HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-03/18/2026 Glenn Goldsmith,President \\OF sn�ly Town Hall Annex
Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ��� ��� 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski J J Southold, New York 11971
Liz Gillooly G Q Telephone(631) 765-1892
Joseph Finora • �O Fax(631) 765-6641
22
IOU W,N ►
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
E
`r� "� P
`" v D
Minutes APR 1 7 28
Wednesday, March 18, 2026
5:30 PM ` � � of M
erh
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Eric Sepenoski, Trustee
Liz Gillooly, Trustee
Joseph Finora, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Administrative Assistant
Lori Hulse, Board Counsel
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening and welcome to our Wednesday, March 18th,
2026 Trustee meeting. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order and ask that
you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance is recited).
I'll start off by announcing the people on the dais. To my left we have Trustee
Krupski, Trustee Sepenoski, Trustee Gillooly and Trustee Finora. To my right we have
the attorney to the Trustees the Honorable Lori Hulse. Down with us tonight is
Administrative Assistant Elizabeth Cantrell and Court Stenographer Wayne Galante.
Agendas for tonight's meeting are located out in the hallway and also posted on
the Town's website.
We do have a number of postponements tonight. In the agenda, the
postponements are, on page five, under Wetland & Coastal:
Number 2, Stephen Kiely, Esq. On behalf of 1000 SOUNDBEACH DRIVE, LLC
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the as-built addition of
approximately 15 cubic yards of sand within a 2,090sq.ft. Minimally sloped area to level
up the lawn with the grade being raised ±2 inches and sod installed on top; as-built
installation of two (2) untreated wood tie planters with west planter being 50' long by 3'
wide by 10" high and east planter being 32' long by T 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
Board of Trustees 2 March 18, 2026
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, Number 17, 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 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 page ten, Numbers 18 through 21, as follows:
Number 18, 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.
Number 19, 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-Y2 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 20'x30' 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 20, 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 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# 1000-86-1-4.12.
Number 21, Islandwide Engineering & Land Surveying on behalf of CHULA
VISTA HOME, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a proposed 3,325sq.ft. Total
Board of Trustees 3 March 18, 2026
square footage two-story, single-family dwelling with a 32sq.ft. Front covered porch and
attached garage, a 21.8'xl8' covered lanai, a 12'xl5.7' covered on-grade patio, install a
285' long by 4' high (maximum height) concrete retaining wall along the seaward side
and side yards of the property with 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.
On page eleven, Numbers 22 through 25, as follows:
Number 22, Joan Chambers on behalf of ROLANDO & MICHELLE
ADAMOVICZ requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 1,358sq.ft. One-story dwelling;
remove existing concrete stoop and bilco doors; construct a 212sq.ft. Two-story
addition, a 1,639sq.ft. Second floor addition, an 875sq.ft. Covered porch, a 109sq.ft.
Deck with a 112sq.ft. Covered balcony above and a 196sq.ft. Deck with a 96sq.ft.
Balcony above; abandon existing septic system and install an I/A OWTS sanitary
system landward of dwelling; and install a stormwater drainage system.
Located: 1520 Bay Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-8-12.2.
Number 23, 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 ±12'x12' gravel gas
fire pit area; install paver walkways; install 4' high pool enclosure fencing with gates,
and all existing fencing to be brought to pool code; remove three (3)junipers and one
crab-apple tree; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide by 100' long
vegetated non-turf buffer area that will be planted with salt-tolerant native non-fertilizer
dependent vegetation along the landward side of the bulkhead; root systems of existing
trees to be preserved to the maximum extent possible; and any tree removed to be
replaced with a one to one replacement.
Located: 1150 Grand Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-8-44.1
Number 24, 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.
Board of Trustees 4 March 18, 2026
Located: 780 East Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-110-7-21.
Number 25, 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.
On page 12, number 26 through 30, as follows:
Number 26, AS PER REVISED SITE PLANS & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED 10/30/2025 Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of 500
BROADWATERS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x30' landward ramp
leading up to a 4'x30' catwalk to a 4'x30' ramp down onto a 4'x57' dock (4'xl47' 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: 500 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-10-5.
Number 27, AS,PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED
8/13/2025 South Fork Environmental Consulting, LLC on behalf of 106
MULBERRY CORP., c/o STUART MOY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two
story, single family dwelling (25'X42'4", ±1,058.25sq.ft.) With attached 7.3'x48.2'
(351.86sq.ft) deck on south side of dwelling; install a 25'x6' (±150sq.ft.) Stone driveway,
a 12'x20' parking area on west side of proposed dwelling, and an 1 Vx20' 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 28, 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 29, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of MICHAEL J. &
ALEXANDRIA PRISCO requests a Wetland Permit to remove and dispose of the
existing 6'x44' 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 3'xl6' ramp and 6'x20' floating dock situated in an "L"
configuration; remove existing pilings and install two (2) new anchor pilings; and the
existing landward wood walkway to dock to be removed and replaced with a mulch
walkway.
Located: 905 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-139-1-17.
Number 30, L.K. McLean Associates on behalf of AWC DOCKSIDE, LLC
Board of Trustees 5 March 18, 2026
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 bulkhead section; within a 10' wide area in front of existing bulkhead section
- ----incidentally-dredge ±140-cubic-yards-over±1,600ssq.ft-.-Area to a max-. Depth-of 6'---- - - -
below Mean Low Water (EL. -8.86) to reclaim soil lost from behind existing deteriorated
bulkhead; excavate ±2,015 cubic yards of material over an area of 4,030sq.ft. Between
existing and proposed bulkheading to elevation -8.86 max (6' below Mean Low Water)
with unsuitable material to be removed from site; remove ±160 linear feet of existing
bulkhead and install new ±161 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead varying ±15' to ±32'
landward of existing bulkhead location and ±1.8' higher than existing bulkhead; install a
22.3' north vinyl return and a 14' south vinyl return; construct a 26' long vinyl slotted
breakwater off north end of bulkhead; create nine (9) 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) 6'x102' 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
1,000gal. Capacity with potable water washout; and with the use of a turbidity curtain
during construction. Located: 5505 West Mill Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-6-1.
And on page 13, Number 31, AS PER REVISED SITE PLAN & WRITTEN
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 12/23/2024, Twin Forks Permits on behalf of THE
WILLIAM E. GOYDAN REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST, c/o WILLIAM E.
GOYDAN, TRUSTEE & THE KAREN B. GOYDAN REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS
TRUST, c/o KAREN B. GOYDAN, TRUSTEE requests a Wetland Permit to demolish
the existing two-story dwelling, detached garage and other surfaces on the property;
construct a new 3,287sq.ft. Footprint (5,802sq.ft. Gross floor area) two-story,
single-family dwelling with an 865sq.ft. Seaward covered patio, 167sq.ft. Side covered
porch, and 149sq.ft. Front covered porch; construct a proposed 16'x36' swimming pool
with 8'x8' spa tub; a 1,357sq.ft. Pool patio surround with steps to ground, pool enclosure
fencing, pool equipment area, and a drywell for pool backwash; construct a 752sq.ft.
Two-story detached garage, gravel driveway and parking areas; install an I/A septic
system; remove 23 trees and plant 25 trees on the property; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 25 foot wide vegetated non-turf, no fertilization buffer area along
the landward side of the wetland vegetation.
Located: 1645 Marratooka Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-3-2.1.
Under Town Code Chapter 275-8(c), files were officially closed seven days ago.
Submission of any paperwork after that date may result in a delay of the processing of
the applications.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion have our next field inspection on
Wednesday, April 8th, 2026, at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: All in all in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 6 March 18, 2026
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to hold our next Trust meeting Wednesday,
April 15th, 2026, at 5:30 PM, at the Peconic Community Center auditorium.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
III. WORK SESSIONS:
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next work sessions Monday,
April 13, 2026 at 5:OOPM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd Floor Executive Board Room, and
on Wednesday, April 15, 2026 at 5:OOPM in the Peconic Community Center Auditorium.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. MINUTES:
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve the Minutes of the February
11th, 2026, Trustee meeting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral V, Monthly Report. The Trustees
monthly report for February 2026. A check for $22,365.03 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: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section X
Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, March 18, 2026 are
classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not
subject to further review under SEQRA. They are written as follows, that is my motion.
MKS Realty, LLC SCTM# 1000-54-4-20
FI Boat House, LLC SCTM# 1000-4-4-15
Tuthill Bungalow Property, LLC SCTM# 1000-98-5-15
Chris Anastos & Elise Androus SCTM# 1000-43-5-1
Board of Trustees 7 March 18, 2026
James Huettenmoser SCTM# 1000-37-4-7
Linda & Jerome Morrissey SCTM# 1000-145-4-2.1
1460 The Strand, LLC SCTM# 1000-30-2-66
Christopher Ross Trust & Michelle Ross Trust SCTM# 1000-123-8-21
9450 Main Bayview, LLC SCTM# 1000-87-5-22
Tracy Heller & Matthew Glassman SCTM# 1000-111-9-11
430 Snug Harbor Road, LLC SCTM# 1000-35-5-32
Benjamin & Siobhan Morden SCTM# 1000-64-1-30.2
Lisa Israel SCTM# 1000-35-6-27
Amnon & Kathleen Bar-Tur SCTM# 1000-24-2-26.4
Tenforty Central, LLC SCTM# 1000-106-1-27
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VIII. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII, Resolutions -Administrative
Permits.
In order to simplify our meetings the Board of Trustees regularly groups together
actions that are minor or similar in nature. Accordingly, I'll make a motion to approve as
a group Items 1 and 2, as follows:
Number 1, JOSEPH & HEIDI BATTAGLIA request an Administrative Permit to
remove top row/layers of boulders from existing rock revetment and move off-site.
Located: 2000 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64.-3-3.2.
Number 2, RUDOLFO DAVID CIFUENTES requests an Administrative Permit to
remove as-built retaining walls and fill; revegetate with native species.
Located: 2035 Laurel Way, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-121-4-21.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: (Perusing).
I'll rescind the motion to approve Number 1.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, JOSEPH & HEIDI BATTAGLIA request an
Administrative Permit to remove top row/layers of boulders from existing rock revetment
and move off-site.
Located: 2000 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64.-3-3.2.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Trustee Finora is recused from this application because I am a
neighbor.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: So I'll make a motion to approve this item as submitted.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? Aye.
Board of Trustees 8 March 18, 2026
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Aye.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Aye.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Aye.
TRUSTEE FINORA: (Recused).
IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral IX, Applications for
Extensions/Transfers/Administrative Amendments. In order to simplify the meeting I'll
make a motion to approve as a group Items 1 through 3, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 through 14,
listed as follows:
Number 1, MARYANNE KELLY & DIANE C. McKENNA request a Final One (1)
Year Extension for Wetland Permit#10326, as issued March 15, 2023.
Located: 1775 Naugles Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-4-19
Number 2, CHULA VISTA HOMES LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#10343 from M & R North Fork Properties, Inc. C/o Mark Schill to Chula Vista Homes
LLC, as issued March 15, 2023; and a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit
#10343, as issued March 15, 2023.
Located: 500 Lakeside Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-3-4
Number 3, JAMES & COLLEEN MONTGOMERY request a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#8971 from Lee Schultheis to James & Colleen Montgomery, as issued March
22, 2017 and Amended May 17, 2017.
Located: 372 North Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-6-29
Number 6, Finnegan Law on behalf of VISTA BLUFF,1818 LLC requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#6518 and Coastal Erosion Permit#6518C from Thomas
Yannios to Vista Bluff 1818 LLC, as issued January 24, 2007.
Located: 545 Glen Court, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-1-6
Number 7, Scherer & Pudell, PLLC on behalf of CHRISTOPHER GORMAN
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#10139 from ERGA LLC to Christopher Gorman,
as issued May 18, 2022.
Located: 340 Robinson Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-34-5-13
Number 9, Frederick Weber on behalf of PETER SABAT requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#10665 to remove and replace existing
concrete foundation at same elevation as existing; regrade around foundation as
necessary.
Located: 3000 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-3-17.1
Number 10, Nigel Williamson on behalf of CARMELA LAZIO REVOCABLE
TRUST requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#10774 to reduce
the size of the footprint of the previously approved dwelling to 2,149 sq.ft., covered
porch entrance and steps to 80 sq.ft., and front deck to 108 sq.ft.
Located: 250 Blue Marlin Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-7-21
Number 12, En-Consultants on behalf of JOSEPH & BARBARA ISABELLA
request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#10520 for two as-built
masonry retaining walls landward of bulkhead, one totaling ±75 linear feet in length, the
other ±86 linear feet in length plus a 4' northerly return and 2.5' southerly return; and 4'
x 7' masonry steps.
Located: 1855 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-7-6
Board of Trustees 9 March 18, 2026
Number 13, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of J. GEDDES PARSONS
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#10005 and Coastal Erosion
Permit#10005C for the as-built reconstruction of a 48' long bulkhead return located at
_._ ---the western side,of the property and as-built construction of 4.9'-6' x 48.3' (varying
width) concrete walk located immediately landward of reconstructed return; install an 8'
x 6' drywell; saw cut and remove two portions of existing concrete walk and install two
French drains to be connected to drywell; and to install a 10' wide vegetated non-turf
buffer along the landward side of the retaining wall.
Located: 515 Sterling Street; Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-9-3.1
Number 14, David Snowdon-Jones on behalf of PETER STEIN & ALLISON
KRONICK STEIN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10891 to
relocate previously approved dwelling to the east in order to comply with minimum side
yard setback of 20'.
Located: 63417 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-40-1-18
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor.
(ALL AYES).
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Number 4, MATTHEW MIRONOV & BARBARA
LICHTENBERG-MIRONOV request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#4353 from John &
Mary Kelly to Matthew Mironov & Barbara Lichtenberg-Mironov, as issued July 11,
1994.
Located: 2900 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-3-15.
Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection March 10, 2026, noting that the
dock does not match what was on the permit of the plans. Therefore we can not
transfer.
Since the dock does not match the permit, I'll make a motion to deny this
application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES). f
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, Finnegan Law on behalf of VISTA BLUFF 1818 If
LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#6518 and Coastal Erosion Permit#6518C
from Thomas Yannios to Vista Bluff 1818 LLC, as issued January 24, 2007.
Located: 545 Glen Court, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-1-6
Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection March 16, notes the job was already done
to completion, nothing left to transfer. Since this permit was for a one-time activity,
there is no need to transfer it, so I make a motion to deny this transfer as submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 8, PAUL & JOAN KUSTEK request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#8979 from Victor Ferrulli to Paul & Joan Kustek, as issued March 22,
2017. -
Located: 1540 Smith Drive South, Southold. SCTM# 1000-76-3-5.
Trustee Finora conducted a field inspection March 15th, 2026. Notes say that the deck
Board of Trustees 10 March 18, 2026
that is built does not match the dimensions on the permit or the plans.
Since it does not match we cannot transfer, so I'll make a motion to deny this application
as submitted.
-_.-__TRUSTEE.S EPEN OSKI: Second. ._.... .- _.- - . _. _ . -_.-_ _-------------___-- __--
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 11, Twin Forks Permits on behalf of NATHAN
BRZOZOWSKI requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#10763 to
reduce the size of the previously approved barn to 36' x 56' (2,016 sq.ft.) And relocate
to a 109' setback from wetland line; install generator.
Located: 34460 Main Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-97-2-9.1
Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection March 16th, 2026. Notes say okay with
new plans depicting the distance from the new barn to the non-disturbance and
vegetated buffer.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the condition of new plans
showing the dimensions between the new barn and the edge of the vegetated buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 15, 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 February 10th, 2026. Notes say no
reference to pipes draining water directly into the creek.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the condition of new plans
showing gutters to leaders to drywells, all downspouts.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Number X, Public Hearings. At this time I'll make a motion
go off our regular meeting agenda and enter into Public Hearings.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
CHAIRMAN 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.
Board of Trustees 1.1 March 18, 2026
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, AS PER REVISED SITE PLAN AND
LANDSCAPING PLAN RECEIVED 3/16126 Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. On _
behalf of MK3 REALTY, LLC requests a MAIand-Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit
to construct a proposed irregular shaped three-story 1,672sq.ft. Single-family dwelling
with two garage entrances and one 8'x8' seaward overhead door entrance (overall
dimensions of 107.6'x16.7') on top of 18"x18" foundation piers with helical piles; ground
level (first floor) to be ±9' in height with break-away walls except at front on-grade entry
where conventional walls to be utilized and slab floor throughout; a seaward 640sq.ft.
