HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-02/11/2026 Glenn Goldsmith,President �,OF sorry Town Hall Annex
Nicholas Krupski,Vice President �OVv ��� 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski J Southold,New York 11971
Liz Gillooly G Q Telephone(631) 765-1892
Joseph Finora • �O Fax(631) 765-6641
coum��'
RD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MAR 1 9 2026
L.Y.
Minutes
Wednesday, February 11, 2026
5: 30 PM
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: All right, good evening, and welcome to our
Wednesday, February llth, 2026 Trustee meeting. At this I would like
to call the meeting to order and ask that you please stand for the
Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance is recited) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I 'll start off by announcing the people on
the dais . To my right we have Trustee Krupski, Trustee Sepenoski,
Trustee Gillooly and Trustee Finora. To my left we have the attorney
to the Trustees, the Honorable Lori Hulse; the Administrative
Assistant Elizabeth Cantrell; and also Court Stenographer Wayne
Galante.
I just want to take a ,minute to thank Liz and the IT for
putting this together in this room. I don't know if you heard,
there was a flood at the Town Hall, so we are trying to make the
best of a bad situation, so we appreciate all of their efforts.
We do not have microphones tonight, so everybody needs to
speak loudly, clearly and as short as possible.
Agendas for tonight are on the table over there and also on
the Town' s website.
Board of Trustees 2 February 11, 2026
We do have a number of postponements tonight. In the agenda
on page five, Number 4, Stephen Kiely, Esq. On behalf of .1000
___......_._SQUNDBEACH._DRIVE
,._LLC_.re_quest.s 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
On page nine, numbers 13 and 14 :
Number 13, REVISED LANDSCAPING.PLANS & WRITTEN PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 1/21/26 Patricia Moore, Esq. On behalf of
622 CHURCH LANE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for alterations
to the existing 1-;-� story 667sq. ft. Cottage 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 210sq. ft. Entry walkways and a 155sq. ft. Cottage
terrace; install an I/A sanitary system in the front yard;
install a new driveway; install 209sq. ft. Of driveway and
planter/sanitary retaining walls; driveway and planter/sanitary
walls to be screened; install a stormwater drainage system; the
existing dwelling on northwest area of parcel to be converted to
storage use only; proposed grading (cut & fill) in a 1, 750sq. ft.
Area; 445 cy of retaining and sanitary wall fill, general
regrading fill, and interior courtyard fill; remove 87 . 4sq.ft.
Block shed and. 51 . 8sq. ft. Frame shed; limit of clearing and
ground disturbance to end landward of wooded 20% slopes on south
and southeast portions of parcel except for 4 ' wide path to
boathouse; revegetation with trees, shrubs, grasses, perennials
and lawn area.
Located: 1625 Naugles Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-4-18
Number 14, EMILY & RAFAEL ROMECASTER request a Wetland
Permit to install a 20 'x40' 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 .2 'x8 ' pergola; remove existing 8 'x11 ' shed; existing
Board of Trustees 3 February 11, 2026
11. 4 'x22 ' tool shed with entry platform to be maintained;
perpetually maintain the existing 25' wide non-turf buffer area
and clear at least 75' from edge of wetlands; and to maintain
the existing 50 ' wide non-disturbance area along the landward
edge of wetlands .
Located: 330 Shore Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-1-4 . 1„2
On page ten, numbers 15 through 17 :
Number 15, 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 6'x4 ' seaward steps down; plant 3' high native
plantings along the retaining wall; install an I/A type sanitary
system landward of dwelling; install a stormwater drainage
system; install a/c units with a 5' high privacy wall; install
underground electric and water service; install a gravel
driveway; approximately 200 cubic yards of clean fill to be
added surrounding the proposed dwelling to raise the grade;
install silt fencing prior to and during construction; and to
establish and perpetually maintain a 50-foot wide
Non-Disturbance Buffer area along the landward edge of wetlands,
and the area between the retaining wall and buffer to return to
its natural state of vegetation.
Located: 500 Lakeside Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-3-4
Number 16, 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 storm water drainage system.
Located: 1520 Bay Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-8-12 .2
Number 17, 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 4 'x8 ' generator and pool equipment area with sound
deadening enclosure; install a ±121x12 ' gravel gas fire pit
area; install paver walkways; install 4 ' high pool enclosure
fencing with gates, and all existing fencing to be brought to
pool code; remove three (3) junipers and one crab-apple tree;
Board of Trustees 4 February 11, 2026
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
On page eleven, numbers 18 through 22:
Number 18, 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
Number 19, AS PER REVISED SITE PLANS AND PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 9/2/25 J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on
behalf of EDWARD QUINTIERI III requests a Wetland Permit to
relocate and reconfigure the existing docking facility
consisting of removing the existing 21x14 ' ramp, 4 'xl6' floating
dock, 4 'x42 ' floating dock, 4 'x14 ' floating dock and 8 'x2l '
floating boat lift; install to the west of existing a proposed
4 'x10 ' fixed dock off bulkhead to a 2 . 5'xl3. 5' ramp to a 4 'x28 '
floating dock situated in a "T" configuration with a 2 'x4 '
floating finger dock off east side off of 4 'x28 ' floating dock.
Located: 480 North Riley Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-3-34 . 1
Number 20, 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 21, Sam Fitzgerald, Architect on behalf of TRAVIS &
SOFIA GARCELON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
two-story dwelling (25'x45' footprint) on top of concrete piers
to support the house, and in between the concrete piers are
non-structural breakaway panels, construct a 10 'x45' seaward
deck, install a/c units and a generator; install an I/A OWTS
sanitary system landward of dwelling; install underground
electric and water services; and to install a stormwater
drainage system.
Located: End of The Gloaming Extension, Fishers Island.
SCTM# 1000-10-9-13
Number 22, AS PER REVISED SITE PLANS, & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Board of Trustees 5 February 11, 2026
RECEIVED 10/30/2025 Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf
of 500 BROADWATERS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
4 'x30 ' landward ramp leading up to a 4 'x30 ' catwalk to a 4 'x30'
ramp down onto a 4 'x57 ' dock (41x147 ' total) using open grade
decking; install a 3 'x14 ' aluminum ramp at seaward end of dock
leading onto a 6'x20 ' floating dock situated in an "L"
configuration and secured with two (2) pile dolphins .
Located: 5.00 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-10-5
On page 12, numbers 23 through 26, as follows :
Number 23, 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 ll 'x20 ' parking area on north side of proposed
dwelling; install a new innovative, alternative nitrogen
reducing water treatment system (IA/OWTS) ; install sanitary
retaining wall at an overall length of 99.5' and a width of 8 . 0"
across the top of the wall.
Located: 750 West Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-2-1
Number 24, 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 25, 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 4 'x5' platform
elevated 4 . 5 ' above grade leading to a raised 4 'x50 ' ramp
leading down to a 4 'x30 ' catwalk; reuse existing 31x16' ramp and
6'x20 ' floating dock situated in an "L" configuration; remove
existing pilings and install two (2) new anchor pilings; and the
existing landward wood walkway to dock to be removed and
replaced with a mulch walkway. Located: 905 Westview Drive,
Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-139-1-17
Number 26, L.K. McLean Associates on behalf of AWC DOCKSIDE, LLC
requests a Wetland Permit for Marina improvements consisting of the
as-built 6'x98 ' , 6'x218 ' and 6'xl2. 10 ' (±1, 988sq.ft. ) Sections of CCA
decking along top of existing southerly bulkheadFsection; within a
Board of Trustees 6 February 11,2026
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, Q15 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 ±3.2 ' 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) 15'x35' slips by installing 10 new
mooring piles and 10 new guide piles; install a 4 'x40 ' gangway,
one (1) 8 'x53 ' and one (1) 61x102 ' floating dock parallel to new
bulkhead and install five (5) 4 'x30 ' floating finger docks off
of 6' and 8 ' wide floating docks; spread dredge spoil and raise
grade in area landward of new and portion of existing bulkhead
approximately 4" higher (±140 cubic yards over an area of
12,200sq. ft. ) ; in an area around existing concrete slab, spread
excess fill taken from area landward of bulkhead and raise grade
approximately 18" (±230 cubic yards over an area of
4, 140sq. ft. ) ; a proposed pump-out truck with 1, OOOgal. 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
And on page 13, number 27, 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, 357s.q. 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 vegetate 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 of those are postponed and will not be heard this evening.
Under Town Code Chapter 275-8 (c) , filed were officially closed seven
days ago, submission of any paperwork after that date may result in a
delay of the processing of the applications.
Board of Trustees 7 February 11,2026
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this I 'll make a motion to hold our next field
inspection, Wednesday, March 11th, 2026, at 8 : 00 AM, weather
permitting.
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, March 18th, 2026, at 5: 30 PM, at the town -
hall main meeting hall, provided it is fixed in time.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
III. WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I 'll make a motion to hold our next work
sessions, Monday, March 16th, 2026, at 5: 00 PM, at the Town Hall
annex, 2nd floor Executive Board Room, and on Wednesday, March
18th, 2026, at 5: OOPM in the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall, again,
provided it is fixed in time.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I ' ll make a motion to approve the Minutes of
the Trustees meeting dated January 14th, 2026.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Trustees monthly report for January 2026,
A check for $37, 644 . 32 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
Board of Trustees 8 February 11, 2026
hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in
Section XI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated
Wednesday, February 11th, 2026 are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to
further review under SEQRA, as written:
8 Jan Court, LLC SCTM# 1000-44-2-17
Richard & Ellen Depalma SCTM# 1000-52-2-32. 4
500 Broadwaters, LLC SCTM# 1000-104-10-5
5415 Skunk Lane, LLC SCTM# 1000-138-2-16
Christine MacDonagh SCTM# 1000-54-5-48 .2
Emily & Rafael Romecaster SCTM# 1000-86-1-4 . 12
Ronald & Teresa McCaskie SCTM# 1000-114-7
Sean & Randi Lally SCTM# 1000-113-6-22
The William J'. Graf Irrevocable Trust u/a/d 10/18/2018 & The Susan H.
Graf Irrevocable Trust u/a/d 10/18/2018 SCTM# 1000-137-3-8 .3
Scott & Jennifer Schulman SCTM# 1000-70-5-41
Sean R. McCoyd SCTM# 1000-87-3-66. 4
Anthony Cattarina & Deitra Mara SCTM# 1000-103-9-3
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
VIII. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII, Resolutions and
Administrative Permits . In order to simplify our meetings, the Board
of Trustees regularly groups together actions that are minor or .
similar in nature. Accordingly I 'll make a motion to approve as a
group items 1, 2, 4 and 6, as follows:
Number 1, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. On behalf of GEORGEANNE SPATES
LIVING TRUST requests a 10-Year Maintenance Permit to cut and manage
invasive species adjacent to pond on north-east property line.
Located: 625 Private Road #2, Southold. SCTM# 1000-61.-4-10
Number 2, MATTITUCK PARK DISTRICT requests a. Ten-Year
Maintenance Permit to hand-cut Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to
12" in height by hand, as needed.
Located: 1865 Bay Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-144-4-1
Number 4, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of MICHAEL &
EMILY KAVOURIAS requests an Administrative Permit to remove existing
in-ground swimming pool; construct a 20 ' x 40 ' gunite in-ground pool.
Located: 1240 Inlet Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-2-6
Number 6, En-Consultants on behalf of LAUREN B. GORDON requests
an Administrative Permit to conduct maintenance and exterior
renovations to existing 2, 816 sq. ft. 2-story dwelling; remove two '(2)
existing windows and install three (3) new windows on 2nd floor;
replace access door to attached garage and five (5) exterior doors
on 1st floor of dwelling with associated reframing of ±40 ' x 10'
section of exterior 1st floor wall; replace decking over existing
1, 500 sq.ft. Attached deck; replace three (3) wood steps with stone
Board of Trustees 9 February 11, 2026
steps; remove 70 linear feet of guardrail from rear porch and replace
55 linear feet of guardrail on front porch; replace existing screen
porch panels; and remove 15' x 17 ' decorative gable dormer from above
front entry porch.
Located: 825 Kimberly Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-13-20 .5.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, SUMMIT ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
INC. requests an Administrative Permit for the as-built 12 ' x 12 '
gazebo.
Located: Parcel "D", Shipyard Lane, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-38-7-12 .
Trustee Sepenoski did a field inspection February 1st, noting
the application was straightforward.
The LWRP did find it to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is
the as-built structure is not associated with a single-family
dwelling and the structure does not meet the definition of a deck.
I will make a motion to approve this application and by granting
it a permit will bring it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of
CAROL ANN SICCARDI, CHRISTOPHER FOTI, FORTUNATO FOTI, IGNATIA E. FOTI
LIVING TRUST, PASCAL FOTI, RUSSEL LIVING TRUST, VALENTINE FOTI
requests an Administrative Permit to abandon existing cesspool;
change existing waste line to 4" cast iron; install I/A OWTS system
with eight (2) 2 ' precast leaching galleys with control
panel, mac blower assembly, and vent; add ±120 cubic yards of clean
fill from an upland source for grading and use beneath leaching
galleys.
Located: 1925 Pipes Neck Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-1-19.
Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection February 6th,
2026. Notes read: no retaining walls were pictured.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
I 'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that there are no retaining walls installed without a
permit.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 7, KIM & BRETT DOHNAL request an
Administrative Permit for the removal of seven (7) trees and
replanting of twenty-two (22) trees; plant non-turf buffer with
erosion control plantings, including native vegetation.
