer to the
wetlands is taken care of by area drains and, you know, the
addition of the non-turf buffer area. The area that is going to
remain, return to natural, which is the 469 square feet.
So, we've got a lot of positives environmentally for this
project. And if it is something that would be acceptable to the
Board, we can put an additional ten-foot wide or 15-foot wide
non-turf buffer at the top of this retaining wall for the
purpose of anything, zero possibility of any runoff.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, again, Mr. Patanjo. I would just advise
you to look at your previously reviewed and approved application
that was at a greater setback, that did not have any retaining
wall on the seaward side and side of the house. And as you
know, this Board is bound by code, so we can't approve something
that is in front of the pier line. And again, we hashed this
out a couple of years ago and came to an acceptable conclusion.
So I would advise you to go back and look at that, perhaps
review the minutes and the notes from the last application, and
Board of Trustees 23 January 14, 2026
go back to that drawing board where you shorten it up and/or
shift it so that it is at a greater setback from the wetlands
and is something that we could then potentially approve, because
as it stands right now, it' s in violation of our code.
MR. PATANJO: Okay, we'll revisit this. Is there any objection to
the retaining wall, the idea of capturing any runoff and putting
in the area drains and raising the grade outside of that
wetlands area?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, yes. Looking at the proposed, you have
the proposed retaining wall on the property line. As you know,
we frown upon that. We want that off of the property line. And
your retaining walls, this Board has stuck to two feet or less
in height. Potential vegetation on the neighbor' s side of any
proposed wall. There is also a question about a pool, because
it was in, somewhere shown on one set of plans, but it' s not
show on all of them.
Is there a proposed pool?
MR. PATANJO: No, no proposed pool. It would never be
permissible. If it was on a previous application, it's no longer
on this application. It may have been on the original.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. We do the South Florida Design, sheet
A-2.
MR. PATANJO: Oh, that's the building plans. You don't need to
look at that. It' s not on our proposed site plan.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So the building plans that show a pool, we
just ignore that. Disregard the pool on the plans.
MR. PATANJO: Yeah, just forget about that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. All right, got it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just for the record's sake, this Board has a
long history of not flexing on the pier line and when it comes
to docks and houses, covered structures, at times, you know,
limiting projects to by a foot even. So it' s come down to that.
So here we are talking 23 feet. So.
MR. PATANJO: Yes, so we'll revisit it, and I would like to table
it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All right. Thank you. Before we table it, is
there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: The only other thing I would add is that it
does look like that master suite is about 20 feet, and you are
about 20 feet, you know, you almost meet the required setback of
100 feet without that master bedroom, and so if there is a way
to, I know, of course, there is a lot of design that has already
gone into this, but that is likely the place to look, so.
Even if you can't meet the pier line, you can likely meet the
setback.
MR. PATANJO: They' ll sleep in the guest room. Understood. Thank
you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing no further comments, I make a motion
to table this application at the applicant's request.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 3, Thomas Blore, AIA on behalf of
Board of Trustees 24 January 14, 2026
WAMSLEY FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
401x26' two-story dwelling, and to construct a 238sq.ft. First
floor addition with a 99sq. ft. Second-story addition above; and
to replace the decking and railings on the existing 17 .51x40. 1'
seaward deck with steps in-place.
Located: 490 Williamsberg Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-10
The Trustees visited the property on the 7th of January,
noted it was a straightforward, landward addition.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BLORE: Good evening. Thomas Blore, the architect for the
project. Would you like me to originally describe it, or --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you would like to. We reviewed it in the
field and at work session.
MR. BLORE: Yes, so just like you stated, it' s on the opposite
side of the house. So this construction is landward side. You
know, it' s a small, modest addition, just to expand the
kitchen/living room, add an additional bedroom -- bathroom,
sorry -- within the second floor.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application, or any additional
comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. 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) .
MR. BLORE: Thank you, have a good evening.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 4, North Star Engineering on behalf of
ALEXANDER FRIEDMAN & ERICA TENNENEAUM requests a Wetland Permit
for the existing two-story 1, 912sq. ft. (Footprint) dwelling with
576sq. ft. Southwest deck, and to construct a 745sq. ft. Addition,
a 236sq. ft. West roof covered patio, a 191sq.ft. West trellis
covered patio, a 143sq. ft. North roof covered patio, and a
561sq. ft. North uncovered patio; existing 790sq.ft. Guest house
with 302sq.ft. Uncovered deck; abandon existing septic system
and install an I/A OWTS sanitary system along with a pump
station and geomat leaching field; and to relocate existing gas,
water and electric lines.
Located: 350 MacDonald Road, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-4-14. 1
The Trustees visited the site on 1/7 . Notes from that read:
Two-to-one tree replacement for any removal. Maximize setbacks.
The LWRP found the project to be inconsistent on January
9th, 2026. The reasons include protect and restore tidal and
freshwater wetlands and setbacks. The residence is a new
construction is proposed within 65 feet from the water on the
one side, and approximately 50 feet from the water on the other,
which does not meet the minimum setback of 100 feet for
residences. If permitted, the Trustees should consider requiring
Board of Trustees 25 January 14, 2026
expansion of the gravel area to further protect surface waters.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the application?
MR. NICHOLSON: Good evening, everyone, my name is Zackery
Nicholson, I 'm the architect representing the client, along with
a septic engineer Maggie Vavrica.
Before I go into the description of the project, it came to
my attention the survey you guys were looking at when we were in
the field the other day is an outdated one. So I have some
additional documentation I wanted to provide.
(Approaching the dais) .
Thank you, very much.
So the first page there is an updated survey which
correctly shows the proposed porches on the northwest side of
the house, and it corrects a clerical error that there is no
proposed work to the existing porch or deck on the southwest
side of the house. And then followed by that is just some
diagrams that I think will help describe a couple of things I
wanted to mention.
So, in brief, you know, the intention for this project is
for this to be the forever home for my client. They would like
to be able to enjoy this property for many generations with
their growing family and be able to enjoy better than they
currently can the indoor and outdoor spaces of the property.
The existing southern deck is, just gets blasted with sun
and there is really no way for them to comfortably spend a lot
of time out there in the summer, so that is why the majority of
the proposed additions are on the north side of the existing
structure.
I would like to note that we are not proposing to encroach
any further to the water than the existing structure to the west
side of the living room, or the existing CO'd guest cottage on
the north side of the property.
The furthest most projecting element to the water is a
covered porch that has a green roof on top of it. So the closest
piece of enclosed conditioned space is 46. 8 feet to the west and
72 feet to the north.
There is no new hardscaping proposed any closer than the
existing structure, and there is no proposed work to the
existing cottage on the north side of the property.
If you look at the diagram on the third page I gave you,
you'll see that the hundred-foot setback line in blue is, the
entire existing structure is within that setback. And the
setback lines in red show the Zoning Board setbacks. So, you
know, we had a relatively small area to work within, certainly
no places to expand outside of your jurisdiction.
The entire proposed structures are conforming to the ZBA in
terms of setbacks, height. We are actually under the maximum
height. We conform to the sky plane. We are conforming with the
GFA, and we are under the maximum allowable lot coverage.
You had mentioned at our site meeting some concerns about
views of the proposed addition. A very small portion of it is
two stories. Only 45% of the conditioned living footprint is a
two-story building, the rest is all one-story additions, covered
patios, green roofs.
Board of Trustees 26 January 14, 2026
In addition to the structural proposed additions we are
proposing to do a new IA system due to the current septic system
is inadequate and failing. So this will significantly improve
the wastewater treatment and reduce nitrogen loading to the
creek.
The proposed green roofs are our attempt to soften the
impact on the site by reducing stormwater runoff. It also
improves the visual impact of the property. And any of the flat
roofs that are not landscaped, I'm proposing to collect any
excess stormwater runoff into a rainwater collection system, and
use that for irrigating gardens and the lawn.
I think it' s worth noting that the existing pitched roof,
we are proposing to raise and create a flat roof. This is for
twofold purposes. The proposed addition has a finished floor
elevation 18 inches higher than the existing structure, so there
would be a head clearance issue where those two elements
intersect.
This also kind of unifies the language of the structure,
it' s kind of this piecemealed building as it sits now and so
ties everything together visually, and I think it' s worth noting
that the proposed flat roof over that space is not any taller
than the existing ridge of the hipped roof.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I interrupt?
MR. NICHOLSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just a question about what variety of green
roof are you proposing to install, out of curiosity?