Second floor deck with a kitchen/bbq area, 5'x15' stairs to ground and a 41'x3.5' shed
roof above; two (2) 4'x12.3' third floor seaward balconies; a 3.5'x11.3' at-grade masonry
entry patio; install an I/A OWTS sanitary system in the southeast corner; add 235 cubic
yards of clean fill within the driveway and I/A areas; install a ±2,000sq.ft. Pervious
gravel driveway; install water and electric services; install a stormwater management
system with drywells all landward of dwelling in the driveway and elevated a minimum of
2' above groundwater; install a 1,200 gallon underground propane tank; all areas of
disturbance to be revegetated using native species; and to establish and perpetually
maintain a vegetated non-disturbance buffer area throughout a 34,300sq.ft. Area with a
4' wide access path to the beach, a 1,400 sq.ft. Non-turf buffer area planted with native
woody and herbaceous species, and an 1,800sq.ft. Non-turf buffer area planted with
herbaceous vegetation.
Located: 1925 North Sea Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-4-20
The Trustees most recently conducted a field inspection on March 11th, 2026.
Notes, check the septic location, discuss vegetation and screening, consider dwelling,
eliminate retaining walls for leaching.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is that the
proposed residence is not keeping with the character of the homes to the east, and will
block longstanding views of Long Island Sound. Policy 3.1, the proposed action will
significantly degrade the visual character of this natural area. Policy 6, the plan includes
property improvements that are inconsistent with the requirements of Chapter 268,
waterfront consistency review, based on construction of a residence less than 100 feet
from the dune.
The plan does not meet the minimum setback of 100 feet from the point of .
jurisdiction, which is the dune. And also the proposed actions will significantly block the
historic view of Long Island Sound.
We also have a letter in the file objecting to the application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. ARMENTANO: Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board. My
name is John Armentano, I'm an attorney with Farrell Fritz, representing the applicant.
I'm also here with Kelly Rosado from Land Use.
I do have a very brief booklet which just shows you what you may already have, but
there is an aerial photograph I would like you to take a look at. If I could just hand this
up.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Yes.
MR. ARMENTANO: (Handing). And also one other item I want to hand up, as the Board
may be aware, and the attorney for the Board may also be aware, this had a long
history, this project, as we all know, and there was a stipulation, this was litigated and
Board of Trustees 12 March 18, 2026
there was a solar stipulation entered into by the Town and the property owner, which in
essence is the plan we are presenting to you today. And this was agreed to, a house
with a maximum of 1,700 square feet, 3,400 total square footage. The location of the
house, the location of the decking, this was all agreed to, and as stipulated by the Town
Attorney's office. And it is so ordered by the Judge.
That is also a document that I had submitted, I think it places this in a unique
position that we are under a court order for this approval from the Board, although you
have the discretion within this to make certain improvements or mitigating factors, which
Kelly Rosado will discuss with you. I just wanted you to take a look at our exhibit, and
your aerial also indicates, that Exhibit One to the handout, this is the last remaining lot
on the north side of North Sea Drive. So the claim that this is somehow affecting views
of others, is not that jurisdiction. This is the last buildable lot in this area.
The home that is proposed is behind the pier line. It is very similar in design to the home
to the immediate west, which was the Bombera house. So if you look at that exhibit, it
does show extensive development on the north side of the North Sea Road.
Again, Exhibit Two is the plan that has been modified at the request of the Board
during the Trustees walk-through where there was a changing of the septic fields, and I
can't speak to that specifically, but that is what the plan reflects.
And then Exhibit Three is a buffer planting plan that was created by Land Use,
from Kelly Rosado, who will speak to that specifically, but I believe this is a result of the
conversations that were had at the walk through, at the site inspection that the Board
conducted back in March.
So that is really all I have to say on this. If there are questions that you have for
me, I'm obviously ready to answer them. I'm sure Kelly will have to add a little color to
the issues regarded plantings and the buffering plans that were discussed.
So I'll turn it to Kelly and then we can obviously hear from the public and then we
can respond to any questions.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
MR. ARMENTANO: Thank you.
MS. ROSADO: Good afternoon, everyone. I just want to go through briefly what exactly
is proposed here, and referencing the stipulation of settlement that John had mentioned
previously.
The dwelling footprint that was allowed is 1,700 square feet. The proposed
dwelling footprint is 1,672 square feet. So it is less. The total dwelling size allowed is
3,400 square feet. We are at 3,399, so we do meet that. They are allowed 750 square
feet of outdoor deck space.
The outdoor deck plus stairs down to grade, plus the balcony, is 734 square feet.
So again, we meet that provision. The residence is required to be centered on the lot,
which it is. It does not extend seaward of the pier line, which we discussed that at the
site meeting last week. They have no pool, and they are not requesting any variances.
The front yard setback is the average setback for the north side of North Sea Drive. I
believe it's within a five-hundred foot radius that you consider that average setback, so
that is where the house is located.
As far as the residence and the site goes, the design is preserving 83% of the
property, which means the beach and vegetated dune habitat, you have almost 19,000
square feet of beach habitat being preserved, over 34,000 square feet of vegetated
dune habitat being preserved. And that includes additional habitat along the east side
of the property that we discussed at the site meeting.
Board of Trustees 13 March 18, 2026
The sanitary plan was revised so that it's gravel-less trenches rather than
leaching galleys, so that allows lesser grading, remove the retaining wall, and allows
preservation of vegetation along the east side as well. And that is on the plans that were
submitted and received I believe on Monday by the Trustees' office. And then the
planting plan and the buffer plan was updated to reflect that new layout.
The dwelling and the decks have a minimum setback from high water from the
tidal wetlands of 245 feet, so there is a lot of room between the waterway, between the
beach and any proposed structures.
Again, everything is landward of the line of development, and everything is
designed to meet FEMA code requirements, building code requirements, so there is not
any concerns with regard to flooding and erosion on the property.
And in the original application package with the project narrative, we did, I did
submit, which has been part of the prior application, an analysis of the shoreline and the
dunes in this area. Unlike many parts of Long Island this stretch happens to be a stable
beach and dune, and actually is at its widest that it's been. We've looked at the beach
and dune widths and the vegetated dune from 1957 to 2025 and found that the beach
and the vegetated dune are actually at the widest they have been since that point in
1957. So that analysis was included in the project narrative. I just wanted to point that
out to you because there is not, even though it's within the CEHA this is not an area that
has been eroding or has been having issues with regard to that.
And that is really it. So if you have any questions I'm happy to answer them.
MR. ARMENTANO: We also have the architect here if there are any questions
regarding the house itself. I'm not sure if that's really a Board's concern, but we are
obviously here to answer those questions, and those materials have been submitted.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. MASTRO: My name is Louis Mastro. Me and my wife own the property just to the
east, and I know originally the proposal was for the septic system to be on the west
side, and now it's been changed to the east side; is that right? What was the reason for
that?
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Yes, sir. So looking at the latest plans, it is on the east side
closest to North Sea Drive, with absorption trenches.
MR. MASTRO: Okay, and another thing, I don't understand what type of system it is. It's
an IA/OWTS system. Is that like the casting system that leaches or, I don't understand.
Does it hold this?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: These are self-contained systems that are designed to
mitigate nitrogen leaching into the water table.
MR. MASTRO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's the newer, advanced systems that break it down and doesn't
just put everything right into --
MR. MASTRO: It's a very sensitive system, right, it's all spread out?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The systems vary, but it is more spread out than a traditional
system where they are just dumping it in a hole in the ground.
MR. MASTRO: Okay.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And the acronym is Innovative Alternative Onsite Wastewater
Treatment System.
MR. MASTRO: There you go. Okay. Maybe just spell it. I don't know. Okay, very good.
We have been there a long time, since 1961, and we've seen a lot of change on
Board of Trustees 14 March 18, 2026
that beach, especially with the jetty, and we've had a lot of impact way back in the day.
And I agree that the beach right now is the best it's been in the last 50 years. But easy
come easy go, really, you know how that works.
John, you know, right? John put seaweed out and rocks outside. But we're out there 61
years, and I'm so grateful td have that place, and we enjoy it very much. It's
unbelievable. It's a beautiful piece. That's it. Very good. Thank you, sir.
MS. HULSE: Counsel, can I ask you a question. Regarding the stip, the process of the
Trustees would be to deny under Coastal Erosion. Typically here. But it looks like the
Item Two in the stip, it says that any submission of any further documents that may be
reasonably required in connection with the issuance of CEHA and Wetland Permits, the
Town Trustees shall grant CEHA and Wetland Permits to Petitioner, which will be
subject to mitigation measures.
So this Board, based on Coastal Erosion, cannot issue a permit under Coastal
Erosion. But are you maintaining that the stip provides for the Trustees to issue in the
Coastal Erosion?
MR. ARMENTANO: Yes, because this was a litigation between the Town Trustees and
the Town Board, they wrote the CEHA components. So this is a joint stipulation. This
was discussed at length with the Town Attorney, who I know has recently retired. I did
speak with Paul today about this, actually.
And again, yes, that is the consensus that was reached, that this Board is given
the authority to grant the CEHA permit as well, instead of going through a bifurcated
process. This was the decision that the Town agreed to.
MS. HULSE: Right. I'm just clarifying because the language of the stip doesn't make
that very clear. I understand, I fully agree with what you are saying, and I'm sure that's
what happened, but the language is a little bit unclear as to the actual process, whether
we are granting it as of right here, based on the stip, or if you would send it to the Town
Board.
But I understand what you are saying, and I agree that makes the most sense. And
don't think that's a problem. I just want to make sure that was your understanding.
MR. ARMENTANO: That was my understanding as well as the Town Attorney's office,
and with the consent of the Town Board.
MS. HULSE: Great.
MR. ARMENTANO: And again, just to add onto the record, we also received our DEC
permit for the property, and the Health Department. So this has been well-vetted. And,
again, as you have seen the progression of the plans here, there has been a
considerable reduction in the size of the home, as Kelly alluded to. So there has been
quite a bit of concessions, which I think are more to the benefit of the environment. You
know, obviously a home will go here, as are multiple homes in the area, and the
majority of the site, as Kelly indicated, will be preserved. Which I believe is in the best
interest of your objectors, and the environment as well.
MS. HULSE: Thank you.
MR. ARMENTANO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BESCH: John Besch (sic), 2325 North Sea Drive.
I just want to correct, for the record, there was a misstatement made that this is the last
buildable lot, last,,vacant lot on North Sea Drive, on the north side. That is not true.
There is an additional lot to the west owned by, and I don't know the house number,
Board of Trustees 15 March 18, 2026
owned by a Cora Stohl (sic). So there is one more lot on North Shore Drive. Just so
the record is correct.
MS. HULSE: So, just to be clear, the Town has entered into an agreement, as the
_ attorney said, with the applicant. The Trustees are required to abide by that agreement
that has been made by the Town. So the Trustees are limited in what they can do
tonight, as long as the application as it has been submitted complies with the terms of
the stipulation.
MR. BESCH: I understand that. I just want to make sure the record is correct as it is
written that there is another lot there. That's all.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
MS. HULSE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
(Negative response).
Are there any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ARMENTANO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this application, both the
Wetland and Coastal, with the following conditions: That there is no slab except where
it's needed for the elevator; the house to be on piles; the whole entire property to be a
non-disturbance buffer, as pictured. And as such it will bring into consistency with the
LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under Wetland Permits, Number 1, Peconic Bay Land Use
Consultants, LLC on behalf of LINDA & JEROME MORRISSEY requests a Wetland
Permit to remove existing wood deck, masonry patio and wood walkway; install a
1,133sq.ft. Upper masonry patio, a 718sq.ft. Lower masonry patio, 347sq.ft. Swimming
pool with 49sq.ft. Spillover spa; install a 6'x6 drywell, pool equipment area, pool
enclosure fencing with gates; and install a 101 sq.ft. Storage shed.
Located: 1780 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-4-2.1
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency stems from 6.3(d),
provide adequate buffers between wetlands and adjacent or nearby uses and activities
in order to ensure protection of the wetlands character, quality, value and function.
The proposed work does not meet the setback requirements from the wetland,
beach or bank as defined in Chapter 275-2. The definition of"work uses" as defined in
275-3, defining purpose, jurisdiction and setbacks.
Given that the proposed pool is 50.6 feet from the bulkhead, it does not meet the
setback requirements. If the proposed work is permitted at a minimum, a permanent
non-turf buffer should be established between the pool and the water.
Board of Trustees 16 March 18, 2026
The Trustees most recently visited the property on the 11th of March and noticed the
need to check on the 60-foot setback to the pool. Need dimensions on the plan from the
pool to the bulkhead, which we did confirm at work session.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. HILL: Good evening, my name is Tim Hill, with Perrillo & Hill, on behalf of the
applicants Mr. and Mrs. Morrissey.
So we are seeking approval for the installation of the pool and patio. There is, as
just recited, an issue with the setback.
The planning and preparation for this application --
MS. HULSE: Counsel, do you have a notice of consent from the applicant to address
the Board tonight.
MR. HILL: I don't know if that was submitted earlier. They are here.
MS. HULSE: Perfect. So you are consenting to allowing him to speak on your behalf
tonight.
MR. MORRISSEY: Yes.
MS. HULSE: Thank you.
MR. HILL: Thank you.
So the planning and preparation for the application although was made.in or
about December, prior to the code amendment, a lot of that planning took place
beforehand, including the submission to the DEC, and we have been largely compliant
with the prior setback dimensions.
The relief sought does not materially affect the purpose of the increased setback.
There is no identified environmental impact from the location of the pool being where it's
currently proposed. Nor would there be environmental improvement from it being ten
feet landward of that proposed location.
So there is a drywell in the plan, and the owners would be amenable to other
mitigation in terms of plantings or vegetated buffer that the Board might propose or
require. But essentially this is a modest, looking for modest relief under the Board's
power to waive or alter the requirements of the setback.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So just to respond to your comments. Ten feet against a 50 foot
ask, I would not consider modest. What you are asking for also goes against decades of
the Board upholding the pool setback, which was recently changed, for very good
reason, to pull things away out of the wetlands to protect that habitat.
What we suggested to your clients in the field, and again,'we met with them on a pre-
submission, we were very open about the setbacks and where they should put it at the
time. It took a considerable amount of time for that application to actually get submitted,
and in that time we had made an adjustment, which was a longtime coming. There
is plenty of room on the property to move this back. I understand people kind of want
what they want. And we are to work with your clients and help position a pool
somewhere that satisfies the code requirement.
MR. HILL: I do think they are somewhat constrained by the location of the house.
Additionally, this is a bulkhead, so this is not a natural shoreline here. And I think there
is certainly a willingness to look at what can be.done. I don't know if that necessarily
involves relocation. If there are other, you know, mitigating factors that could be
employed, that would obviously be preferential. So whether it's a matter of a few feet or
a buffer or something with the drywells, those would be things that we would all be
happy to continue to discuss.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, to that point, sir, the line is drawn sort of straight back from
Board of Trustees 17 March 18, 2026
the edge of the bulkhead. If you were to draw that line to the edge of the pool, that is
going to significantly change that number already. So using that mindset, whether you
are talking about shifting of the pool or a slight reduction, we are not, all of a sudden we
are not that far from 60 feet already.
MR. HILL: Right. So is there something where we can keep the record open and look at
a modification of the plans?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you request, we could table it and leave it open for submission
of new plans.
MR. HILL: Okay. Yes, we would like to do that. My client would like to address the
Board, if that's all right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Great.
MR. MORRISSEY: Good evening. My name is Jerome Morrissey, I live at 1780
Peconic Bay Boulevard.
just want to address, you guys know, we've met a few times already. This
process has been started, as you know. We have been trying to get this accomplished
in a very decent manner, as you know. We are not rule breakers. I know you have to
follow the rules. But from a, how should I say it, from a humanity point of view, this rule
that was put in effect November 5, 2025, is going to hurt anybody that was in my
position. And, we started this process over a year ago, way before this rule/regulation
was put in affect. Which is fine. I have no problems with regulations here.
But the problem with people like my wife and I, trying to retire, and we submit all the
money to invest in surveys and site plans and engineers, and pool designs, we are
talking a financial investment here. A substantial financial investment.
Now with only talking about less than 30 days, paperwork went into the Board, I think it
was third week in December, I think. Right around Christmas time. The effect of the rule
went in November 5. We started this process with the Building Department a year prior
to this. Now, the time in effect and, like I said, the financial issue, is all there.
Now I understand what you are saying, sir. We are a Town of Southold that
believes in the rules and regulations. But in this situation I do think it's appropriate to cut
me a little slack on this because of the delay it took under the DEC to get me the permit,
which we didn't know about until August, because we were told that we don't need a
permit from the DEC of non-jurisdiction. And then in August we were told, no, you do
need a non jurisdiction from the DEC. So that set us back three-and-a-half, four
months. That's why the application was pushed off from September to December.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you just clarify who told you you didn't need a DEC?
MR. MORRISSEY: The people in the Building Department. And we actually had the
thumbs up from the Building Department, but then when they found out that we had a
bulkhead, they said, well you'll be under the wetlands. The Trustees has to get involved
in this. And then all of a sudden we find out we have to go to the DEC, and we had to
wait three-and-a-half, four months.