Located: 1225 Long Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-55-3-29
Trustee Gillooly did a field inspection February 6th, 2026.
Notes read review with Board at work session, additional trees may be
needed on the bank to replace those that were removed.
Board of Trustees 10 February 11, 2026
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is
that the removal of the trees within established non-disturbance
buffer is not permitted and definitely not consistent with the
administrative permit requirements of Chapter 275-2 (a) of the
Wetland Law of the Town of Southold.
I 'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that four native hardwoods of two to three-inch caliper are
planted along the top of the bank to replace those that were cut down
without permits .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 8, KEVIN & SUZANNE DELANE request an
Administrative Permit to install a 10 ' x 14 ' shed.
Located: 305 Narrow River Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-3-11
Trustee Sepenoski conducted a field inspection February 9th,
2026. Notes read: too much structure already on property.
Discussion with prior owner made. It is clear the Board would not be
open to further lot coverage and development.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is the
proposed action cannot be reviewed given that there is no indication
of Trustee jurisdiction, wetland boundary, beach bank, et cetera, on
the plan, to determine whether the minimum setback for a shed has
been met.
Trustee Sepenoski reviewed it and felt that it was all right to
put the shed in the location. He was onsite to note where the wetland
delineation is.
Therefore I 'll make a motion to approve this application as
submitted and bring it into consistency with the LWRP.
(A brief pause is noted) .
I 'll rescind that motion. I 'll make a motion to deny this
application, as the yard is already burdened with an abundance of
structure and it is inconsistent with the LWRP. And spanning entirely
in a wetland-vegetated property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral IX, Application for
Extensions/Transfers/Administrative Amendments .
Again, in order to simplify the meeting, I 'll make a motion to
approve Item 1, as follows:
Number 1, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. On behalf of LZF FARMS LLC
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #10894 from Thomas Rattler to
LZF Farms LLC, as issued September 17, 2025.
Located: 67925 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-3-19. 19
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
l
Board of Trustees 11 February 11, 2026
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, L78, LLC c/o JONATHAN LEWIS requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10009 to include the as-
built entry stairs on west side of dwelling; reconfigure seaward side
stairs; relocation of outdoor shower; as-built walkway to driveway;
planting of two hardwood trees; remove previously approved gazebo
from project description.
Located: 1500 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-7-9. 1
Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection on further review
by the entire Board. I ' ll make a motion to table this application for
further review.
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 as a group items 1 and 2, as
follows:
Number 1, PHILIP STANG requests a Mooring in Gull Pond for a 33'
outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #1. Access : Public
' Number 2, MATTHEW OPISSO requests a Mooring in Deep Hole Creek
for a 19' outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #103. Access:
Private.
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 public hearings.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: 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. And also
please note the lack of microphones, so please speak loud and clear:
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Under Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits,
Number 1, David Bergen on behalf of 8 JAN COURT, LLC requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the existing
1, 321sq. ft. One-story dwelling, existing 406sq. ft. One-story cottage,
and 25' long driveway retaining wall; alterations to the dwelling
include raising/reconstruction of the roof of the dwelling to a
I
Board of Trustees 12 February 11, 2026
maximum height of 19. 8 ' at peak; remove 472sq. ft. Of existing seaward
decks and replace with a 4 'xl8 ' wood stair to grade and a 4 'xll . 11 '
wood stair to grade; remove and replace windows in existing and new
locations, and on east side remove entrance door, landing, and steps
and install two windows; alterations to the cottage include removing
existing front door and relocating it to the east side of cottage,
add a new 4 . 9'x10 ' deck over existing concrete stairs to basement;
remove existing 164sq. ft. Seaward deck and replace with new 6'x20 '
wood deck, remove and replace windows in existing and new locations;
remove all basement windows and seal up openings with entry door to
remain; remove the roof, raise the four sides of the cottage and
install a new roof; abandon existing septic system and install an I/A
OWTS sanitary system; and install a stormwater drainage system.
Located: 58525 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-2-17
The Trustees most recently visited the property on the 4th of
February, noted -at the time the IA system was not depicted to be
added in this location. It should also be noted that it is my
understanding that an IA system has now been added to the
application.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistencies lie with not meeting the minimum setback to wetland
jurisdiction. None of the proposed work meets any setback
requirements as permitted. The entire backyard should be designated
a permanent non-disturbance buffer, covered in gravel or vegetated
with American beach grass .
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, on behalf of 8 Jan Court LLC.
This is a project that had been initially to the Building
Department and referred to ZBA for various variances due to the
setback issues . The ZBA granted the variances.
The next step was coming here to the Trustees .
It's a very constrained piece of property, as you folks have
seen, and we were able to propose an IA system that will hopefully
fit on the property.
And with that -- oh, and in regards to the LWRP, with a previous
permit that was given by this Board for the bulkhead, it was agreed .
that the entire property would be a non-turf buffer. So I heard now
that there is a suggestion of non-disturbance, and I know, I think I
heard it was either mentioned either front yard, backyard. If we are
going to do something that is non-disturbance, because, I want to
clarify, landward of the house or seaward of the house. Because we,
because of the minimum distance between the house and the North Road,
we want to have the opportunity to put shrubs in to act a little
bit as a sound buffer there. So I hate to see a non-disturbance
buffer and impact that ability to put in shrubs between the house and
the road. It's a very, very small area.
So with that, I 'm here to answer any questions you might have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you, for that description. I think the Board
felt that a vegetated non-turf property for the entirety of the
property is slightly more appropriate.
Board of Trustees 13 February 11, 2026
MR. BERGEN: Okay. And I do apologize, I brought in two copies for
the rest of the Board. Would anybody like a copy for the
conversations tonight of the updated plans? I have them stamped and
approved here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you. Is there anyone else here that wishes to
-- ..- - speak regarding this application?
(NO RESPONSE) .
Or any additional comments from members of the Board?
MS. HULSE: Do you want to address the Coastal Erosion?
MR. BERGEN: The application is for both Coastal Erosion and Wetland
Permit. So I 'm here to answer any questions .
MS. HULSE: So the application is basically essentially the way you
are dealing with the coastal erosion issue, by making the
application?
MR. BERGEN: Yes .
MS. HULSE: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : So it is a tricky lot, as you know. It' s already
been extremely developed. At this point, at least, that leaves sides,
are staying the same. The thought is that putting in a buffer would
help mitigate some factors here, and hopefully we don't see
another superstorm that wipes it out. But I think what is being done
gives us a better chance.
Are -there any additional comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I ' ll make a motion to approve the Wetland
portion of this application.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Due to its location and nature of the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Area, I make a motion to deny the coastal erosion
portion of this application.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Number 2, AS PER REVISED SITE PLANS & PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 2/4/26 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 a 6' long
Board of Trustees 14 February 11, 2026
northerly return; construct a 209 linear foot long rock revetment
from neighbor' s bulkhead to west .to the edge of property line to the
east; excavate a small area along toe of bluff, install fiber fabric,
18" of blanket stone 10-15 lbs . , toe stones 3-5 tons each, top and
face stones 2-4 tons each, place sand backfill raising the finished
grade seaward and over new rock revetment; install- a project limiting
fence prior to and during construction along limit of clearing; any
disturbed areas to be re-vegetated with beach grass; and to establish
and perpetually maintain 26, 500sq.ft. Non-Disturbance Buffer areas
along both bluff faces, and 4, 650sq. ft. Non-Turf Buffer areas
along the landward edges of the Non-Disturbance Buffers .
Located: 3705 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-1-11 & 12.
The Trustees reviewed the latest set of plans at our work
session and visited the mainly staked revetment area of the
beach. The notes are marked, from our Board's February visit, read:
The revetment looks acceptable. Move back the natural toe of bluff.
Water server should not cross through the non-disturbance buffer
between the house and Duck Pond Point.
The drywells should be pulled back. No patio or balcony on the
seaward side. Non-disturbance to start at east side retaining
wall. Vegetation plan for non-turf buffer area. House should be
pulled back from top of bluff on Duck Pond Point side.
The LWRP filed its findings in December of 2025, claiming
the inconsistency stems from Policy 6, protect and restore tidal
and freshwater wetlands, and D, Chapter 275-3 of setbacks . There
should be 100-foot setback from the residence from top of bluff.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the application?
MR. CUDDY: Yes . Charles Cuddy. This matter was tabled and I just
would like it to be untabled at this point so we can open the
hearing. Is that a fair request?
MS. HULSE: Yes, it is actually opened as it is on the agenda, and the
Trustees are considering it now. Thank you.
MR. CUDDY: I 'm here with Mr. Aliano who is the applicant, and also
here with his family and associates and our engineer, who is
Mr. Gaudiello.
I just want to make a comment about the inconsistency in
the LWRP. And, by the way, I appreciate being up close because my
voice can now be heard.
The problem I have with that statement of inconsistency is
that if you look at it, there is no basis in fact from what is
said at the top of the page. The top of the page talks about the
-- I ' ll just read it quickly -- protect and restore tidal and
fresh water wetlands . But there is no basis for what is said.
It' s just conclusions . So I don't know how it can be supported.
As far as the setback goes, it' s 100 feet. We know that.
That's why we are here. But .also I would point out that all
along the bluff, everybody else is setback 50 feet, and in fact
when we did the Sack (sic) decision a few years ago it was just
50 feet. So I don't think it' s applicable to us .
More importantly, though, I would like Mr. Gaudiello to
comment on the new plans that we have, and I think he' s prepared
to do that. So I would like him to speak.
Board of Trustees 15 February 11, 2026
MR. GAUDIELLO: Good evening, Board. My name is Vincent A. Gaudiello,
I am a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of New York. I'm
also a principal with the Raynor Group, with offices at 860 Montauk
Highway in Water Mill, New York.
I have been retained by the applicant here to assist with
the engineering aspect of this project and the preparation of
the site plan drawings . The drawings are done by Young & Young
Associates, and I would say, you know, just in a nutshell, that
I was brought in more or less as a peer review, and make some
comments in an attempt to address some of the current concerns
of this Board with respect to the application.
I will say that I was present at the December 17th, 2025
hearing with the Board. I did not speak, but I did listen to
some of the comments that were represented. I believe, one of
the Board members who is no longer on the Board had made some
comments . And with those comments I went back to Young & Young
and we kind of made some revisions to the plan. And that plan
that you are looking at, I believe is dated January 27th, 2026.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The plans before us this evening, just so you
know what I 'm looking at, are February, stamped received February
4th.
MR. GAUDIELLO: I just want to confirm it' s the same one.
(Perusing) . That' s the date, right. Great. Wonderful.
One of the things that I requested of the client and what
Young & Young did, was we basically took the development
portion, again, excluding the revetment, but the development
where the residence is being proposed. And we put it at a
bigger scale. And the purpose of that is to really digest what
the design information is at that location.
And I guess why I 'm here today is because during the
hearing in December, we heard about moving some drainage
structures, which we have. We talked about moving the east elevation
of the" house westerly, which we have. And we also, and what was a
general term was the "environmental issues, " which in my --
environmental issues is a very broad brush. Are we talking
ground water? Are we talking erosion? Are we talking construction
logistics?
So in an attempt to chew on eventually what the concerns of
this Board may be, we made some revisions. And I would like to
take this opportunity to go over what they were.
The first thing is, is that we redesigned the sanitary
system. It was previously an IA system, now it is still an IA
system but we swapped out a Norweco tank with a Fuji Clean tank.
And that really, with my opinion, deals with the construction
logistics . You needed a crane to pretty much set that other
structure. This structure is a prefabricated, reinforced
plastic tank. You know,. I think two or three guys can handle it
by themselves and drop it in the hole.
So what we were really focused with was to kind of look at
this and try to bring some of the excavation activity more to
the center of the site and get away from the property line. And
I believe that design has done that.
Board of Trustees 16 February 11, 2026
As far as what is out there now, I believe as a result of a
building permit that was issued in error about 20 years ago,
there' s a remnants of a foundation that is there. We have
basically taken the development plan of this portion of the site
and brought it within the limits of that existing foundation.
And we're, with respect to the limits of disturbance that we are
-
proposing here,, we really -Piave used-that limit-of--where-that___ ----------
former foundation is, as our limits, because our intention would
be, is to leave it or I assume remove it from the place.
Now, if that' s something the Board wants to talk about, we
can further digest on that from a standpoint of — (off record
discussion with Mr. Cuddy) .
Exactly. But, again, my point with the existing foundation
that is there, if it' s stabilizing the top of the slope, is that
something that the Board prefers that remain in place, or do you
want us to take it out?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Can I interrupt you, very quickly?
MR. GAUDIELLO: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : While we are on this topic, what are you
proposing to do with the foundation? Just out of curiosity.
MR. DALTON: John Dalton. Mount Sinai, New York.
We built the other lots that are on Duck Pond Road, 20
years, 20-plus years. What we are looking to do is basically
keep the foundation in place and pin whatever we have to pin to
put the new one.
There' s no sense in ripping that out and disturbing that
land and removing the trees and stuff. I think it' s foolish.
MR. GAUDIELLO: What about here. So our intention is to leave
that?
MR. DALTON: Yes. Because that will be lower than our original
foundation anyway.