MR. NICHOLSON: To be honest, I don't have a specific grass in
mind. But something native. It would be a shallow planting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean what percentage, so you're talking about
doing a grass planting on the roof?
MR. NICHOLSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And what percentage of the roof is covered with
that?
MR. NICHOLSON: Basically the entire, let' s see here, go to my --
I think I handed all my handouts out. Do you guys have any extra
ones?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: (Handing) . Here you go.
MR. NICHOLSON: So we are looking at the plan titled just "site
plan" . The section that' s labeled "proposed covered patio" and
"proposed addition", that whole corridor there would be a green
roof. We are also entertaining the idea of doing that above the
second-story addition as well.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just looking at the third sheet in this set,
what exactly is that depicting?
MR. NICHOLSON: So that' s just a diagram to show you where the
buildable envelope is for the property. So the heavy red
rectangle represents all the Zoning Board setbacks, and the blue
"L" on the bottom right-hand side represents the 100-foot
setback from the water up to the north end to the west.
So you can see there is a very small portion of the
property that could be built, you know, conforming to both sets
of setbacks.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So on the, let' s say the left side of the page
Board of Trustees 27 January 14, 2026
here, that is the red hashes are showing zoning setbacks?
MR. NICHOLSON: Correct.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: From the water or from the property line?
MR. NICHOLSON: From the property.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, got it.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Those are considered side yards in the rear?
Because I note this -- is this considered a corner lot?
MR. NICHOLSON: It is, so to the north would be a rear yard, to
the west is a side yard, to the south is a front yard, and to
the east is a front yard.
TRUSTEE FINORA: I wonder if you have two rear yards as well on
the corner, but that' s a zoning detail as well.
My concern about this proposal, and I commend the
thoughtful design and the consideration of the green roof. It' s
just the projection toward the creek to the rear, I'm looking at
the arrangement of the existing structures. It' s already
exceptionally close to the revetment. I followed the logic that
there is a very small buildable envelope here to begin with, but
I question the need for the additions and the further
encroachment to the creek.
MR. NICHOLSON: Sure. You know, in the beginning of this design
process we entertained additions to let' s just say the northeast
of the existing structure. It's my client' s desire to have these
new living spaces. The majority of what we are proposing here
is living space. We are going to -- the current foyer is going
to become a bedroom. We are only proposing one new bedroom on
the second story of the addition. The rest of it is living and
entertainment space. Um, know, they want that indoor/outdoor
connection via these outdoor patios, and they would like that to
be adjacent to the yard, not out by the driveway. It kind of
makes more sense for that program to be, well, on the north side
of the existing structure.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Do you have the distance to the leaching
fields from the wetland?
MS. VAVRICA: I 'm Maggie Vavrica from Northstar Engineering. We
designed the septic system for this project.
So the distance from the leaching is about, approximately
12817", which is increased to where the existing system is. I'm
not sure the existing, the distance the existing system is to
the creek, but the new system is an IA system, so it' s
significantly going to treat the nitrogen. It' s further than the
existing system. And it's a low profile system. Because
groundwater was encountered like 2.7 feet below grade. So any
kind of like leaching valley or low concrete structure just
would not have worked. And the existing system is most likely
sitting in groundwater currently. So the new system -- and
something else to take into consideration, the system was the
sanitary system was placed on the east portion of the grass. It
probably makes more sentence for the sanitary system to be there
rather than additions, just because this is constantly going to
leach waste water back into the ground. And we that want
further from the creek, you know properly away from groundwater,
and it' s a low profile system because of groundwater elevation,
so it does take up a pretty significant square footage on the
Board of Trustees 28 January 14, 2026
property.
TRUSTEE FINORA: What is the status of the review from the Health
Department regarding the septic.
MS. VAVRICA: We are at a point where the two comments are just a
DEC permit and a Town wetland permit. But they are okay.
They've reviewed the layout and the system and they are
satisfied with all technical comments. The sizing of the system.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Do you need any retaining walls or fill or
grading to accommodate?
MS. VAVRICA: That could be an option, but I don't know if it
would just be kind of a raised retaining wall area, you know,
over there. And we are now 100 feet away from, the Health
Department has setbacks where the leaching has to be 100 feet
from surface water, which the current system isn't, but now the
proposed leaching will be.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So I appreciate you saying the setback from
the rip rap on the side, but I'm asking for the closest point,
which would be actually the floating dock side.
So it appears to be approximately 65-ish feet from there,
based on other lines on the plan, but I would like to see that
line drawn.
MS. VAVRICA: Yes, that can be added.
TRUSTEE FINORA: I'm sorry, could you clarify what the status of
the permit was with the health Department? Is there Health
Department approval.
MS. VAVRICA: Yes. There' s not approval, no. The two comments
remaining are a DEC wetlands permit and a Town wetlands permit.
TRUSTEE FINORA: That' s the comment from the Health Department.
MS. VAVRICA: Yes.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Understood.
MR. NICHOLSON: We are currently in a holding process with the
DEC because I mentioned onsite last week, we received a
violation letter for the rock revetment, which I don't know how
much we should discuss about that right now, but when we were
requested in 2021 to install the ten-foot buffer around the
property, it was, that rock revetment was cleaned up and
reinforced, and apparently there was no DEC permit for that at
that time, nor was there ever a permit from the previous owner
for the rock revetment installation in the first place. So we
had no idea that we were in this violation, really. So, you
know, we are on their calendar for April 4th.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right. Anyone else wishing to speak
regarding the application? Members of the Board?
(Negative response) .
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 the application
with the addition of a five-foot vegetated non-turf buffer along
the seaward edge of the property, with plans depicting that
buffer, and the location of trees currently on the property, and
the dimensions of the IA system to the closest seaward edge on
Board of Trustees 29 January 14, 2026
the new plans. And two-to-one tree replacement should any of the
trees be removed during the construction phase of this, thereby
bringing this project into consistency with the LWRP.
MR. NICHOLSON: I apologize. Can you repeat that? So this is
approved? I don't know how this works.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So the Minutes will have this language in it.
So will the language of the permit. So you'll be able to get a
copy of that from our office. Tonight is an approval with small
modifications.
MR. NICHOLSON: Sure. Thank you, all.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 5, AS PER REVISED SITE PLANS AND
PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 1/4/26 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
behind the garage and add ±17 . 67 cubic yards of clean fill to
raise the area ±14 inches; 942sq. ft. Of existing brick walks and
patios to be removed and replaced with 1, 062sq.ft. Of concrete
pavers and permeable stones; install a stormwater drainage
system; relocate the existing 12.5'x24.5' garage 10' to the west
on top of a new foundation; remove existing retaining wall
behind garage and construct a 45. 5'L by 66"H to 24"H (varying)
by 10"W retaining wall further to the south; install/relocate
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 most recently conducted an in-house review of
new plans submitted on Monday, and made notes of the changes
that had been made.
The LWRP reviewed this application back in August, and
found it to be inconsistent. Many of the inconsistencies have
now been addressed, based on the new submission reduction of
overall structure, and the new location of the infiltrators for
the septic.
Is there anyone here -- sorry. I should also not that I am
in receipt of letters from the neighbors, both in support and
against this project. And the Trustees have reviewed those
letters.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. SMITH: Sure. I am Tom Smith, I'm the owner and the
applicant.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, for that extra homework and finding
a new location for the infiltrators. I think this is overall a
much better location, much farther from Jockey Creek there. So I
Board of Trustees 30 January 14, 2026
appreciate that extra work and I know you have been through a
lot to get here, and so we appreciate that extra effort.
MR. SMITH: Sure. And I think now it' s really the furthest point
it could be on the property. If you look at where the
infiltrators are relative to like the main bulkhead. It' s almost
50 feet, whereas like when we started it was at like ten feet,
you know, in the front yard. And we'll just shift the garage
slightly forward and make a room in the back.
But I think everything else is laid out in the proposal. If
you have any questions. We are lifting that area about 14
inches. There is a retaining wall that is needed because of the
difference in topography between my property and the rear
properties. So that will be significant.
Otherwise, also the amount of fill is much less than
originally planned. I think we had like 42 cubic yards and now
we are down to 17 to 18 because we'll be able to displace a lot
of the soil that was behind the existing retaining wall that is
going to be removed.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Like I said, I think the project
looks a lot better with this submission.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
(No response) .
Or any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application
and with the improvement made to the relocation of the sanitary
system and minimizing the structures to largely what has existed
on this property for decades, we are thereby bringing this into
consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. SMITH: Thank you all, very much. I appreciate that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 6, Joan Chambers on behalf of ROLANDO
& MICHELLE ADAMOVICZ requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
1, 358sq. ft. One-story dwelling; remove existing concrete stoop
and bilco doors; construct a 212sq. ft. Two-story addition, a
1, 639sq. ft. Second floor addition, an 875sq. ft. Covered porch, a
109sq. ft. Deck with a 112sq. ft. Covered balcony above and a
196sq.ft. Deck with a 96sq. ft. Balcony above; abandon existing
septic system and install an I/A OWTS sanitary system landward
of dwelling; and install a stormwater drainage system. Located:
1520 Bay Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-8-12.2
The Trustees conducted a field inspection January 7th,
2026, noting recommend shifting the entire project landward from
the top of the bank to minimize impact on the protected feature
and the wetlands. Also the need for revegetation plan to
mitigate soil erosion, all seaward of house.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The
Board of Trustees 31 January 14, 2026
inconsistency states: The plan includes a property improvement
that are not consistent with the requirements of Chapter
275.2 (a) , definitions of the wetland law in the Town of
Southold.
These include the definition of a deck and porch within 100
feet of the wetland boundary. If this work is permitted, the
non-disturbance native vegetation buffer identified on the plans
should be established and enforced, such that no vegetation is
altered or removed.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. CHAMBERS: Joan Chambers, here to answer any questions from
the Board, and to represent the owners. And one of the owners
is also here to answer any questions this evening.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, Ms. Chambers is this a demo?
MS. CHAMBERS: We are not demoing the foundation or the exterior
walls of the first floor. So the existing foundation is going
to be reused and the framing of that. And the framing of the
exterior walls. So we are basically taking the existing house,
putting a second floor on it and then putting a small addition
out on the northeast side.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, I guess let me rephrase that. By
Building Department definition, is this a demo?
MS. CHAMBERS: By Building Department definitions, they will
consider it an interior demo, I believe, yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So looking at your proposal and where it's
currently situated, it is very close, if not on the bank, and if
it' s a demolition, as you know, we need to bring it into
conformity with the current code.
Looking at what you have, the plan itself is deemed okay,
however the location of the plan is a little too close,
especially if it is a demo. It will have to get torn up anyway.
You have room on that property to move it back from the top of
that bank so that we are not encroaching any further seaward
than existing.
MS . CHAMBERS: Right. The question being, you know, tearing up
that existing foundation and putting in a new foundation, we
really felt would have a worse impact on that piece of property
than keeping the foundation there.
We had an engineer look at it. We can keep the foundation
put a second floor on it. So we are trying to, well the design
was done so we would not bring in any heavy machinery or any
disturbance any closer to the top of that bluff than we needed
to.
I even noted on my plans that gave footings for the stoops
and decks coming off of the doors would all be hand dug. And we
wouldn't bring any machinery onto that property any further than
the end, basically, of the dirt driveway that exists.
So, you know, correct me if I 'm wrong, but it seems to me
that if we brought back hoes in there and tore up this house and
the foundation that is already there, it would cause a lot more
disturbance to that bank, which is a pretty stable,
well-vegetated bank as it is. There's large trees on it. It' s,
you know, it' s not on the Sound or the bay, where it' s got wave
Board of Trustees 32 January 14, 2026
action. I mean, it's just got that stable lake at the foot, and
it's really not going anywhere, and no one is planning to touch
that bank. I mean, it' s stable, they want to leave it alone as
best to our ability.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, the bank was disturbed, there was a
backhoe there.
MS. CHAMBERS: There was?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: A lot of the vegetation had been removed. It
was all grubbed.
MS. CHAMBERS: I'm sorry, I had no idea that was happening.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So -- yes, ma'am.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE) : Can I speak?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, come to the dais.
MR. ADAMOVICZ: Rolando Adamovicz. We talking about the machine
that is there?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So when we did a field inspection on January
7th, that vegetation on that bank that leads to Marion Lake had
been removed and disturbed already. It was down to dirt.
MR. ADAMOVICZ: It was, I just removed the trees that we marked,
that we agreed on. And the only thing I cut back was the vines
coming up to the trees, the existing trees.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Did you have a tree letter from us to remove
trees?
MR. ADAMOVICZ: Yes. Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You did?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The clearing, the note was that the clearing
was a little bit more aggressive than what we would want in that
location.
MR. ADAMOVICZ: There was no clearing. There was, everything I
remove, it was either dead and laying down. So that' s why it was
cleaner. It was no removal of anything. Absolutely nothing.
Zero. Even the little twigs I left. And the only thing that was
clean is because like I said a lot of the trees that fell down
and were dead and there was a lot -- this property, no one has
been there for 15 years. So it was a lot of stuff that had to
be removed, that it was not, I didn't dig holes, there was
nothing there
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And maybe, um, I don't know if the word
"clearing" is appropriate, but it was cleared. But the point I'm
trying to drive home is that it was a little bit more aggressive
than this Board would typically want to see. I'm not saying you
clear-cut the bank.
MR. ADAMOVICZ: But I only touch what we agree on. Just so we
clear. That' s it I didn't touch anything extra. I marked the
trees the day you guys came there, we agree into that. I had the
plan, and then that' s all I cut except the vines that were
climbing into the trees.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it would probably be easier to see in
the field what I'm talking about. Again, I understand what you
did and what was done there, and that it was, you know, it seems
like maybe it was blown clean afterwards. But, it was just a
little bit more aggressive than we typically want to see.
MR. ADAMOVICZ: But There was no machine used there.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I mean, when we go to a property and we don't
Board of Trustees 33 January 14, 2026
find a single leaf in that bank zone, it' s an indication that
things have been, the place has been, it was cleaned, cleared,
raked.
MR. ADAMOVICZ: Yes, I did, I cleaned up the leaves. But I didn't
pull anything that would, the leaves over there on the bank.
That' s something I'm planning to do, all new vegetation there on
the bank. We have some planting to do all new vegetation over
there, on the bank. All native.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So just to return to the, correct me if I'm
wrong question from yourself, I do think that extending further
toward the bank with additional structure is not advisable here.
I think this is go going to be a demolition. And you had the
opportunity to pull the structure back from the embankment, and
locate the structure in a more suitable place where there could
be vegetated buffers that protect the embankment and the water
body that is very close to it.
That' s my opinion as one Trustee.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, again, in looking at the plans, there is
delineation from the edge of Marion Lake, however we don't have
a delineation from the top of the bank, which looking at the
current set of plans, I would say it' s probably at the 20-foot
elevation, so it looks like, you know, we are within ten feet,
without scaling it out, of the top of the bank currently.
So with a project of this magnitude and a demolition, we
definitely want to see more of a distance between any proposed
structure and the top of the bank, more so than ten feet-ish.
MS. CHAMBERS: I 'm having a little trouble with a project of this
magnitude, because it' s actually a very modest house. We are
putting a second on it. And the only addition is very small, and
it' s on the northeast corner of it.
The other areas are porches and decks. And when we walked
on the property with members of the Board a year ago, when it
was first purchased and looked at it, and we sort of agreed that
we not move anything in that one corner of the house closer to
the bluff, which is why we pulled everything back. Obviously,
we would really like to have decks and porches on the lake side
of this house, but they were all moved to the landward side of
the house as a way of trying to keep them away from the top of
the bluff.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think that pulling the structure back, you
would then be able to have, you know, lake-facing decks, you
know, and so I think in this case, I think when Trustee
Goldsmith says "project of this magnitude, " I think it becomes
clear to us that this will be a town-definition demolition, and
whenever that happens, this Board looks at the project as a full
rebuild. And looking at this foundation here, it does not seem
that this would likely be reused in its place in-kind. There
would have to be a new foundation dug to support a two-story
frame dwelling. So I think in that case in is the right
opportunity to look at all options and the possibility of
pulling the structure back.
MS . CHAMBERS: As you can see from the surveys and the site
plans, it' s pretty impossible to move anything back beyond the
100-foot line on this property, and still leave any room at all
Board of Trustees 34 January 14, 2026
for a garage or decks or anything back there. So we are still
going to be too close to the top of this bluff. Even if they go
through the cost of relocating this. As I said, we had an
engineer examine the foundation and he didn't have any problem
with saying it would support the second floor. So the demolition
was never intended to include the foundation or the exterior
walls of the existing house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Typically, and this Board has a longstanding
history of this, if the structure meets the Town definition of
"demolition", we revert back to the current code as much as we
can.
Now, this is a flag lot, it' s a small lot, it' s actually
not a small lot, but so much of it is habitat bordering Marion
Lake, that it' s a little difficult to work with. It' s not a flat
rectangle, like so many lots in town.
MS. CHAMBERS: Correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think this Board is willing to work with you
and your client. I think this is a really good opportunity here
to do something positive for both your client and the
environment of Marion Lake by moving this black, and end up
with, instead of trying to shoehorn something in with what is
existing, you could end up with something that, a work product
that you and your client really want while also moving that back
further out of Trustee jurisdiction.
Because of the code we are sort of funneled into looking at
a demolition-based as a virgin lot. Now, if we were looking at
this lot completely unbuilt, we would never allow a structure to
be built literally on the top of the bank over, you know, a
mainly freshwater lake.
So I think we are willing to work with you on setbacks
there. I don't think we are looking to push this all the way up
to the road, but we'd certainly like to do the best job we can
in order to satisfy both your client and the environmental
concerns.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And, Ms. Chambers, I just want to state I
didn't mean to contradict you. I didn't hear the part where you
said that the engineer had already reviewed the foundation and
was comfortable with it. So I apologize. I believe it. So I
apologize.
MS. CHAMBERS: That' s okay. I understand. Well, the best I can do
then is have a conference with the customer, that you don't have
to be party to, so shall we just table this then?
My question is the best way to proceed. If we decide that
we are planning to build an entire new house rather than use
what is there, is it possible to get guidelines so that we don't
go through this whole process and not have it moved back far
enough, so to speak. Because it' s not like we can possibly get
this all back behind the 100-foot line. We'll bump into the
septic system, if nothing else.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, ma'am. So you could request a
pre-submission, if you are going to revise it, potentially stake
out what you are looking to do. We can then meet you out in the
field and, you know, visualize it, you know, also go over what
we saw as far as any disturbance or clearing of the blank, so
Board of Trustees 35 January 14, 2026
everybody could get eyes on the same thing.
MS. CHAMBERS: Okay, and I also just, you know, I'm still really
not comfortable with the whole idea of tearing this foundation
out. It seems to me that' s a destabilization of this bank. So
maybe we can discuss ways to do that in a way that, I mean, you
know, we've got furnaces and oil tanks in that basement, and we
really didn't see how moving that was going to be beneficial. So
that is going to take some discussion also, I think. All right?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, ma'am. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Are there any other questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this at the applicant' s
request.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 7, DOUGLAS & LESLIE HIRSCH request a
Wetland Permit to remove 432sq. ft. Wood deck, front entry stoop
and trellis on (west) landward side of existing 1-1'5 story
dwelling with 15. 1 'xl8. 8 ' covered deck, remove 547sq. ft. Deck
and wood skirt wall on (east) seaward side of dwelling; remove
88sq. ft. Concrete slab for pool equipment; remove 95 linear feet
of pool fencing, remove walkways, remove swimming pool and
cabana; construct a 386sq.ft. Front covered porch with entry
stoop and overhang over new foundation; construct 748sq. ft.
Raised decking over grade on (west) landward side of pool with
outdoor kitchen area and a ±12 ' x ±10. 6' raised spa; construct a
389sq. ft. Cabana with bath on a raised foundation with walk-in
basement; for the mechanical/generator area, excavate 58 cubic
yards of fill, install a 116sq. ft. Concrete slab, 13' long and
24 . 6' long foundation walls and steps down into area with 34
linear feet of perimeter screening consisting of concrete walls
and wood fence; construct 222sq.ft. Of stairs with outdoor
shower and storage area on south facing side of deck; excavate
108 cubic yards of fill to construct a new 161x40' raised gunite
pool with 18" perimeter overflow trough over the footprint of
existing pool, extending 59" to the west; install 81 linear feet
of 6' high pool fencing with gates; and install new leaders to
existing drywells.
Located: 5028 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-10-2
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent, citing
Policy 6, 6.3, check and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands,
comply with statutory and regulatory requirements of the
Southold Town Board of Trustees laws and regulations, for all
Andros Patents and other lands under their jurisdiction, provide
adequate buffers between wetlands and adjacent or nearby uses
and activities in order to ensure protection of the wetlands
character, quality, value and functions.
The new construction is within 72 feet of the wetland
boundary, far from the minimum setback. If permitted the
Trustees should consider requiring establishment of a permanent
Board of Trustees 36 January 14, 2026
non-disturbance buffer landward of the wetland boundary to the
top of the bank, and possibly beyond into the lawn to the
northern half of the property directly east of the residence.
There is a note in the file from a neighbor, which I 'll
just summarize. The Trustees have reviewed but it is quite
lengthy.
Essentially it' s about overall concern for the environment,
the habitat, I guess there has been some extensive landscape and
lighting installed on the house and the property in the past.
There are some concerns about that and this application being
Dark Skies compliant. General concern about the expansion of
the property with the structure and the pool and the spa, and
just preserving the character of the north fork.
The Trustees visited the property on the 7th of January,
obviously, address the obvious, the proximity of the project is
at the top of the bank. Questioned if there were past history
of buffers or if one should be on the plans as a result of this
project, and then concerns about excavation close to the top of
the bank.
Is there anyone here that wish to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HIRSCH: Yes. My name is Douglas Hirsch. I am the owner and
the applicant, and thank everyone for considering my wetland
permit application tonight.
My wife and I and our family have enjoyed the house that
we've purchased about six years ago. We really love it up here.
And as the Trustees saw when they visited the house, the deck is
about 20-something-years old, it' s rotting, and, you know, one
side of the pool, the metal, I don't know, it' s warped and, you
know, it' s an old pool and an old structure, and the cabana has
a crawl space under it that we store stuff, but animals live
under there, and they crawl up into the walls of the cabana. And
so we decided that it's time to rebuild the deck and the pool.
And we have a growing family and we spend all our time outside
in that space, and we would like to expand the pool slightly, I
think it' s four-feet wider. And, you know, the pool is
pre-existing, and the deck is pre-existing, and in the proposed
application we are proposing to pull back the existing wood
decorative structure that surrounds the pool, so we are
proposing to pull that back from the bank. And it' s a small
expansion of the deck westward, away from the water.
I would like to address Ms. Loeffler's letter quickly. You
know, a lot of it is irrelevant because what she is complaining
about primarily are the lights that were installed on the new
driveway. That' s all outside of the Trustees' jurisdiction. And
unfortunately she has already called code enforcement twice, and
they've came down and they told me as far as they know it' s
compliant. And it' s not a problem. And I have spoken with Tammy
numerous times and told her, even though I have no obligation to
do so, that the plan is to plant more trees in front of her
property, and I hired Stacy Paetzel (sic) a long time ago to put
in native plants, and we are trying to figure out what to plant,
but it' s the winter and we couldn't plant. So a couple of things
about Ms. Loeffler's letter because frankly it is upsetting what
Board of Trustees 37 January 14, 2026
she wrote. I would say everything in this letter is inaccurate.
But I'll start first with she says in the letter, quote, we
do not seek to prevent the property owner from realizing their
plans. We simply ask the Trustees to hold the ongoing
Hamptonification of the North Fork.
I just wanted to point out that Ms. Loeffler neglected to
say in her letter that she has a pool, and as far as I can tell
from Zillow, her pool is bigger than the pool that I propose. So
I guess it' s okay, if that' s Hamptonification, she's already
Hamptonified the North Fork.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Mr. Hirsch I would love to take these point
by point, but I think there are just some design issues we wish
to discuss tonight with you.
MR. HIRSCH: Sure. All right. I just want you to know, I am
concerned about the environment. I donated money and time to
help preserve the land. I think she is confused. I don't own the
land that she is talking about, like with the puddle and
everything. That' s Mr. Peckham' s land (sic) and I have no
control over the puddle that she is complaining about. My
sprinklers are not on in the winter. I have pictures of the
puddle from yesterday' s rain. I guess it' s a little upsetting
because like everything she wrote is false. But I' ll stop.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And, Mr. Hirsch, just to that point, that' s why
I did summarize the letter and tried to stick to applicable
points, I should say.
MR. HIRSCH: I got it. I'm done.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. HIRSCH: It' s a little upsetting. That' s all.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: It's the mood of the night.
MR. HIRSCH: It' s just completely inaccurate.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, obviously in reviewing this property in the
field, we saw that you were pulling the project back slightly,
with the removal of sort of that, I'm not really sure what to
call that structure. So we can appreciate that point. And of
course if we were to look at this as a new application, putting
a pool so close to the top of a bank that runs directly into a
water body would be tricky at best. But understanding that you
are replacing what is there.
One issue that we have since our inspection that we learned
is that as per town code, and this is not Trustee code, but as
per town code, within a pool house you cannot add a basement or
the bathroom cannot include a shower or a bathtub.
MR. HIRSCH: So I'm going to let my architect speak to that
because we have a pre-existing C of 0 for that bathroom, and we
are expanding it. And so I 'm going to let him address that
question.
Is there any other questions you have?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not at this time. That was probably the biggest
red flag, I mean, I guess also speaking to our, to the LWRP' s
concerns and to our field notes, we would like install some sort
of a vegetated buffer on that bank, which is already existing,
but just to put it on the plans and make it permanent.
MR. HIRSCH: Yes. So I think you probably noticed, along the top
Board of Trustees 38 January 14, 2026
of the bank are those non-native grasses. I don't know if you
saw them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yup. We did.
MR. HIRSCH: Those were there before. I didn't plant those.
So I'm happy to replant that with whatever you guys want
there. That' s not an issue for me.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Thank you.
MR. LONDON: Hello. Jared London, I'm the architect on the
project. To follow up on the comments that you made, for one,
the cabana that is existing, as you probably saw is raised up so
that it walks out to the raised deck, and it has a pre-existing
foundation underneath it that is used for storage at the moment.
But it has a dirt floor.
So we are not necessarily excavating and putting in a new
basement. But what we are looking to do is we are looking to
continue the existing use, but enclose it so that we are not
able to have rodents in that area. He is going to continue using
it for the same use it already has.
And then also, as far as the bathroom goes, the bathroom
was permitted pre-existing, and it' s tied into the existing
sanitary system. So as we expand the cabana out, we are not
putting in a new bathroom, and we are not trying to increase any
non-conformity of the structure.
As far as the expansion goes, the expansion all occurs
westward. It's not on the creek side of the house.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So does the existing bathroom have a shower.
MR. LONDON: It does. Yes. And that was permitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to clarify. As an indoor shower. Not just
speaking to the outdoor shower that we saw.
MR. LONDON: It has an indoor shower that was permitted. Yes.
So in fact we dug out the permits that you dig out the old
permits, that it' s all on there.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Rather inconvenient with laserfiche not up for
all of us to reference. But, yes, we will doublecheck on all
that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So under the advisement of legal, that is not
permissible in Southold town code. So I would say that the two
options, and this is without hearing, if there is anyone else
from the public or Board that wants to speak, but with regard to
the pool house and cabana, we would have to remove that portion
from this application and look at it just as a pool and the spa
portion for tonight, or if you wanted to request to approach the
Building Department first, but just know that --
MR. LONDON: I previously had spoken with the Building inspector
about this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, I can't just go by that testimony.
Because this is our understanding, having our departments
discuss this with them.
MR. LONDON: So which part is non-conforming?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, as per the Building Department code, it
can't have, if you are modifying, it can't have a basemen and it
can't have the shower.
MR. LONDON: Well, the shower is already permitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Again, this is the Town Code. This is Building
Board of Trustees 39 January 14, 2026
Department code. I won't go into a back and forth with you on
this because I can't.
MR. LONDON: No, I'm trying to cause a back and forth. I 'm just
curious how we would, I mean, if we were not moving the bathroom
at all, how would we --
MS. HULSE: I 'm sorry, if I could interject. Did you actually
make an application to the Building Department? Because I
didn't think that you had done that.
MR. LONDON: No, I called in advance, though, to ask before we
started this project.
MS. HULSE: Okay, so you --
MR. LONDON: I read what you are talking about.
MS. HULSE: Okay. So what you are proceeding on is a verbal
conversation with the Building Inspector.
MR. LONDON: Yes. Correct.
MS. HULSE: Okay. And so no one has ever gone out to the site
and reviewed what it is that you are proposing, correct?
MR. LONDON: Correct.
MS. HULSE: Okay, so you've stated that it' s non-conforming,
correct? And that you have a pre-existing, non-conforming. And
what you are suggesting is, and what you are stating on the
record as testimony is that the Building Inspector told you that
is okay to expand on and change?
MR. LONDON: Correct.
MS. HULSE: Okay. And that it was okay to have a shower, bath,
toilet, in that location.
MR. LONDON: Those items are pre-existing and permitted by the
town.
MS. HULSE: But you are asking to change it. You are asking to do
something different. You are modifying it, correct?
MR. LONDON: (No response) .
MS. HULSE: You are changing it. You are asking to do some new
work on it, right?
MR. LONDON: That' s correct, we are expanding on it.
MS. HULSE: Okay. And the Building Inspector told you that was
permitted by code? Because there is a definition --
MR. LONDON: He said because it was an expansion, yes.
MS. HULSE: Pardon?
MR. LONDON: He said because it was an expansion of the existing
use, yes.
MS. HULSE: That it was permitted.
MR. LONDON: Correct.
MS. HULSE: Okay. That' s not my understanding of the code. It' s
completely opposite of my understanding of the code.
There is also a definition of "cabana" and "pool house" in
the code, and it doesn't allow for a shower. So I'm not sure how
you would get that in any event.
MR. LONDON: (Inaudible) .
MS. HULSE: So, I guess the options are -- I'm not arguing with
it back and forth. I'm telling you what I 'm advising the
Trustees . One of the Trustees has made the suggestion, which I
think is a generous suggestion, that you can table this and you
can bring it to the Building Department. You can submit an
application, you can have a sit down, you can have someone go
Board of Trustees 40 January 14, 2026
out there, whatever it is you wish to do, or you can have this
Board act on this application tonight, and they would be
removing that part of the application and voting on the rest, if
it was your desire to go forward with the application tonight
and getting the permit.
So if you would like to confer and then advise the Board
what you would like to do, that would probably be the best
approach at this point.
MR. HIRSCH: Question. If we go to the Building Department and
ask them to weigh in on this, for lack of a better word, what do
we need to get from them to bring to you and will they tell us
we are not going to consider anything until you get a Trustees
permit, because, like when I go to the Building Department,
they're like did you get a Trustees permit for this --
MS. HULSE: Which is why you are here tonight.
MR. HIRSCH: No --
MS. HULSE: Which is why you are here tonight. But when you --
MR. HIRSCH: So I 'm concerned they are going to tell me that if
I go to them.
MS. HULSE: So when your representative said he had information
from the Building Inspector, that' s why I asked that question.
Because you were coming here first, you made the application,
and from my reading of what you are asking for, that part of it
is not allowed by code.
If you want to table it to confer with the Building
Department, just to clarify it, or note the information was
incorrect, if it was presented the correct way, or what have
you, they give a green light, then the Board will include it.
But at this point they can't.
MR. HIRSCH: I understand. I do want to confer with the Building
Department. I 'm just asking, what, you know, you made the point
that --
MS. HULSE: The departments will talk to each other. There will
be communication back and forth. We'll know.
MR. HIRSCH: Okay, that' s what I'm asking. We'll know.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible) .
MS. HULSE: You can't sit in the audience and just yell out.
MR. LONDON: I apologize. What would constitute a green light?
MS. HULSE: If the Building Department reviews this project and
says exactly what you are asking for is something that is
permitted by the code. They are the ones who interpret the
Building code. This is under the Building code.
MR. LONDON: Right. So if I send them a PDF and they send me an
e-mail saying that it' s okay, and I present that to you, they'll
call you directly?
(Client and Architect discussing off record) .
MR. HIRSCH: That' s fine. What we would like to do is we would
like you to go forward on our application without the pool
cabana and then we'll go to the Building Department and have
them talk to you. Is that okay?
MS. HULSE: That sounds fine, because they are the ones who
interpret their code, and you can always have it amended down
the road if you wish, and it won't slow you down at all.
So if that' s what you want to do, that' s perfectly fine.
Board of Trustees 41 January 14, 2026
MR. HIRSCH: We would like to do that. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
MR. PECKHAM: Hello, my name is Will Peckham and I am Mr.
Hirsch's neighbor. I am Mr. Hirsch' s neighbor. I 'm the farmer
in that field right there. And I 'm not going to opine on really
the merits of Mr. Hirsch' s application, that is for the Trustee
board to decide.
My point that I would like to state is just that it is a
very large amount of material, it' s 120 cubic yards, which is
like ten or 12 extremely heavy, large dump trucks, and that we
would, that Mr. Hirsch would be taking it out of the bluff and
then carting offsite, presumably. And my concern is that I spent
a lot of time on my tractor after purchasing this property and
mowing the field right here, and one thing that happened is that
I broke my motor a couple of times on big concrete chunks that
seem like could have been casted into a previous pool, I don't
know what from.
So my request for the Board of Trustees is that you request
on your terms that Mr. Hirsch remove all of the fill material
over his existing driveway, and strictly over that driveway as a
means of egress, because we may or may not have run into a
situation where heavy equipment was moved up the margin of this
farm field to help construct that driveway. And I understand,
you know, that the property was fallow for many years, and so it
didn't look like there was active management going on there. But
the repeated compaction of, again, ten to 12 dump trucks worth
of fill material, heavy excavators coming up from the street,
resulted in severe compaction of the prime agricultural soils
that are coming up on the driveway and the southern bound of the
property.
Now, I will add, in fairness that I brought that problem to
Mr. Hirsch' s attention, and he took it upon himself to fix it
and pay for some plantings. But I think in the spirit of good
neighborly relations it' s always best to try to get out ahead of
any potential conflict or any uncertainty around the location of
the property boundaries and just mandate that all of that fill
material is removed on site in a way that is as environmentally
responsible and low impact on the neighbors as possible. Thank
you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE FINORA: I have a question for the applicant.
Has the applicant considered an operational plan that
ensures the removal of all this material within the confines of
the property, and also considers the sensitive excavation work
adjacent to the strong change in grade?
MR. HIRSCH: I have no problem making whatever dump trucks taking
dirt out go along my driveway. So, that' s not a problem.
And as Mr. Peckham noted, when they were putting in the
driveway, there were some contractors that crossed my property
line onto his property line, and I paid for, we sat down with
each other and we decided to put in a conservation mix and make
the field, I don't know, renovate the field. I did what he
wanted us to do, and it looks great, and it' s going to look
Board of Trustees 42 January 14, 2026
great. And we will continue to do whatever you guys want us to
do to make sure the environment is not harmed, and whatever dirt
comes out of my home site is carried away in dump trucks and is
on my driveway.
TRUSTEE FINORA: So you have not formally engaged in that type of
review with the contractor to make sure that they are
comfortable and feasible --
MR. HIRSCH: No, I have not hired anyone to build anything, so,
that' s the answer, I guess. Is there anything else?
TRUSTEE FINORA: How about the designer, has he considered any of
these concerns with the removal of this extent of material and
working on the grade? Because certainly slope stability is a
concern with this type of work and that steep a grade
MR. LONDON: So we are removing 58 cubic yards of fill, is the
amount, and we would be happy to put in, let's say a silt fence,
if you would like, if you are concerned about something going
past the --
TRUSTEE FINORA: Frankly, it's less about the silt. It' s more
about the slope. This demolition and relocation of the pool is
adjacent to an exceptionally steep grade, sensitive vegetation.
So besides the silt, do you see any concern about the
slope' s ability?
MR. LONDON: Structurally, I don't.
TRUSTEE FINORA: No?
MR. LONDON: No.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We also regularly would stipulate a saltwater
pool with this proximity to a bank or a bluff or a wetland.
Is that something that you are planning on doing? I know
most people are doing that nowadays anyway.
MR. HIRSCH: Yes, I'd love to do a saltwater pool.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sorry, I apologize, Mr. Hirsch. I didn't see,
is there a drywell for the pool and the location of the pool
equipment?
MR. HIRSCH: Yes, there is an existing drywell for the pool. It' s
right here. (Indicating) . This was the site plan that was
submitted years ago, after the pool was built. You can see the
existing single-family residence. That' s where the pool drywell
is, right there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. And do you plan to reuse the same
drywell?
MR. HIRSCH: That' s in the current plan.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You are not modifying it?
MR. HIRSCH: No. Unless you guys think I should.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I would say if there was going to be a
modification made to that drywell, it should go landward, to get
it away from the bank. But if you are able to use it without
having to dig it out, replace it or repair it.
MR. HIRSCH: I mean, the current plan is to use that drywell.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, just to clarify, what you were asking for
tonight is to remove any modification to the pool house/cabana
from this application.
MR. HIRSCH: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Due to our understanding of the code, and I
Board of Trustees 43 January 14, 2026
just want you to understand, that would mean you would have to
come back to us with either a new application or an application
for an amendment to the project. If you are able to, you know,
get through Building with that.
MR. HIRSCH: Yes. My understanding is that I would not have to
go back and pay another $1, 250 fee, that it would be an
amendment to this current application, and that we just schedule
the hearing again and we would go over this issue.
MS. HULSE: There is a fee, but it' s not that much. Not 1, 200.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: One-hundred bucks. A bargain, at twice the
price.
MR. HIRSCH: But a win. Okay, I'll take it.
So, yes, that' s my understanding. So based on that
understanding, yes, you are correct, Mr. Krupski, that is what I
would like to do.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just speaking generally, as one Southolder who
likes stargazing, I did note the amount of lighting that is on
that driveway, and while it may be legally compliant, I just
would recommend that we all take note, everybody in this room,
of the lights that we are leaving on at night, and the
cumulative effect it has on our wildlife, our bats, our birds
and the ability to enjoy stargazing here in Southold town. So if
there is any way for all of us to limit that effect, I think
it's a benefit for all of us.
MR. HIRSCH: I'm happy to take a look at that. By the way, they
are on a timer. They go off by eight o' clock at night. They are
not on all night. So.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
MR. HIRSCH: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is the pool itself, does it have like the
waterfall feature going over the edge or is it just the standard
pool.
MR. HIRSCH: No, it' s going to have an infinity edge, but it's
not a waterfall. That's where like the filter is. I don't know
how else to explain it. It' s not a waterfall, to answer your
question.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. So it is going to be dumping the water
over that edge.
All right, thank you.
Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding
this application, or any additional comments from the members of
the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comment, I' ll 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
with the following stipulations:
New description and plans showing that the cabana/pool
house is not to be modified. Additionally, with the new plans
depicting the entirety of the bank from the wetland line to top
of bank to be a vegetated non-turf buffer, to be vegetated with
Board of Trustees 44 January 14, 2026
native vegetation, including the discussed removal of the
Switchgrass and Miscanthus. Materials removed within the
confines of the property boundaries. The pool is a salt water
pool, and all lights are Dark Skies compliant. Thereby bringing
this into conformity with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. HIRSCH: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 8, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AND SITE PLAN RECEIVED 12/31/25 Cole Environmental Services on
behalf of DAVID & HELEN LEIS requests a Wetland Permit to remove
existing fountain and construct a proposed raised 14 'x50'
in-ground pool and 7 'x7 ' hot tub with a 2' high, 60' long
retaining wall with stone veneer; install 625sq.ft.
Non-permeable patio pitched to drain and piped to drywell;
install a 4 'x8 ' DP drywell for pool and patio with a load
bearing top and- inspection lid; install a gutter drain to
segment pool and patio for stormwater management; install a
4 'xl2 ' outdoor shower and storage area; install a 41x8 '
generator and pool equipment area with sound deadening
enclosure; install a ±121xl2' gravel gas fire pit area; install
paver walkways; install 4' high pool enclosure fencing with
gates, and all existing fencing to be brought to pool code;
remove three (3) junipers and one crab-apple tree; 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.
Located: 1150 Grand Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-8-44 .1
The Trustees reviewed the project on 01/07/26, and our
field notes read: Pool is proposed less than 60 feet from
wetlands.
The LWRP coordinator found the project to be inconsistent
with Policy 6.3, and notes from this read: The proposed pool is
approximately 50 feet from the wetland boundary and does not
conform to current Trustee requirements of a 60-foot for pool
setback. For this reason the proposal should be modified to move
the pool further away from the water west. It should be noted
that locating a proposed structure such as this in such a way as
to avoid impacts to non-native trees should not take precedence
over complying with wetland setback requirements.
In addition, the establishment of a non-turf buffer would
be beneficial, with the details of planting within this area
include a one-on-one replacement of trees should be detailed
prior to any permit approvals.
I welcome comments from the public.
MS. RUMMEL: Kate Rummel, Cole Environmental.
We understand the Board' s concerns which were voiced at the
work session as well as the concerns of the LWRP coordinator.
We just want to state for the record that a significant
Board of Trustees 45 January 14, 2026
amount of thought went into the current proposal.
You know, we tried to take into consideration for the
removal of the two evergreens. And there is a native vegetated
buffer that is proposed, that does include the removal of the
non-native and invasive vegetation.
And while this was submitted before the 60-vote rule
setback was approved, we do understand everyone' s stance.
So, with that, if we were to propose the, essentially
modify the plan so that everything is 60 feet minimum, that
would be approvable to the Board?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I would find that works, yes.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I agree with that.
MS. RUMMEL: Okay, and we will include, if it's not already
stated on the plans, we'll include the one-to-one replacement
for the trees.
Now, with the topography we will be I guess moving it more
where there is a bit of a steeper slope, and I do realize this
may be shooting myself in the foot, for bringing it up, but is
there any wiggle room on the two-foot retaining wall height;
given that we have to move it forward to maintain the 60-foot
setback?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think there is a possibility of some
grading up to the retaining wall so the exposed face is not two
feet. But that' s just a general sort of feel that I for the
project. I can't say that whatever you develop would be good to
go.
MS. RUMMEL: Right. Because the concern is also, you know, and
with regrading that, because of the conditions of the site that
we would be creating, obviously we've proposed storm water
management and whatnot, but we would be creating I guess more of
a slope for the storm water.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: It would, but it would depend on your
vegetation, and whatever that vegetation would be to slow that
runoff, or absorb any of that runoff as it makes it' s way
towards the creek. And obviously the pool would have its
drywells, and those would not in any way be making their way
into the surface waters.
MS. RUMMEL: Right. Yes. Everything, I mean everything
previously is proposed landward and if there are any changes to
the plan they would be minimal. I just would like to get all the
Board' s concerns on the record so we can move forward at the
next hearing with a plan that is approvable. Ideally.
Are there any other concerns?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I would just say that we have seen some feats
of modern engineering tonight. People working out things that
said they could never work out. And so I think a two-foot
retaining wall is probably something that can be worked out so
that it can meet our it code; limit of two-foot retaining wall
and 60-foot setback. So that is my preference if possible.
MS. RUMMEL: I understand.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And you are still going to go forward with
the removal of the, is it Junipers?
MS. RUMMEL: Yes, the non-native Junipers, and then there' s the
invasive Olive, or Russian Olive, or I forget exactly what type.
Board of Trustees 46 January 14, 2026
So those will be removed and then the buffer is going to be
native vegetated, as already proposed.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right, any other comments from the public
and the Board?
(Negative response) .
Is there a wish to table the application to redesign /PWHRAOBG
with something new?
MS. RUMMEL: Yes, please.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay, hearing no further comment, I make a
motion to table this application at the applicant' s request.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 9, Twin Forks Permits on behalf of
WILLIAM E. GOYDAN REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST requests a Wetland
Permit for the existing two-story dwelling (1, 680sq.ft.
Footprint) and to renovate the existing 989sq.ft. Second floor
and add a 536sq. ft. Second floor addition for a proposed
1, 525sq.ft. Second story; a proposed 224sq.ft. Second floor
uncovered deck; a proposed 68sq.ft. Covered second floor deck;
demolish existing 325sq.ft. First floor deck/stairs and
construct a new 460sq.ft. First floor deck and stairs; demolish
309sq. ft. Planter area and replace with 174sq. ft. Planter;
construct 84sq.ft. Rear side low hip roof to cover basement
egress; install a 28sq.ft. Outdoor shower; install a stormwater
management system.
Located: 780 East Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-110-7-21
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 7th of
January, noting the following: Second-story deck and extension
on east side of house do not conform with pier line. Should not
add more nonconforming structure. Existing house already outside
of pier line. If this becomes a demo, the house would have to be
pulled back and buffer on bank, at top of bank. A vegetated
buffer. And not currently proposing a septic upgrade.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent.
I think that one of the Trustees primary comments here was
about the septic system and the concern that this may easily
become a demolition.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. POYER: Good evening. Lisa Poyer, on behalf of the applicant.
So based upon the site inspection notes, the site
inspection itself and comments, and then hearing other comments
previous tonight, the applicant, who is here, as well as the
architect, have agreed that there will be no new habitable space
seaward of the pier line.
So that is in that southeast corner of the house. That room
can be setback. But one question that we have, because that is
going to now leave exposed second-floor exposed first-floor
roofing. Could we put a deck on top of that. It' s an uncovered
deck, that' s just that small little corner area. It' s going over
top of existing first floor habitable space. So whether it' s a
Board of Trustees 47 January 14, 2026
roof or a deck, does it matter to the Board? We are not
increasing habitable space in that corner that is seaward of the
pier line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You are talking about the lower portion of roof
that is existing?
MS. POYER: It' s the, it would be the section over the top of the
first floor. That southeast corner. When you are looking from
the aerial, it' s there, but if, can we convert that from first
floor roof that it is right now, to a deck, a second-floor deck
that would be attached to that bedroom that is right there.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Nick, do you want to look at this?
So we 'are basically talking about the triangle of that
piece that is outside of the pier line.
MS. POYER: Correct. Can I approach the Board?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Sure.
(Ms. Poyer approaches the dais) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, if you want to go back so we can record
the notes accurately.
So that is something for the Board to consider.
MS. POYER: We would come back to you with revised plans but just
to try to narrow down some of these details, that would be
helpful. So we know what we are designing so we are coming back
with one revision instead of multiples.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Speaking as one Trustee I would think that
would be an acceptable use, in my opinion. But I would welcome
other Trustees to comment as well.
TRUSTEE FINORA: I don't object to the deck use but I would like
to see the inclusion of a septic upgrade in this project. We
noted the septic lids were just a few feet from the start of the
beach grass. The scale of this project likely requires a septic,
upgrade from the Health Department. If not, it' s quite close.
And I think that would be a nice complement to this project
given the scale of work being done near the pier line.
MS. POYER: That is something that I would have to consider with
the owner. But right now we are not increasing any bedroom
count. So as per the Building Department, they are not mandating
any septic upgrade.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Well, it' s not just bedroom count, but also the
value of the improvements can justify substantial
reconstruction, and that' s also a trigger with the Health
Department. I understand you have not been there yet. But it' s
typical that projects that don't increase bedroom count still
have to upgrade the IA system as part of the project.
MS. POYER: Right. And the project is not a demolition by
Building Department standards, and the cost is below the 500
limitation of the physical structure itself.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Yes, but the project details have not been
finalized yet.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I would also note that just the current
location of the septic system is really not ideal and, you know,
that would be a significant improvement on this project, as
Trustee Finora said.
I think this Board has a long history of requiring IA
systems before the county even got onboard with it. And so that
Board of Trustees 48 January 14, 2026
is something that we have proactively taken on, and I believe in
this case that is something we would require to move forward.
MS. POYER: We will have discussions about that and come back to
you.
Any other comments or -- I know that during the inspection
there was, reviewed the plans regarding the deck, which has now
become one level, smaller than what currently exists there right
now, by the deck, stairs, patio, all those other structures,
it' s going to become smaller and further away from the bank
there. I think the Board in general is okay with that.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think the other comment that we wrote down
was adding a buffer on the bank at the top of the bank. And I
think you've addressed the question about adding additional
structure seaward of the pier line. And so with those comments
I think that is the totality of what we've discussed so far.
Now, when you present us with new plans we may have
additional comments, but at this time I believe that is all we
have from notes.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. POYER: I just have one other question about the buffer. I
know when we were onsite, the stairs that go down the slope
there, I think we discussed doing the buffer to the landward
edge of that little landing. I think it makes sense in that
general area. It gives you about a ten-foot wide buffer in that
area. And it ends at the peak there.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think if you present us with something, then
we can make a comment on that. But without seeing it, it would
be a little difficult to comment on such.
MS. POYER: Okay. It just covers the actual slope going down.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think what was discussed was something
landward of the top of the bank.
MS. POYER: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And just to clarify, too. Because I guess we
are running into this now, but, so there is all, you know, beach
front, dunal habitat seaward of that bank. So that should just
be added on the plans. It certainly is already non-disturbance
area, it should just be added to plans so that it' s clear to any
future homeowners.
MS. POYER: As far as the notation on the plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MS. POYER: That' s fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And that' s in addition to a vegetated buffer.
MS. POYER: Correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that should be there because there has
already been a history along this area, most of it being
maintained by the historical landowners in the area. But with a
few property transfers there' s been some people who don't
understand what that habitat is and why it's there.
MS. POYER: What language would you like it to state on the
plans?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That portion would be non-disturbance.
MS. POYER: Non-disturbance buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. And then the top of the bank would be a
Board of Trustees 49 January 14, 2026
vegetated non-turf.
MS. FOYER: Okay. The standard language.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yup.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Any other questions or comments?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application for new
plans.
MS. POYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 10, Patricia Moore, Esq. On behalf of
1670 LEETON DRIVE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing upper rear deck, landing and steps (396sq.ft. ) To be
replaced in-kind and in-place; existing rear ramp (212sq. ft. ) At
grade to be replaced in-kind and in-place; existing cantilevered
landing with steps to beach (40sq. ft. ) To be replaced in-kind
and in-place; existing lower deck and steps (356sq.ft. ) At grade
to be replaced in-kind and in-place; proposed new 220sq. ft. At
grade wood boardwalks; proposed new wood deck landward of
existing deck at grade (240sq.ft. ) With a 161x121 pergola and
BBQ area; existing 138 linear feet of retaining walls around
dwelling to be replaced in-kind and in-place; 38 linear feet of
remnants of retaining walls to be replaced; and 17 linear feet
of new retaining walls around proposed deck; construct a
241x20.111 one-story two-car garage with 7 .11x19.21 laundry
area, and 8 'xl9.2 ' covered porch with 7 . 11x8l outdoor shower;
and to abandon existing septic system and install an I/A OWTS
sanitary system landward of dwelling.
Located: 1670 Leeton Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-58-2-7 .
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on January 7th,
2026. Notes read: Has homeowner considered raising the home
instead of increasing retaining walls. What is the height of the
garage. And what is triggering the need for an IA system.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is with Policy 6. 3, protect and restore tidal and freshwater
wetlands.
The plan includes property improvements that are
inconsistent with the requirements of Chapter 258, Waterfront
Consistency Review, based on construction of an accessory
structure within what appears to be less than 100 feet from the
wetland boundary.
It is difficult to ascertain the actual distance, as the
wetland boundary is not sufficiently identified with the name of
the person who delineated the boundary, and the date of the
delineation.
The plan is also lacking setback distances from the
proposed new deck and accessory building and the wetland
boundary.
In addition to this, the plan does not indicate where the
proposed new deck landward of existing deck at grade, with a
16 'xl2l shade pergola and barbecue over deck will be located.
For that reason, the impacts of such construction cannot be
Board of Trustees 50 January 14, 2026
assessed.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding that
application?
MS . MOORE: Yes. Thank you. Patricia Moore. I have Todd Luyster,
who is the owner. Some of these questions that you had in the
field, I did call Todd and I did ask him if he would come up and
give a little bit of history, because this is a legacy property.
His father, grandfather built the house. It' s pretty original,
with permits that have been issued properly all throughout, that
they've renovated the house, and the house as it is today is
perfectly fine.
What the, our application was, if you recall from site
inspection, the retaining walls are actually a perimeter around
the house, the deck is below grade, and the, in order to not
build a larger house, the proposed garage was, is part of this
application. The sanitary system was upgraded as a benefit, not
because they were obligated to do it, but because it was the
right thing to do.
So they did go and get an IA system that replaces the old
system, and I did provide for you a copy of the Health
Department approval.
At the time I didn't realize they had actually gotten the
approval, but they have final approval from the Health
Department.
So let me have the owner speak because he really can give a
little more detail of the foundation. I know you had questions
about the existing foundation and how the house has, its
placement as existing house, and why it would not be advisable
to raise it. So I thought he would be the best to explain that.
MR. LUYSTER: Good evening. My name is Todd Luyster, I 'm the
owner or half owner of 1670 Leeton. The other half is my sister.
A little history. The house was built in 1953 by my
grandfather, my great-uncle, and my father, who was a kid at the
time.
My grandfather was a car dealer and furniture maker.
Different time, I guess. And my uncle was a carpenter. The
house as you saw it, roughly identical to when it was built in
1953. In 1954, Hurricane Carol hit the north fork of Long
Island. And where you were at the house, there is a lake behind
it on the other side of Leeton Drive. They connected in
Hurricane Carol. The house stood. The porch got a little wet,
but the house stood. It stood through every other hurricane and
nor'easter since.
Eventually the house becomes my sister' s and my own,
through a series of inheritances. But it's proven itself worthy
in bad weather. I have personally been at the house during many
hurricanes.
So this is the first point, it's got a track record of
survival in this environment.
The second point is it' s not really built like a typical
house you would normally see. It' s all open-framed on the
inside. And what that means is, if it gets wet, it will dry.
And it's gotten wet and it' s dried.
The insulation on the house is actually done on the
Board of Trustees 51 January 14, 2026
outside. And any water that gets in it will either dry or drain.
it' s an important feature of this house. It' s in a very, very
vulnerable position. I don't know when the next Hurricane Carol,
will hit.
But this is before the seawall and before the jetty at
Goldsmith' s Inlet was built.
So if you go back to when they built that jetty there was
probably another 200 feet of beach in front of our house. They
built that jetty, and I don't know if anyone has been there
recently, it' s kind of full on one side.
Years ago it was a 300-foot rock pillar sticking out in the
water, and it' s caught 300 feet of beach. All the houses, that
parking lot at Goldsmith' s, the water was running there. Those
houses have 300 feet of beach. It' s taken the beach east of
there away from like the Kenny' s Beach area, McCabe' s Beach
area, in front of my house.
That jetty is full. It's no longer really collecting sand.
It' s probably not really protecting Goldsmith' s Inlet anymore.
And sand is coming back to the house.
The past two or three years, since it's been full, there is
more sand in front of that house than there has ever been.
A year ago, vegetation was growing on the beach between the
bulkhead and the water. It' s a sign of the water is no longer
coming up to the wall and staying there at every high tide we've
had.
So this is really encouraging for us. And to think about
what kind of risk that house poses, I believe that the risk is
reducing. You know, thanks in part to that jetty being full.
So, you know, for those reasons, I have not been motivated
to try and raise the house to save it.
When you were there, I don't know what the weather was
like, but on a windy day, you go up to that pier, you are going
to get the wind. You come a few steps down to the lower deck on
the side of the house, and you are out of the wind. So the idea
of raising that house up into the wind, yes, it may be better in
a flood, definitely worse in the wind. And I don't, this is why
we've chosen not to raise the house. For those specific reasons.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir.
MS . MOORE: Let me raise one more thing that you and I talked
about. So the area that is going to be disturbed is on the west
side of the house, and we talked about the vegetation, and he
happens, his cousin is a local --
MR. LUYSTER: I 'll describe it. I heard you talk about
vegetation all evening. I'd agree, I would say with most of what
you said. You want to hold the sand, you need vegetation. And
you want the vegetation to live, it needs to be vegetation that
belongs here. So native vegetation.
So yes, my cousin, my father's sister' s son is Jim Glover,
Glover Perennials. If you've heard of it. He's out here in
Cutchogue. We discussed landscaping design for the house, once
we've finish the decks and the garage, to do a natural
hardscape. So whatever plants you see -- this is what he
described to me. I will put sprinklers in, maybe we'll put some
flowers here. No. Look around what is growing, if it can survive
Board of Trustees 52 January 14, 2026
here, then this is what you are going to plant. And you know,
the idea would be to have him design me something along those
lines, to fill any damage that took place when we did any
construction.
In the end, we did this project to save that house and in
order to justify saving it, now that it' s a bit nicer on the
inside, I can't cut bait in the house, I can't filet fish in the
house, I can't put the fishing poles in the house, I can't put
the paddleboards in the house. I need a place to store these
things. This is all in lieu of putting a house like you see
along that beach.
So it' s really an intent of history and preservation here.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, very much.
MR. LUYSTER: One more. I heard a comment about a cesspool. I
would be more than happy to keep the existing cesspool that we
have there. It' s in perfect shape. Rather than do something
different. If you are worried about further disturbance.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I' ll just note that I've scrolling through
Google Earth and seen the amount of sand that' s come back since
2013, and it is pretty remarkable here to see that. So.
Confirming what you've stated from being on site.
MR. LUYSTER: If it was possible to remove half of that shanty, I
would be very supportive of it.
MS. MOORE: Then again, it would change the sand as well.
You had a question about the height of the garage, correct? Was
that your question or someone else? I heard it but I don't
know.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That was in the field notes.
MS. MOORE: Oh, that was your field notes. I know it' s
conforming, so is it 18 foot?
MR. LUYSTER: I think it' s 19 feet. I don't have the plan in
front of me. But it was designed to be conforming.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here who
wishes to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application with the condition that any native vegetation be
maintained to the largest extent possible, and for any disturbed
areas be replanted with native vegetation, and that the entirety
of the property be a vegetated with non-turf buffer, which would
then bring it into consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 53 January 14, 2026
(ALL AYES) .
Respectfully submitted by,
Glenna GolclfZlth, President
Board of Trustees