So I know I'm asking perhaps a lot, I don't know if anybody here in the
neighborhood would have a speak about it. I have a neighbor here with me, right next
door. She is more than happy to see my nine grandchildren play in the pool. Now we
have to put it off for another year. Because that's what it's going to take. I'm not going to
build during the summer.
So I'm asking for your leniency and your compassion to grant me this 30-day stay
of decision making from November 5th to December 23rd, or whatever it was, to grant
us this, and maybe perhaps.go forward with this.
Board of Trustees 18 March 18, 2026
But, thank you, for listening. I appreciate it. Any questions of me?
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Mr. Morrissey, as Trustee Krupski spoke, and we spoke in
the field, you don't seem that far off. The way is currently measured to that spillway
spot, was 50.6 feet. So the distance to the actual pool is obviously larger than that. So --
MR. MORRISSEY: Not by much though. I mean, less than two feet.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: But if you potentially flip that spot to the other side, you
might not even have to relocate the main section of the pool, and you still might get that
60 feet distance.
MR. MORRISSEY: Then if you look at the plans, we won't have any room on the north .
side between that cement wall that's there already. Right now I think it's only like a
five-foot space.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: And also the line currently, I think you get a couple feet if
you drew the line correctly. So we are really close.
MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you, for you're time. I appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Thank you, Mr. Morrissey.
MR. HILL: We are certainly amenable to resubmitting the survey, perhaps showing a
different measurement. And if the record could be left open just for that purpose, for that
written submission.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sorry, we are just reviewing the plans, trying to come up with a
rough measurement.
Sir, are you asking to table to re-examine and submit new plans?
MR. HILL: Yes. So our thinking is there's two parts to that. One would be simply to
submit a perhaps more accurate survey with a measurement to the structures that are
involved. And we would certainly do that. And then subject to discussion we could see
about other issues. You know, I think if the measurement, the re-measurement, so to
speak, comes out, you know, favorably, maybe we would just submit that without a
proposed relocation of the spot entirely, to avoid a total redesign. And then relief won't
be ten against 50. It may be five against 50. And it would be modest at that point.
I think the argument would be for those five feet, whatever it turns out to be, serves the
purpose of a setback and, you know, in the first place. I'm not sure that there is an
environmental benefit from one to the other. But --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just, before you head too far down this drive, if you looked up the
precedent of this Board, it's at least a decade of my time here, of moving pools back
when it's a foot off. So, I don't want to give you false hope.
If it come comes down to redrawing a line where I would deem it accurate and then
sliding things back two feet, that's not a whole redesign we are talk can about here.
MR. HILL: Right. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else wishing to speak regarding this application,
or any additional comments from members of the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application for submission of new plans.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 2, RACE Coastal Engineering on behalf of FI BOAT
HOUSE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to reinforce the existing 54 deteriorating
timber piles by temporarily excavating around the pilings and install grout filled pile
jackets which would increase the diameter of the piles from 12" to 16".
Board of Trustees 19 March 18, 2026
Located: 513 East Harbor Drive, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-4-4-15
The Trustees reviewed the application on 3/16/26. Notes read under existing
structure reference to work being proposed.
_. ...._The._LWRP found.the.project_to_be consistent.with its..policies,.Number_6.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the application?
MR. LEHMAN: Hello, my name is Eric Lehman, I'm from RACE Coastal Engineering,
and I'm representing the homeowner in this application.
So yes, this application is for repair of 54 12-inch timber piles that are currently
supporting the home. Due the home being supported by piles it's necessary for us to
use pile jackets to repair these piles. We currently have Army Corps as well as DEC
approvals for the project. So if there are any questions, I would be happy to answer
them.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I appreciate the clever approach to fixing underneath the
building with these piles. I was on the site some months back, and that was a really
unique structure with an opportunity to save it at its location. I think it's a novel
approach, and I appreciate it.
Any other comments from the public or members of the Board?
(No response).
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close the hearing portion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
t TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application as submitted.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. LEHMAN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 3, AS PER REVISED SITE PLANS AND PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 3/16/26 J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of
EDWARD QUINTIERI III requests a Wetland Permit to relocate and reconfigure the
existing docking facility consisting of removing the existing 2'x14' metal ramp, 4'x16'
floating dock, 4'x42' floating dock, 4'x14' floating dock and 8'x21' floating boat lift; install
a proposed 4'x10' fixed dock, 3'x5' ramp, 4'x27' floating dock with a 2'x4' float in an "L"
configuration and four (4) 12"diameter float piles.
Located: 480 North Riley Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-3-34.1
The Trustees most recently conducted an in-house review, and visited the site on
the 4th of February, noting proposed dock with vessel exceeds 25% width of creek;
discuss other alternatives for dredging bulkhead and different configurations.
The LWRP reviewed this application all the way back in July of 2025, and down
found this project to be inconsistent. Some of the inconsistencies as listed here in this
statement have been remedied. Some of them have not, with the plans that are being
reviewed tonight.
So those are -- that the dock was constructed without Chapter 275 Wetlands
permit. The dock configuration is not compliant with the past permit. And those are the
ones that are still relevant to the current application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. JUST: Good evening. Glen Just, agent for the applicant. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY:
Board of Trustees 20 March 18, 2026
Thank you, Mr. Just. We are in receipt of the new plans that incorporate some of the
items that we talked about at the last hearing. However it still appears that this proposal
would exceed the 25% rule in terms of not exceeding into the creek more than 25%.
Given the width_ of the boat, I think is ten feet as depicted here, likely could
accommodate a boat with a 12-foot width or greater. And again, it's just very,"very close
to that, I think as it's depicted here, instead.of 24.6%. But, yes, I think the Trustees are
feeling this is still a bit too close to that 25% rule.
MR. JUST: Well, the rule is 25%. Not close to it. 25%. We are below it, in our
estimation. Most of those things you mentioned from the LWRP were, like you said,
have been mitigated, for lack of a better term. We are down to 120 square feet of float
as required. We had that 24-point whatever it was, per cent of the width of the
waterway, which is below 25. We did, I met with you folks at the site back there in
February. I did go back to the DEC and discuss the matter of perhaps maintenance
dredging at the site, or in the case of removal of the bulkhead, at times will allow you to
maintenance dredge ten feet seaward of the bulkhead to reclaim any lost fill. But that
doesn't meet the criteria with the DEC. That's more for an area that's like in a canal or
something like that. This site is on the open part of the creek, there's vegetated
wetlands on both sides of the DEC part would be impacted by doing any dredging at the
site, so.
TRUSTEE�GILLOOLY: Mr. Just, the one issue I'm seeing here is the line marked on the
other side of the bank is just simply a dotted line. It does not seem to depict any flagged "
wetlands or any -- it's just a dotted line,.so it's not really connected there in the water
depths on this plan. So I think we would want to see a professional --
MR. JUST: Well, when I did my submission I did say this was a draft that we would be
submitting, and the surveyor that did the original plans is, as we are speaking, working
on revising his plan that was submitted. And that's where the opposite shoreline came
from, was from that licensed surveyor.
So, my consideration that the shoreline on the opposite side is 100% accurate.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, well, I think, speaking as one Trustee, I certainly would
want to see the professional survey with the new plans depicted before making a ruling
on this application. MR. JUST: We were hoping to get a ruling, but like I said, my cover
letter, this is basically a sketch you have guys had to work on at the work session, and
would, again, the surveyor is working on the plans as we speak.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Understood.
MR. JUST: You know, with the snow falling off the ground, surveyors out of work, they
sat on their butts for two months with no work to do. Because there's no snow on the
ground, you can't even get them to answer a phone. So.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Poor surveyors.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, Mr. Just, there is some concern with the Board here to see an
official survey before we move on. But in just looking at this survey, so we are.at 24.6,
so we are shy of 0.4, which is fine. But that's back to the ten-foot beam on the boat,
when the applicant's boat is roughly a 13.5-foot beam.
So I think to satisfy our needs and legally the DEC's needs, all we have to do is
slide this in four more feet, and legally we are there.
MR. JUST: Do you want to discuss that?
(MR. JUST'S ASSOCIATE): Moving it four more feet is going to put the boat in
Board of Trustees 21 March 18, 2026
shallower water and the lifting is not going to be deep enough, as that shoal sits right
there. If we pulled it back, we have been through this four or five times, we pulled it back
the best we could do. The absolute best. We are trying to get this whole project in
compliance with Chapter 275, so.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: So, Mr. Just. Quick question. This is the same boat that is
currently on the rail system on the property?
MR. JUST: Correct.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: But it's too shallow to dial back four feet, but we can haul it
on a rail system? That's what I'm not understanding. We are asking about dialing this
back four feet closer to the bulkhead, but you are saying there is not sufficient water
depth for that. However there is sufficient water depth to hall that boat on a rail system.
don't follow that.
MR. JUST: A rail system? I'thought it was just up on blocks. I have some photographs
here, but it just looks like 8x8 or 10x10 that the boat sits --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, the boat is on a rail system that could be slid back into the
water. So there is a decent amount of depth onsite. And this is not a personal opinion,
but we can't approve something that not only doesn't satisfy our code but doesn't satisfy
New York state DEC code.
MR. JUST: Whose code?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The DEC's code.
MR. JUST: As far as what?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The distance across the creek.
MR. JUST: We have the DEC approval for the project.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: What we're seeing here is --
MR. JUST: There is this one-third rule width of the waterway, if I'm not mistaken.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't believe so.
MR. JUST: Well, whatever.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Unlike the DEC, we visit the site, so.
MR. JUST: But they have issued a permit for the project.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: There is a lot of aerial footage depicting a boat that has a
14-foot beam here, and we are basing this decision based on a ten-foot beam. So I
think the Trustees here are wishing to see a four-foot reduction in this project overall. So
moving it back four feet toward the land. Or some other alternative approach to that. It
seems the bulkhead has to be rebuilt in the near future, and typically there is
reclamation dredging allowed within bulkheads, so.
MR. JUST: In this particular, we checked into it, and again, it's in a more confined area
where they allow that. I have done a lot of them in the past, which I mentioned to the
Board when we were onsite. But, I made some inquiries if we could do it here, but the
answer was no.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Will the new survey have water depths.
MR. JUST: The existing survey'we submitted had water depths.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Are there any other questions or comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to table the application for submission of a professional
survey depicting the finished product that you are wishing to present to the Board, with
the strong recommendation of a four-foot overall reduction of the size of the dock. That
is my motion.
MR. JUST: Okay.
Board of Trustees 22 March 18, 2026
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Number 4, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of
TUTHILL BUNGALOW PROPERTY, INC. Requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace in same footprint 97'10" of existing timber retaining wall with 97'10" navy
construction vinyl sheathing retaining wall with top of wall raised 18" higher to elevation
8'; remove and replace 11' long return on west side and 8' long return on east side using
vinyl sheathing; and the remaining returns on bluff to remain as they exist.
Located: 5780 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-98-5-15.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection March 11th, 2026. Notes from the
field inspection include comments to consider new bulkhead elevation to match existing.
The LWRP report and findings are consistent with Town policy.
have one letter of support for the project. And at this time I would like to open
the application for public hearing.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak on this application?
MS. COSTELLO: Jane Costello, as agent for the applicant.
So I think this is a pretty straightforward project. We are just replacing an aging
retaining wall and adjusting the height to cater to not only the current site conditions but
the anticipate future conditions, for the lifetime of this structure.
I'm here to answer any questions of the Board or members of the public.
TRUSTEE FINORA: I think, Ms. Costello, given that the proposed, the existing and
proposed bulkhead are not at the high water line; that they are setback from the high
water line. The interest is in keeping that height as low as possible.
I do note that there is a substantial elevation change behind the wall, but the
Board would certainly have an interest in keeping the elevation consistent, and I believe
that also matches the adjacent properties as well.
Those are the only comments that I have here.
Does the Board have any other additional comments for this application?
(No response).
Are there any other members -- you have another comment?
MS. COSTELLO: Yes. Basically, pictures were submitted of what the place looked like
after Hurricane Sandy, right. Okay. So on extreme high tide and during certain
seasons, because the beach itself is such a fine sand, that the beach level changes,
almost on a seasonal basis.
And that during storm tides, really the water can go and overtop that retaining
wall. Normally, like on most days it does not come anywhere near. I think the beach
elevation is probably about four feet at the beach right now, but when that beach
elevations drops, and that sand is constantly moving, it's fine sand, um, and then all of a
sudden you turn and you blink your eye, and the beach has built itself back up. So it
really depends on when a storm hits, if that's going to be overtopped or not.
Now also the bulkhead has been in place since the 1940s. We are going to be
using C-Loc. And the material is expected to last probably equally as long. You are
talking about 75-80 years. So with the sea level rising, we are trying to take that into
consideration. I mean they put a lot of money into this. You know, bulkheads aren't
cheap. And they want to be able to withstand that length. They don't want to have to
Board of Trustees 23 March 18, 2026
reconstruct this, even in 50 years. The sheathing is good, and everything is good, but it
blows out from behind.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Ms. Costello, is this a bulkhead or retaining wall?
MS. COSTELLO: Well, technically, by your definition, it's a retaining wall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This year.
MS. COSTELLO: Yes. During storm events, it becomes a bulkhead. It's built like a
bulkhead.
We do have the'DEC permit. I don't know if that was part of your package or not.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
Any other comments from the public?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE FINORA: I would make a motion now to approve this application with the
inclusion of a vegetated non-turf buffer beginning from the top of the wall, extending to
the top of the bank as noted on the survey, with the elevation as noted in the plans.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. COSTELLO: Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, James DeLuca on behalf of JAMES
HUETTENMOSER requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing one-story dwelling
and construct a new 1,918sq.ft. First floor and a 473sq.ft. Second floor with a 152sq.ft.
Seaward deck; remove existing septic system and install a new I/A OWTS sanitary
system landward of dwelling; and to remove existing driveway and install new gravel
driveway.
Located: 2235 Cedar Lane, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-4-7
The Trustees conducted a field inspection March 11th, 2026. Notes say check
the pier line, check the permit status of the retaining walls.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. DELUCA: Yes. James DeLuca, I'm the architect of the site, representing James
Huettenmoser.
Basically what we are going to do is we are going to take the first floor completely
off, but the foundation is staying in the same footprint. We are not taking the foundation
down, nor the deck. The existing deck.
We are going to construct a new first floor over in the same footprint, and a
second floor of 473 square-feet.
The total floor area versus the lot area is still 35 square-feet under the maximum
permitted.
We are going to install a new septic system, remove the existing septic system,
remove the existing driveway, and just have crushed stone. And the second floor is
going to have a cantilevered deck approximately four to five feet. It's on the, about 153
square-feet, about four to five feet out. They might reduce it a little bit, a foot, from five
Board of Trustees 24 March 18, 2026
to four. And that's the whole project.
I gave a survey, after I handed in the original survey, depicting the items that I
just proposed. Everything is landward. The only thing that is seaward is the
__canti levered.deck, and.that is over the existing.-deck, so the impervious area is actually.____._. __.. .. _ .._ _ ...
decreasing because of the removal of the asphalt driveway.
Any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir. so looking at the plans, the existing drywells,
are those going to stay?
MR. DELUCA: Those are remaining. I did those about ten or 12 years ago when we
raised the foundation. Raised the foundation of several blocks to raise the house up.
And part of that application was to put those drywells in, and they staying just where
they are. They are not going to be affected.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: And all those retaining walls and everything, they're --
MR. DELUCA: Everything remains the same. We were not touching anything. The
existing foundation is there. We are just picking up from the deck that is on top of the
existing foundation that is staying, and we are going up from there. But the deck is not
going to be touched. Nothing is -- it's going to remain just the way it is.
I have the construction plans here. I think I gave them in, but I have another set
with me.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
(Negative response).
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative
response).
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. DELUCA: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 6, AS PER REVISED PLANS AND PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 3/13/26 Cole Environmental Consulting on behalf of 1460
THE STRAND, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 17'x36' in-ground pool
with a 610sq.ft. On-grade seaward patio; 160 cubic yards of fill to be excavated for the
pool and regraded in the area of seaward patio and east side yard towards a proposed
±41.2' long, 24" max. Height above grade retaining wall installed 2' from east property
line; construct a 660sq.ft. Deck between dwelling and pool; existing lower deck off
dwelling to be removed and replaced with a 9' wide deck; existing 10' wide upper
balcony to be reduced to 6.11' in width; install pool enclosure fencing with gates, a pool
drywell, and pool equipment area; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 15' wide
non-turf buffer planted with native, non-fertilizer dependent vegetation, and a planted
buffer (privacy screening) between retaining wall and pool fence.
Located: 1460 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-30-2-66
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent.
Board of Trustees 25 March 18, 2026
The Trustees most recently inspected the property on March 11th, noted that the
pool is at 65 feet; limit retaining wall to two feet or less, two feet off property line.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application
MS. RUMMEL: Kate Rummel, Cole Environmental, on behalf of the applicant.
Yes, the proposed retaining.wall is going to be a maximum of two feet, and that is
just to address the grade difference between this property and the neighboring property.