MR. GAUDIELLO: So I think that is not identified on the plan. I
think we'll make that revision to more or less say that the
remnants of that would remain. '
And again, I think from what I gathered from the prior
comments was there is concern about erosion heading down the
bluff. And that I think that with that wall there and that
second-generation growth that is forward of that wall, that has
somewhat stabilized the area, and in essence reduces the
potential for erosion that is also ultimately going down the
bank.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Do you have plans to do any work on the
existing foundation or are you just utilizing it as existing?
MR. DALTON: We're going to utilize what' s there, and then pin to
it and then move it forward. Because it's mainly going on
forward, you know, toward Duck Pond. I mean Depot.
MR. GAUDIELLO: With respect to that easterly portion of the
site, most of the existing grade that is there right now is
consistent with what is being proposed. So as far as the other
and excavation work, you know, again, I know the site was
disturbed, so obviously we are not dealing with the natural
grade, or I should say it' s natural now, but if that' s not how
Board of Trustees 17 February 11, 2026
mother nature put it there.
There is a minimal amount of earth work that is really
associated with this, other than digging out for the balance of
the foundation towards the westerly side.
In addition to that, the drywells, we kind of switched them
a little built. We took the roof runoff and moved that to the
northerly side just because I believe, you know, we have more
room there to do that excavation work as opposed to what was
previously proposed on the southerly side. ,
There is one drywell proposed currently on the southerly
side, and that is more or less to take the runoff from that side
yard area before it actually hits and would ultimately flow over
the bank.
MR. DAWSON: Yeah, we' ll have that open grade.
MR. GAUDIELLO: The amount of the disturbed, or I should say the
project area for the residence, excluding the revetment area,
makes up less than 140 of the overall lot area.
So with respect to the site itself, I believe the
percentage of disturbance of where we would be working is
minimal relative to the overall site.
And, again, we recognize the environmental concerns here
with the slopes and the bluffs, and really what our objective
here, and addressing, or some of the concerns of the Board,
would be to stay within the previous footprint of the prior
disturbance, which occurred approximately 20 years ago.
MR. DAWSON: And you have no disturbance, you know, which is
going to help you, you know.
MR. GAUDIELLO: One of the comments I think I heard had to do
with the water service coming from Duck Pond Road?
MR. DAWSON: Yes, there' s public water, right in the court.
MR. GAUDIELLO: So we can handle that?
MR. DAWSON: Absolutely. Because we come around. We got room to
get it off of Duck Pond -- not Duck Pond, but off of Glen Court.
MR. GAUDIELLO: Yes. If the Board has any specific questions with
the design, or any comments, I would be more than happy to
respond to them and make note of them and bring that back to our
design team.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I just have one question with the staking for
the rock revetment. We saw it in the field. We saw the stakes.
Do the stakes signify where the rock revetment is or the
finished grade?
MR. GAUDIELLO: I did not set those stakes .
MR. DAWSON: I didn't set them either. But most likely that is
where the wall is going to be.
MR. GAUDIELLO: The location of the stake was the toe of the
wall. As far as a grade on it, I don't know if they were -- let
me correct for the record. I advised Young & Young to put the
stakes in the location where the toe would be going.
TRUSTEE FINORA: For the limit of the --
MR. GAUDIELLO: Right. For construction purposes, obviously, you
would put it offset because you'll lose the stake once you start
knocking it out.
Board of Trustees 18 February 11, 2026
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But the stakes in the field are the most
seaward progression of your work?
MR. GAUDIELLO: Exactly.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I think there should also be an understanding
on that, that during construction you can't use any of the
existing materials there. So you can't dig off the beach and use
that sediment. You can't utilize the rocks .
MR. DAWSON: Right.
MR. GAUDIELLO: Yes. I think this is somewhat of an export. We
can certainly provide that for the Board, if they choose.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
MR. CUDDY: No. Thank you.
MR. GAUDIELLO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : We have been to many site visits, work
sessions, reviewing plans, seeing the conditions in the field.
You all have been generous several times meeting us there to
explain all our questions with clear answers . And you worked up
a project, each phase has been reworked to scale back the scale
of development instead of the environmental concerns .
It' s a difficult location, given this exposure on the north
side, the Sound side. The erosion, which you are addressing with
the rock revetment, a little difficult on the Duck Pond Road
side because of the slope.
But with non-disturbance buffers in place, the relocation
of the drywell, one drywell, removal of the patio and
overhanging balcony, I think we've limited this project enough
to move forward on it.
If there are no other comments from the Board, 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 several conditions : Beginning with the rock revetment, no
local materials, beach sand or rocks will be used in the
construction of the rock revetment.
There is to be an old foundation remnants are going to
remain in their current location, undisturbed.
There is to be a non-disturbance buffer to the east side,
extending from the retaining wall down to Duck Pond Road.
The new retaining wall to Duck Pond Road on the eastern
side, should be delineated on the new plans .
The planting plans for the non-disturbance buffer as
indicated on the plans we have here. New plans to show that.
And remove the second-story balcony and patio from the
plans . And we have one drywell on the right, and it's located
further, I believe would be to the west.
MR. GAUDIELLO: I agree with that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : On the north side of the structure, the two
Board of Trustees 19 February 11, 2026
drywells, one of them to the east, we' ll shift that one to the
west side. And remove the water line from the Duck Pond Road
side and water service will be provided from the Glenn Court
side.
With all of these conditions, new plans showing this, and
modifications made to consider environmental impacts, minimize
them, will thereby bring this into consistency with the LWRP.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? Aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Aye.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Aye.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Aye.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Before I vote, I want to say a couple of
words . By definition as interpreted by the Trustees, this parcel
is located on the bluff, with two faces, with steep drop-offs . A
bluff is a natural protective feature under our code. While I
acknowledge that there is a slight reduction in the size of the
home, the proposal before us is a three-story dwelling that
maximizes the intensity on an already-eroded bluff face, which
would have an impact on the neighborhood and the bluff faces .
For several months we have asked for the structure to be
reduced and we keep seeing very minimal reductions .
Earlier Mr. Cuddy mentioned a 50-foot setback that was made
by the neighbors, however the secondary bluff face has not been
acknowledged in this plan, and the setback from the top of the
secondary bluff face is significantly below the 50-foot setback.
The only level area on the property was created through
prior illegal excavation, which received a stop-work order.
In my judgment further activity of the construction of a
three-story house and the sanitary system, maximizing the
intensity will further destabilize the bluff.
Under Chapter 275, Section 12, I find that the project will
cause damage from erosion, weakening or undermining the lateral
support of adjacent land, and otherwise adversely affect the
health, safety and general welfare of the people of Southold
town, under Chapter 111 I cannot find this activity is
reasonable and necessary as required under 111-9 (a) , nor that it
preserves the natural protective features of the bluff.
While I respect that the ZBA granted a variance, our role
as Trustees is succinct and we are not to provide environmental
protection standards independently.
For these reasons I respectfully vote no.
(The record reflects Trustees Goldsmith, Krupski, Sepenoski and
Finora vote aye. Trustee Gillooly votes nay) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just, we need to keep the doorway open. No
one can sit. I think there might be people leaving.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I 'm assuming you folks are leaving. So we can
make room. If we just take a one-minute intermission for you
folks to. I don't want to show you the door.
And if you have any questions about those conditions,
contact the office.
Board of Trustees 20 February 11, 2026
MR. CUDDY: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Number 3, AS PER REVISED SITE PLANS SUBMITTED
1/21/2026 Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of CATHERINE PINO & JOSEPH
LICCIARDI requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit
to add 25 cubic yards of clean sand fill backfill within the
eroded areas landward of the rock revetment; create a berm along
top. of bank and plant Cape American beach grass plugs placed 12"
on-center for entire disturbed area; provide 50 tons of
additional 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 'xl5'
steps to beach.
Located: 50 Cleaves Point Road, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-38-2-31
The Trustees site visit was conducted on February 4th.
Notes here by Trustee Goldsmith. Recommendations for a non-turf
buffer landward of revetment, 50-foot wide. And a note to
confirm the height of the berm on the current- record plans.
Taking a look at the LWRP, this project is noted as
inconsistent with references to shoreline structures, but I also
note that the date of the LWRP is perhaps from the earlier
project plans where a bulkhead was depicted.
The LWRP findings make suggestions for hardened shorelines
where the design is practical and necessary, although disturbed.
And we have here revised plans for a rock revetment in lieu of
the bulkhead.
Is there anybody here that wants to speak on behalf of the
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant.
This is a revised submission, as mentioned. We did remove
any reference to a proposed bulkhead here. And it was also a
request of the New York DEC who had objections to a proposed
bulkhead at this location.
So the project now has been modified to reshape and
supplement some additional rip rap to the existing revetment,
and also to utilize 25 cubic yards of clean fill landward of the
revetment to create a berm and stop any runoff from entering
over the berm into the bank, the harbor, I should say.
With reference to elevations at the top of the revetment,
it is shown on the existing and proposed plans, there are
contours on there. The heights vary anywhere from elevation
three all the way up to elevation eight on the west end, and
meets the existing bulkhead on the east end of the north side,
which is approximately elevation seven.
So the majority of this is going to be, the top elevation
varies between elevation six and seven.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Is that for the berm also?
MR. PATANJO: The berm is going to be 12 inches tall or so. It' s
not a tall berm. It will be planted with Cape American beach
grass, and we have no objection to a 15-foot wide non-turf
buffer.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Are there any other comments from the Board on
Board of Trustees 21 February 11, 2026
this application?
(Negative response)..
Any other comments from the public?
(Negative response) .
Seeing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE -GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE FINORA: Based on the comments we received, I make a
motion to approve this application with the addition of a
50-foot wide vegetated non-turf buffer, and a note that the
proposed berm top elevation is not to exceed 12 inches above the
proposed top elevation of the revetment, thereby bringing it
into consistency with the LWRP findings .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Under Wetland Permits, number 1, AS PER
REVISED SITE PLAN RECEIVED 1/28/26 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
4 'x34 ' fixed dock consisting of a 4 'x28 ' fixed dock that
includes 4 ' wide landward steps up to dock and 4 ' wide seaward
steps down to a proposed 4 'x20 ' long fixed "T" section off
seaward end; all decking to be Thru-Flow type decking; relocate
a fire pit to outside the buffer limits; and to maintain
existing 25' wide non-disturbance and 15' wide non-turf buffers
with a 4 ' wide path to dock.
Located: 910 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-27
The Trustees .most recently conducted an in-house review on
the 4th of February, and prior to that conducted a field
inspection on the 7th of October, noting that the
non-disturbance area must be allowed to revegetate, remove fire
pit and wood piles sitting in area. Dock cannot extend beyond
the existing footprint. Applicant may propose a "T"
configuration if a boat would still fall within the existing
footprint.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent. The inconsistency is in relation to the length of
the dock. The creek -- the LWRP states the creek is very narrow
at this location with less than 40 feet between the end of the
existing dock and the structure on the opposite shore. Adding
the "T" section extends the length of the structure into the
creek by an "additional six feet. Survey of the existing shows a
28-foot dock. Proposed is at 34 . The remainder of the project
could be found consistent if the T-section is not added and the
new dock after construction remains in the same footprint as the
existing.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
Board of Trustees 22 February 11, 2026
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. This
application was modified based on comments addressed at the past
two hearings . One of the comments that was brought up at the
last hearing was to provide water depths so we can observe the
actual elevation of the center line of the channel. We have
provided those and they are shown on this plan, and I have
provided those at each subsequent submission.
It shows on here that the actual center line of the creek,
West Creek, the channel area is directly in the center, as
originally thought. That' s the low point, which is the travel
lane. We did modify the proposal to limit the size and length of
the proposed dock. We now keep it at 28 feet long, four-foot
wide. And we did pull back all of the proposed work to, and it
extends out approximately one-and-a-half feet further out into
the waterway. But as we show, and you can see it on the
dimensions, the proposed dock and also the existing dock has a
45-foot wide width, of creek width, from bulkhead to the face of
the proposed dock. And utilizing the, what size do we have here.
45 minus 37 . So an eight-foot wide beam boat, which is typical
for a 21-foot wide. An 8-foot wide beam boat, still have 37 feet
of clear area, which is far less than 250 of the waterway width,
and it does not project out into the channel area by any means.
We did indicate on the plans that the buffer has to be, the
fire pit has to be relocated outside of the buffer area. And
all other questions, I believe, were answered.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, Mr. Patanjo.
So I think you noted that this dock still extends about a
foot-and-a-half beyond the existing dock. And the main message I
think that we were trying to say is no further seaward
extension. So I think if you can dial it back by that
one-and-one-half feet, to make sure that the seaward edge of the
dock is no further seaward than the existing dock, I think that
would be agreeable to the Board.
MR. PATANJO: We can do that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : It' s a very tight spot. I mean, if you look at
the site in the field, I don't know if the measurement across is
completely accurate to go down to the nearest inch because it
will be tight there.
MR. PATANJO: No problem. We'll scale it back. We'll make it a
lnotation that the proposed dock should be no further seaward
than the existing dock.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Does this location have any restrictions
other than that DEC --
MR. PATANJO: The DEC _reviewed it. I don't know if I have a
permit.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : (Continuing) as to what type of vessel is
permitted?
MR. PATANJO: No, not that I 'm aware of.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Hearing no further comment, I make a motion
Board of Trustees 23 February 11, 2026
to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application
subject to the submission of new plans depicting a dock no
further seaward than what exists onsite today. And with the
overall reduction of the dock will thereby bring this into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of RONALD
& TERESA McCASKIE requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace existing timber bulkhead with 90' of new vinyl bulkhead
in same location as existing, including two 10 ' long bulkhead
returns; off bulkhead install a 4 'x70' fixed dock with steps
down to a 4 ' wide by 14 ' long fixed "T" section at seaward end
using Thru-Flow decking throughout; install 41x8 ' steps using
Thru-Flow decking off dock to beach; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 10 ' wide non-turf buffer along the
landward side of the bulkhead.
Located: 2790 Westphalia Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-114-7-3
The Trustees conducted a field inspection February 4th,
2026. Notes read insufficient water depth for dock, and the pier
line as depicted on the plans is not accurate.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is with Policy 6. The proposed dock does not meet the
requirements set forth in Chapter 275-11 Construction and
Operation Standards for a Residential Dock, including (c) (2) (b) ,
dock locations and lengths within creeks and other narrow
waterways, no dock length shall exceed one-quarter of the total
width of the waterbody. The termination of the length of the
dock must include the dimensions of the vessel.
The proposed dock length will exceed one-quarter of the
total width of the creek.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant.
This is another weird spot. It' s the far terminus end of
the creek, that there is no navigation by anybody down here.
The existing, the neighboring dock' s pier line, we only
have one on -- on the east side, is the only dock that can
relate with a pier line projection. We go out the same exact
length as that neighboring dock to get into the water body.
This proposed dock is conditioned by the New York State DEC
to have non-motorized access only, so they don't want any
motorboats here. So it' s mainly used for like launching of
kayaks and, you know, sailboat or something like that.
I think that addresses the questions. The question
regarding the 250 of waterway width, that's also a DEC
Board of Trustees 24 February 11, 2026
regulation. It just can't be met because we would be in low
water and would not have the ability to put a dock there, at
this location. I understand it' s a tough place to have a dock,
but they just wanted some additional access to the waters .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding
this application?
(Negative response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
MR. PATANJO: This is a bulkhead application as well, by the way.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes .
MR. PATANJO: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing no further comments, I ' ll make a
motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Obviously, as Mr. Patanjo stated, there is
not sufficient water depth here for a dock. It does exceed the
quarter-width rule. Therefore, I 'll make a motion to approve
this application with the revised project description to read as
follows :
Jeff Patanjo on behalf of Ronald & Teresa McCaskie requests
a Wetland Permit to remove and replace existing timber bulkhead
with nine feet of new vinyl bulkhead in same location as
existing, including two 10 '-long bulkhead returns, and to
establish and perpetually maintain a 10-foot wide non-turf
buffer along the landward side of bulkhead, located at 2790
Westphalia Road, Mattituck. And by removing the dock from this
application will bring it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. PATANJO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Number 3, Todd O'Connell, Architect on behalf
of RICHARD & ELLEN DEPALMA requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing two-story dwelling (1,240sq. ft. Footprint) with an
8 'x22.5' seaward covered porch and steps to ground, and an
outdoor shower; construct a 40sq. ft. Roof over front entry
porch; remove existing 10.2 ' x ±8 ' landward screened porch and
construct a family room in-place on existing foundation; remove
existing 10. 1 ' x 10 .2 ' seaward screened porch and construct
additional living space in-place on existing foundation; and to
install a basement egress well.
Located: 940 Ruch Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-2-32 . 4
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent due to the
required setback, and noted that if approved a buffeF should be
established landward of the stone wall.
The Trustee most recently visited the property on the 4th
of February and noted that a ten-foot minimum vegetated non-turf
buffer should be added along the top of the bank.
Board of Trustees 25 February 11, 2026
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. O'CONNELL: Thank you. I 'm here, Todd O'Connell, the
Architect, and the owners are here with me as well this evening.
Basically, this is a very small change in this house in
terms of the footprint. We are just adding a small portico
.. -------------- . . -
towards the front of the house for an entry.
But far from that, there is an existing screen porch, fully
roofed, it's all sided like the rest of the house, and we are
just essentially turning it into living space. We are not
adding any foundation work, just converting it into being part
of the house itself. And if you went to the house you could see
it' s really, you know, a de minimis request in totality. And
I 've taken the portico which is, you know, on the front of the
house, it' s, you know, well over 100 feet away from the water as
well. And that' s what I 'm here for. So I 'm hoping for your
approval it on.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Todd, did you understand our comments with
regards to the buffer?
MR. O'CONNELL: Yes, you wanted to add additional, I guess --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : At the very top of the bank there. It' s a very
typical --
MR. O'CONNELL: Request there, yes .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Request. So to be vegetated it would require
the whole area to be planted roughly 50% spacing, evenly spaced,
and then, you know, could be wood-chipped or left to naturalize.
MR. O'CONNELL: Fine. That shouldn't be a problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone else that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Or any other 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
with the stipulation of new plans depicting a ten-foot vegetated
non-turf buffer along the top of the bank, thereby bringing this
into consistency with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. O'CONNELL: Thank you, very much. Have a good night,
everyone.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Have a good night.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Number 4, Costello Marine Contracting Corp.
On behalf of 500 BROADWATERS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to
place up to 50 cubic yards of clean loam/topsoil fill to level
yard with the installation of two upland stone retaining walls
consisting of a 2 ' high by 50 ' long seaward retaining wall with
steps to ground, a 2 ' high by 60 ' long landward retaining wall
Board of Trustees 26 February 11, 2026
with steps down, and a 10 ' east return connecting the two walls;
remove one cedar tree located in between proposed retaining
walls; and reseed all fill and seed disturbed areas with native
lawn grass .
Located: 500 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-10-5
On--the 4th- of February the Trustees visited the site.- Notes- --
from our inspection that day are as follows: Large
environmental impact, a vertical gain, treated lawn. Should save
very few remaining native trees . Current slope was caused by
location of pool, and new house filled with poor planning.
The LWRP found the project to be inconsistent with Policy
6, Protect and Restore ecologic quality throughout the Town of
Southold. Removal of the native cedar trees should not be
allowed, but if permitted, should be mitigated to make plantings
of at least six three-gallon high-tide bushes, Baccharis or
Alterna Flora, with a permanent non-disturbance buffer created
below proposed planting wall. And 6.3, protect and restore tidal
wetlands and fresh water wetlands.
The proposed work does not meet setback requirements from
bank in compliance with the code, which is 275-2 and 275-3. For
any of the proposed work to be considered for approval, a
permanent non-disturbance buffer should be established beginning
immediately seaward of the second, that' s the lower retaining
wall, and this area should be planted with high tide bush shrubs
toward the bottom.
I welcome any comments from the public.
MS. COSTELLO: Hi, I 'm Jane Costello, again, for the applicant.
So I definitely thought this would not be an easy one, but
the first thought, we are removing one cedar tree. We developed
from .the comments between your field inspection and the LWRP
comments, we developed a planting plan, which you guys have not
seen, and I have here, and I can submit to you.
So the applicant is willing to plant two cedar trees in
place, just off to the east side over, somewhere near the oak
tree that is existing there that we are not going to touch. And
then in front of the secondary wall, the most seaward wall, to
do a six-foot depth by 50 foot, the whole length. I can give
these to you now. I have enough copies, if you want to see it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Sure. Give them to Elizabeth.
MS . COSTELLO: (Handing) .
The purpose of these retaining walls is to create level
ground. Specifically the applicant is trying to cater to
elderly parents who can't make it down to the waterway. They
just kind of want to sit out there, really just to put some, for
them to just have a visual enjoyment of the property beyond the
pool line. It is 75 feet from the wetland boundary line.
(Board perusing documents) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : From being in the field, Ms . Costello, and
reviewing the plans at work session, I think there are, our
conversation really went towards how the pool construction
excavation caused a grade change on the property surrounding the
pool. So it slopes off toward the neighboring property on the
Board of Trustees 27 February 11, 2026
one side and it slopes toward the water body on the seaward
side.
And then considering that change of grade caused by the
pool, we now see the effort to use retaining walls to level the
property in the rear yard to achieve the purposes which you have
stated just now, which is to establish a flat space to sit and
enj-oy the water.
So I think in the Board' s discussion, is there a way to
achieve what you are talking about with one retaining wall
seaward of that pool, and remove the other retaining wall that
you are proposing there further over towards the creek.
MS. COSTELLO: I think it would have to be higher. Right now we
are proposing two retaining walls', both with back wall exposure
of two feet, which I thought that was the -way the Board was kind
of leaning towards, retaining wall as little as possible, but
we would allow one retaining wall but a higher exposure, yes, we
could probably achieve that, and create less disturbance, so.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think part of the questions we had and in
looking at the application, there is an awful lot of structure
in, you know, Zone X flood zone, and when you look at the
distances from what was flagged as the wetland line in July of
2021, I would maybe go out and reflag that because I think it' s
actually a bit closer. J ,
But it seems like, you know, a significant amount of
structure, and it' s hard to imagine that only one tree would be
affected by the construction of these retaining walls, given
what we saw in the field.
MS . COSTELLO: Yes, I think ,it' s just the one cedar tree that is
going to be affected. I don't -- these are self-supporting
walls. I mean we're not dealing with (indiscernible) putting it
back in and everything. The level of excavation behind these
walls are not as significant.
TRUSTEE FINORA: While I recognize the need to create a pathway
to the backyard, I agree with my colleague that the installation
of the pool has furthered the projection of the higher
elevation. And I think the Board's primary concern is the volume
of forward projection the retaining wall apparently creates . And
it also creates several additional elevations of level yard.
I think in seeking your goal forward in favor of this
application, if the size of that projection was reduced such
that it was primarily just for access and not sufficient for
platforms. Perhaps the use of staircases solely rather than
terraced projections seaward. Does that make sense?
MS. COSTELLO: Okay, so I mean, definitely the grading around the
pool would berm, basically, right, I mean that' s what you're
saying, it would bring it up. But, I mean, we can drop that
berm down and bring it down. If you want to do just one wall,
then we can play with that, take that down a little bit and
bring a wall up to about three feet, three-and-a-half feet, if
that would be more approvable, and try and take even that out a
little bit. Do you know what I mean? Because there is a berm
there around that extension.
Board of Trustees 28 February 11, 2026
TRUSTEE FINORA: Yes, I think I would have to see the proposal
specifically. But the concept of what I 'm trying to state is
that the quality of moving forward is really what is mostly a
(indiscernible) of this particular application.
MS. COSTELLO: I understand. I understand that. But I really
don't see what the environmental or the adverse environmental
impacts are going to have to the wetlands, being that it' s 75,
we keep it 75 feet away from the vegetated wetlands. I mean, if
you do want us to reflag it. We can reflag the wetlands .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I think that you are right to question the
impact on the wetlands . More of the Board' s concern is the
limit of flood zone there, depicted on the plans . That flood
line kind of goes, that is one thing we think about. And then
in the LWRP, the Chapter 268, thinking about just how any kind
of flood activity or heavy rain would shed onto the neighboring
property. If you have water flowing onto the neighboring
property, now it will all continue to go downhill.
MS . COSTELLO: Of course. Full grading is always, and I think
that the neighboring property is concerned on the west side,
right, and he' s in the middle of constructing his own house and
doing his own thing over there.
TRUSTEE -KRUPSKI : Right. I think, just to reiterate the point,
and I know you were not involved in the original at all, but
just to go kind of through what happened there.
The original applicant purchased this property, you know,
stripped every tree off of it. So we are not just talking about
one cedar at this point. Everything is gone, down to literally
the 100-foot line. And that's where they started their original
project here.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : What they should have done is just come to the
Trustees, work into our jurisdiction, and work with us on a
scoped project. But literally they brought that pool and patio
and pool fence right to the line and worked back from that. And
stripped the whole property.
But I think it would have been -- and we are obviously, we
try to work with everyone, but I think including at the
beginning would have been helpful to say, okay, if you want more
seating back here, instead of putting a pool here and having
that giant structure, maybe you should take the house more a few
feet toward the road, or shorten the pool, or maybe put some
patio.
So we weren't involved in the beginning as you were
involved. So now we are kind of, and I know it's sold to your
client now, and they have inherited' this project that was built
by, you know, a flipper and developer, and they are trying to
deal with that.
So I think, for me, we don't want to keep extending here.
You are in a very sensitive habitat area. We are dealing with
the hand that' s been dealt, on the broader scope there. We don't
want to see structure encroaching, encroaching down to the creek
and into the flood zone.
Board of Trustees 29 February 11, 2026
Also, it is low lying into the back there. That natural
wetland line is supposed to be able to move around a little bit.
And although we are talking about one tree, it' s almost the last
one tree on this property before you get into the wetlands,
aside from that swamp there.
If they are looking to do something there, which I really,
with that big pool patio area, I think they probably have plenty
of room to sit. You're talking about what, an extra few feet to
put a chair. But I think, you know, maybe you can incorporate
something further back to save that cedar and sort of draw that
line in the sand that we are just not going to keep encroaching,
because this plan, this whole project, without thinking about
this, you know, it' s basically the whole Trustee jurisdiction.
That' s my thoughts .