There is also proposed privacy screening.
The proposed pool has been tucked as close to the existing house and deck as
possible, with a seaward patio is 15-foot wide vegetated buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. So there are definitely some, I have some concerns
about, the setback for a bluff along The Sound is 100 feet for a pool. So 65 if awfully
close. We often look at precedent, but is there definitely some concern there with
regards to The Sound setback.
Also, has your client made an application for the illegally-built bulkhead and
retaining walls?
MS. RUMMEL: No, we did separate like the stairs and whatnot from this application, so
we'll be submitting that as soon as possible.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, so we are not able to move forward until at minimum an
application is made on those structures.
MS. RUMMEL: Okay. But we, so if we postpone and an application is submitted prior to
next month's agenda, you would be able to move forward with this application?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If it's deemed a complete application.
MS. RUMMEL: Okay. Okay. Make it any additional comments for this application on the
record, no?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any additional comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I personally also share a concern for the proximity of the pool to
the bluff. I know that we look at precedent, but in this case the pool seems to be, you
know, in-line with the house structure, so to me it's a little too close, and I would like to
see a reduction in the overall pool, or anything that can be done to mitigate that
distance. And increase it as much as possible.
MS. RUMMEL: There are pools further down the bluff that are a shorter distance to the
edge of the bluff, but I guess they can't do anything about the existing house structure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
(Negative response).
MS. RUMMEL: And just obviously I would like to table it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to table this application at the applicant's
request.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
We'll take a five minute recess.
(After a five-minute recess, this proceeding continues as follows).
TRUSTEE FINORA: Trustee Finora is recused from the next application because of an
interest in the neighboring property. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 7, AS PER
REVISED PLANS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 3/13/2026 Karen Hoeg,
Esq. On behalf of PHILIP LORIA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new
Board of Trustees 26 March 18, 2026
two-story dwelling (1 ST floor 925sq.ft., 2nd floor 827sq.ft.) On pile foundation with a
57sq.ft. Covered front entry deck and steps, a 90sq.ft. Rear balcony and steps; 4'x13.2'
seaward balcony on 1st and 2nd floors; install a gravel driveway and parking area;
install an I/A OWTS sanitary system; and to establish and perpetually maintain a
3,950sq.ft. Vegetated non-turf buffer area using native plantings.
Located: 1090 First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-7-31.
The Trustees visited the site at a recent field inspection.
The LWRP found the project to be inconsistent with Policies 1,2,3,4,E and 9.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MS. HOEG: Yes. Good evening, Board members, Counsel. Karen Hoeg, of Twomey
Latham, on behalf of the applicant Philip Loria., Mr. Loria is here this evening, along with
Cole Environmental.
We last appeared at the December meeting, and since that time Mr. Loria has
been working with his architect Joan Chambers on reducing the house size and
retreating the house 35 feet from the water. He has also engaged Cole Environmental
for assistance with an environmentally friendly revegetation plan.
Due to scheduling conflicts, Butler Engineering was unable to plot the reduced
house size onto the site plan with the sanitary location and the proposed revegetation
plan. And we do appreciate the importance of having a complete revised site plan
depicting all that is being proposed to the Board so that they can review and discuss the
project as a whole.
While we are working on getting the revised site plan to the Board, we wanted to
present the reduced floor plans and revegetation plan in order to get some feedback
from the Board regarding modifications made thus far.
We do understand that the late submission will delay the processing of the
application.
To highlight just some of the changes to the house, the footprint has been
reduced to 925 square feet, where previously it was proposed footprint of 1,023 square
feet.
The second floor has been reduced to a footprint of 827 square feet. Total
square footage of the house is now 1,752 square feet, which is a reduction of roughly
7%. And lot coverage is now roughly 13%. Side yard setbacks are still compliant with
Zoning, and on the southerly side have been increased to 27 feet.
The northern part of the house has been shifted landward so that the setback is
35 feet from the bulkhead, eliminating one of the variances that we received ZBA
approval for.
Although the Building Department determined that the project is grandfathered
under the old code for GFA, the present application complies with existing GFA
requirements.
Unless the Board has any questions at this time I would like to turn it'over to Cole
Environmental to walk you through the revegetation plan that was submitted.
MR. COLE: Good evening. Chris Cole, Cole Environmental.
We were engaged to create a mitigation plan to reduce the impact of the
proposed development at the site. The plan before you seeks to revegetate much of the
site with native species, and that will work to reduce stormwater, protect water quality,
create wildlife habitat, amongst other environmental benefits. The property has been
cleared since at least 1962 per aerials, and has been used for boat storage since at
least 1978 up until the current use.
Board of Trustees 27 March 18, 2026
The site is a cleared site with no vegetation on it except turf grass, some crab
grass and a few sporadic golden rods that we'll seek to be using and replanting, if
possible.
A previous permit that had been approved, approved a sand- buffer-behind
bulkhead. We are seeking to vegetate that, along with basically the rest of the property,
aside from the area for a driveway and the house.
The street slopes in the whole general area, the neighborhood slopes toward this
property. We are seeking to install a bioswale at the street that is planted with native
vegetation that will bring in pollinators, support bio-diversity and filter the water for
making its way into the bay.
The overall goal of the proposed plan is not to only buffer the waterway, protect
the water quality, but to increase biodiversity, create wildlife habitat and benefit the .
esthetic character of the area.
I have plans here in case you guys need them. And I'm here to answer any
question4,000 square feet. Like 3,950. And that's 50% of the lot. So it's, there is an
area, a path, going to the bulkhead, and then the driveway and the house and a little
buffer around the house. But the intention is to have lots of biodiversity and lots of
different plants.
It won't just be a scenario where you have arborvitaes and beach grass. It is
going to be diverse with different shrubs that will provide cover, food and other things for
the native wildlife.
So I'm here to answer any other questions about the restoration plan.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I don't have any questions about the restoration plan at this
time. Do members of the Board wish to ask any questions?
(No response).
MR. COLE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The notes from our field inspection do not speak to the
restoration plan. Just says concerns about proximity to bay, wetland habitat. Cutchogue
Harbor is a critical environmental feature. There's concerns with the history and
viewshed, and there's concerns with the septic proximity to habitat. So nothing about
the restoration.
There is also a number of letters in the file, all have been accepted and scanned
into laserfiche, within the appropriate window. Anything submitted recently is not yet
available there. But we do have Twomey Latham submitted something today, March
18th, 2026, addressing the LWRP comments. Are there any members of the public
wishing to speak regarding this application?
MS. HOEG: I believe Mr. Loria would like to speak to the Board. MR. LORIA: Good
evening, Trustees. Thank you, for the opportunity to speak with you tonight.
Before I begin, I would like to say that I've spent most of my life in Cutchogue
harbor. Maybe you remember me as Captain Marty's Fishing Station. When we're here
talking about this property, I'm not just talking about land. I'm talking about a place that
has been part of my life, and part of this community, for over 50 years.
My name is Phil Loria, though many of you do know me as Captain Marty's.
On May 15th, 1970, after returning from the service, military, in the Viet Nam war,
I purchased Captain Marty's Fishing Station, and shortly after the First Street lot.
Most of my life I worked in Cutchogue harbor, Peconic Bay. Captain Marty's
Fishing Station was part of my life in New Suffolk for decades. Families came here to
fish, local kids that worked for me, and thousands of people had their first experience in
Board of Trustees 28 March 18, 2026
these waters because of the fishing station. Because of that history, the Town goal to
preserve working waterfront means a great deal to me. I spent most of my life as part of
the working harbor.
At_the'.same time, over the years, the character of First Street has changed._
Captain Marty's Fishing Station was, for many years, the last surviving marine business
on First Street. Today the Fishing Station building is occupied by Peeko Oysters. It's the
only marine business on First Street. And then there's Joe's Stripes. The rest of First
Street reflects New Suffolk's changes over the times, becoming a small retirement and
summer community.
Today's First Street includes nine residents, two restaurants, parking lot, Post
Office and a gift shop, some small marine business and Joe's Traps.
There has also been discussion about the property having an historic viewshed.
The past 50 years, it's not been the case. Marty's has been occupied by a shed, 40-foot
container, boats, trailers. No other equipment associated with the fishing station.
Those materials filled this site and the view for decades. Only recently when we
cleared the lot in preparation for this process did the view open up. Right now there is
just a sailboat.
What I'm asking for is very simple. I'm retired, and I can build a modest
retirement home, with a footprint of 925 hundred square feet.
Throughout this process I have listened carefully to concerns raising from the
neighbors and the Town. In response, we reduced the size of the house, we've lowered
the roof line, shortened the north portion of the structure, and moved the northeast
corner of the building back 35 feet, which eliminated the need of one of our variances
we were granted.
Protecting the harbor and the bay is very important to me. For more than 50
years these waters supported my livelihood. Working on the water every day teaches
you something special. The respect to take care of it and leave it healthy for the next
generation.
For that reason, the project includes several environmental protections. We are
installing a state-of-the-art advanced waste water treatment system, designed for
sensitive coastal areas; restoring native vegetation along the shoreline, creating a
substantial natural buffer that supports pollinates and stabilizes the soil.
Rain guards will filter runoff before it reaches the harbor. Native vegetation will be
restored across the property. The project also reviewed and approved by Town of
Southold Zoning Board, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Suffolk County Health Department, pending Trustee approval. The home has also been
designed to meet FEMA requirements.
In many ways the proposal replaces the previous work use of the lot, when
boats, trailers and equipment were stored there. This is something that places far less
pressure on the harbor. This sole residence, occupied seasonally by two people, with
moderate environmental protection.
New Suffolk has been my home for almost all my adult life. I raised my family
here. I worked on these waters every day. I tried to be a good neighbor, tried to be a
member of this community. After the last 50 years of living and working on these waters,
I simply ask for this opportunity to spend my retirement here, and continue caring for the
small piece of New Suffolk that means so much to my life.
I have been blessed to spend my lifetime working on the water, and doing my
best to care for it in return. All I'm asking now is a chance to remain here and continue
Board of Trustees 29 March 18, 2026
being a good steward of this place and give it so much. Thank you, for giving me this
time.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. And, thank you, for your service.
Ms. HO_ EG: As I said earlier, we are waiting on a revised site plan. I know that the Board _
wants to see the project as a whole, but we are hoping to get some feedback regarding
the revised house size. So if there are any other modifications that the Board is looking
for, I'm sure the applicant would be interested in reviewing that.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Ms. Hoeg, just from now on, the submission of any
paperwork within seven days can delay the processing. So, you know, if you drop a
pamphlet off to us today of 80 page, you know, doesn't help the situation.
So going forward, if we do decide to table this and that was to happen again, at
some point we are going to draw the line. Paperwork needs to be submitted seven days
prior to the hearing so we can see it, so the public can see it, and everybody can, you
know, digest that information.
MS. HOEG: I understand that. With all due respect, at the work session it was
commented on that the Board wanted to see a revised site plan depicting everything of
the project as a whole, so every indication to me was that this was going to get tabled to
a future meeting, which is why I had submitted it today so that the Board had it in their
record for future meetings and future review. It wasn't done to jam you guys up in any
way.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. If there are any members of the public wishing to
speak, this is your opportunity now to come forward.
MR. KATSOULAS: Yes. My name is Steve Katsoulas, I reside at 1175 First Street,
New Suffolk.
Okay, the said box in that property for the house is not on the front. What is
going to be from, supposed to. be 30 feet? So it's only about maybe ten or--
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: (Perusing). It's not depicted on her
MR. KATSOULAS: Because the property is only 60 feet wide from the water to the back
of the street. And 100 feet long. So if you go 35 feet from the property, from the back of
the water,35, and that leaves us 25 feet. What is the dimensions of the new revised
plans?
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: So we have 192".
MR. KATSOULAS: 19 feet is going to be the width of the house?
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: One section is 192". The other section -- yes. 152". And
another L-shaped off of that.
MR. KATSOULAS: So it going to only be five feet from the wall of the house? Going to
be five feet from the street?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: On this plan from August,the house is 13, the front stoop is
about eight. So the front stairs.
MR. KATSOULAS: Well, if it's 35 feet from the bulkhead in the back, I have, you know,
the lady say 35 setback in the back, that the give us 25 feet. And the house is 19.2 you
say?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: 19.3.
MR. KATSOULAS: So that's only six feet. It's not ten feet, 12 feet.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So they have already been granted ZBA variance for the
setback to the street. So right now we are talking about environmental concerns. And I
just also want to note for the record that anybody who has already spoken on this open
application, your comments have carried over from the last time and are still part of this.
Board of Trustees 30 March 18, 2026
MR. KATSOULAS: Okay, but nothing has changed because the, so, okay, the ZBA
ignore the setbacks. We had a petition, over 200 signatures, letters, and they didn't
give a damn, they approve it. How can they approve that. Isn't that violation of the, what
they call it, the building zone?
MS. HULSE: Sir, the whole purpose of going to the ZBA is to request relief from the
code, which is what this applicant did. So the ZBA's decision has nothing to do with this
Board. But this Board is obligated to abide by what the ZBA has determined, because
that is their purview
This Board's purview is the environmental factors as are specified in Chapter
275.
So I understand it sounds, I understand you are upset about what the ZBA's
decision was, but that is not something this Board can change.
MR. KATSOULAS: Okay, so I am also upset that he got the approval from the Suffolk
County Board of Health to put the cesspool. That supposed to be 75 feet from the
water. That is environmental, that you should take into consideration.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: So I don't believe that they have a Suffolk County Health
Department permit for a septic yet. Usually those contingent upon getting approval from
the Trustees.
MR. KATSOULAS: Last time the attorney said we have the approval, and from the
Suffolk County. The other meeting we have over there. If I remember correct.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Yes, which is subject to approval from --
MR. KATSOULAS: Subject to approval?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The attorney said on the record, I believe, that they have it. But
we can ask for clarification after you are finished.
MR. KATSOULAS: Okay, how can you, you know, approve it? How can you do that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I didn't.
MR. KATSOULAS: It's not you, but isn't it up to you guys to say yes or no?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Well, that's what the field notes raised concerns about that.
About how close it is to the water.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And to clarify the record, it's not a cesspool.
MR. KATSOULAS: What is it? What is going to go there?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It's an Onsite Wastewater.Treatment System, so it's the more
advanced septic system. But I just want to correct it because it's not a traditional
cesspool that is being applied for here. I agree that it is awfully close.
MR. KATSOULAS: So if they use that, it can go next to the bulkhead?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: No, it cannot.
MR. KATSOULAS: It can't, right? It's got to be 75 feet.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: This Board is going to make an ultimate determination about the
location of that.
MR. KATSOULAS: Plus, it's not two stories. Three stories. 34 feet high. It's going to be
like a railroad train there. Narrow and long. It's going to be so ugly on that little property.
All that new stuff they are building, where they going to put it. Okay, that's all I
have to say.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir.
MR. KATSOULAS: So when the decision going to be?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Potentially next month, most likely, based on applicant's request
MR. KATSOULAS: So notify people?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The file will remain open. If it's the decision of the Board this
Board of Trustees 31 March 18, 2026
evening to table it, which means give us more time to review the new materials, then the
next month, April 15th.
MR. KATSOULAS: I'm sorry, so this a new revised plans now, they not from the ones
we got.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes, there are some revisions that have been made'to the
plans to reduce the size of the structure. And then the gentleman from Cole spoke to
the plantings that they proposed on the property, which we are reviewing as well.
MR. KATSOULAS: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
MS. HOEG: If I can just clarify. We submitted with our application a copy of the Suffolk
County Board of Health Board of Review decision where they granted a variance.
We also submitted a copy of the July 17th, 2025 notice of incomplete application,
that says the Board of Review has reviewed the variance request, and that the only
thing outstanding is the Town of Southold Trustees permit.
So I just wanted to clarify that for the record, and those documents were all
submitted as part of the initial application.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you, for clarifying.
MR. HAAS: My name is John Haas, I reside in Cutchogue. The last house is
Cutchogue. As close to New Suffolk as you can get.
I known Phil for many years. I've used his, when my boat was broken, I'd rent
one from him to go out fishing and clamming.
Anyway, Bill has been part of the New Suffolk community for I think since the
70s. I think 1970, he bought the marina and the boatyard there. And he's always been a
solid guy. We worked together for umpteen years, and I always invited him to my game
dinner. We had the 47th game dinner this past first Saturday in February.
But just to say, he's just a standup guy. If you have a problem and you go to him,
he'll help you fix it. Especially if it's marine related. But he has been part of the New
Suffolk community for so many years. I grew up in Mattituck. I grew up three miles
away, and I built my house in Cutchogue. It's the last house in Cutchogue just before
you get to New Suffolk. And he's just, like I said, he's a standup guy, and he's not
looking to do anything illegal. He would like to stay where he loves to be, you know, in
New Suffolk. That's all.