MS. COSTELLO: Okay. All right. Well then the applicant is not
opposed to planting and all that stuff to try to fix what was
broke, but, like you said, it's an inherited situation. And then
they are trying to cater to their own family at this time.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just one more thought would be that, I know
that what they were aiming for is a totally flat area that they
could keep their chairs . But if you add a one or two foot
retaining wall, it may have to slope somewhat to accommodate the
grade. That may be a step that, you know, would be approvable.
But I don't think this Board is in the habit of approving
retaining walls greater than two feet in our jurisdiction. So,
just keep that in mind.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay, so going one retaining wall higher is not
something I should entertain?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : By the pool, you mean?
MS. COSTELLO: No, in the beginning of the conversation we were
saying instead of a two-foot high retaining wall, maybe one
retaining wall, but I said it would have to be higher, but it
doesn't seem like --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sorry. Ms. Costello, if you look at the
survey, the elevation by the pool, looks about eleven feet. And
seaward of your top retaining wall is nine feet. So there' s less
than a two-foot grade change between where the pool is at and
your proposed landward retaining wall.
So, you know, going forward, it doesn't seem that that
would need to be higher than two feet to accomplish what you are
really looking to do.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay, I ' ll take that back. There are some things
kind of off. If you see like the survey and the project plans,
the topos are a little bit non-consistent, I guess. And the
project plans show like existing topos where it says "proposed
topos" and so it' s very cluttered in there on the project plans,
so it's hard to say.
Okay, so I ' ll take this back. I 'll request to table the
application, and I 'll just take the feedback and bring it to the
applicant and we'll further discuss it.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Thank you. I think, just to be transparent
and more forward thinking, discussed, and the Trustees were
Board of Trustees 30 February 11,2026
originally, we are in the habit of putting some kind of buffer
in place along the wetlands to prevent any further tree cutting,
removal of shrubs and things like that. So in your plans,
consider that buffer line.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay. Where are you talking about, the mark, the
hundred-foot mark?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I mean, we'd love to see it at the 100-foot
marker.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : No, from the seaward edge.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I 'm speaking as one Trustee but I essentially
would like the see the wetland line reflagged because I think it
may have changed since 2021.
MS. COSTELLO: It has.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: (Continuing) . But that is just one Trustee. I
don't know how the rest of the Board feels about that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Sure. I would be happy to go take another look
at it. And then just a buffer from that seaward edge projecting
landward. Whatever you and your client are proposing.
MS. COSTELLO: All right, got it.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Is there anyone else here wishing to speak on
this application, anyone on the Board wish to comment?
(Negative response) .
Is. it your wish to table?
MS. COSTELLO: Yes .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I make a motion to table this application at
applicant's request.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE FINORA: Number 5, AMP Architecture on behalf of CHRISTINE
MacDONAGH requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 652sq. ft.
seasonal cottage with an existing 8 .31x20' sunroom; as-built
3. 6'x7. 10' entry porch; as-built in-place reconstruction of
442. 5sq.ft. seaward deck off dwelling; and as-built 3. 10'x5. 9'
attached shed.
Located: 7685 Hortons Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-5-48 .2
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 4th of
February, noting a non-turf buffer seaward of the deck.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent. The inconsistency relates to setbacks, and that
there should be provided adequate buffer between wetlands and
adjacent or nearby neighborhood activities in order to ensure
protection of the wetland character, quality, values and
functions .
The as-built deck does not meet setback requirements.
And the recommendation from the LWRP is that a permanent,
non-disturbance buffer greater than ten-feet wide should be
established along the pond edge.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PORTILLO: Good evening, Board. Anthony Portillo, AMP
Board of Trustees 31 February 11, 2026
Architecture. I 'm here on behalf of my client.
Just to explain the project, it' s a seasonal residence and
these structures have been existing, I have photographs of the
deck existing in 1976. Basically, it' s in poor shape, it needs
to be fixed and re-decked, et cetera.
The applicant did do work on the one side of the home and
was flagged and received a stop-work order. To be clear, we did
receive approval from the Zoning Board. The reason for the
zoning variance was because it' s considered a nonconforming
building, and you are not allowed. to do alterations to a
non-conforming building.
I do believe it' s seasonal. We did receive approval from
the Zoning Board. And we are here before this Board.
The work on the home is interior work and, again, the deck
structure and decking, plus adding the railing to make it up to
code, because currently it doesn't have a railing. It's above
30 inches. So we are not increasing the footprint of the deck.
And regarding the non-turf buffer, we are open to discussion and
suggestions .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Yes, I see you proposed here a
10-foot vegetated non-turf buffer. I think we would be more
comfortable with 15 feet.
MR. PORTILLO: That sounds acceptable.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Hearing no further comments, I 'll make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I 'll make a motion to approve this application
subject to new plans depicting a 15-foot vegetated non-turf
buffer, and by issuing a permit will thereby bring it into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(All ayes) .
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you, Board.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Number 6, AS PER REVISED SITE PLAN SUBMITTED 2/9/26
Cole Environmental Services on behalf of 5415 SKUNK LANE, LLC
requests a Wetland Permit to install approximately 10 cubic
yards of clean fill from an upland source across a 1,275sq. ft.
Area via a 7 ' wide machine access route to be revegetated using
native salt tolerant vegetation; fill to be placed upland, and
dispersed via small excavator and/or by hand to increase the
grade 6" to 12"; install fine mesh over sand and plant Spartina
Alterna flora and other native species 1 ' on-center; install a
proposed bioswale landward of wetland line to be planted with
native, salt-tolerant vegetation. ,
Located: 5380 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-138-2-16
Board of Trustees 32 February 11, 2026
The Trustees visited the site on February 4th, 2026, and
noted that this project may have been considered for a dock and
that the full scope of the project should be discussed.
The LWRP findings are inconsistent with Policy 6, mostly
related to the placement of the fill in vegetated wetlands.
Some comments about restructuring lost physical conditions,
adjusting altered chemical characteristics, and manipulating
biological characteristics with the introduction of new
plantings .
I would like to open this application to the public.
Is there anybody here to speak to this application?
MS. RUMMEL: Kate Rummel, Cole Environmental, on behalf of the
applicant.
So you are in receipt of updated plans which address many
of the concerns of the LWRP coordinator. Other than the salt
marsh that this property is experiencing isn't unique to this
property alone. Some of the concerns we are looking to address
are erosion, weaker storm protection., as well as habitat loss,
storage, et cetera.
So when creating this proposal, we met onsite for the
pre-application meeting and we reached out to Stephen Schott
from Cornell Cooperative, who was very helpful in creating a
complete scope to effectively address all of our concerns .
So part of what we are doing, we are proposing, the fill
will be obtained from an upland source, which serves to add a
small amount of elevation, but also one of the main concerns of
the salt marsh, one of the main causes is the Purple Marsh crab. ,
And so they tend to create habitat in the heat and not in the
sand, so they help to, one, establish a little bit more of a
base for Spartina alterniflora, but also to deter the crabs.
I will say that its presence has not been confirmed because
it' s winter, yes . So Steven did go out onsite and dig through
the snow, but he found that they are pretty dormant right now.
So it has not been determined but it is very common cause.
And so we are also proposing to plant additional Alterna
Flora to create more habitat but also some additional wetland
vegetation. The crab does tend to prefer Alterna Flora. So we
proposed some other plantings, assuming they are commercially
available. Those are the caveats, so, but to help the Alterna
Flora thrive in that area.
And we are also proposing a thin mesh to also, around the
planting, which will also help protect the plantings from being
eaten by the crabs .
Let' s see, we have also -- this is obviously a
multi-pronged approach -- we have also proposed a rain garden
within the Town right-of-way, to catch some of the runoff, which
can also be a cause of the die-back. And the cross-section,
which you should have, notes different species, which I know
that was a concern of the LWRP coordinator.
And to address the dock, the dock was previously approved
on the site. Any proposed dock work would be done, or any
approved dock would be done before we started the restoration.
Board of Trustees 33 February 11, 2026
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : What is the wire mesh consistent of? Is that
a natural --
MS. RUMMEL: I reached out to Stephen Schott for his
recommendation. I don't have that just yet. But I can get that
to the Board.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thanks for diving right into the LWRP's
comments.
Can you just speak to the overall goal of this project, of
why it' s here?
MS . RUMMEL: Yes, one of the concerns of the Board is that we are
trying to, you know, gain upland. And that -- the homeowner,
who obviously owns the property across the street, is concerned
about erosion, obviously this area is turning into a mudflat and
so concerned about the Alterna Flora continuing to combat that.
So we are just looking to restore the area to what it was,
or as close to what it was . So we are not looking to gain
upland. So we are looking to prevent erosion, also protect his
property to the road, and the area around.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Do any other members of the public wish to speak
on this application?
(Negative response) .
Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Yes, I guess, so I appreciate your client' s
goal in trying to prevent the erosion here, and we are seeing
similar issues throughout the Town in many creeks.
Obviously you voiced the concerns of the Board not wanting
to create a land grab or another thing we have commonly seen an
increase in is people trying to create a beach by just dumping
sand and continuing to dump sand.
So I think it' s just important, number one, with the fine
mesh, but I don't think it should be applied with base product.
It' s going to degrade over time.
And then, two, I mean the idea with that clean sand is to,
as you know, is to install it over the existing vegetation and
allow it to grow through and not suffocate it. So I guess on the
lower end of that six-inch it would be nicer to see. And then --
MS. RUMMEL: So we are proposing like ten cubic yards of sand --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Yes.
MS. RUMMEL: (Continuing) so it should be pretty minimal. And
then it would be tapered at the end. So it wouldn't be six
inches of, like, depth. But, I mean, significantly less just to
get enough of a base.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I personally feel like it's worth trying to
kind of documenting the following and see if this is something
that works long-term.
MS. RUMMEL: Absolutely, yes, we are definitely open to, yes, I
mean, would you look to have something submitted or it's --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think evaluating survivability and doing
inspections on a yearly basis for a couple of years would make
sense in this location. And I appreciate that you are working
with Cornell and being protective of this and finding solutions
Board of Trustees 34 February 11, 2026
for this location.
MS. RUMMEL: Yes, I mean obviously we want this to succeed, one,
to protect the property, and also we are not looking to waste
the client' s money, and, you know, it would be interesting to
see what works here and what can make it apply to other
properties, since we do have other clients that experiencing
this situation as well .
TRUSTEE FINORA: Are there any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : One thing, about a commercially available
dock. What, can you just walk us through timeframes for
purchasing, installing, especially I know that there is a window
to plant, to get the plantings in in time.
MS. RUMMEL: Yes, I mean they are usually, I know, there are some
growers now that are able, they are a bit frozen, but they are
able to defrost them and get them, you know, planted now, as
opposed to during the winter.
Obviously we want to be able to ideally be. looking to do
something in the summer or late fall, but not during, but I
mean, ideally not during the winter or heat of the summer, so.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Any other comments?
(Negative response) .
Hearing and seeing none, I make a motion to close the public
hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
'(ALL. AYES) .
`.RUSTEE FINORA: I would also make a motion to approve this
application with the condition of a three-year monitoring
requirement for survivability or commensurate with any ,
DEC-imposed monitoring program. And pending the updated plans,
noting the material change or that no black mesh would be
included in the proposed dock. Thereby bringing this application
into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 7, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AND SITE PLAN RECEIVED 2/3/26 Cole Environmental Services
on behalf of DAVID & HELEN LEIS requests a Wetland Permit to remove
existing fountain and construct a proposed 14 'x50 ' in-ground
pool and 7 'x7 ' hot tub with a 2 ' high, 60 ' long retaining wall
with stone veneer; install 8503q. ft. Non-permeable patio pitched
to gutter drain and piped to drywell; install a 4 'x8 ' DP drywell
for pool, patio, and a proposed ±12 'x7 ' outdoor shower and
storage area with a load bearing top and inspection lid; install
a ±12 'x2 ' outdoor bbq and counter area; install a 4 'x8 '
generator and pool equipment area with sound deadening
enclosure; install a ±151xl2 ' gravel gas fire pit area on
permeable stone; 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 one crab-apple
Board of Trustees 35 February 11, 2026
tree, existing cryptomeria and redbud; 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; 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 conducted an in-house review February 9th,
2026, reviewed the new plans, notes that the pool was moved to
60 feet from the wetlands . Looking for the pool fence location
to be moved landward and to increase the buffer width.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is the proposed pool is approximately 50 feet from the wetland
boundary, which does not conform to current Trustee requirements
of 60 feet for pool setbacks. For this reason the proposal
should be modified to move the pool further away from the water.
It should be noted that locating a proposed structure/pool
in such a way as to avoid impacts on a non-native tree should
not take precedence over complying with wetland setback
requirements .
Establishment of a non-turf buffer would be beneficial, but
the details of planting within the area, including the
one-on-one tree replacement, should be detailed prior to
receiving permit approvals . That was the LWRP inconsistency. I
will note that was dated January 12th, 2026. We received these
new plans stamped received February 3rd, 2026, that showed the
pool moved to 60 feet.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. RUMMEL: Kate Rummel, Cole Environmental. The applicant
David Leis is also present, as is the pool builder Jason Peters.
The original plan was submitted based on the code at the
time, which proposed a pool 50-feet from the concrete bulkhead
and now they moved the pool to a minimum of 60 feet.
In doing such we are removing the (indiscernible) area, as
well as the Red Bud, which is on its way out anyway. And we will
be replacing the trees one-to-one. And we are here finally
proposing to move the fence a minimum of 20 feet from the
concrete wall .
And the client is also hoping to extend the buffer to have
a non-turf buffer on the north side of the concrete walk, to a
similar width, just to dip around the existing firepit, which is
on that northern corner.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. I also have one question about any
regrading on this property.
MS. RUMMEL: I will let Jason the pool builder take over.
MR. PETERS: Good evening. So the regrading issues that we have
right now, we are trying to save the two gypsum trees themselves
as they are non-native, and understandably move it away from the
water' s edge itself, which pushes us higher into the topography
itself. We are trying to keep that wall to a two-foot maximum
height itself. And we are looking to adhere to where the chimney
Board of Trustees 36 February 11, 2026
is, to keep everything cohesive on the property itself.
So we'll have to do a bit of regrading now and in the end
as we proposed, we are going to have to step forward as we step
out. But that elevation itself, as we are pushing it back
itself, we' ll have to regrade somewhere along, maybe a ten-foot
maximum forward of that to create a grade itself, which is not
too steep. Something that we can reestablish some terra firma.
But I don't think it would be impossible to do that to the
ten-foot mark and keep the structure itself down to two foot on
the retaining wall, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any Questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE FINORA.: What, over that ten-foot projection, what do you
anticipate is the total girth obtained?
MR. PETERS: It' s hard to tell itself. The topography lines
themselves are as accurate as they can be. One on the one side
itself, the two-foot line itself could vary within a foot or so
in elevation. Obviously the topography itself waivers. Change
in elevation itself I would assume is less than two feet.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Two feet over ten feet.
MR. PETERS: Yes, I would make that assumption. But obviously
until we are onsite, I can't make that exact pitch.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Are there any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I 'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that the proposed buffer extend the width of
the property along Long Creek; that the proposed pool fence is
moved 20 feet back from the concrete retaining wall; and that
the pool is now located 60 feet, will bring it into consistency
with the LWRP. Subject to new plans . That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MS. RUMMEL: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Number 8, AS PER REVISED SITE PLAN & PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 2/10/26 En-Consultants on behalf of SEAN &
RANDI LALLY requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing
one-story dwelling and appurtenant deck, shed, coop, hot tub,
steps, and retaining walls, and construct a new two-story, 2,248
sf single-family dwelling with 62 sf covered entry porch and
steps, 383 sf covered porch and steps, and 880 sf raised
uncovered masonry patio with associated bbq, steps, planters,
2. 4 ' high (max. ) Planter retaining walls, and 8" high landscape
Board of Trustees 37 February 11, 2026
steps; install outdoor shower piped to drywell; replace existing
with new 849 sf grade-level masonry pool patio; remove and
replace (in-place) existing 17 .7 ' x 35. 5' swimming pool with
gunite swimming pool and 7 ' x 7 ' spa; install 3' wide stone
paver path to 11 ' x 14 ' pervious gravel fire-pit seating area
with 1. 8 ' high stack-stone seating walls; abandon existing
septic system and install a new I/A OWTS sanitary system
landward of dwelling; install stormwater drainage system,
including pool drywell; truck in from upland source
approximately 125 cy of clean fill, 60 cy to be compacted
beneath proposed raised patio and 65 cy to be utilized for site
grading proposed more than 100 feet from top of bank; replace
and relocate pool enclosure fencing further landward; and
establish and perpetually maintain area between relocated pool
fence and top of bank as an approximately 3,317 sf vegetated
non-turf buffer area.
Located: 900 Fox Hollow Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-6-22
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency comes into play with the proposed not meeting
setback requirements. From the proposed work on the existing
structure does not meet the 100-foot setback requirements to the
wetland boundary or bank. The designated existing vegetated
areas to the non-disturbance buffer does not provide any
mitigation to proposed work. Consider reducing size of the
existing lawn, including it as a non-disturbance buffer area.
The Trustees last visited the property on the 4th of
February and noted issues with the height on the retaining wall,
and also expected to have submission of new plans, which I have
dated received February 6th, 2026, stamped by the office.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes . Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicant. The applicant Randi Lally is also here. John
Paetzel from MKLA Landscape Design, the professional, is here,
and Gene Berger the contractor is also here, so that if you have
questions that I can't answer I 'll be quick to move them around.
I do have to hand up additional new plans because after the
plans I gave you Elizabeth contacted me and noted that there
were a few items that had not been labeled or worked into the
project description. So I just have these new plans . Nothing
substantively has changed. So for all practical purposes, you
could look at the one you have in front of you. The only thing
that changed, substantively, is that we slid the proposed gravel
firepit seating area a. little bit closer to the house.
So as we talked about at field inspections, this is -- and
Eric, I like a phrase of yours, it' s a coastal retreat
application, because that' s what this is . And I don't quite
follow the LWRP report. I sent an e-mail to this effect, the
LWRP report' s comments make reference to work on an existing
structure, an as-built structure.
That is not what the application consists of. It is the
demolition of the existing house that is less than 100 feet from
Board of Trustees 38 February 11, 2026
the top of the bank. It is not work on the existing house.
There is a proposed dwelling that will be relocated
landward, set well behind the pier line, and almost entirely
beyond the 100-foot setback from the top of the bank, except for
one very small corner on the southeast side.
We had, Nick mentioned the revised plans . The reason for
those was there was some work on the water side of the new house
that we originally had intended to leave for another day, but
after talking about it with John Paetzel and the owner and then
presenting it to the Board, we felt that there were additional
improvements that we could make to the project by including
those elements here.
So in addition to the proposed dwelling, the raised patio
that is on the water side, that actually was reduced in square
footage relative to what was originally proposed, and basically
simplified in terms of its vertical elements, there were many
sets of steps which were reduced to one series of stairs . And
then the retaining wall height that Nick was alluding to, were
these two planter retaining walls on the water side of the
raised terrace. Those were proposed currently at 2 ' 4", and the
Board had asked whether those could be reduced to two foot. And
I 'll get back to that in a second.
The additional scope of work that was proposed was taking
the entirety of the existing and previously Trustee-permitted
swimming pool that is 1, 774 square feet, and replacing that with
a new patio around the pool that would have less than half of
that area, of what is existing. So it's more than a 50%
decrease in the existing pool patio and .the waterside of the
house.
It would also be trimmed back, so the top of bank setback
to the pool increases . There is also a proposal to replace the
existing vinyl pool in-place, with gunite, with the addition of a
spa on the landward side, and the elimination of the interior
pool steps.
So those were, again, we were originally planning to leave
that for another day, didn't know whether we might amend the
existing permits for the pool and patio. But again, we think
that the reduction in the size of the pool patio, the effect of
the reduction of the pool footprint, the increase in setbacks
are all positives.
The other element which I noted to the Board, was that
under the existing Trustees permit for the pool and pool patio,
there was a traditionally defined non-turf buffer between the
pool fence and the top of the bank. So the proposal here is to
move that pool fence landward, I think up to about five feet, if
that' s right, John, and then change the nature of the non-turf
buffer to a vegetated non-turf.
So the overall buffer size both increases in area and also
changes the nature to one that must be permanently vegetated. So
that will actually, I think that addresses the existing, one of
the LWRP comments replacing some of the existing lawn with
vegetated non-turf buffer.
Board of Trustees 39 February 11, 2026
In response to the Trustees ' questions about ,the retaining
wall height, John did look at this, and he' s like within an inch
of the two feet. I 'm just going to hand this up. It' s just a
revised section relative to the one that we did submit
previously. It shows the vertical elevations of the two planter
walls .
And if the Board says this is wonderful, that's great. If
not, if you have further questions, then I 'll ask John to talk
about it but in that section you can see we are really trying to
minimize the exposure of the terraced wall itself, which is
several inches less than two feet. So it' s really just planter
heights. But again, those will be mulched and planted.
I think the effective heights will be really two feet by
the time everything . is in there, and we would also plant on the
seaward side of the more seaward of two walls . So basically
that fascia would be vegetation in front of the terrace.
Obviously there is a significant improvement in the
replacement of a conventional septic system with a newer IA
system, stormwater drainage system. .
Overall, I think it' s a good project. And I 'm hoping the
design change addresses your questions and concerns about the
planter walls . And I think the change in the pool fence that
expands the buffer is responsive to the LWRP comments as well.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you. I also wanted to note that there is
a letter from the neighbor next to you, down the road, who could
not make it tonight, speaking largely to the concerns of size
and not fitting to the character of the neighborhood.
Additionally speaking with regards to sound during
construction, being a quiet neighborhood, and some runoff
concerns, which the Board has already looked at and addressed,
and then also speaking to light pollution, again being a small,
quiet neighborhood, so.
Many of these things are not things that the Board can
address, but, you know, my recommendation would be to be a good
neighbor, both during construction and after. And obviously
Dark Skies compliant.
MR. HERRMANN: This would be a case where I am familiar with the
contractor and landscape professional that the client has
retained, and as long as she stays on course I 'm confident those
concerns will be met.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Rob, I have a question. What is next to the,
or above the shed. What is that red box?
MR. HERRMANN: Oh, that was a chicken coop, which I think is
actually gone, but when it was surveyed, it was there, so they
just left it on there as an existing structure.
(Mr. Herrmann speaking with his client) .
Is it still there? All right, well, then I 'll retract my
last statement that is the chicken coop that is still there and
still proposed to be removed.
Sorry. It used to say the full word "coop", but there is
that "setback" got added and it just says "coo" now.
Board of Trustees 40 February 11, 2026
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone else from the public that
wishes to address this application?
MR. LIPSCHITZ: Yes, if I may.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Please just step up and state your name.
MR. LIPSCHITZ: My name is Hilton Lipschitz, I live at 1060 Fox
Hollow, so that little house that you see over there.
John Edwards and I, we just have some questions. We have
not met the Edwards ' and we would very much like to meet them
and have a conversation about what is happening, because we are
looking forward to living next to you guys .
I made some notes because we have some questions . So I
don't oppose anybody building a home. We just have some
concerns we just want to raise with the Board.
The primary one which really only affects my property is
drainage, and we don't understand the plans . But my house is
the lowest in the area, and so ever since they put the driveway
in, and this property, we get a lot of runoff that comes into my
house. It goes right next to my oil tank, next to my
electricals, next to my internet.
And so if they request to raise up more and put walls and
more stuff there, I 'm concerned it' s going to increase the
amount of water runoff. So I 'm just kind of hoping that we can
find solutions just to make sure there is no additional runoff
that will come on to the property. And storm drains, if there is
enough storm drains for the bigger storms that we have been
getting lately. My storm drains flood all the time.
Water has to go somewhere. It's coming to me. I would like
to have that go away somewhere.
The second concern is the community concern that I 'm
bringing up on behalf of the HOA. Our roads are private'. We pay
for the maintenance of them. I 'm sure a lot of you have these.
They are not really designed for heavy duty trucks . And so our
question, again to the Board and builders is, is there a traffic
plan, is there something in mind to, you know, what happens if
the road gets damaged by the construction, parking and all that
sort of stuff. We are asking the questions of the Board.
MS. HULSE: That' s not the purview of this Board.
MR. LIPSCHITZ: Right, I do apologize if I 'm saying the wrong
things. I guess the size of the house and all that is not part
of the Board either?
MS. HULSE: This Board does not examine the environmental issues,
specifically as per Chapter 275 of the Town Code. So I 'm
supposing that if you had questions, the people that are here
might be amenable at some point. I mean, maybe at some point,
they are all here, they seem to be willing to have conversations
like that. . Which I 'm sure they would be happy to avail
themselves of.
MR. HERRMANN: I ' ll reach out to him. Absolutely.
MS. HULSE: So is there anything else you want to add?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I would just say, in terms of the drainage,
maybe Mr. Herrmann can address that.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes . So as a general, so specific to the plan
Board of Trustees 41 February 11, 2026
there is a storm water drainage plan that has been designed
pursuant to Town Code by a professional engineer,
(indiscernible) Associates, and then as part of the building
permit review and the Town Engineer' s review, every one of these
projects is required to be designed to contain all runoff within
the applicant' s property.
So if there is anything done that is, that results in
runoff going off the property onto your property, it would be
covered in the Town Code. So it has to be designed in a way
that addresses your concern, which is a completely
understandable and a legitimate concern.
MR. LIPSCHITZ: Thank you. It' s happening at the moment. That's
why.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : And I would like to add to that; too. So what
you are proposing is essentially fixing the problem by that
large driveway area alongside of the property, I guess, there?
MR. HERRMANN: That' s the hope, yes .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And it's Chapter 236 of the Town Code, which
is the storm water management, which requires them to contain
their issues of runoff running onto your property would be a
violation of the Town Code, therefore you can call the Town
Attorney' s office and Code Compliance.
MR. LIPSCHITZ: Thank you, good enough.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : In terms of confirming with the homeowners and
the builder and architect, and certainly you are all here, if
you guys can just step out so we can continue with the hearing.
And then any other problems besides the scope of the property or
concerns about, I guess contact the Building Department.
MR. LIPSCHITZ: Thank you, very much. Thank you, for your time,
everyone.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application, or any additional
comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Hearing none, I make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE. KRUPSKI : I make a motion to approve this application
with the stipulation that the project is Dark Skies compliant;
with the stipulation that the retaining wall bases are no higher
than two feet; noting that the vegetated non-turf buffer seaward
of the pool fence is increasing, thereby bringing this into
consistency with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Now we' ll take that five-minute recess .
(After a short recess, this proceeding continues as follows) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Number 9, En-Consultants on behalf of THE
Board of Trustees 42 February 11, 2026
WILLIAM J. GRAF IRREVOCABLE TRUST u/a/d 10/18/2018 & THE SUSAN
H. GRAF IRREVOCABLE TRUST u/a/d 10/18/2018 requests a Wetland
Permit to demolish (Per Town Code Definition of Demolition)
portions of fire damaged 1, 325 one-story, single-family dwelling
and to construct additions and alterations consisting of
constructing a 727sq. ft. Second floor addition; raising the roof
over a 598sq. ft. Portion of first floor; a 212sq. ft. Two-story
addition with a 74sq. ft. Entry porch and steps (partially in
place of covered patio and 4 ' roof overhang to be removed) ; a
546 one-story addition and 119sq.ft. Deck addition (partially in
place of enclosed and uncovered porches to be removed) ; install
new window wells; replace waterside steps with new 2 .7 'x11 '
steps; maintain existing 14 'x24 ' attached deck by replacing
decking as needed; maintain existing 55sq. ft. Playhouse/deck;
install a 4 'x7 .3' outdoor shower (piped to drywell) ; remove
existing septic and install a new I/A OWTS sanitary system
landward of dwelling; install a stormwater drainage system,
including a pool drywell for a proposed swimming pool installed
outside Trustee jurisdiction; and to establish and perpetually
maintain a 10 ' wide, 670sq. ft. Vegetated non-turf buffer area in
place of existing lawn to the south of the playhouse, landward
of the approximately 3, 620 sq. ft. Area of existing plantings
also to be permanently maintained as a vegetated non-turf buffer
area, for a total of an approximately 4,290sq.ft. Vegetated
non-turf buffer area.
Located: 4855 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-3-8 .3.
The Trustees visited site on 4th of February. Our notes
read need to increase buffer park, playhouse -- scratch
playhouse. Save all jurisdictional trees .
The LWRP found the project to be inconsistent with Policy
6, about the setback and the wetland boundary. The proposed
work on existing structure does not meet 100-foot setback.
We have new plans received February 9th, 2026.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of the
applicant. Also the applicant Caroline Graf- is here. She is
conveniently the owner and the architect.
As we discussed in the field, this is a house that had been
damaged by fire and it' s thus being renovated in its interior.
There are various renovations proposed to the house, with very
little increase in footprint, and that is only on the landward
side.
We did discuss in the field, I just, I think I 'm clarifying
correctly, the field note comments that basically to the south
of that playhouse area, that the existing plantings that we had
indicated would be a perpetually maintained vegetated, non-turf
buffer, comes up a very good distance toward the house, but then
as you move to the south, the lawn is a bit more expansive, and
so we had talked about increasing, adding buffer in place of
existing lawn. And incidentally I saw in the LWRP comments the
LWRP coordinator essentially says the same thing.
Board of Trustees 43 February 11, 2026
They say consider reducing the size of existing lawn and
including it in the non-disturbance buffer area. So that is
what we had done on this revised site plan that we submitted. We
added a ten-foot setback to that existing edge of lawn, which
kind of aligns the landward limit of that vegetated non-turf
buffer with the westerly extent of the buffer near the
playhouse, so that there are now a total of 4,290 square feet of
vegetated non-turf buffer proposed, which is a combination of
the existing plantings and the proposed plantings in place of
existing lawn.
So we hope that the Board will find that revision
consistent with our discussion in the field, and it should also
satisfy the LWRP coordinator' s request to do exactly that.
Again, there is, we talked about the fact that the existing
conventional septic system will be replaced with an IA sanitary
system. And a new stormwater drainage system will be installed.
And there will be no jurisdictional trees removed. The only tree
that is to be removed is outside of your jurisdiction, so there
is no problem complying with that stipulation.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Is there anyone else to speak? Members of
the Board?
(No response)
The project is pretty straightforward. The only thing we
discussed in detail at the work session, you submitted your new
plans . Do you want to approach for a second?
MR. HERRMANN: Sure.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I appreciate the all out here for the
additional vegetated non-turf buffer. The members of the Board
did want to see this hatched like that.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : It' s a simple, re-submittal of new plans just
hatched like that.
MR. HERRMANN: Sure thing. Yup. The funny thing is I told the
engineer not to hatch it like that so you would be able to see
it. But yes, we can do that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you.
MR. HERRMANN: That' s not a problem.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Anyone else wish to speak?
(No response) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Motion to approve this application with
re-submittal of new plans including hash markings on the
additional vegetated non-turf buffer, bringing it into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 10, En-Consultants on behalf of SCOTT &
JENNIFER SCHULMAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct onto
Board of Trustees 44 February 11, 2026
landward side of existing dwelling a 655sq. ft. 1 & 2 story
garage/bedroom addition, and a 72sq. ft. One-story entry addition
with 75sq. ft. Covered entry deck and steps in place of existing
8 'x20 ' covered entry porch and steps to be removed; remove
existing conventional septic system and install an I/A OWTS
sanitary system landward of dwelling; expand existing pervious
gravel parking area, to be raised 2 ' above existing grade (EL
16. 0) using approximately 60 cubic yards of fill trucked in from
an approved upland source; and install associated 58sq. ft. Of
masonry retaining wall with a maximum 2 ' exposure above grade,
screened with plantings; install stormwater drainage system; and
maintain existing 5' wide non-turf buffer area along top of bank
as a vegetated non-turf buffer area.
Located: 1575 Pine Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-5-41
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 4th of
February, 2026, noting to increase buffer near the wetland
boundary.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent. The inconsistency includes issues with setbacks
and with buffer areas. If the proposed work is permitted, the
non-disturbance buffer should be expanded.
It should be noted that the condition, by the status of the
existing non-disturbance buffer, it appears to be either turf
grass or ornamental plantings based on the plans submitted.
One way to correct this would be to establish a new
non-disturbance buffer closer to the water in what is currently
mowed lawn. The creation of a non-disturbance, including no
mowing in this area, would have greater benefits to the adjacent
creek.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes . Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicant. And project architect Kate Samuels is here.
So the project itself is straightforward, it' s basically a
landward addition to an existing house, the construction of
which was approved by the Board several years ago, and also the
manipulation of the existing driveway, and the upgrade of the
septic system behind the sanitary system.
We did talk about the buffer. I do want to clarify one
thing. The LWRP report incorrectly describes the existing buffer
as non-disturbance. It' s actually just a traditional non-turf
buffer. It' s mulched. It' s planted. I don't recall what it, is
planted with, but we did seek to address that by changing the
designation as part of this application from a traditional
non-turf buffer to a vegetated non-turf buffer, and then I think
Trustee Gillooly and I had mentioned briefly in the field the
idea I think of what you were just saying is we would propose an
additional five feet of vegetated non-turf buffer also down at
the base behind the wetland boundary, so then instead of having
the five-foot non-turf buffer at the top of the bank, you would
have two five-foot vegetated non-turf buffers, one at the top of
the bank and one immediately landward of the wetland boundary.
Board of Trustees 45 February 11, 2026
So if that would be acceptable to the Board, we could
submit a revised plan to that effect.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just noting, I know we had discussed five feet
in the field. Looking at the plans here now and recognizing that
the entire addition is within the 100-foot Trustee jurisdiction,
I think in this case, I understand it' s a landward addition, but
it is still all within jurisdiction. I would prefer,
personally, and I think it would be an environmental benefit to
see a greater buffer near the wetland boundary, at least ten
feet.
MR. HERRMANN: So we would go with the five foot at the top of
the bank and then the ten-foot vegetated non-turf buffer
adjacent to the wetland boundary?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: That' s what I would like to see.
MR. HERRMANN: If that' s the Board' s condition of approval, we'll
have to do so. We would submit revised plans accordingly.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Any other 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
subject to new plans depicting a ten-foot vegetated non-turf
buffer from the landward edge of the wetlands -- tidal wetlands
boundary. And with that additional non-turf buffer we will
thereby be bringing it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE FINORA: Number 11, En-Consultants on behalf of SEAN R.
McCOYD requests a Wetland Permit to demolish and remove existing
1, 360sq.ft. One-story dwelling with attached garage and deck and
construct in its place a new 1, 182sq.. ft. 1 & 2 story, single
family dwelling with a 143sq. ft. Covered entry deck and
135sq. ft. Covered waterside deck with associated steps, and a
432sq. ft. One-story detached garage; install wood utility
platform and 4 'x7 ' outdoor shower with discharge piped to
drainage system; replace existing asphalt driveway with pervious
gravel driveway; remove existing septic system and install an
I/A OWTS sanitary system; install stormwater drainage system;
and to establish and perpetually maintain a 10 ' wide vegetated
non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the existing concrete
seawall.
Located: 3360 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-66. 4
The Trustees conducted a field inspection February 4th,
2026, and noted the new construction significantly- increases
height, rotation of the structure footprint, adjust wetland
Board of Trustees 46 February 11, 2026
setbacks, total there is a reduction compared to the previous.
Add trees, check final grading and elevations .
The LWRP reviewed and noted as inconsistent with respect to
light and scale of the proposed structure is not in keeping with
the character of the community and adjacent single-story homes .
The proposed work does not meet the setback requirements from
the wetland. Permanent non-disturbance buffer at least ten feet
wide should be established landward of the concrete bulkhead.
I don't see any other correspondence in the file except for
some from Mr. Herrmann, which I 'm sure he'll seek to address in
the public hearing for his application.
Is there anyone here to speak on this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of the
applicant Sean McCoyd, who is this miserable looking guy behind
me, who has come here under great duress . So I 'm hoping the
Board will send him home happier than when he got here.
So just of a couple comments, I guess I 'll just start off
with a brief discussion of the project itself. This is a
redevelopment of the existing home and attached deck. There is
an increase in wetlands setback, for both the footprint of the
house and also the waterside deck.
It would of course, you know, be impossible here to have a
completely compliant redevelopment plan because of the depth of
the lot, which is only 100-feet deep. So 100-foot back obviously
would put the new house outside the boundaries of the property.
I did want to note that I know there was, I think there is
some change in the LWRP coordinator' s response which may have
happened in between, but this project has previously been
reviewed as consistent with the LWRP, and that was, as Joe
referenced, I had sent an e-mail which was bringing that to the
Board' s, attention, and wanted to get a copy of that consistency
report into your file.
That said, the current LWRP report recommends the permanent
establishment of the ten-foot wide vegetated non-turf buffer
adjacent to the deck, which we do have proposed on the plan. So
I hope that does satisfy the LWRP comment.
There is a relocation and upgrade of the existing
conventional septic system with an IA sanitary system, the storm
water drainage system, along with a ten-foot wide vegetated
non-turf buffer, and the overall landward retreat of the house
and the deck. We obtained a front yard setback variance from
the ZBA to allow for some of that landward retreat from the
creek.
The house will continue to be dwarfed by the two houses on
either side of it, so I didn't really follow the comment that
its scale is inconsistent with neighboring homes . You could see
the footprints of the neighboring homes on the site plan. This
is the proposed house. I know that's not something this Board
would necessarily get into, but I just wanted to note that for
the record, the fact that it is GFA compliant and Sky Plain
compliant. And I guess that was it.
Oh, you had, the Trustees comments had asked about checking
Board of Trustees 47 February 11, 2026
the final grading elevations . There is no proposal to raise the
existing grades . They are working with the existing grades .
And I had mentioned to Sean about the addition of a couple of
native hardwood trees, and he didn't have any problem with that
if the Board wanted to issue that as a stipulation of approval.
TRUSTEE FINORA: I do think it's worth noting, Mr. Herrmann, that
the volume increase of this house is significant, certainly with
respect to the character of the neighborhood.
I see you noted the footprint of the adjacent structures
but overwhelmingly the character of the neighborhood in this
area is smaller, single-story structures . And I think what is
particularly drawing my attention is that not only is this a
full two-story structure now, in an effort to build to
one-and-a-half, but it' s also an elevated structure because of
the flood zone requirements . And certainly I 'm not suggesting
any structure should be lower than an increase. I don't know if
that' s even possible to build. But that should be a
consideration when presenting before this Board, that the volume
in this particular case is significant. It is Sky Plain
compliant, but that . doe'sn't necessarily mean that there are no
negative impacts from such a dramatic elevation, the shading on
this property would be significant from the structure. The view
shed for other structures and residences of the neighborhood
would certainly be impacted.
Do you have any comments regarding the size of the
structure?
MR. HERRMANN: So, I do. And I think just from my perspective is
a little different than yours . Just based on my experience, the
idea of when we are dealing with construction near wetlands is
always to try to reduce the construction footprint. And part of
the way we do that is to go with second-story additions as
opposed to bump-outs of existing homes, and to try to get the
volume vertical rather than horizontal, because by making the
footprints smaller that then allows me to increase wetland
setbacks relative to a more sprawling one-story home.
So what we are achieving here is actually a reduction in
the footprint of the house. And it is a one and two-story. So
when you mentioned that it' s a full two-story, there is a
section of the new house which is labeled on the site plan that
is only one story. Again, in terms of the character of the
neighborhood, that is really a zoning issue, in my experience,
more than it would be an issue before this Board.
We were before the Zoning Board of Appeals because of that
front yard setback. The Zoning Board granted the variance with
the determination that the project is consistent with the
character of the neighborhood, and there were no objections
voiced at that ZBA hearing, and I 'm not aware of any objections
from anyone in the neighborhood in connection with this hearing.
So overall, I think what we are trying to achieve relative
to wetlands is the reduction in that house footprint, and an
increase in the wetland setback. And then the upgrade septic
drainage and the establishment of a vegetated non-turf buffer.
Board of Trustees 48 February 11, 2026
So I 'm hoping that you, you know, do see the benefits of
that change relative, you know, to the existing condition.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Are there any other comments from the public?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: No, I just echo what Trustee Finora said, and
noting that of course the site plan tells one story, but then
the elevation tells a different story. So when a neighbor
writes a letter saying something about the character of the
neighborhood, I think it' s worth looking at the project
holistically in response to those comments .
I understand where you said in how you are trying to be
environmentally conscious in this location, and so, you know, I
think it' s worth noting that comment is related likely to the
height of the structure.
MR. HERRMANN: Point taken. Was there a letter written?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I 'm sorry, I think he referenced the neighbor
saying something about -- how did that come up?
TRUSTEE FINORA: I thought it was speaking in general terms about
a letter from neighbor. I 'm not aware.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: My apologies. I thought you spoke about a
letter from the neighbor.
MR. HERRMANN: No, That' s okay. I don't think that's a bad way to
frame it, though. Point taken.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Are there any other comments from the Board?
MS. HULSE: Were any of those issues addressed before the ZBA?
MR. HERRMANN: Which?
MS. HULSE: The issues that were just brought up by Trustees
Finora and Gillooly, with respect to the volume, the second
story, the character of the neighborhood. All of those typical
ZBA type of --
MR. HERRMANN: Oh, yeah, I mean, that's in the -- well, I think I
just mentioned that was in the Zoning Board's determination that
the project was determined to be consistent with the character
of the neighborhood. And I think I did mention that it was also
specifically designed to also be GFA compliant. Because that' s
one of the concerns now, is the idea that the Town is trying to
make sure that what you are addressing does not happen; you
don't create these houses that are out of character simply
because they meet setbacks . Now you have to meet the volume as
well.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Mr. Herrmann, just for the record, it' s not my
position that necessarily the maximum is what, you know, I would
can seeking as a Board member also. I think that just because we
are within the Sky Plain and we are within gross floor area,
that doesn't necessarily mean that we have minimized the
environmental impacts .
MR. HERRMANN: Oh, I totally understand that. All I 'm saying is
there' s guidelines that the Town has recently set, and the goal,
the objective here was to stay within those guidelines .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And just to clarify, I realize what I was
responding to, it was a comment made by the LWRP coordinator.
MR. HERRMANN: Right, right, right. Okay. Got it.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So that' s where that came up
Board of Trustees 49 February 11, 2026
MR. HERRMANN: Got it. Got it. No, that' s fine.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Yes, I understand what my fellow Trustees are
saying, and I do hope that this -house is not the standout in the
neighborhood. From the elevations plan it is a little
concerning, however with regard to our jurisdiction, you know, I
think the positives are the buffer and the IA septic system.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay, thank you. Did you have anything you wanted
to say, Sean?
MR. MCCOYD: No.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Are there any other comments?
(Negative response) .
I would make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE FINORA: I would also make a motion to approve this
application with the addition of two hardwood trees in the rear
or side yard. - And just as a point of clarification, the plans
included a ten-foot buffer.
MR. HERRMANN: Correct.
TRUSTEE FINORA: And with the memorializing of the ten-foot
buffer, to bring this into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 12, En-Consultants on behalf of
ANTHONY CATTARINA & DEITRA MARA requests a Wetland Permit to
construct an "L" shaped fixed timber dock equipped with water
and electricity, and constructed with open-grate decking and
rope handrails, consisting of a 4 ' x 209' fixed timber catwalk
and 4 ' x 16' terminal platform.
Located: 3500 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-9-3.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection February 4th,
2026. Notes read: A long dock in general. It's two-feet depth
to goal. Question the pier line of adjacent, large environmental
impact. Two feet of water.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
states while the proposed dock satisfies the requirements set
forth above in Chapter 275-11, given the depth of the water in
the creek, the proposed structure can and should be shorter. A
dock at this location can achieve 30 inches of water at mean low
water much closer to shore than proposed in this plan.
In addition to this, since both docks north of this
property, there are none to the south, are not included in the
survey, a pier line cannot be shown. If the pier line were
drawn on the plan using both docks as suggested, the proposed
dock may project beyond it.
Given the factors discussed above, the dock should be
shortened at the discretion of the Trustees, and then it will be
considered consistent with the LWRP policies.
Board of Trustees 50 February 11, 2026
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application
MR. HERRMANN: Yes . Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf
of the applicant.
Yes, I feel a little remiss on this one. I took some
comments from the Board and I tried to expand the plan of the
shoreline to the north. And then I submitted that to you for
work session on Monday, and then I received the LWRP report,
which, incidentally, I think positively basically seems to be
articulating the same thing I felt the Trustees may have been
articulating at field inspections, and the suggestion in the
LWRP report was what I actually did.
So specific to that, I submitted a draft plan view dated
February 5th, 2026. Originally I had not shown a pier line
because as noted in the LWRP report there are no docks to the
south, and in the past the Board has been fairly specific with
the language in the code of using the docks on both sides . But
here, there is kind of this diagonal line that runs down from
the docks to the north. And so what I did was, unlike the
original plan, we actually had a survey location for the second
dock to the north, and I ran the pier line down. Again, there is
nothing here to the south to connect it to, but I ran that pier
line down from the docks, and as predicted by the LWRP
coordinator, our dock was 25 feet seaward of that pier line. '
And I know Trustee Gillooly had raised that same question
at field inspections, if we looked at the pier line going up
with this proposal to comply with it, the answer was no.
So what I did do was I gave you this plan that added the
pier line going down from the northwest, which would require the
dock to be shortened by 25 feet. So I did that. And really, I
mean right at the outside of that shortened dock, I mean, we are
still within a couple of inches of the same depth that we would
have had as the one that was proposed.
So really the additional length that was shown on my
initial plan really was unnecessary. It didn't gain any
appreciable water depth, which I know is one of the litmus tests
that the Trustees apply. And it was also inconsistent with the
pier line. So I do apologize for that. I try to get this stuff
right the first time.
So, anyway, we would be here to take any questions the
Board has about the revised plan, but, I am hopeful that the way
I have revised the plan with the pier line drawn, does seem to
respond directly to the Board's concerns at field inspections,
and it also seems to be specifically responsive to what the LWRP
coordinator was suggesting should be done.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So I appreciate that, Mr. Herrmann. In
reviewing your revised proposal, as you noted, there was no
appreciable change in the water depth, from moving to what your
original location was to where it is proposed now. But in review
of it, we also feel that it can go further back without any
appreciable change in water depth, especially if you flip the
"L" to the northwest side. We are looking at the plans with the
Board of Trustees 51 February 11, 2026
water depths provided.
MR. HERRMANN: Yup.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You are about at that 1 . 51 with the length of
the dock, and the "L" was to the northwest side, you are in
about 1.7 of water compared to the 1. 8 that' s proposed. Which
would result in, you know, about a third of distance cut off,
while only losing one inch of water depth.
So it' s a positive for the environment, maintaining more
public bottom, less disturbance to the bottom, less
environmental impact, and you are only losing one inch of water.
MR. HERRMANN: So I 'm just trying to follow, if we flip the "L"
to the other side and then pulled it back about another --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: See where you have the 1. 72, approximately.
So you have 1. 72 and then 1 .53.
MR. HERRMANN: Can you show me where? (Perusing) . Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I did not bring my Trustee Peeples-approved
scale and ruler with me.
MR. HERRMANN: It looks like it would reduce it by another 25
feet, more or' less .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: More or less.
MR. HERRMANN: So it would be 50 feet less than the original
proposal.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : If the line that we are looking at right now,
from marsh edge' to end, you have 75 feet. That line is roughly
halfway in the middle. Actually very, very close to half.
MR. HERRMANN: Then you would drop from 1. 95 to 1 . 5. That would
be a lot more than one inch.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : If you are going out to the side there, you are
in between -- right. If you go from that 1 .51 line, on the
seaward side of the that you're going to have 1 . 6 based on the
1.76 that you have there. And then if you are going northwest
with the "L" you' ll get immediately into the 1. 72 . And then on
the way you are passing 1. 6.
You'll be in between, probably going to be very close to
1 . 6 even. So you are talking two inches to cut that in half. As
it stands now. Which the way things move around there and also
the amount of public use exposed to this creek, I think it' s
well worth it. The dock builder won't be happy, but your client
will be.
MR. HERRMANN: No, I mean, I think really my only concern is that
the DEC typically requires something close to two feet of water
to have a fixed "L" or a fixed "T" like this.
So, you, know, even if we were ending like at 1 . 76, which
would be cutting another, you know, 15 feet or something like
that, off, it would also, that would actually also put the dock
about the 55 feet seaward of the edge of the marsh. Which I
think is about exactly what is at the dock, the adjacent dock.
It may have even been on that permit, unless I 'm misremembering
that.
I think there was some sort of stipulation on the dock to
the north. I 'll see if I have that. If we can't figure it out
now, I 'll just have to table it, and I 'll --
Board of Trustees 52 February 11, 2026
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I wish I had access to the microfiche, and I
would probably --
MR. HERRMANN: No, I do have it. I have that. So this is, I mean,
it' s 2000. Does it say it or did I imagine it says it. No, it
does say it. It says wetland Permit, 3x169 fixed timber catwalk,
3x12 ramp, 6x20 float. Not to exceed 56 feet beyond the marsh.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Say that again? I 'm sorry.
MR. HERRMANN: The dock, the immediately adjacent dock was
approved to construct a 3x169 fixed timber walkway, four feet
above grade, 3x12 ramp, 6x20 float, not to exceed 56 feet beyond
the marsh.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Yes .
MR. HERRMANN: So I mean, if we replicated that same distance
here, I mean, I think that would be pretty close to what you are
saying, and it would be identical.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Again, 2026, and I 'm, for myself to move
forward on this, I would like to see. from the current
application it' s reduced by half.
MR. HERRMANN: Which would basically be 50 feet from the marsh.
It' s 100 feet now as proposed. What is in front of you from the
original application --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : It' s 37-and-a-half feet from the marsh, so. But
it's not, this isn't a back and forth, and I don't know how the rest
of the Board feels .
MR. HERRMANN: No, that' s what I 'm saying. If we can't figure it out
on the fly I 'll ask to table it so I can actually look at it.
Because, like I said, I mean, if we go -- what Glenn was initially
saying, was talking about one inch of water, but the length that
you're talking about would put the outside of the dock at 1 . 5,
currently --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I think that would probably be the inset of the
dock, but again, I think the outside we are looking at 1 . 6 to 1 .7 .
MR. HERRMANN: Well, I mean, if that's the point you are saying,
that's fine. But that' s basically 55 feet from the marsh. So I
just think we are talking about --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think we are tabling it to see it drawn out.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Looking at the plans, Mr. Herrmann, basically
where you have plus/minus 75 feet --
MR. HERRMANN: Yes .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: (Continuing) if the "L" was right around that
area where you have the plus or minus 75 feet to the northwest,
that "L" would end in about 1 .72 . Your current revised "L" ends
1. 88 .
MR. HERRMANN: Can you just draw a line on your, so I can see. I
just don't know what you're -- I mean, if I 'm going to revise it
the way you're asking, I have to know where to revise it to.
MS. HULSE: They can deny this if they would like to --
MR. HERRMANN: I know, but it seems silly --
MS. HULSE: I don't want them on the record drawing out a plan
for you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Let me make one more attempt here. If the and maybe it is 55 feet. I don't have the -- I can't tell.
Board of Trustees 53 February 11, 2026
So the idea would be the inside would be here. Which would
put the outside, because you don't have the, you know, on the
average, between these two and these two, that's going to put
your 1 . 6 out to 1 . 7 . And that' s starting from, I can't draw, but
if you put the inside right here where that 1. 5 is .
MR. HERRMANN: (Perusing document) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Again, Mr. Herrmann, I 'll --
MR. HERRMANN: I 'm going to ask to table it so that way if I
redraw it and it' s wrong, you can tell me ahead of time and I
can get it right for the hearing.
MS. HULSE: It will be discussed at the next hearing. We are
tabling it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Well, it would reopen the discussion versus
where it is now, is what you're saying.
MS. HULSE: Correct.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And potentially if the ice disappears
between now and the next field inspection, you could stake the
proposed new location so that we can review it in the field.
MR. HERRMANN: Sure. Yes . That is what I think, that' s what I
think I have to figure out, because even -- yes, let me request
to table it so I can go back and look at what you're suggesting.
And actually it would have the benefit of my being able to
potentially check back with the State, because if they're not
going to approve it, there' s no point in me coming back and
presenting it to you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I ' ll make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES) .
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I 'll make a motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES)
Respectfully submitted by,
GI AGdsAe nt 4 t
Board of Trustees