I mean, you know, I know there's laws'and rules and he's doing the best he can
to abide by them. And I hope you can consider his history and whatnot, his dedication
to stay where he loves to be and hopefully make it happen for him. Thank you.
MR. KATSOULAS: The gentlemen just spoke, he doesn't live in New Suffolk. He lives in
Cutchogue. So he doesn't care what New Suffolk going to look like. I know Phil for 50
years. I'm there 48 years in my house. So what does that make me special? No. So
Phil is a nice guy, of course, I know Phil, I bought the house from his father. I know the
family for when I was 28-years old and now I'm 72, for God's sake. So what does that
tell me? Everybody is nice. So he's not going to do harm. But the property again is too
small to build a house. Simple as that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Regardless of whether people are nice or mean or live in
Cutchogue or New Suffolk, we still, each of us, have an environmental footprint, and
that is what the Board is here to discuss. So let's leave our judgments out of it.
MR. KATSOULAS: I know, I trust you guys. I trust the Board of Trustees.
So I'm now, we have the hurricane in '12, Sandy, that street there, I stay in the
house, was four-and-a-half feet that was in my fifth step, the water, all like. So that
Board of Trustees 32 March 18, 2026
house is going to be now, I'm in the building industry, I know. And we get the high
winds, that house is going to go down like they did it Carolina, in the ocean there. You
saw the news, right?
__. -. TRUS_T_EE-KRUPSKI:Yes, thank you. - -------.- -
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That's a big concern. I think the fetch across that bay,
powerful waves.
MR. KATSOULAS: The house is not wide and all that going to go in the bay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Ma'am?
MS. SOLO: Hi. Good evening, everybody. My name is Barbara Solo, and I'm one of the
few New Suffolk natives left. I'm third generation New Suffolk.
Living there for so long, it just gets in your blood, and it's home. It's a place. It's a
beautiful place. It was, until the outsiders came in. But the piece of property that Phil
wants to build on, back when I was a child, that whole piece was filled with fishing
shacks, scallop shacks, anything to do with the water. You couldn't walk through there
and see anything. Nobody gave a shit. Nobody cared. You want to see the water, you
go to the beach, you go down to the creek.
Um, a lot of the opposition that you are getting is from that waterfront people
who, they got a whole bunch of cesspools there. You get that four-foot flood there, we're
going to be flooded with you know what downtown.
Phil has complied with everything. Yes, it's a small piece of property. Yes, it's
exceptional. Most of us people, most people that have been living there a while are
living on a postage-stamp piece of property.
I don't think that his house is going to cause anything terrible. It's up on pilings.
It's approved by everything. Hurricane proof, this, that. Phil has been through a million
of them down there. And every time we have hurricane problems like that, Phil was
there to help, with boats, whatever. I have a picture at home of him and my dad moving
a telephone pole out of the road so people can get down First Street. You know, we
have been'there, we've done that. We dealt with that, it's not a big deal anymore.
So I think his compliance with everything is right spot on. Plus the fact that
mitigation that he wants to do so that the rainwater and the runoff will go somewhere
where it's not going to get right into the bay.
Someone from New Jersey that has a pile of money is going to get it. Somehow,
they always get it. They get away with everything. I don't know why. I don't know why.
But I see a lot of things I don't like. Um, and they do nothing to help all this. They just
spray their lawns and Roundup everything. And where does it go, it goes down into the
bay. I yell at all my neighbors up the street, the new neighbors, the Roundup, out there
with the Roundup, I give them hell.
There is no reason why he can't build that little house other than all the people
that are bitching that they can't see the water. Go down the beach, you can see the
water. Take a walk. It's not going to -- the house next door to him, look how big that one
is. The one just to the north. That one is huge. The other one other side is a little, small
cottage, kind of like what he's going to build.
So it's kind of consistent with everything else. A small cape cottage. Yes, I know
there's setbacks and this and that, but.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Ma'am, have you seen the architectural renderings of the
house?
MS. SOLO: I've seen the first shots, yes, before he -- it's not, with the reason it's going
Board of Trustees 33 March 18, 2026
to be big is because it's on pilings. Okay? And that is required pretty much anywhere.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think he was referring to the idea that it was a small cape
cottage. That's not correct.
_ TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thais not correct.
MS. SOLO: Well, i guess it depends on what you call a cape. Mine's a cape, it's two
stories. I mean, I don't know what the -- but anyway, it's not going to take up that much
room. And for the people that's complaining, it's going to be landscaped, so they are not
going to be able to see through that little piece. It's kind of us locals all like to stick
together, what is left of us. We all have a bond with the water, working on the water,
living on the water, our boats been on the water, my father, my grandparents. And I just
think that Phil should be allowed to build this house. And from somebody that lives by
West Creek is going to complain they can't see the view when they walk to the Post
Office. They got a whole beautiful vista over there.
It's about people. It's about heritage. It's about the care of the bay, the care of
people around. They said, anybody who went to Phil, he would help. That's the spirit of
the old New Suffolk that I grew up with and my father grew up with. And I do believe,
and I hope, and I will be right behind him for the next hearing, that he gets his okay to
build this house. We are all getting older. Um, listen, five years he has been fooling
around with this. A lot of time, a lot of money, and a lot of serenity lost.
So I really, really am asking that you, yes, it's a different deal, but he's complying.
He's bent over million times change things according to what you guys want, what you
expect. Yes, it's a tiny piece of property. There used to be a little shed on that property
for many years, or outhouse, or whatever it was. What was it? An outhouse? I don't
know. Something that lived there, right by the bulkhead, for years and years and years.
Nobody complained about that.
So I guess I said what I have to say about Phil's character, and you guys all know
that, because people speaking. And like I said, he's a local. He's a native. And this is
where he wants to be retired. And this is not, you know, they all laugh, they call us
leftovers, the city people. But this is part of my community, and I really would like to
have Phil down the street again. That's Phil's house. Okay thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak?
MS. HOEG: I would like the opportunity to submit the revised site plan so that the
Board has the full picture with the revegetation plan on it, the revised, reduced house
plan as well. And, you know, any other additional information that the Board may
request.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay. If there is no one else who wishes to speak, no
members of the Board, I make a motion to table the application, at the applicant's
request.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. HOEG: Thank you,.for your time.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 8, AMP Architecture on behalf of 9450 MAIN
BAYVIEW, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 17'x41' (672.7sq.ft. Footprint)
single-family two-story dwelling with 4'x6' entry steps with landing on 10"x10" concrete
piers upon helical piles (20 total) with Azek Break-Away walls; install an I/A OWTS
Board of Trustees 34 March 18, 2026
sanitary system at front/side of property; install a 560sq.ft. Driveway; install (1) 6'x'4'
deep drywell and (1) 6'x5' deep drywell at front and side of property; install (1) 1,000
gallon propane tank buried at front of property; and install underground utilities to
dwelling.
Located: 9450 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-5-22
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 11 th of March, noting to review
the previous denials at work session.
We are in receipt of a.letter from the neighbor asking for a permanent rejection of
this project.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be inconsistent. The
inconsistencies are from Policy 6, protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands, and
comply with statutory and regulatory requirements of the Board of Trustees, stating that
the proposed work doesn't meet the setback requirements from a wetland beach or
bank as defined in Chapter 275. For a residence, it should be 100 feet. Given the
proposed residence is within 50 feet of the wetland boundary, does not meet the
minimum setback requirements. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. ARMENTANO: Yes. Good evening. John Armentano, Farrell Fritz, representing the
applicant. Again, I have some information just to hand up. These are really just
pictorial guides for the --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Lori, I don't know if we have authorization for this representation.
MS. HULSE: Do we have authorization?
MR. ARMENTANO: My client is right here. Yes, he's authorized --
MS. HULSE: Do you have direct knowledge that the homeowner has authorized it?
MR. ARMENTANO: Yes, ma'am.
MS. HULSE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. ARMENTANO: Again, this is a vacant parcel that was previously before this Board
on numerous occasions. This property, as you'll note in the aerial photographs as well
as the Exhibits One and Two, clearly depict the property that is 55,000 square feet, with
significant wetlands on the property, making it a rather constrained lot.
We are here, again, based on the testimony, you'll hear from Chris Cole, who is
our environmentalist, who was also with you on your site visit. This process has been
several years in the making. This application was before you twice in 2022. The plans
that were previously there, just for your reference, are Exhibit Three, which showed a
much grander house, in proximity to the wetlands, seeking the variances, again that we
are seeking tonight, for the permit itself.
Exhibit Four is a further modification of the home that was presented to this
Board but was denied by this Board. I think the history gives some context. There was a
request to move the structure --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Can I hold you for one second. Can we just have those passed
up so we can follow along with your presentation.
MR. ARMENTANO: (Complying). Sorry, I thought you had them.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Sorry, feel free to continue.
MR. ARMENTANO: Again, the evolution of this project has multifaceted attempts of
construction on the property. Again, this has been reduced significantly in size. The
applicant went before the Zoning Board on two occasions as well, to receive variances
to move this structure forward. That was the direction that I'm aware that the Board
directed them, to move it further from the wetland. Those variances were denied by the
Board of Trustees 35 March 18, 2026
Zoning Board. We didn't represent them then. I think there is an issue with respect to
the community character where that setback should have been granted., Be that as it
may, it was denied back in 2022.
HULSE May I ask if you them now?-
MR. ARMENTANO: Based on the directions that we gain from you, my advice to my
client is to proceed with a variance application, which in my opinion should be tabled.
But we want to be before this Board to get a sense of, because I know there were some
discussions at the site visit. I know we have brought Mr. Cole here to give you some
mitigation measures.
We are here tonight to get information from you for the location that would be
suggested, with the understanding this is a modest home, but we will be breaching the
front yard setback. The idea would be to receive direction from you, to then go to the
Zoning Board, to seek their variance, to achieve your objective, which would be
environmental protection while at the same time getting relief from the zoning code,
because it's a 50-foot setback. So we are in a Catch-22 situation.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: I don't mean to interrupt you, sir, but we have been down
this road twice before, where we went back and asked the ZBA for a variance to move it
closer to the road. Both times it was denied. So now we are back here doing the exact
same thing again, probably going to express the same concerns that we've had the
previous two denials, to kick you back to the Zoning Board for a third time to look to
move it closer to the road and further away from the wetlands.
MR. ARMENTANO: I understand that. I appreciate that. This is my first time on this
case. I understand what you have said, we reviewed what was decided by this Board.
What we are hoping to get from this meeting, I don't mean to belabor the point, would
be where would you want the property. That was not told to me at any hearings. I didn't
discern that from what was said. So we are here, would like to get that information from
you to now have a concrete plan to go forward by the Zoning Board. That is basically
what we are here for tonight.
I understand that Chris is here to talk about the mitigation, if that is in any way
helpful for the Board's decision, and as well, as I'm sure the Board is aware, this, the
neighboring property is Exhibit 6 and 7, did receive a Trustee permit for a 50-foot
setback in 1999. That is a level of precedent. I'm not saying that it's a controlling or
binding precedent. "Precedent" has a variety of meanings, but there was an approval of
a home in close proximity to the wetlands. I can appreciate that may have been an
issue of the past, and we are here to try to get that structure built in a way that is
keeping with your objectives as well as the client's private property right.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, so much. I would like to read from the Minutes from
our July 13th, 2022 meeting, quoting a bright-eyed Trustee who is new to the job.
Trustee Gillooly states: "The primary concern I had last time was the distance to
the wetlands. You are seeking nearly 40% relief from our code, with a distance of 62
feet from the wetlands, where we require 100 feet. You have not moved it at all."
And that was the primary concern I had last time. So you did not address that at
all. Now you are coming back to this Board with 50 feet from the wetlands, so 12-feet
closer. And it just doesn't really show good faith you are attempting to comply with this
Board's directions.
I would advise that you read all of the Minutes from the previous denials in order
to get a better sense of where this Board is.
MR. ARMENTANO: And I appreciate that. But to be quite transparent, we were brought
Board of Trustees 36 March 18, 2026
on after this was submitted. So I'm here really to try to understand. I hear what you are
saying. And we can appreciate that. So if that's the direction we would like to go, that's
fine.
I did want to have Chris Cole speak briefly about the environmental protections, if_
that's something you would like to hear about. And then I'm sure we'll hear from the
neighbors and then would like to table. There may be design modifications which we'll
be getting clear direction from the Board for. So I appreciate that.
MR. COLE: Good evening. Chris Cole, Cole Environmental.
We have been tasked to create a mitigation plan and restoration plan to reduce
the impact of the proposed development to the maximum extent possible.
The restoration plan you have in front of you was designed to help reduce the
overall impact of the project. The site had been previously disturbed. If we go back
further in the aerials, it's been a cleared site, and it has been revegetated. And
vegetated primarily by non-native, invasive species.
Some of the ones that were present are English Ivy, Bittersweet, Garlic Mustard,
Multiflora Rose, Phragmites, Sycamore. Maples and privet, to name a few.
I'm sure as the Board knows, many agricultural, previously disturbed areas, are
dominated by invasive species. The invasive vegetation typically out-competes native
plants, reduces bio-diversity, alters the eco-system function, and this can contribute to
broader regional issues such as degraded water quality, reduce wildlife habitat,
un-balanced ecological conditions, and specific problems like the larger presence of
ticks and ticks with diseases that live in these degraded eco-systems.
While many areas do appear natural, they have trees, shrubs, vines, etcetera.
We know that invasive vegetation out-competes natives and reduces the plant
biodiversity and on a broader scale reduces the eco-system function, negatively affects
water quality and negatively impacts the natural resources that the Board has been
tasked with protecting.
Invasive species are also not confined to a single site. As the name suggests,
they spread into surrounding areas through wind, birds, other wildlife, allowing them to
establish and degrade natural habitats and other eco-systems.
Removing invasive species from the site help limit their spread and protect
adjacent natural areas.
The plan has been divvied up, and I'm just going to go through the sections. The
road and general area slopes towards the site as well. Towards the wetlands. We
proposed a bioswale in front of the property to capture stormwater, and add diverse
native plants in there. The septic system, which is traditionally, most everyone puts
lawn over their septic system, will use softly-rooted native grasses and flowers to create
a meadow habitat.
The area behind the house and in between the wetlands, we would keep the
trees and remove the shrub layer and the invasives in the shrub layer and replant with
native species like Highbush Blueberry, Red Maples, Sweet Pepper Bush, Witch Hazel,
Black and Red Chokeberry, to name a few.
In the pond area we propose to cut the phragmites to get native vegetation to
establish and to remove the multiflora rose around the edges, and to plant Sweet
Pepper Bush and other native species that should be in a freshwater wetland edge, and
then towards the back, in between the freshwater and tidal wetlands, we would do the
same, remove the shrub invasive layer and replant it with native trees and native
shrubs, to add to the biodiversity of the site.
Board of Trustees 37 March 18, 2026
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
MR. ARMENTANO: I'm sure we'll hear from the audience. But what we are here for
tonight, I know there is a record that has been created on this application, is an inquiry,
is there_just_a_distance that is a requirement or_does any of this mitigation, because.that-______
is environmentally improving the property. Is it purely a distance that the Board is
looking for, or is there a hybrid of the -- if there is a mitigating factor. I don't know how
the Board operates. Is there just a line this house can not pass, I guess is my question.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, I don't know that we have time to educate you on our full
code tonight, but the setback is 100-feet for new structure. So anything within that we
are granting some sort of variance for. Which, I mean, the Board tries to mitigate as
many environmental factors as possible. But when you are talking about a lot that is this
constricted, with your only precedent being 27 years ago when you can still smoke in
restaurants, and that was acceptably practiced, I don't know that that is a realistic
precedence for this application.
It's difficult to imagine a realistic setback here that would not have to create
environmental harm, in such a small area.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Also Mr. Cole mentioned about environmental sensitivity and.
biodiversity. The Town purchased the parcels to the west of this property for those very
reasons. Because it is an environmentally sensitive area. So the Town realized that,
they purchased it to protect it. I find it hard to justify disturbing the property in order to
protect the property. An IA system is not an environmental mitigation on a vacant piece
of property. You know, you are putting structure, you are disturbing the ground for no
reason, basically. If you left it alone, there is no environmental impact. To do an impact
and then try to justify the impact by more impact kind of defeats the whole purpose
MR. ARMENTANO: Well, I'm not suggesting that the IA system was -- it's a reality that
is required. I think what I was talking about was.the removal of invasive species and
bettering the wetland itself, which is technically privately held. So I guess that was the
mitigating question. I'm not going to suggest the sanitary system makes that difference.
I'm fully aware of the code's 100-foot setback. We would like to know at what line do
you want us to approach. Is it 61? Because we are constrained with the Zoning Board.
Again, you get into a regulatory taking position. And maybe the Town does purchase
the property. That may be the final result.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Going back, obviously it's a different application, back to
2022, 2021, there was discussion, and the setback was as much as you could possibly
get, which was why it was pushed to the ZBA.
This iteration, the structure is now closer to the wetland than the previous
iterations. So not only are we not getting further away, we are encroaching on the spot
that we are trying to protect in the first place.
MR. ARMENTANO: I can have my architect speak to that and the owner. I believe they
are at the same -- I understand what you are saying, the setback of the rear line has
been held. Unless I'm misreading the plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would just say, while Mr. Portillo is walking up here, there is
already wetlands in the rear of the property that get into a brackish nature. That's
without even addressing this small freshwater wetland, that is so rare to the whole
eco-scape here. It's really a sensitive spot. And it's tough to justify that to removing a
few locust trees and planting back a few blueberry bushes is going to offset a complete
home built on an otherwise virgin piece of property.
MR. ARMENTANO: No, I understand that. What I'm sensing from the Board is that
Board of Trustees 38 March 18, 2026
mitigating environmental part will not be enough to allow for the structure to be within
what I understand to be -- 51 is the proposal, which, again, we will attempt to move this
further away, if mitigation is not the critical, if it is an actual distance, then we are going
to be_ faced to go back to the Zoning Board, which I think this may be best suited to go.
So we just wanted to understand if the environmental mitigations, meaning the
plantings and the removals, was in any way something that would mitigate proximity, if
it's clearly a line, the answer is as far as you can possibly go, then we'll take that
direction.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: So, sir, I don't want to give you false hope and say you move
it five feet, ten feet, you get an approval from this Board. That's not the case
whatsoever. Obviously we are looking to maximize the distance. I don't know what that
distance is, but I'm not going to say go to ZBA, move it ten feet and you'll get an
approval. It's a 100-foot setback on an extremely sensitive piece of property here, in
every way, shape or form, as what Trustee Krupski said, saltwater wetland plus
freshwater wetland on a very constrained piece of property is, one of which is right next
to an environmentally-sensitive piece of property that the Town purchased. So.
MR. ARMENTANO: I understand that. I was hoping for a degree of where, but if that's
not possible, we'll attempt to get as close as we can, and that's fine. I understand the
Board will not pre-judge or pre-determine.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Okay.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
Any other questions or comment? Oh, sorry, go ahead.
MS. KIRSCH: Good evening. My name is Mary Kirsch and I live adjacent to the Mara
proposal, and I would like to address some of the issues he has requested.
Number one, this has been the fifth, sixth, well, maybe it's four or five. But we
have been here a lot, and this proposal really has not changed that much. It has been
denied by the Trustees, and it's been denied by the Zoning Board as well. Everybody
has been very helpful and patient with the AMP architects and the Mara associates.
To clear the air, the variance that I was granted over 25 years ago is irrelevant.
What was pertinent in the past is very different today. Especially environmentally. A
different era. And now there is much, much more understanding of the importance of
the wetlands.
Number three, environmentally, the Mara project has a large freshwater pond in
the middle of the property. They refer to it as "unimportant ditch." That so-called ditch is
teaming with life. There are tree frogs, here I'm going to go about the peepers again.
There are tree frogs, bullfrogs, salamanders, turtles, snakes, in addition to foxes,
raccoons, hawks, owls and song birds and turkeys. Just to name a few.
It is a natural preserve right now. Also, the Southold Conservation Advisory
Council, the North Fork Environmental Council, Local Waterfront Revitalization
Program, New York State Wildlife Environment Council, the Southold Trustees, and a
Dr. Ron Abrams, an expert in residential buildings and its impact on the environment, all
stated in letters and reports that's in that file, and reports, that this pond area is
extremely sensitive.
This project would be devastating to every species that lives there, and the
impact would be detrimental to anything in or around the pond. Revegetating the pond
is ridiculous. Everything there would have perished, especially after clear-cutting the lot
and bringing in heavy equipment to build a house.
Board of Trustees 39 March 18, 2026
I always feel like I have, I come here to these meetings and I have to defend
myself. But these are rules and regulations I didn't make up. They are on the Southold
books.
Mr_. Mara and AMP Architects are very aware of the rules, codes, regulations of
Southold Town. They are involved in projects all over the North Fork. Mr. Mara took a
gamble, a calculated risk, and thought he was going to be able to push this through all
the agencies. He will not take no for an answer.
It is impossible for him to meet the criteria of the Zoning Board, setbacks, and the
Southold Trustees setbacks. The law mandates a 100-foot setback for a residential
dwelling. The proposal is requesting a dwelling within 50 feet of the wetland. The impact
is a 70% reduction in the required environmental safety zone. This is an ongoing
problem with this property, that remains unresolved.
This has been going on for four years. Tom -- me, Tom, the Camille Passaro,
Charles Salice, Mr. And Mrs. Itenberg (sic) all oppose the Mara proposal. We hope that
the Board will protect and enforce Southold Town code and deny the permit.
Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
MR. PASSINAT: Good evening. My name is Tom Passinat, and I reside at 9720 Main
Bayview Road, and would like to request of the Trustees to deny approval of this
wetland permit to construct a residential home on this property at 9450 Main Bayview
Road.
The timing of this hearing is of significance to me. Just two days ago marked the
return of the tree frog peeper song from the pond that occupies this property.An annual
re-emergence that is sure to vanish should proposal be approved.
This property is 1.2 acres, and has been under contention for almost four years.
Mary and I have participated in each of these hearings, most recently last June,
resulting in the Zoning Board's denial of the 30-foot front setback from the required 50
foot, and also denied a revegetation mitigation proposal.
Of this 1.2 acre property, 45.9% is comprised of wetlands, with the pond at the
proximal aspect, and over 18,000 square feet of wetland at the distal aspect, which
adjoins the salt marsh meadow, which adjoins Corey Creek.
This pond setback has been subject to repeated revisions and appeals to
circumvent the 100-foot boundary zone, of which the Trustees very charter states.
read this this morning, and I quote, "are charged with the administration of all activity
within 100 feet of the Town's freshwater wetlands, tidal wetlands, as well as beaches,
dues, bluffs and banks.
This latest proposal to construct a home 53.9 to 50 feet from the wetland pond, to
include the 16.7 foot home width, comprises 70.6 feet within this 100 foot protected
zone. This obliterates by 70% this boundary. Not 7%, not 17%, but 70%.
The mitigation proposal suggests what would probably amount to a clear-cutting
of the property, with revegetation likely to include a sod lawn and irrigation. This would
be devastating to the abundance of wildlife and mature trees that occupy this property.
This is no ordinary lot, but a living, viable habitat worthy of protection. To mitigate
is to avert, deter, minimize and protect from potential damages of coastal threats.
I believe this proposal will only aggravate and exacerbate those potential threats
that are no longer a matter of if, but when.
I know the Mara AMP pairing exhibits a significant presence of projects in
Board of Trustees 40 March 18, 2026
Southold town, and surely they are entitled to prosper. May they please do so without
this property.
Please deny this application and bring this process to its conclusion. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
MR. PASSINAT: Ms. Gillooly, you made a reference to that letter you received as an
e-mail. Is it okay if I read that?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We have all reviewed it and it's in the file.
MR. PASSINAT: It's four little paragraphs, if you don't mind.
MS. HULSE: It's part of the record, sir.
MR. PASSINAT: Okay, I'll say what I said. Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
(No response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: This application has now come before the Board multiple times
and has been previously denied on two occasions. While the applicant has submitted a
revised proposal, I do not find that the current application represents a meaningful or
sufficient change from those prior submissions to warrant a different determination. In
fact, it's closer than the previously-denied applications that were deemed too close.
Importantly, this is a previously undeveloped parcel.
Am I allowed to continue?
MS. HULSE: Go ahead. I just didn't know if you wanted to close the hearing or if you
wanted this testimony to be part of the hearing. I wasn't sure.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: This is part of my motion.
MS. HULSE: Okay, I'm just saying, do you want it to be part of the testimony.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I do want it to be part of the testimony.
MS. HULSE: Okay, so why don't we just back up --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And re-open.
MS. HULSE: Yes, why don't we do that.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I rescind my motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, should I start over?
MS. HULSE: Yes.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: This application has now come before the Board multiple times
and has been previously denied on two occasions. While the applicant has submitted a
revised proposal, I do not find the current application represents a meaningful or
sufficient change in those prior submissions to warrant a different determination. In fact,
it's closer than previously-denied applications that were deemed too close. Importantly,
it's a previously-undeveloped parcel, and that fact carries weight. Where there has been
no prior construction I believe there is a heightened responsibility to approach
Board of Trustees 41 March 18, 2026
development with a high degree of sensitively and restraint. That level of restraint is
not reflected in the current proposal.
While I recognize that the proposed structure is relatively modest in size, the
_ _issue here is the placement of the dwelling, which is far too close to the wetlands. As
proposed, I believe this project will adversely affect the wetlands of the Town due to the
proximity and cumulative impact of development near regulated areas and freshwater
resources, adversely affect natural habitat, adversely affect the esthetic value of the
wetlands in adjacent areas.
Given the history of prior denials, the lack of substantial and beneficial change,
and the continued concerns regarding impacts to wetlands, I do not find the application
satisfies the standards required for issuance of a permit.
With that, I make a motion to close this hearing.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to deny this application for the reasons stated.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE FINORA: Number 9, Patricia Moore, Esq. On behalf of CHRISTOPHER
ROSS TRUST & MICHELLE ROSS TRUST requests a Wetland Permit for the
demolition (As Per Town Code Definition) of the existing two-story dwelling consisting of
raising the (1,547sq.ft. First floor footprint) dwelling (finished floor elevation 13'), on a
new raised foundation (in-place) for basement with storage and utilities; construct a
544sq.ft. Second story with 5'x17.6' balcony; irregular covered front stoop
(5.6'x5'x8.1'x3.7' along front wall of dwelling then 4'x5.5'x12.3'); rear 4.11'x6.4' concrete
landing and steps; abandon existing septic system and install a new I/A OWTS sanitary
system with sanitary retaining walls along driveway (exposed wall not to exceed 2' in
height and screened with native vegetation); add fill for sanitary system using
recaptured soil; new 500sq.ft. Seaward deck; install a stormwater drainage system;
install new water and electric lines, new a/c units; re-vegetate disturbed areas with
native plantings; maintain a 4' wide access path to beach; existing vegetation seaward
of edge of wetlands to remain natural and add beach grass @10' landward of landward
edge of upland vegetation.
Located: 3340 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-8-21
The Trustees conducted a site inspection March 11th, 2026, noted that the
project is underway. Previously before the Board and changes in the construction
process have necessitated another visit to the Board of Trustees.
The LWRP has been updated. It has been updated as of March 10th, and finds
the action to be consistent with town policy.
I have a number of additions to the file, photographs of the construction, changes
to the design and associated documentation. And at this point I open the public hearing
for comments.
MS. MOORE: Thank you. Patricia Moore, on behalf of the applicant. I have Chris and
Michele Ross here, who are the owners through their trust. I also have North Fork
Woodworks, the contractor, and Kate Samuels who is the design professional. Thank
you, for the description, it accurately reflects the conditions of the property. The prior
permit I would ask to be incorporated into the record because all of our mitigation
occurred during the construction and the first application.
Board of Trustees 42 March 18, 2026
It was an existing house, so it is an improved property. The house went through
the process with getting permits from all the agencies. A building permit was issued,
construction commenced. Substantial amount of the construction has been completed.
At a.certain point there was a need for a structural change that then resulted in.a
determination of demolition by definition.
The prior permit did direct that if there was a determination of demolition, we
would have to come back to you, which is why we are here. But the house is, at least on
the exterior, about 90% completed. The sanitary system is in. The deck that was part of
the permit, too, was removed. The retaining walls are no higher than two feet.
In any case, we are here to essentially ask for the same house that was
previously approved but as new construction to be a permit at this time, so we can
proceed with the completion of the construction and completion of just the overall
project.
If you have any questions, I have everyone here to answer your questions if I
can't. Does anybody have any questions?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I don't have any questions.
MS. MOORE: For none of us. Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Are there any other members of the public that wish to speak?
(Negative response).
Are there any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, to be honest, I find this application to be a little frustrating,
because during the first application I stated to you multiple times that this is going to be
a demolition, and everyone said no, it was not. And now here we are. So at the time we
could have gone with other mitigating factors to try to help remedy a house that is
shoehorned into. I mean, it is certainly a neighborhood now, but it is unconsolidated
sediment, whether that be piles or reductions or anything like that.
So I don't like being put in a situation, and it might create more change going
forward with how we. handle applications. But, I mean, for now what are we faced with,
ripping out the foundation and going with piles?
MS. MOORE: Well, absolutely not. And the construction --
Remember the construction --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, you were saying it's not --
MS. MOORE: No, let me clarify. This is not in the FEMA zone. This house did not have
to be raised, but it was done so as a means to improve on the conditions and to
anticipate global warming and the possibility that the FEMA line might change in the
future.
The existing house, the overall existing house, they went through an
extraordinary effort lifting the house, doing all of the remediation that was required. A
new sanitary system installed in the front. Remember, this is a neighborhood of existing
homes. This house, it was a pre-existing nonconforming lot, with a pre-existing
nonconforming home.
The portion of the house that was most new was built in the 1980s. That was the
only section that was a surprise when we found out that the, a portion of the foundation
had hollow cement blocks with no rebar.
So keep in mind there was nothing that could have been done to anticipate the
problem that we found. And believe me, to an applicant, this throws the project cost and
the project timeline into complete disarray. So it is not something that people go in to
any application before this Board, or any other Board, with anticipation to, oh, we are
Board of Trustees 43 March 18, 2026
going to end up with a demo by definition. And what I have been told by the Building
Department, is that the demolition by definition is occurring more recently and more
frequently now because the cost of construction has reached $750 a square foot, and
therefore existing structures, even newer structures, the 50% rule is being triggered,---..
when it was never anticipated, when the code was never anticipated to be applied this
way.
So I share in your frustration. This project, and believe me, to have a project be
delayed for everybody here, the contractor, everyone, that has stopped, and unable to
work because of a two, three-month delay, it is frustrating for everybody. And I
appreciate your:frustration from your side —
MS. HULSE: Can I ask what do you mean by the "definition of demolition" was not
anticipated or intended to be applied this way? What do you mean?
MS. MOORE: So, the building, when the definition or the 50% rule was put into the
books, and that is when the, as well, the Trustees started incorporating the same
interpretation --
MS. HULSE: It's not an interpretation, it's actually code.
MS. MOORE: Well, let me finish.
MS. HULSE: Okay. But you just stated it's not our impression or interpretation.
MS. MOORE: It started with the Building Department, started with the Zoning, and
started several years ago when you were having homes that were leaving one wall up
and claiming that it was an additional --
MS. HULSE: There were numerous applications before this Board and the Building
Department.
MS. MOORE: Yes, and that's why the code changed to make it a FEMA 50% rule. But
the cost of construction when that code was adopted, was significantly lower. There was
a much lower --
MS. HULSE: What does that have to do with the intent behind the code?
MS. MOORE: What I'm saying is the Building Department uses the definition of 50%
rule. That 50% is based on the value of the existing structure. When you are comparing
the value of the existing structure to the cost of construction, that is what is triggering
that determination. So the project can be identical to what was always anticipated, but it
could be, one minor change can then trigger that 49 to 51, and --
MS. HULSE: Have you found that to be true?
MS. MOORE: Absolutely. And I want to -- please speak to Amanda. Because I went
directly to her and I said, Amanda, why is this happening, that we are getting all of these
projects that are resulting in, and it's in quotes, demolition by definition. It's by
definition.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Everything in life is by definition. So saying that is completely
pointless.
MS. MOORE: I've been here --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think you should consider yourself educated following this
application.
MS. MOORE: Pardon me?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I hope you consider yourself educated on the subject matter
following this application.
MS. MOORE: Well, actually --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because I can not find us back here again.
MS. MOORE: Well, then apply it to everybody evenly. So, yes.
Board of Trustees 44 March 18, 2026
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's all I do.
MS. MOORE: I'll put it this way, I try to look at a project, every professional involved in
every aspect the project, the architect, the owner, the contractor and the attorney, all
looked at it and said are we going to be a demolition or are we going to be an addition
alteration.
I have an application right now that I'm going to put back in as a demolition.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Ms. Moore, were the findings at the time contingent on the
condition of the foundation wall? Was that the consensus when they were discussing
whether this would be a demolition?
MS. MOORE: Well, three quarters of the wall was being replaced already, because
there was no wall. It was on old posts. So the portion that was good did not need to be
replaced. It was the cement from the cinder block wall construction that was from the
80s. The recent. The old portion of the house was the original cottage that was there,
and those were cedar posts, I believe. So, yes, there was a plan for a new foundation
for about three-quarters of this house.
TRUSTEE FINORA: And the findings that this portion of the foundation wall, the finding
that they were insufficiently constructed, is what necessitated the full demolition?
MS. MOORE: That's when -- I don't know that it was at that point when the Building
Department considered it a demolition, because there was a lot of activity that, the
activity throughout, and I have the contractor here, there was in discussion and interplay
with the Building Department throughout the project.
When you are dealing with an existing house that is old, and you are sistering
and you are putting in new wood, you are working with the Building Department to make
sure that they see, that what new wood and old wood is there is meeting the code.
So there was a continued dialogue going on. So at one point John went out and
said, oh -- actually, he actually directed us to get a de minimis request from the Zoning
Board because of the extent of the construction. And that's, we started with the Zoning
Board. We requested de minimis, which the Building Inspector, John, the inspector who
was out in the field, thought potentially would be simply de minimis letter. The Zoning
Board said, sorry, we can't do de minimis, you have to come back with an application.
So we did that. We got the approval for this project that is now before this Board.
TRUSTEE FINORA: So, Ms. Moore, when we met onsite, you indicated that the
condition, the current condition as discovered, as-built, of the portion of the foundation
wall was insufficient for the proposed plans.
MS. MOORE: Right.
TRUSTEE FINORA: That's what I'm asking you. Is that what triggered the demolition?
MS. MOORE: I don't want to say yes or no because there is a lot going on at the same
time.
MR. EDGETT: Hello, I'm Scott Edgett. I'm one of the owners of North Fork Woodworks,
and if you don't mind, can I walk up there. I'll try to speak loud.
So if, the entire house is exactly as per the plan, except for one spot. And that is
these two walls. When the house was approved to be raised, those, this wall and this
wall was supposed to be added approximately 30 inches to raise the whole property.
All the remaining rest of the house was already getting brand new foundation,
including this back wall, which is the further towards the wetlands, which is the Bilco
doors and the stairs going down.
Once the house was raised -- and I can go back here now, if that helps. Once the
house was raised, it was determined that the block foundation from the 80s was
Board of Trustees 45 March 18, 2026
deteriorating. None of the cells were filled, it was not connected to the footings really
well. So there was some dialogue with the Building Inspector, he said the house is up in
the area, you got to do what you got to do. Did it, put the house back down.
During the framing inspection, John requested just to have the record all set
straight, show the minor change, send a de minimis letter to the ZBA and Trustees,
which we did, and that was -- sorry. Zoning Board. Well, and it was determined that,
you know, they wanted to hear us again. Which once they did hear us, just a couple of
weeks ago, felt like it was unfair that this process got dragged out, it was put back in
here, because it did feel like a very de minimis, you know, that was Leslie's
interpretation, that it was very minimal, and it seemed to be unfair for the homeowner
and the rest of the build team.
TRUSTEE FINORA: So let me stop you right there. I'll ask a question.
MR. EDGETT: Sure.
TRUSTEE FINORA: What changes had occurred to the project scope at that point?
MR. EDGETT: Okay, I'll walk back over here. So, again, these two foundation walls,
they were originally six-feet tall. They were supposed to be raised about 30 inches.
Those block walls were inadequate. So all we did was take those blocks that were
deteriorating down to the footing, and from the existing footing back up and powered in
the concrete wall instead of raising the existing block that was there.
TRUSTEE FINORA: And you're testifying that it's those changes that initiated the need
for a demolition.
MR. EDGETT: That is correct.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Only those changes.
MR. EDGETT: That is correct. I will tell you, John Jarski noted that there's flooring
timbers under here, that I sat with him after that note, and showed him, and I believe
you have in your records there, that all the existing floor systems, floor sheathing, the
house is exactly as per the building plan that is approved.
He was concerned that these were removed and re-screwed back up. But
through those submissions I can show you there, that is not the case. The house was
lifted with them, they were cut shorter, which they were going to be from, you know,
from the beginning, and put back down. So we did question it, but I can assure you and
promise you that I have proof that everything is there exactly as per the approved plan.
No stretch of the exaggeration.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Are there any other questions?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just to the comment that, you know, this is unfair to the
homeowners and everything. I think, you know, for us as a Board we are reviewing
these applications, and we look at houses that are existing, you know, like these small
beach cottages, and someone wants to do a minor addition, and so that is one way we
review a project.
When someone is doing a full demolition, we view it completely differently, and
we impose a lot of additional requirements, including complying with the pier line,
moving the house back in at lot of cases, and bringing it up to modern codes.
So in this case, when we put in the permit, if this becomes a demolition, you'll
have to come back to this Board, it was because we knew this would be a demolition
based on the scope of the project. It very much seemed on the edge, if not over the
edge, from the beginning.
So I think, I don't feel this is unfair to the homeowner. I feel that this Board has
now been shoehorned into a situation where you are saying the house is 90% complete,
Board of Trustees 46 March 18, 2026
we are coming back here for your signature, there is no opportunity to change anything,
here you go.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I just piggyback off that before you respond.
MR. EDGETT: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would partially disagree with you. I do think it's unfair to the
homeowner, but it's certainly not this Board that put you here. In fact members of this
Board spoke during this whole process and said this was going to be demolition. So we
should not have been here, and it's certainly not this Board that put us in this situation.
MS. HULSE: Did you abide by the original plan or did you go beyond the scope of the
original plan?
MR. EDGETT: So, once again, this house -- can I just answer Liz, I didn't imply that it
was unfair that we were here. I was paraphrasing Leslie Weisman's comments from the
ZBA a couple weeks ago, that they were looking for some sort of reform, so when
something in her opinion that was de minimis would not be stretched out so long for the
homeowner, the contractor, this whole process. I was not implying that it's unfair to
anyone.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: This is one time that I disagree with Leslie Weisman.
MR. EDGETT: Sure. I was just referring to that.
Lori, to answer your question, the house was raised, okay --
MS. HULSE: No, my question was did you go beyond the scope of the permitted plan.
MR. EDGETT: No, except for that, the foundation wall that I'm talking about. The house,
the windows, the framing, everything on this project is exactly as the red stamped plan,
except for instead of extending that wall 30 inches, it's a new.seven-foot high wall.
MS. HULSE: And again, you went beyond the scope of what was permitted at the time.
Your plans did not match what you were doing out here, correct?
MR. EDGETT: No.
MS. MOORE: I'm not sure that is correct, because the Building Department in the
process of construction is a, sometimes, I don't want to say fluid. It does allow for--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Nope.
MS. MOORE: There are amendments that have to be made based on field conditions
that at the time are not known when the permit is first issued. With Building Department,
I'm talking about the process.
So the Building Department is involved from day one through the inspection
process. And things are not, he's not one that went ahead and did things without
consulting the Building Department, showing them the existing conditions, and saying,
okay, here is what we have, which was those cinder blocks with no reba.r and no
cement. And then -- acting on that -- and then the Building Department asked that the
plans be amended to include those elements.
MR. EDGETT: I just want to speak, Lori, again. What we have to understand is I raised
this house, I had to excavate from the front and go in. So all the locust posts and
everything from the front was worked to the back. It was after that this house was raised
on cribbing, that it could not go back down on the existing, because the whole front of it
was, you know, demolished and had to be cut out of the way to be raised.
MS. MOORE: And that was part of your permit, so, just to be clear.
MR. EDGETT: Right. So the whole front was getting a foundation anyway. The house
was up on cribbing when the project --
MS. HULSE: I get it. I get it. But what you are all talking around is you went beyond the
scope. You were issued a stop work, and you were told to secure the premises.
Board of Trustees 47 March 18, 2026
You came in here and testified that this was all de minimis, not a big deal, and
everything was being handled, and we are talking to Amanda, and we're talking with
John, and they were all okay. That's not what happened. That is not what happened.
-._MS. MOORE:_Are you testifying now?
MS. HULSE: I'm stating the facts. I'm stating the history of this.
MS. MOORE: I would disagree.
MS. HULSE: You didn't come in here saying you were given a stop-work and told to
secure. You were making it sound like this all was a big nothing. It isn't a nothing. I'm
just making a point so that the Board understands, because I don't think that's very
clear.
MR. EDGETT: Just to be clear, there in the field, with field inspection with John Jarski,
we kept moving, and he requested a de minimis letter, feeling it was de minimis. That is
the impression we kept --
MS. HULSE: We don't know that. He's not here. What we do know is he issued a
stop-work.
MR. EDGETT: This is my testimony.
.MS. HULSE: We have been through this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let's move on.
MS. MOORE: All right, we'll move on and rely on the record. Let's talk about --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we have enough testimony.
MS. MOORE: All right, let me just note for the record, the house with --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you just step back to the microphone, please.
MS. MOORE: Fine. The house to the west, all lawn. The houses to th east are family
and natural. But the houses are beneath the pier line that was not an issue. The yard,
at least to the, this family, which is related to the family on the east, they all have a
natural yard; That is being maintained here. We have not converted this property to
lawn area. It stayed natural. In fact many of the permitting that was done in this area
was being taken from the beach area, which is to the west, is the bulkhead. And even
on the east side was the beach area rather than extending the setbacks.
In this particular case, because the area seaward of the old deck and which was
removed, has been left natural when this permitting process took place, instead of the
mean high water, it was all the way into the natural vegetation that has been retained by
the homeowner.
So this property, while it is nonconforming and the house, we have plenty of
history on the house, the property itself has been maintained in a very natural state, and
that is the way it's remaining. So. Thank you.
TRUSTEE FINORA: I just want to say for the record that I share my colleagues'
concerns about the process for this particular application.
As has been mentioned many times tonight by several speakers, the work on this
site was extensive. It was expensive. It was complex. The idea that the replacement of
two small walls as was stated tonight is what triggers the demolition, is troubling. The
idea that an extensive, expensive project like this was not subject to due diligence to
understand whether that wall would be sufficient, as there are many mechanisms to do,
is troubling. And certainly I think it can be acknowledged that the way this project
presents to the Board is a backdoor effort to securing permits for something that
perhaps otherwise would have come with additional mitigation factors that would
ultimately benefit the Town and the public.
Board of Trustees 48 March 18, 2026
So that being said, I would make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE FINORA: And I would follow with a motion to approve this application with
the condition that a vegetated non-turf buffer is expanded to the extent of the property,
with the exception of the as-built and proposed structures on the current record plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Number 10, REVISED SITE PLAN AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED
3/18/2026 David Bergen on behalf of TRACY HELLER & MATTHEW GLASSMAN
requests a Wetland Permit to construct bluff stairs consisting of a 3'x3' top landing
leading to 3'xl7.5' stairs to a 3'x3' landing to 3'x5.6' stairs to a 3'x3' landing to 3'xl5.10'
stairs to 3'x3' landing to 3'xl2.10' stairs to 3'x3' landing to 3'xl 1' stairs to ground; off
bulkhead install a 4'x5' cantilevered platform with a removable 3'x12' aluminum
staircase to beach; all stair treads and railings to be untreated lumber, and project to
include handrails and fall protection railings on each side of proposed structures.
Located: 4995 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-9-11
The Trustees conducted a field inspection March 11th, 2026. Notes that the deck
cannot be attached to the stairs as per Town Code.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
We are in receipt of new plans stamped received March 18th, 2026, that show
that the stairs are no longer attached to the upper deck.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, Sol Searcher Consulting, on behalf of the applicants. Also
I would note that the, I turned into the office copies of the DEC permit approval, as well
as New York Department of State concurrence of this project.
And so I present it to you as per the new set of the plans that complies with what
the concern was on the field inspection notes. Hopefully complies with the concerns on
the field inspection notes.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Yes, sir. And we do have the receipt of the Department of
State and the DEC in the file as well.
Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application?
(No response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application, with the new
plans stamped received March 18th, 2026.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 49 March 18, 2026
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 11, Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf of 430 SNUG
HARBOR ROAD, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to replace in place, and raising 14"
existing permitted 100' long bulkhead; reclamation dredging to a maximum of 4' depth
along entire length of bulkhead, no more than 6' seaward of bulkhead; remove existing
patio and install a new 8'x16' on-grade wood deck; and to establish and perpetually _
maintain a 10' wide vegetated non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 430 Snug Harbor Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-5-32.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Trustees noted in field inspections that the drain pipe needs to be removed
from the bulkhead, and recommend not going higher than the bulkhead.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, Sol Searcher Consulting, on behalf of the applicant 430
Snug Harbor Road, LLC.
Thank you, for the information on the drain pipe because I never saw it. So if
there is a drain pipe there, absolutely that will be eliminated with the construction of the
new bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know what it is, but there is a pipe coming through. It kind
of looks like a conduit but you literally never know. It's PVC.
MR. BERGEN: Okay. Like I said, we'll make sure that there is no drainage coming
through that, the new bulkhead.
With regard to the height situation, um, I do have a question because, let me
explain what the purpose of raising this bulkhead was for.
First off, obviously as you already heard tonight, sea level rise, we all know that's
happening. So we all know, while we get back into this canal, you know that the fetch
associated with the open bay, with the Long Island Sound, you will still have the rise of
water back there in the canal.
Second, what we are trying to do is bring the bulkhead on the north end up to the
neighbor's bulkhead, which is about ten to 12 inches, someplace in there. It's tough
being exact. On the survey it came up as 12 inches more. And in doing that, we will
then bring the elevation down to the southern end where it is presently. What we'll
accomplish by that is we are going to decrease the drop in elevation between the house
and the bulkhead. In doing so, that will help prevent runoff from that lawn from getting
down there into the water.
So, and we also of course have added into the project description a ten-foot
vegetated non-turf buffer.
So from an environmental perspective we also think that raising the bulkhead
that minimal amount so it matches the neighbors to the north, will also help
environmentally down the canal there try to reduce any contaminants from getting in
there. So that was the purpose, two purposes of raising the bulkhead.
So, with that I can answer any questions you might have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you talking about bringing fill in to this area?
MR. BERGEN: No. There is reclamation dredging involved, and from what we
calculated the reclamation dredging would, I would say with 95% if not more fill in
behind there. Of course probably what a landscaper would do is put some type of top
dressing on that so that the, or there would be dressing involved with the plantings so
that they survive. Because we know if we just put plantings straight into dredge material,
the chance of survival isn't as great. But the majority, the vast majority of this material
comes from the reclamation dredging is in front of that.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Mr. Bergen, how do you account for the different in elevation
Board of Trustees 50 March 18, 2026
with the new material between that house and the neighbors?
MR. BERGEN: I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: If you are going to do reclamation dredging and raise it, how
does it affect the neighbors on either.side? Is there going to_be a steep
neighboring properties, because now you have a higher elevation with the new fill? Or
how are you going to address that?
MR. BERGEN: I'm sorry, I still don't follow. Are you talking about the bottom depth or
are you talking about the material behind the bulkhead and raising the elevation of the
property?
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: The elevation of the property with the new fill versus the
elevation on the neighboring properties.
MR. BERGEN: Well, the neighbor's property there has their own return there that's also
.elevated. So if you picture it as an "L" shape looking from sea landward, you have an
L-shaped area there. So you have fill in that L-shaped area. So we are not looking to
raise the elevation of the neighbor's property at all. What we are looking to do is to
hopefully have an elevation that is similar to the neighbors.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: How about the other neighbors?
MR. BERGEN: We are only raising the bulkhead on the north send. The south end will
stay at present elevation. So that now we, it should not impact the neighbor to the south
at all.
CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: I measured that wall. It's six to eight inches different. Not so
much the 12, but.
MR. BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
(Negative response).
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 make a motion to approve this application with the stipulation
that the drain pipe is removed from the bulkhead and that the bulkhead go no higher]
than the neighbors to the north, with the extension. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 12, AS PER REVISED SITE PLAN RECEIVED
3/13/2026 Robert Brown Architect on behalf of CHRIS ANASTOS & ELISE
ANDROUS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 24'x24' single story garage;
enlarge the existing deck from 578sq.ft. To 824sq.ft.; install a 578sq.ft. Stone patio with
a paved walkway to garage; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 15' wide
vegetated non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the tidal wetlands.
Located: 480 Inlet Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-43-5-1
The Trustees reviewed the application on the 11th of March, 2026. Notes from
that read: Garage, okay; 15-foot vegetated would non-turf buffer off the vegetation;
Board of Trustees 51 March 18, 2026
flagged wetland line, seaward side; and no additional seaward encroachment of lawn.
The LWRP found this project inconsistent. This was a determination made March
10th, 2026.
1_would note for the record that we have here submittal of new plans depicting a_._
vegetated non-turf buffer. The plans were stamped received March 13th.
Just ahead of everyone's comments here, these plans, upon my review do
address the concerns of the LWRP.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the application.
MR. BROWN: Robert Brown, Architect, for the owners.
And I think you summarized the project fairly well. If you have any questions, I
would be happy to try to answer them.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I do not at the moment. Anyone from the Board wish to
speak?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion -- unless you have any more comments?
MR. BROWN: No, sir.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: (Continuing) to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application with receipt of
plans stamped received March 13, 2026, which brings it into consistency with the
LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. BROWN: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 13, En-Consultants on behalf of BENJAMIN &
SIOBHAN MORDEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x48' fixed kayak dock,
equipped with water and low voltage lighting consisting of an elevated 4'x40' fixed
timber catwalk using open-grate decking and 4'x8' stairs at seaward end, and 3'x6'
access steps to grade off north side of catwalk; install a 4'x22' stepping stone path to
dock; remove existing wood steps and restore 8' wide cleared area around steps with
native vegetation.
Located: 801 Maple Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-1-30.2
The Trustees visited the site on the 11th of March, noting that it is
straightforward. Also noting at our 3/16 work session that we had begun to question the
need for the 48-foot dock for kayak access.
LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be consistent.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant,
and Ben Morden is also here.
As we talked about during field inspection, this is actually a re-up of wetlands
permit#8695 that was issued by the Board in 2019. Basically this is the last property up
in this end of the creek, and there is, as the Board is aware, a slope, a vegetated slope
that runs down into the wetland area and into the creek area. And basically the idea is
to get a fixed, elevated structural point of access over the vegetation, of the adjacent
Board of Trustees 52 March 18, 2026
area of vegetation and narrow fringe of wetland, to get access into the creek bottom.
It is a minimally designed structure. The original permit that was issued in 2015,
1 think was for slightly longer structure that was then cut back through an amendment.
Nick and Glenn, that was the mystery that we were trying to figure out_whether___________
you had been there before. The original permit was issued right before you two were on
the Board, but you were part of the amendment that was issued to the permit, which is
why I have some recollection of you a few years ago. Essentially, the catwalk extends
out just about 22 feet from mean low water to the seaward end of the steps, which
basically gets you to about 12, 13 inches water at that location.
So again, Ben is here, they did not construct the structure the first time around.
He's intent on hopefully constructing it this time with the Board's renewed approval.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. I have noted that during the work session we began
to question the necessity of a 40-foot dock for the kayak access only leading to, you
know, inches of water.
Is there any ability to reduce the overall size of this structure and achieve similar
access?
MR. HERRMANN: So, I mean, it's a fair question. And this is the same conversation
that we had originally gone through with the prior Board.
The idea of having this stepping stone path down the slope to the catwalk, the
idea that was not to make the catwalk any longer, but at a certain point you hit the
elevation spot where you need to sort of extend the catwalk out. So 48 feet is obviously
not over the creek, it's, part of it is over the slope, part of it is over that narrow fringe of
wetland, and there is a small distance into the water.
Typically when you have these, you know, what we call these fixed kayak docks,
the state DEC wants to see you get to at least a foot of water, and obviously you want to
have at least a foot of water to have a little bit of water at mean low tide to launch the
kayak.
So again, we were essentially just trying to repeat the solution that we had all
come to during the prior iteration of the application.
I mean, it does meet all the code, you know, the Chapter 275 code requirements
in terms of, you know, seaward intrusion, et cetera. There's other docks to the south
that extend much farther out into the creek. This is just a very small access point,
really, at the head of the creek here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think my problem with this application, and it was not
immediately as apparent in the field, was that since this time, this site has been driven
past three times, and twice there was zero water there, and once there was, you know,
two inches. So, and that's, you know, one of them was not a storm event, but certainly a
wind event. But the other two were just regular weather days.
So I don't know that you are always going to get a foot there. I don't even know if
you are going to be close to that. It just seems like a lot of structure to put in to achieve
very little.
MR. HERRMANN: Well, It's based on a professionally surveyed reading of the water
line. So obviously mean low, there's going to be higher lows and lower lows. So there
will be times when that is lower, of course. But that's the case with any dock application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I know, but we are talking zero water at this point, right?
MR. HERRMANN: Well, what we always come back to on these deck applications,
Nick, is that if the waterfront property owner doesn't have some sort of fixed, elevated
point of access, then the only other option is to sort of drag kayaks and canoes through
Board of Trustees 53 March 18, 2026
the vegetation, down the slope, etcetera.
TRUSTEE FINORA: But you have access there already. There is an open space with
steps.
_MR. HERRMANN: But you.--don't have access over the wetland. And that's-the whole__________.—__..__..
point. I mean, municipalities, I mean, back in the day, when the Village of Sag Harbor,
for example, contemplated just banning all docks, what all municipalities, and this Board
in the past, have always come back to is that if you don't have a fixed point of access,
there is really nothing to guide the access through the marsh and into the waterway. So
there is nothing to stop the waterfront property owner from dragging a kayak or a canoe
or whatever just through different points, and it degrades the marsh over time.
TRUSTEE FINORA: I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. The walkway
that's noted here and ends at the top of wetland boundary --
MR. HERRMANN: Which walkway?
TRUSTEE FINORA: The existing wood steps.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, so there's some wood steps that go down the bank face and
then stop just behind the tidal wetland boundary.
TRUSTEE FINORA: But the low water line, though is also shown there as, I don't know,
three, four feet away.
MR. HERRMANN: So once you're crossing, in other words the difference between the
steps that stop landward of the wetland boundary and the catwalk that extends beyond
the wetland boundary, is that you are providing elevated, a single elevated point of
access over the marsh.
TRUSTEE FINORA: I understand. I just want to note that I share my colleague's
concern that this is a lot of structure to expand access that already exists, perhaps a
few more feet, for the purposes of putting in a small craft that requires a few inches of
water in an area that is significantly silted in with very little access to water, and I think
my colleague Ms. Gillooly already asked if there is a way to reduce the overall size of
the structure to perhaps achieve the same goals that you are seeking, and I have not
heard any response to that question.
MR. HERRMANN: Well, my initial response is that we had designed it minimally based
on the permit that this Board previously issued, and pursuant to the permit that the DEC
previously issued and has issued again. So there was no expectation, based on that
prior permit history, that there would be these objections by the Board.
TRUSTEE FINORA: I think we're asking you now, is there an opportunity to reduce the
size of the structure and still achieve the same goals of water access?
MR. HERRMANN: Is there something, is there a specific reduction in length that
Trustee Gillooly has in mind, or that --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think we are all asking what you think is reasonable and what
you think is achievable in this area. So, again, we don't want to design the project for
you. We just want to --
MR. HERRMANN: No, I get it. I mean, I always come to this Board with a design that I
do think is reasonable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was going to say that, not to interrupt you, Mr. Herrmann, but
was going to say that I know you came here with a proposal that you do think it
reasonable. I understand that, and I understand that you have the best intentions. I do
think conditions at the site here have changed significantly in the last ten years.
You know, if I were to see something approvable, I would like to see a slight
reduction in length and in, you know, post size. We've done quite a bit of work with 4x4s
Board of Trustees 54 March 18, 2026
in small areas as well.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, so on those two points, I mean certainly changing from the
six-inch piles to 4x4 posts, that's an easy fix to make. In terms of the length, the only
thing I can really think of is that, you know, we have the 4x8 stair at the end, so the
possibly would be then to actually change, so that the end of the stair ends where the
existing catwalk is proposed to end, which would reduce the overall length of the
structure by eight feet.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: What about that second set of stairs, is it possible to remove the
second set of stairs from there?
MR. HERRMANN: And that's proposed as -- well, let me just make sure. Which set of
stairs are you referring to, the existing or the proposed?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I'm sorry, the proposed dock has two sets of stairs. I'm talking
about the set of stairs that is closer to the land.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. So the reason that small set of steps was proposed is just to
allow access onto the shoreline. Because right now the wood steps that go down to the
shoreline are proposed to be removed. That was a part of the discussion with the prior
Board for the prior permit, was that, you know, getting back to the idea, and Glenn,
we've talked about this before, the two points of access.
So the idea was to eliminate that existing access, and have just this one single
access. But then there is no immediate access to walk physically onto the shoreline.
I mean, if the Board, you know, if that was a, you know, a last-straw condition to
get this structure approved, I mean, Ben can speak, but, you know, he would like to
maintain some access down, you know, to the shoreline, the same as he has, and if we
remove that entire existing set of the steps and revegetate it, that access would be
gone.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I guess I'm a little confused because I feel like what we are
talking about is that we don't want people accessing and walking over the wetlands.
Being in that area, this is all marshlands. None of it is like a beach or something, so
access to that area so that somebody can walk the shoreline there, seems like
counterintuitive to what we are trying to achieve here by putting the dock in.
MR. HERRMANN: It's not a second point of launching access. It's just a small set of
steps to physically walk up and down so that you are not necessarily walking into the
water every time you would walk down.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I would agree that it's counterintuitive to have access. The
reason you are trying to traverse over it, that just points to --
TRUSTEE FINORA: Yes, the reason we discussed the walkway was because in this
area you were not supposed to traverse the wetland.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a very good point.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So I think with the reduction in the overall scope back eight feet,
the change to four-foot piles, and the removal of that -- sorry, four-inch piles.
MR. HERRMANN: 4x4 piles.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It's been a long night. (Continuing) and the removal of that first
set of steps, I think that we are looking at something that I would be willing to approve.
But is something that the Board would like to see prior to --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think I can visualize it well enough in my mind to move
forward with it.
MR. MORDEN: I'm Benjamin Morden. I just, respectfully, I just want to speak to the
point that Trustee Krupski had mentioned that there has been significant change in the
Board of Trustees 55 March 18, 2026
last ten years, or 15 years. We have been there 15 years. There has been no change.
But I do think if you shorten the dock you are going to, we are going to be doing more
damage, you know, dragging a kayak on there. And we have never dragged it because
we are going to do damage if we do that.
I can understand your point with the separate staircase. I do -- sometimes you
do need maintenance, and, you know, things get damaged during storms. So having
that second access point would be beneficial. But that's up to your wisdom here.
But I do think having the dock shorter, it kind of defeats the purpose of trying to
maintain that area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would like to just respond to you, sir, because Mr. Herrmann, I
think understands the point the Board is driving at, but you are obviously not in front of
us on a monthly basis. But when we get into these headwater of these creeks, they
don't see the flushing, and you get into these pretty environmentally-sensitive areas that
at some point docks have to end. Because there's not enough water, and it's just the
habitat versus access. And it's just not worth it. So that's what we're battling here.
If you were quite a few steps out where it made more sense to put a boat there,
launch a boat and put some structure, we would not even be having this conversation.
But we are trying to weigh whether the amount of impact justifies the use. And so that's
what we are trying to mitigate with these changes.
And just to your point, I can appreciate there are no major changes there, but I
do drive down the road a fair amount, and I have been out here for 37 years. But I have
seen it dry a lot more recently, which is surprising, you know, with sea level rise. So
there is a lot going on there.
MR. MORDEN: Why do you think that might be?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think it's silted in.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yeah, it's silted in. In the corner it's silted in.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: You've got trees leaking in there, natural process, siltation
builds up. You know, we are all watching it this week, and during the moon phase it's
just muck. No matter how long, how far you go across there, you're not going to have
water depth.
MR. MORDEN: There are, during the summer months, it's consistently people, you
know, kayaks, you know, their crafts.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I trust you'll find the days where it's appropriate to use it, and
you'll find the days when it's not really appropriate to drag a kayak across. So you trust
your judgment on that one.
MR. MORDEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
(No response).
Hearing no further comments, 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 the
following conditions: The plans be updated to depict four-inch piles; a reduction of the
catwalk by eight feet; and removal of the first set of steps closest to the land; and
subject to approval of those new plans. That is my motion.
Board of Trustees 56 March 18, 2026
TRUSTEE FINORA: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
__.. -__-_-MR. HERRMANN: Thanks for hearing us. - - - -- -- -- --
TRUSTEE FINORA: Number 14, En-Consultants on behalf of LISA ISRAEL requests a
Wetland Permit to remove existing 6'x20' floating dock and install a 4'x26' fixed timber
catwalk with open-grate decking with an "L" shaped 3'x16' ramp and a 4'x20' floating
dock secured by two 10" diameter piles; install two 10" diameter 2-pile tie-off dolphins
on landward side of float; install four 10" diameter tie-off piles approximately 26'
seaward of float (in line with adjacent tie-off piles to northwest); and connect dock to
water and electricity.
Located: 685 Osprey Nest Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-6-27
The Trustees visited the site on March 11th, 2026, noted that the application was
straightforward, discuss a number of dolphins and their placement.
The LWRP review finds the project and proposed action to be consistent with
Town policy.
And at this point I would like to open this application for public hearing.
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicants, who
are also here.
It is a reasonably straightforward dock project that is consistent in form and
scope with the adjacent parcel to the northwest.
I did want to hand up revised plans because we, I had mentioned to the Board
during field inspections that after everything got staked and the snow was clear, there
was a desire to elevate the catwalk a little bit higher as opposed to it being flush with the
decking, just to extend the catwalk landward back a few feet, and I have a plan that's
last dated March 16th, 2026, that for the record shows a 4x30' fixed catwalk instead of
the originally proposed 4x26. And that four feet is added only to the landward side.
I'll hand this up to you first.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Mr. Herrmann, what is the elevation change to the catwalk that is
proposed?
MR. HERRMANN: We moved it up,,so l think we are about 18 inches above the decking
now.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Does that impact any of the ramp or floating dock arrangements
compared to the January 21 st plan?
MR. HERRMANN: It doesn't.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Are there any other comments from the public? (No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE FINORA: Hearing none, if that is all, I would propose we close the public
hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE FINORA: And I would make a motion to approve the March 18th revised
plans.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 57 March 18, 2026
(ALL AYES).
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Number 15, En-Consultants on behalf of AMNON &
_ KATHLEEN BAR-TUR.requests a Wetland,Permit to relocate (approximately 6.3' to
south) and raise (approximately 3') existing two-story, single-family dwelling with
reconstructed 141 sq.ft. Front porch and +4'x6' steps; construct 544sq.ft. One-story
addition with 29sq.ft. Stoop and +4'x7' steps, partially in place of existing accessory
garage to be demolished and removed; install new pervious gravel driveway; install new
drinking water well; remove existing conventional septic system and install a new I/A
sanitary system; and install stormwater drainage system.
Located: 170 Bay Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-24-2-26.4
The Trustees conducted a field inspection March 11th, 2026, and found the
project to be straightforward.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann, En-Consultants, for the applicant.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Are there any other questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing none.
MR. HERRMANN: I'm just going to state for the record, Rob Herrmann of
En-Consultants, here on behalf of the applicant. This is another application that is
identical to a previously-issued permit. If the Board doesn't have any questions, I won't
go into any further presentation at this time.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 16, En-Consultants on behalf of TENFORTY
CENTRAL, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' wide by ±164' long timber
bluff stairway, inclusive of 4'x4' entry steps, 4'x7' entry landing, two 4'x4' landings, and
three 4'x6' landings with benches; use native plantings to restore areas of existing
vegetation disturbed or lost during construction of stairway; and establish a 4' wide by
±88' long wood chip path to beach from base of stairway.
Located: 1940 Central Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-1-27.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The proposed work creates
the loss of native vegetation covering the bluff, resulting in habitat fragmentation.
The Trustees visited the site and reviewed the project on the 16th of March and
noted that there would be further review.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. As briefly as possible, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on
behalf of the applicant.
Board of Trustees 58 March 18, 2026
This is a standard bluff stairway application. There are several other bluff stairs
adjacent to the parcel.
I was a little surprised at the LWRP recommendation. I've never seen that before
on an access stair, but understanding the sensitivity of the bluff, there was a specific
and proactive effort made there with Jeffrey Butler, the design engineer and the
surveyor to actually locate trees and woody vegetation on the bluff so that a location for
the stairway could be identified that would absolutely minimize the need to disturb or
remove trees or woody vegetation.
The plan identifies that vegetation to be removed, it shows a re-vegetation of
those areas. The stairway, as the Board knows, is required by the state to be elevated
at least three feet above the slope so that vegetation can reestablish itself, once the
stairway is constructed.
So there is, addressing the LWRP comments, there is a sort of no net-loss
intention with this design, and really just, it's what is necessary to provide pedestrian
access from the top of the bluff down to the top of beach.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How is it being installed?
MR. HERRMANN: In what way? I mean, by hand, not with heavy machinery. There
would not be heavy machinery operating on the bluff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here wishing to speak to this application?
(No response).
Or any additional comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It just seems fairly steep.
MR. HERRMANN: It is.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And somewhat dangerous. If somebody slips. I'm just saying.
MR. HERRMANN: More so without the stairs.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: I mean, kidding aside, though, that is why we get, and as the
Board knows, every bluff stairway that I do, until I retire, is we deal with Jeff because we
know he's a quality designer, and he does take all of this very seriously into
consideration with his designs.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I personally think that the homeowners will likely drive to the
beach and not ever use these steps so --
MR. HERRMANN: Oh, they're going to use it.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: (Continuing) for steps that may very rarely be used. That's
unfortunate to me.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else wishing to speak regarding this application?
(No response).
Hearing no additional comments, I make a motion to close the hearing.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application, and based off our
site visit recognizing that this plan minimizes the disturbance of trees and native
vegetation, five steps three feet above the slope to minimize disturbance, and install by
hand, thereby bringing this into consistency with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 59 March 18, 2026
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
(The time noted-is-9:18 p.m:) - -Respectfully submitted by,
e
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees