HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-06/10/2026 Glenn Goldsmith,President �QF soUJy Town Hall Annex
Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ��� ��� 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski Southold, New York 11971
Liz Gillooly y
Joseph Finora G � �C Telephone(631) 765-1892
p �` Fax(631) 765-6641
olyCOU
I VE�
B ARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
JUL 17 208 Minutes
SOU d Town Cis?rk Wednesday, June 10, 2026
5:30 PM
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Eric Sepenoski, Trustee
Liz Gillooly, Trustee
Joseph Finora, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Administrative Assistant
Lori Hulse, Board Counsel
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening, and welcome to our Wednesday,
June loth, 2026 meeting. At this time I would like to call the
meeting to order and ask that you please rise for the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance is recited) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll start off by announcing the people on
the dais. To my left we have Trustee Krupski, Trustee Sepenoski,
Trustee Gillooly and Trustee Finora. To my right we have the
attorney to the Trustees, the Honorable Lori Hulse. With us
tonight is Administrative Assistant Elizabeth Cantrell and Court
Stenographer Wayne Galante.
Agendas for tonight are posted out in the hallway on that
back table and also on the Town' s website.
We do have a number of postponements tonight. The
postponements in the agenda, on page four:
Number 7, CONTINUED FROM 1/14/2026 REVISED SITE PLAN
RECEIVED ON 1/6/2026 Stephen Kiely, Esq. On behalf of 1000
SOUNDBEACH DRIVE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit for the as-built addition of approximately 15
cubic yards of sand within a 2, 090sq.ft. Minimally sloped area
to level up the lawn with the grade being raised ±2 inches and
sod installed on top; as-built installation of two (2) untreated
wood tie planters with west planter being 50' long by 3' wide by
10" high and east planter being 32 ' long by 3' wide by 10" high
with an as-built fireplace on beach path side of each planter;
Board of Trustees 2 June 10, 2026
remove sod egress to beach and existing retaining walls along
path to beach, not to be replaced; the outer sides of the
existing path to beach to revegetate naturally while maintaining .
a 4 ' wide access path; for the as-built 14.3'x22.3' detached
garage; and landward of the as-built planters establish and
perpetually maintain a ±9' wide (approximately 864sq. ft. )
Vegetated non-turf buffer area by removing sod and planting salt
meadow cordgrass (Spartina patens) , and/or other ecologically
appropriate native species.
Located: 1000 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck, SCTM# 1000-99-1-5. 1
On page five, Number 8, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
CANDICE & MITCHELL BURR requests a Wetland Permit to construct
100 linear feet of rock revetment along eroded toe of bluff with
a maximum 195 tons of stone; along the bluff face provide 100
cubic yards of clean sand fill, untreated timber 2"x12" terrace
boards to be placed at 6' on-center and plant area with Cape
American beach grass plugs 12" on-center in for limits of
disturbed buff face; install proposed 3' tall by 4 ' wide berm
along top of bluff and plant with native long grasses; and
install a proposed set of stairs to beach consisting of a 4 'x4 '
top platform, 4 'x6' stairs, 4 'x4 ' bottom landing with 4 'x6'
aluminum retractable stairs to beach.
Located: 655 Sound View Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-3-8
On page six, Numbers 5 and 6, as follows:
Number 5, CONTINUED FROM 4/15/26 REVISED SITE PLANS
SUBMITTED 5/15/26 Islandwide Engineering & Land Surveying on
behalf of BLUE MARLIN REALTY, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish existing one-story dwelling including all footings and
associated appurtenances; construct an irregularly shaped 65.23'
x 37 . 91' two-story, single-family dwelling with attached garage,
a 5'x20.3' covered front porch, an 8'xll' west covered porch
with 21x4' steps; remove existing sanitary system and landward
of dwelling install a Septi-Tech STAAR 0.75 I/A sanitary system
and 200' of Quick 4 Plus Standard Infiltrators; install gutters
to leaders to dwelling along with driveway to a 14 . 8 linear foot
trench drain to catch runoff; install silt fencing around work
area until site is stabilized; and to maintain the existing 15 '
wide non-turf buffer area along the landward edge of the
bulkhead.
Located: 450 Blue Marlin Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-57-1-26
Number 6, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of
DONN & LINDA COSTANZO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
4 ' wide landward staircase up to a 4 'x50' level catwalk to a
41x30' ramp down to a 41x12' "T" section off seaward end.
Located: 365 Island View Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-57-2-28
On page seven, Numbers 7 through 10, as follows:
Number 7, CONTINUED FROM 4/15/26 AS PER REVISED SITE PLAN
AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 4/15/2026 Land Use Ecological
Services, Inc. On behalf of JAKE DELL requests a Wetland Permit
for expansion and renovation of the existing dwelling consisting
of constructing an 11. 6'xl7. 9' two-story addition; construct a
34. 9'x22 .4 ' second-floor addition over the existing first floor
and garage with an 11.81x6' insert balcony; construct a
Board of Trustees 3 June 10, 2026
19. 9'xl2.7 ' covered porch; construct a 20.81x10. 6' terrace with
a 21.7 ' long by 1. 6' high and 10. 6' long by 1. 6' high L shaped
retaining wall; install two 54" long by 32" wide by 21" deep
window wells for egress; existing 34. 91x10.3 ' deck, 14 . 10'x7'
steps, 321x19'-32' (irregular) terrace, 24.21x24 ' (irregular)
patio, 14 . 8 'x7' step/walk, 55. 1'x7 ' brick walk, existing
planters, driveway and A/C units will remain unchanged; install
an I/A OWTS sanitary system with excavated soils to be reused
for installation and grading.
Located: 9975 Nassau Point Rd. , Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-119-1-10. 1
Number 8, CONTINUED FROM 3/18/26 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 171x36' 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
Number 9, CONTINUED FROM 2/11/26 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
Number 10, 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 1-1-z story 667sq. ft. Cottage and to construct an
addition consisting of a proposed 1, 741sq. ft. Split-level ground
floor opening to a 1, 733sq. ft. Patio/raised terrace that
includes a 201x30' pool; construct internal and external stairs
that lead to the 3, 762sq. ft. Second floor/main floor that
includes a 700sq.ft. Garage, a balcony, a deck, front entry with
planters, and is built around a 721sq. ft. Open-air courtyard;
install various on-grade stone paver walkways and patios;
install 210sq.ft. Entry walkways and a 155sq.ft. Cottage
terrace; install an I/A sanitary system in the front yard;
install a new driveway; install 209sq. ft. Of driveway and
Board of Trustees 4 June 10, 2026
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
On page eight, Numbers 11 through 13, as follows:
Number 11, CONTINUED FROM 1/14/26 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 12, CONTINUED FROM 11/12/25 & 1/14/26 Islandwide
Engineering & Land Surveying on behalf of CHULA VISTA HOME, LLC
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a proposed 3, 325sq.ft.
Total square footage two-story, single-family dwelling with a
32sq. ft. Front covered porch and attached garage, a 21. 81x18'
covered lanai, a 12 'xl5.7' covered on-grade patio, install a
285 ' long by 4 ' high (maximum height) concrete retaining wall
along the seaward side and side yards of the property with 6'x4 '
seaward steps down; plant 3' high native plantings along the
retaining wall; install an I/A type sanitary system landward of
dwelling; install a stormwater drainage system; install a/c
units with a 5' high privacy wall; install underground electric
and water service; install a gravel driveway; approximately 200
cubic yards of clean fill to be added surrounding the proposed
dwelling to raise the grade; install silt fencing prior to and
during construction; and to establish and perpetually maintain a
50-foot wide Non-Disturbance Buffer area along the landward edge
of wetlands, and the area between the retaining wall and buffer
to return to its natural state of vegetation.
Located: 500 Lakeside Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-3-4
Number 13, CONTINUED FROM 11/12/25 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.
Board of Trustees 5 June 10, 2026
Located: End of The Gloaming Extension, Fishers Island.
SCTM# 1000-10-9-13
On page nine, Numbers 14 through 17, as follows:
Number 14, CONTINUED FROM 10/15/25 & 11/12/25 AS PER
REVISED SITE PLANS & PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 10/30/2025
Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of 500 BROADWATERS,
LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4 'x30' landward
ramp leading up to a 4 'x30' catwalk to a 41x30' ramp down onto a
4'x57' dock (4'x147' total) using open grade decking; install a
3'xl4' aluminum ramp at seaward end of dock leading onto a
61x20' floating- dock situated in an "L" configuration and
secured with two (2) pile dolphins.
Located: 500 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-10-5
Number 15, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED
8/13/2025 South Fork Environmental Consulting, LLC on behalf of
106 MULBERRY CORP. , c/o STUART MOY requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a two-story, single-family dwelling (25'x42 '4",
±1, 058 .25sq.ft. ) With attached 7 .3'x48.2 ' (351.86sq.ft) deck on
south side of dwelling; install a 251x6' (±150sq. ft. ) Stone
driveway, a 12'x20' parking area on west side of proposed
dwelling, and an ll'x20' parking area on north side of proposed
dwelling; install a new innovative, alternative nitrogen
reducing water treatment system (IA/OWTS) ; install sanitary
retaining wall at an overall length of 99.5' and a width of 8 . 0"
across the top of the wall.
Located: 750 West Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-2-1
Number 16, CONTINUED FROM 6/11/25 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 41x5' platform elevated 4.5' above grade
leading to a raised 4 'x50' ramp leading down to a 4 'x30'
catwalk; reuse existing 31x16' ramp and 61x20' 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 17, CONTINUED FROM 7/16/25 L.K. McLean Associates on
behalf of AWC DOCKSIDE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for Marina
improvements consisting of the as-built 6'x98' , 6'x218 ' and
6'xl2. 10 ' (±1, 988sq.ft. ) Sections of CCA decking along top of
existing southerly 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
Board of Trustees 6 June 10, 2026
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 41x40' gangway, one (1) 8 'x53' and one (1) 61x102 ' floating
dock parallel to new bulkhead and install five (5) 4'x30'
floating finger docks off of 6' and 8' wide floating docks;
spread dredge spoil and raise grade in area landward of new and
portion of existing bulkhead approximately 4" higher (±140 cubic
yards over an area of 12, 200sq.ft. ) ; in an area around existing
concrete slab, spread excess fill taken from area landward of
bulkhead and raise grade approximately 18" (±230 cubic yards
over an area of 4, 140sq.ft. ) ; a proposed pump-out truck with
1, OOOgal. Capacity with potable water washout; and with the use
of a turbidity curtain during construction.
Located: 5505 West Mill Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-6-1
And on page ten:
Number 18, CONTINUED FROM 3/19/25 AS PER REVISED SITE PLAN
& WRITTEN DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 12/23/2024 Twin Forks Permits on
behalf of THE WILLIAM E. GOYDAN REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST, c/o
WILLIAM E. GOYDAN, TRUSTEE & THE KAREN B. GOYDAN REVOCABLE INTER
VIVOS TRUST, c/o KAREN B. GOYDAN, TRUSTEE requests a Wetland
Permit to demolish the existing two-story dwelling, detached
garage and other surfaces on the property; construct a new
3,287sq. ft. Footprint (5, 802sq.ft. Gross floor area) two-story,
single-family dwelling with an 865sq.ft. Seaward covered patio,
167sq. ft. Side covered porch, and 149sq. ft. Front covered porch;
construct a proposed 161x36' swimming pool with 81x8 ' spa tub; a
\ 1, 357sq.ft. Pool patio surround with steps to ground, pool
enclosure fencing, pool equipment area, and a drywell for pool
backwash; construct a 752sq.ft. Two-story detached garage,
gravel driveway and parking areas; install an I/A septic system;
remove 23 trees and plant 25 trees on the property; and to
establish and perpetually maintain a 25 foot wide vegetated
non-turf, no fertilization buffer area along the landward side
of the wetland vegetation.
Located: 1645 Marratooka Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-3-2.1
All of those are postponed and will not be heard this
evening.
In the Town Code Chapter 275-8 (c) , files were officially
closed seven days ago. Submission of any of 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 to hold our
next field inspection Wednesday, July 8th, 2026 at 8: OOAM.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 7 June 10, 2026
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to hold our next Trustee
meeting Wednesday, July 15th, 2026 at 5:30PM in the Peconic
Community Center Auditorium.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
III. WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next
work sessions Monday, July 13th, 2026 at 5 :OOPM at the Town Hall
Annex 2nd Floor Executive Board Room, and on Wednesday, July
15th, 2026 at 5:OOPM in the Peconic Community Center auditorium.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral IV, Minutes. I 'll make a
motion to approve the Minutes of the May 13th, 2026 Trustee
meeting.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Trustees monthly report for May 2026. A
check for $22,200.00 was forwarded to the Supervisor' s Office
for the General Fund.
VI. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral VI, Public Notices. Public
notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for
review.
VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VII, State Environmental
Quality Reviews, RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town
of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more
fully described in Section X Public Hearings Section "of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, June 10, 2026 are classified as
Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are
not subject to further review under SEQRA, as written:
FI Steps, LLC, c/o Luke Boswell SCTM# 1000-11-1-12
Julia Mavellia SCTM# 1000-54-4-17
Kevin & Karen Mannix SCTM# 1000-40-1-12
Board of Trustees 8 June 10, 2026
ANVK NY Holdings, LLC SCTM# 1000-78-5-7
Shawn McBurnie & Devon Annabel SCTM# 1000-111-14-3
Donn & Linda Costanzo SCTM# 1000-57-2-28
Nina Alice Brondmo SCTM# 1000-31-12-1
John & Wendy Colbert SCTM# 1000-55-7-7
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
VIII. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII, Resolutions and
Administrative Permits, I 'll make a motion to approve Number 1,
MARGARET HEIDENRY requests an Administrative Permit to remove
debris from dwelling destroyed by fire.
Located: 65490 Route 25, Breezy Shores Cottage #29, Greenport.
SCTM# 1000-53-5-12. 6
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral IX, Application for
Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments, in order to
simplify our meeting, the Board of Trustees regularly groups
together items that are minor or similar in nature. Accordingly
I'll make a motion to approve as a group Items One, Two, Four,
Five and Six, as follows:
Number 1, JACLYN TORTORA & FINNBARR MURPHY request a
Transfer of Administrative Permit #9959A from Steven Israel &
Cara Longworth to Jaclyn Tortora & Finnbarr Murphy, as issued
August 18, 2021.
Located: 1100 Beachwood Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-10-60
Number 2, STEPHEN & LAURA BAYMACK request a Transfer of
Administrative Permit #10162A from Andrew Pettersen & Randy
Statham to Stephen Baymack & Laura Baymack, as' issued June 15,
2022 and Amended April 16, 2025.
Located: 5805 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-775.5
Number 4, Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf of ROBERTA F.
JAKLEVIC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#10606 to construct a low sill bulkhead in place, instead of
previously approved full-size bulkhead; deposit reclamation
dredging fill behind bulkhead and plant with Spartina.
Located: 900 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-5-21.2
Number 5, EVAN & ELIZABETH MINOGUE request an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10634 for the
as-built 25.8 'xl9' grade-level paver patio in lieu of a
418sq. ft. Grade-level paver patio.
Located: 5650 (aka 5550) New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck.
Board of Trustees 9 June 10, 2026
SCTM# 1000-115-10-6
Number 6, TOWN CREEK REAL ESTATE INC. Requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10299 to establish
and perpetually maintain a 50' wide non-disturbance buffer
landward of the wetland line with a fence, and a non-turf buffer
between fence and dwelling, in lieu of previously conditioned
split rail fence.
Located: 480 Ackerly Pond Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-69-3-13
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, THOMAS & MARY DEIERLEIN request a
Transfer of Wetland Permit #983 from Thomas S. Blankley to
Thomas & Mary Deierlein, as issued August 6, 1973.
Located: 2515 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-45.5
Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection June 9th,
noting the dock .is no longer functional, so the permit cannot be
transferred. New application needed for dock.
I'll make a motion to deny this application since the dock
is non-functional.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, Public Hearings, at
this time I'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting
agenda and enter into public hearings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter of the
following applications for permits under Chapter 275-11 of the
Southold Town Code. I have an affidavit of publication from the
Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read prior to
asking for comments from the public. Please keep your comments
organized and brief, five minutes or less if possible.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 1, JMO Environmental Consulting on
behalf of FI STEPS, LLC, c/o LUKE BOSWELL requests a Wetland
Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approximately
210 foot long armor layer rip-rap revetment; excavate a small
area along the toe of the bluff to install filter fabric;
install a stone filter layer consisting of 4" to 6" crushed
stone and boulder (5-7 ton rock) slope (2: 1) , and install a
vegetated slope above elevation 20' to top of existing slope and
hydro-seed with native steep slope mix.
Located: 1299 Old Mallory Rd, Fishers Island STCM# 1000-11-1-12.
Chief Building Inspector Mike Verity inspected this
property, on the 12th of May, noted that it looked okay as
Board of Trustees 10 June 10, 2026
submitted. That the dwelling was only 15 feet to the top of the
steep bluff, the closest point.
The Trustees reviewed this application at work session on
the 8th of June, noted that a top-of-bluff buffer should be
installed to prevent landward-side erosion.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. JUST: Good evening, Glen Just here for the applicant, if
there are any questions from the Board or the public.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think just addressing the comments that the
house is extremely close, we are trying to avoid, obviously you
are trying to prevent seaward side erosion of the bluff. We are
trying to add that landward side, erosion isn't taking place
there either.
MR. JUST: The house was moved back in 2011 or ' 12, if my memory
is correct. Then in 2015 or 116, we did get approvals to do this
parcel and the parcel to the west, the John McGillan (sic)
parcel. It was a much more large project, for lack of a better
term. It' s scaled back a little bit now. And it' s been
discussion with the adjacent property owners, the engineers laid
it out, there should not be any impact on any adjacent
properties with erosion or runoff. So that's where we sit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to
speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Hearing no additional comments, I'll make a motion to close
the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve both the wetland and
coastal erosion permit for this application, with new plans
depicting a ten-foot vegetated non-turf buffer landward of the
top of bluff.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. Have a great evening.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 2, Dominic Mavellia on behalf of JULIA
MAVELLIA requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit
for the as-built in-place reconstruction of the existing
645sq. ft. Raised deck with landward 4 ' wide stairs to a 41x4'
landing to 4 ' wide stairs to ground, and seaward 4' wide set of
stairs to ground.
Located: 1525 North Sea Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-4-17.
The Board visited the property on 6/3/26. During our field
inspection we noted that we reviewed the previous permits,
concrete will need to be removed, buffer review needed.
Two letters from neighbors in the area have noted Ms.
Mavellia's commitment to stewarding the property and keeping the
house size within reason. And are in support of the project.
The LWRP coordinator found the project inconsistent, and
Board of Trustees 11 June 10, 2026
the sticking point really is the walkway out, the wood walkway
out to the dune, and the concrete pad under the deck, together,
which run in contrast to Policy 6, protect and restore the
quality and the function of the Town of Southold resources.
Again, is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
Application?
MR. MAVELLIA: I do. Good evening, Trustees, I thank you for your
time and consideration for this application.
My name is Dominic Mavellia. I'm here tonight for, on
behalf of the applicant Julia Mavellia, who is my mother. She
is here right behind me, in her beautiful wheelchair, and also
my sister Denise Streppe (sic) .
Does anybody need an extra copy of the plans? I have extra
copies here?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: We have an extra copy here.
MR. MAVELLIA: Okay, fine. I do believe it' s nice to give a very
brief background history of the family. My dad passed away many
years ago from prostate cancer. I was 18, mom was 43. And mom is
a young 89 now, and we work together in a small real estate
company. Subsequently my sister joined, after working with
Estee Lauder. So we all work together.
So mom is dear to my heart and I wanted to rebuild this
deck for her in her precious years.
So the application tonight to replacing an existing deck,
the deck was in dire straights, and needed to be replaced, for
obviously safety reasons. It was rotting. And I generally did
not believe that I needed a permit to replace something that was
existing. So my intentions were not nefarious. I, just like
back west, I do have some experience building. Normally you
don't need a permit to replace something that is existing.
So needless to say I was somewhat upset that I was hit with
a stop-work order, a summons, and when I had to apply for the
application I got hit with a double fee from $2, 500 to $5, 000.
And I would just say this to the Board. Um, knowing the
circumstances, that I do believe that the Trustees in their
codes, they ought to have leeway in terms of taking into
consideration each application.
Like if there was no deck there at all, ever, or if it was
a new house, I could see somebody trying to get away with that.
But since there was an existing structure there, my
circumstances were very different. I didn't try to do anything
deliberately wrong. I was just merely trying to work very
quickly so my mom could appreciate the summer with this new
deck. So I would just say that, that it's just a little bit
upsetting that I went through that.
Again, my intentions were not nefarious, I didn't do
anything, you know, deliberate. I just wanted safety because it
was severely rotting and I wanted to do this for her.
In terms of the deck, and I guess you'd say the point of
contention, the concrete was just there so that mom could get
from the garage to the stairs with her wheelchair, and I didn't
disturb any vegetation. There's no dunes over there. It's right
near the house, that concrete. And as far as, you know, the
Board of Trustees 12 June 10, 2026
walkway, that was there existing, the wood walkway that is
there, again, not disturbing any of the vegetation, it was there
for many, many years when we bought the home. And I just
replaced boards in terms of that walkway, and repainted it.
So if you have any questions in reference to the
architectural plans that I did for this.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I understand that the process took you by
surprise and it' s not common for townships in western Long
Island to have a Board of Trustees. They are very unique to the
east end townships.
The reason is that here there is a sensitive habitat and
protective features, that ultimately protect property. So that' s
the reason we exist and you are before us now to bring that
structure, you know, legalize it.
The reason that the stop-work order was issued is because
the deck didn't, it did need a permit to be rebuilt. You can do
routine maintenance over the life of the deck and fix as needed,
but since it was in such a bad state of repair, it required
reviewing it. Just to bring clarity to why that happened.
MS. HULSE: Did it have a building permit?
MR. MAVELLIA: Excuse me?
MS. HULSE: Did it have a building permit?
MR. MAVELLIA: So, when we bought the -- the original deck? Are
you making reference to, the building permit for the original
deck? So we bought the home back in 2006, and we bought it
cash. I didn't realize there was no CO for the deck. So.
MS. HULSE: So that's the problem. You obviously can't do repairs
on something that is not permitted to begin with. So you should
have gotten a building permit for the deck initially, and then
you should have gotten a Trustee permit because of the Trustee
wetland and coastal erosion.
So your initial comment, which the Trustees should have
discretion, with respect to the as-built fee, is sort of like, I
don't want to say outrageous for you to comment on, but you
never had a permit for any of this.
MR. MAVELLIA: I didn't build it. I was not the original
builder.
MS. HULSE: But that's why you have, typically have a survey
done, and you have a title search, and you have an attorney
representing you, so that they can bring up the point that you
are not, you don't have permits or CO's for certain structures.
So unfortunately because of the way you went about
purchasing it, you didn't have that, but it' s obviously your
obligation to know that. And if you were to do any work on it,
you could have simply made a phone call and you would have
learned that you didn't have a permit for.
So, here we are now, which is good --
MR. MAVELLIA: Yes, but with all due respect, sorry to interject,
this deck was built 40 some-odd years ago. And I don't even
know if it was required to have a permit back then. Obviously a
CO for the home to be built, but, you know, I didn't see
anything in the papers.
MS. HULSE: Right, but you can appreciate that it' s not the
Board of Trustees 13 June 10, 2026
staff' s problem if you come in and are upset that you don't have
a permit and you have to pay fees, it' s obviously not the
employees or the staff of the Trustees office fault. It' s they
are just telling you the way it is.
MR. MAVELLIA: Right.
MS. HULSE: I mean, it's codified. We don't have discretion on
that. It is the way it is.
So it' s just making a point that obviously now here we are
and you fall under a couple of jurisdictions, which is coastal
erosion and wetlands. So that's why you are here, and that's
why --
MR. MAVELLIA: Right. And I was saying that, Ms. Hulse, I was
saying that only that to say that I didn't mean to do anything
nefarious or deliberate. It was not deliberate. It was just
maybe somewhat naive that I thought that I could replace
something that was there. And it would have been nice if I got a
warning from the Trustees to stay hey, come on in, you need a
permit for this. I would have done it the next day. I didn't
realize I needed' a permit for it. So I just wanted to express
that. But that' s where we are at right now.
MS. HULSE: All right. Okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Any other questions from the Board or any
comments from members of the public?
(No response) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I did notice that there is some new concrete
walkway installed there. So any activity taken on the property
that is in jurisdiction, you have to apply for.
MR. MAVELLIA: Right. Again, the reason I did that was to get mom
from the garage, to the garage and then to the front and back
walkway, so she can roll around the concrete. That' s the reason
why. And I understand that I needed a permit for that is what
you are saying, as well.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That' s right.
MR. MAVELLIA: Okay. So what would be the next process after
tonight, if you can elaborate on that, if you don't mind?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Sure. Happy to. I feel comfortable in moving
forward with this tonight. Moving on it. But I wanted to make
you aware that because the deck exceeds the allowable square
footage under Chapter 111, the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area laws,
you would take this to the Town Board and have them review it,
and go over it.
MR. MAVELLIA: Okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So it' s strictly -- if it were denied, it
would go to the Town Board and they would vote on it. As a
course of appeal.
MR. MAVELLIA: So there would be a hearing in front of the Town?
Only if it' s denied? Or what if it' s approved.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Then you go home tonight, no more steps.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: However this Board is not able to approve an
application that exceeds maximum allowable areas, so if it
receives a denial, it could be for that reason.
MR. MAVELLIA: I understand that. Okay. Got it. Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Are there any other comments or questions
Board of Trustees 14 June 10, 2026
from the public? Members on the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland
permit and subject to new plans depicting a wood walkway and
small concrete pad at the base.
The Trustees in the field saw this property to be well
maintained with native vegetation, and did not find any
structures to diminish that vegetation in this location.
So the approval of the wetland permit will bring this into
consistency with the LWRP.
With new plans depicting the wood walkway and the concrete
pad as they are in the field. And an updated project
description. Updated written project description.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That' s the Wetland permit.
I 'll now make a motion to deny the Coastal Erosion permit
because of the square footage of the deck and seaward siding
exceeds what is allowable under Chapter 111.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 3, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of KEVIN
& KAREN MANNIX requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit to install 105 linear feet of stone rip-rap revetment
consisting of boulders with a maximum quantity of 262 tons along
the existing eroded toe of bluff; install a maximum of 25 cubic
yards of clean sand fill from upland sources to re-nourish
eroded bluff and plant Cape American beach grass plugs at 12"
on-center throughout any disturbed areas.
Located: 62945 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-40-1-12
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 3rd of
June, noting the water from above is shedding off parts of top
of bluff. Seek remedy there first.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent. The proposed action is inconsistent because the
clearing and construction of the existing masonry block patio
shown at the top of bluff is inconsistent because it does not
comply with regulatory requirements of Town Code Chapter 275. It
is located seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area line and
appears to be contributing to the erosion of the bluff.
They also noted shoreline hardening as a reason for the
inconsistency.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant.
Regarding the shoreline hardening and the overall scope of
the project, this is a continuation of the neighboring
Board of Trustees 15 June 10, 2026
properties which all have revetments on both sides of the field,
so it' s one of the main issues here is that this property is
getting the brunt of all the wave action due to the fact it
doesn't have a revetment.
With regard to the overland flow of water coming from the
top of bluff, there could be some contributary area there, as
not shown on this drawing but with other projects that we have
done on The Sound, we are in agreeance that we could add a
vegetated berm within that buffer area at the top of the bluff.
The DEC has been recently asking for something, approximately
two- feet tall, four to five feet wide, that is vegetated with
native vegetation to stop any overland flow.
At the same time that masonry patio that has been there,
its pre-existing, as I understand it's been there for several
years.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you mean by "several years"?
MR. PATANJO: I don't know the time period.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Does it have a permit?
MR. PATANJO: I do not know if it has a permit.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It does not have a permit. And so the house is
completely rebuilt, and I believe as a condition of this
remodeling of this home, actually reconstruction of this home,
was removing that masonry patio. And from our visit to the site
it was very clear that the erosion on the face of bluff was
caused directly by the runoff from that patio. Wave action did
not seem to be a contributing factor.
MR. PATANJO: Was that a Trustees permit for the residence or was
it part of the building permit that it had to be removed?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I believe part of the Trustees permit.
MR. PATANJO: Oh, the Trustees permit for reconstruction of the
home?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I believe so.
MR. PATANJO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And it appears the patio appeared between 2016
and 2018 . It' s not a 50-year old relic.
MR. PATANJO: Okay. Five, 50 --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So in this case, prior to any rock revetment,
we require remedy of removal of the structure at the top of the
bluff that is not permitted and not allowable, and contributing
significantly to the erosion of the bluff.
MR. PATANJO: Okay, I would like to table the application to
speak with the client.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think we should note that we saw a lot of
natural stone on the beach, and seeing that it was providing
significant protection of the toe of that bluff. And as Trustee
Gillooly noted, you can see it on the aerial here, that
sloughing off is caused from water from above, and standing on
the beach you can tell it just came off, not from wave action
from the toe. It' s water running from the bluff.
MR. PATANJO: All right, we'll revisit the project design and
come back to the Board.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application, or any other comments from the
Board of Trustees 16 June 10, 2026
Board?
(Negative response) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But also based on field inspection, it doesn't
appear that there are revetments to the west. It seems there is
only one to the east, and that's where it ends.
MR. PATANJO: Okay, we'll investigate that as well.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion
to table this application at the applicant' s request.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE FINORA: Number 4, CONTINUED FROM 5/13/26 AS PER REVISED
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE PLAN RECEIVED 6/5/2026
Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of STEPHANIE & IOANNIS LAGOUDIS
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
reconstruct existing 55 linear foot long rock revetment using
existing stone and supplementing with a maximum of 30 tons of
new stone added with overall dimensions of approximately 6'-7'
in width and height; create a vegetated berm, install 23 linear
feet of un-treated timber 2"x12" terrace boards, and provide
native grass plantings between proposed berm and revetment.
Located: 22395 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-1-23
The Trustees completed field inspection, noting that the
project at the time was not staked, with the recommendation to
review updated plans at the work session, and note that the
project has since been staked and the Trustees have reviewed
photographs of the staking. Also note that this is part of a
re-parceled project, but that this particular file on the plan
is specifically for the address that was stated.
The LWRP findings show that this particular approach and
design is consistent with Town policy.
And is there anyone here wishing to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of this application and
the neighboring ones as well, of the three contiguous properties
that equal one project.
As you are aware, we had a conversation with the DEC at the
request of the Board, at last hearing. The DEC and the Board had
some semblance of agreeance on the method here to protect the
shoreline while also preventing any runoff coming down from the
roadway down the bluff and causing any erosion down from the top
coming down.
Since this application had happened, and actually since the
survey happened, some additional erosion has been present there.
Um, we were looking during the stakeout to find the property
monument that was there, has since washed out. So the property
keeps losing property, losing property, losing property, as you
see here.
This terraced walls of the planted berm, and the
modification of the layout of the rocks was at the request of
the DEC, and based on our conversations with them, seems to be
an approvable project. We just recently resubmitted to them so
Board of Trustees 17 June 10, 2026
we are waiting to hear back from the DEC.
TRUSTEE FINORA: I just want to note that we are speaking
specifically, I'm looking specifically at the design for only
this particular address. We are going to do subsequent
discussions for the parcels individually.
MR. PATANJO: Understood. Right.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Are there any comments from the Board regarding
this particular parcel?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: The only thing I would say is that, as we
mentioned in the last hearing, we would have preferred the
option to meet with you onsite and do a joint review together.
But since that did not happen, we did review the notes that we
received -- thank you, for sending them -- May 15th, from the
DEC. So I think our decision tonight would be reflective,
hopefully, of understanding where those conditions are.
MR. PATANJO: Right. And, you know, each property does work hand
in hand with the adjacent properties. So the treatments on this
one do get reflected on all of the other two properties.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Is there anyone here also wishing to speak on
behalf of this application?
(No response) .
Okay, comments from the Board?
(No response) .
If not, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE FINORA: I make a motion to approve this plan with the
addition of a vegetated non-turf buffer for the entirety of the
parcel.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, CONTINUED FROM 5/13/26 AS PER
REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE PLAN RECEIVED 6/5/2026
Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of STEPHANIE & IOANNIS LAGOUDIS
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
install 129 linear feet of stone rip-rap placed immediately
seaward of existing shed foundation, as-built 4 ' high by 28
linear foot long concrete retaining wall (to remain) and eroded
bank; install 41x6' steps to beach; install a vegetated berm
along disruption limits, install 19 linear feet of un-treated
timber terracing, and provide native grasses between proposed
revetment and berm.
Located: 22455 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-1-24 . 1
The Trustees most recently did an inspection June 8th,
2026. Notes at the time, the project was not staked, reviewed
the new plans at work session.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is in regard to Policy 6.3, Protect and Restore
Tidal and Freshwater Wetlands.
The proposed action includes installation of a stone rip
Board of Trustees 18 June 10, 2026
rap revetment seaward of the wetland boundary, which does not
meet the definition of the revetment, and therefore is not a
permitted activity.
We did receive new plans stamped received June 5th, 2026.
The new plans show that the proposed rock revetment is landward
of mean high water, as saw per the earlier one. We did go out
and see the new stakes that were put at the toe of bluff.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant, and the
same comments apply to this application as the previous one.
Comments from the DEC were addressed. A vegetated berm was
planted to stop any runoff from the street side of things, and
we placed the revetment for the purpose of stopping the erosion
and scour of the toe of the bluff and continual erosion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, question on the proposed four-foot wide
and six-foot long steps to beach that seem to have a rock in it,
on it, through it. What does that propose to be right there?
MR. PATANJO: We could amend that to be a small platform there,
or just position the rocks to keep them at a lower elevation at
that area. I left that up to a field decision for the contractor
and the owner, to allow for some steps.
They may choose actually to do it out of natural stone
instead of timber steps, to make it a more stable environment.
Are you okay with -- we could modify the drawings to make it out
of natural stone steps, but that's on our next application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And while you are potentially modifying the
drawing, we would prefer not to see such a sharp 90-degree angle
there on the eastern side of the project, the five stairs,
potentially put a rock or two in front of where those stairs are
to soften that angle return. That might be more appropriate.
MR. PATANJO: Excellent idea and observation, and something that
we would much prefer to do. We were trying to limit the amount
of projection out into the water, out into the seaward side of
things. But we can absolutely modify the plans to do say a 40
-- a cutoff transfer there, with stones as a step instead of a
timber structure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I wouldn't do a full 45 from the edge of the
house across, but just something so that you don't have a hard
angle going down there.
MR. PATANJO: Sure. That sharp corner is going to be a major
splash zone, as you know.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, so basically something just seaward of
where those projected steps are, somewhere around where you have
that third boulder to the east. So something softening that
angle there.
MR. PATANJO: Understood. We'll make the plan modifications.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
Board of Trustees 19 June 10, 2026
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
I make a motion to approve this application with the
condition of new plans showing a softened return on the eastern
side with boulders, that the entirety of the property be a
vegetated non-turf, and a condition that the shed and deck are
not to be rebuilt if destroyed by storm damage, and that the
rock revetment is landward of mean high water, which will bring
it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 6, CONTINUED FROM 5/13/26 AS PER REVISED
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE PLAN RECEIVED 6/5/2026
Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of STEPHANIE & IOANNIS LAGOUDIS
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove
existing concrete bulkhead and replace with 86 linear foot vinyl
bulkhead in same location as existing and a raised height of 12"
above existing bulkhead height; install 65 linear feet of rock
revetment against seaward face of new bulkhead; remove and
replace 14 'x50' seaward deck with new un-treated timber deck
landward of new bulkhead; and remove existing northeast steps
off deck, not to be replaced.
Located: 22615 Soundview Avenue, Southold SCTM# 1000-135.-1-25. 1
The Trustees originally inspected this property the 6th of
May. Noted that there were concerns with final bulkhead in
proximity to Sound. (Indiscernible) will puncture, as
they did to the property next door. Patios and decks should be
pulled back from the roof. Do not recommend hardened surface to
rear yard. Rear deck creates major storm hazard. Pull rock
revetment pulled back past mean high water is likely best
option. Need to work with DEC on solutions. Pipes draining on
to beach to be removed. No hard walkways on side of the house.
Full wall in line with neighboring property to east, and install
revetment.
At work session, the most recent on the 8th of June, the
most recent set of plans were reviewed.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. Noted that proposed
action includes installation of stone rip rap revetment seaward
of wetland boundary, which does not meet the definition of
revetment below, and therefore is not a permitted activity.
In addition to this, the proposed plan calls for
replacement of existing concrete seawall, which does not appear
has been legally installed and therefore should not be replaced
with new structure.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant.
This, as mentioned in the past public hearing and as shown
on the submissions, this is an existing patio, existing concrete
retaining wall and existing deck with the cantilevered upper
Board of Trustees 20 June 10, 2026
level above it.
The intention here is that just keep what is there, which
was there for 50 to 60 years, is what I have heard.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I would call it existing non-functioning at
this point.
MR. PATANJO: Existing damage due to storms.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It's unsafe to be on a deck that is not
functioning at this time.
MR. PATANJO: Right, right. So the intent is to rebuild what is
there and what was damaged due to storms. The applicant does not
want to remove this deck. It's an important piece to this
property and an important part of this, the residence and the
use of the house as it was intended to be used.
I heard the majority of the comments, and I think a lot of
the comments were alluding to the fact that the Trustees don't
like the fact that the deck, the patio is there.
Is there any other feedback from the Trustees regarding --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, let me just address that. Not that we don't
like that it' s there. It's that we have been doing this for a
long time, and we know what works. And having visited this
property multiple times, both with the homeowner and view the
neighboring properties. In addition to looking at your
proposal, which shows mean high water landward of this, you
know, current deck line, it, as proposed, it will not last, and
that creates a hazard to the adjacent shoreline, to the
township, to the utilities, with the roads behind it, in a
storm.
We've been doing this a long time, understanding what
works, tying in with the neighbor. You don't have that option
next door as the current homeowner is also the neighbor, and
it' s already cut way back in. So we are doing the best we 'can
there to tie in. You have a very straightforward tie in next
door to the east.
On top of that, under Chapter 111, that deck, both stories,
don't conform. So it's a non-approvable item being over 200
square feet, regardless.
My personal recommendation would be pulling back inline
with that neighboring bulkhead, obviously losing some deck, but
then you can conform with LWRP. And I think ultimately by doing
that you are going to save the house and structures going
forward, because you are giving it the best chance of survival.
That with pulling out the hardened structures, you know,
adjacent to the house, and putting in a healthy revetment there
that will last long-term.
MR. PATANJO: So currently the width of the house is about
50-feet wide by 14-foot projection out from the face of the
house out, 14 feet. So 14x50.
So if you look at the plan, the neighboring, the walkway
going up is about, say halfway point. So it' s about seven feet.
So if, just for ideas here, if we pull back this deck
seven-and-a-half feet, which would be half the length, is that
something the Board would consider meeting the requirements of
the LWRP?
Board of Trustees 21 June 10, 2026
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just for context. For this property, in 2006,
there was a survey, and from that deck patio to mean high water
was 80 feet. Your survey, your plans today, show mean high water
landward of that deck.
MR. PATANJO: Correct.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Which means you lost 80 feet in 20 years.
So our concern is that, and you look on both sides of you,
that erosion is going to continue. So we need to dial this back
to lock in on both sides to the bulkhead to the east and the
proposed rock revetment to the west.
What you stated last time was you are proposing to follow
the contour of the shoreline. However, now we have this 90
degree angle so the contour all of a sudden juts out where the
house is.
So, to get the best bang for your buck and the best
security for your house, knowing that you lost 80 feet in 20
years, would be to dial it back, tie it in with the bulkhead to
your east, and tie it in with the rock revetment to the west.
Knowing that you may sacrifice a little bit of the deck, but the
primary concern is to save the house. So, you might have to lose
a little to gain a little.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Or to save everything.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Again, 80 feet in 20 years, if that rate
continues, you are out in the street.
MR. LAGOUDIS: My name is Ioannis Lagoudis. Thank you, for your
time. I don't understand what you talking about. So may I ask
some questions so I can understand?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Certainly.
MR. LAGOUDIS: So by reducing the balcony, that will make the
building structure better?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Your protection of your structure as it sits
currently is in the water. Your structure, as it stands today,
is below mean high water. The stakes that you put in for your
proposed rock revetment project it even further seaward into the
water.
When I went there yesterday to do an inspection, about an
hour before high tide, the stakes that were put out that morning
were already under water.
So what we can't have is a structure extending into the
water. Which already exists. So you have to dial it back.
(Mr. Lagoudis is conversing with Mr. Patanjo) .
MR. LAGOUDIS: How can you know that? How can you prove that?
How do you catch that rabbit? I mean, how can you prove that the
building will be safer? Who made that decision?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Your building as it currently exists sits in
the water. Based on the plan, based on the survey. It sits in
the water. So if you are not in the water it would be safer. A
structure in the water is subject to the wave damage.
MS. LAGOUDIS: To rebuild what got damaged. If there is a risk
that I'm going to lose the house, a higher risk, allow me to
take that risk.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sir, you've lost 80 feet of beach in 20
years. I can't tell you that is going to stop. I would say
Board of Trustees 22 June 10, 2026
that's going to continue. Whether you dial back 15 feet or 20
feet, you're still going to have the problem here in the next 20
years.
MS. LAGOUDIS: I agree with you. I don't think I expect to sell
the house in more than 25, 30 years. So allow me to enjoy it for
the next 25 years.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But the concern of ours is when we approve a
Project, it' s supposed to have a 30-year lifespan on it.
MS. LAGOUDIS: Yeah, but how do you know?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: In this case it is the public safety --
(Stenographer notes Mr. Lagoudis is interrupting Trustee
Gillooly) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: (Continuing) for you to build something that
is unsafe, that you do not expect to last for 30 years, it is a
public safety hazard. Because as we experienced when we were on
this site, there were pieces of your house we had to drag out of
the bay already.
So I think that it is very clear in this situation, that
the Trustees are not going to permit something that is built
over mean high water --
(Stenographer notes Mr. Lagoudis is speaking while Trustee
Gillooly is speaking) .
MR. LAGOUDIS: I got it. I just don't understand how you guys --
(Stenographer requests only one person at a time speak) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Well, I think the other option that I think
would be a smarter investment for you would be to pull the
entire structure further landward. Including the house.
MR. LAGOUDIS: If you guys would be willing to give me the money,
I would be more than happy to do so.
MS. HULSE: Is there anyone else that wants to comment on this?
MR. LAGOUDIS: So can I come to you with a balcony and pull the
first floor back?
MR. PATANJO: That' s a good question. Would a cantilevered
balcony be acceptable. If we pull back the first floor
seven-and-a-half feet and have a seven-foot wide deck
underneath. Pull the revetment back and leave the cantilevered
balcony.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, again, and I appreciate where you are at,
in that you've lost so much property here, and I wish that we
had taken action on this sooner, because I think this Board
would have been happy to work with you to try to prevent when it
went from 80 to 60 to 40 to 20. The Board was here.
But now that we are here, when you are talking about
cantilevering, we've never approved structures over The Sound.
And that is what we are really asking, when you look at that
mean high water line. You are looking for a deck over The Sound.
Which is not something we'd approve.
We are working with something here that is illegal as per
code. The DEC is going to say the same exact thing. And if you
are looking for a logical explanation here, if you have a toe on
your foot that sticks out too far, you're going to slam that one
into the wall every time. And that's what you're doing against
mother nature and The Sound here.
Board of Trustees 23 June 10, 2026
MR. LAGOUDIS: This is like you are asking me to take a piece of
my property away from me.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mother Nature did that over the last 20 years.
MR. LAGOUDIS: We don't know the future of Mother Nature. We
' don't know what is going to happen five years from now. We go
based on history.
MR. PATANJO: So the question is going to be are you okay with
strengthening this and pulling it back.
MR. LAGOUDIS: No, I'm not.
MR. PATANJO: Okay, then we'll have to table and talk about it.
If you don't make the decision now.
(Mr. Patanjo and Mr. Lagoudis are speaking privately off the
record for approximately three minutes) .
MS. HULSE: Are there any other comments?
MR. LAGOUDIS: So you gentlemen are asking me to put in an
additional expense.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Sir, gentlemen and gentle lady, I think we've
all made our case clear. It' s up to you --
MR. LAGOUDIS: Well, my choice is I have no choice because I have
to fix this before winter. So you really not give me a choice.
You just doing what you want to do. Which is not acceptable.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sir, that' s completely inaccurate. We are not
doing what we want to do. We are doing what is based on code.
We cannot allow the structure that is below mean high
water. We can't allow you to build into the water. Which is
exactly what you are proposing. You are therefore taking away
public access and riparian rights for people to walk along the
foreshore. We are not allowing that to happen.
(Stenographer notes Mr. Lagoudis is interrupting as Trustee
Goldsmith is speaking) .
MR. LAGOUDIS: I got you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, excuse me, sir.
So we have to take into consideration the public benefit,
the public access, in allowing you to do something that is
illegal by code and precludes the public from accessing the
foreshore.
MR. LAGOUDIS: But the water is not by the balcony. The water is
by the --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sir, you lost 80 feet in 20 years. In 2019,
your survey had 30 feet. So in 2019, when you had the property
and 30 feet,' that would have been the time to address it. Now
the water level is landward of your house. Whether we do
something or whether we don't do something, Mother Nature is
going to take it. Mother Nature has a way to humble all of us.
And 80 feet in 20 years is very humbling. Another 80 feet in
the next 20 years, your house is an island.
MR. LAGOUDIS: So you are leaving me there with a balcony of
seven feet and is not usable.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sir, I thought you wanted to save your house.
MR. LAGOUDIS: Of course. I want to do both.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I just want to speak to something else you
said, sir. Because the Trustees visited the property today, and
without a storm tide, not even being at high tide, the water was
Board of Trustees 24 June 10, 2026
two feet from the line. It was already up against -- the stakes
were underwater. So, that's not even being there at high tide.
And that's not talking about storm tides.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: It's not a gentle stretch of beach.
(Unrecognized audience member comments) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I mean, the town beach lost its parking lot.
MR. LAGOUDIS: You take care of it, and that' s why.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So we are talking about saving seven feet of
the porch, the balcony, or saving your entire home. I find this
to be going around in circles.
If your technical advisor had spent some more time in the
field he could have advised you of the severity of the wave
action in this area, I think you would be in a different mindset
at this point.
We've been in the field, too, and we've appreciated the
intensity of the storms in the area. We've lived here our whole
lives. It' s not messing around, that water.
MR. LAGOUDIS: I didn't say it is. It's just let it be the way it
is now, and if it happens, it happens.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: As Trustee Goldsmith points out, we cannot
legally permit you to build --
MR. LAGOUDIS: It' s an additional cost. Tremendous amount of
cost. Are you asking me --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'm not asking you --
MR. LAGOUDIS: What is my choice?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: It's per the town code.
MS. HULSE: Sir, you are asking, because this is an application
that you put before the Board for their consideration. So it's
your ask of the Board. The Board has provided comment, so I
think at this point we should move forward with what it is that,
if Mr. Patanjo is willing to consider what the Board has
commented on, and perhaps change the design of what you are
asking for. If that' s a yes, then maybe the Board can look at
that.
MR. LAGOUDIS: So what is the worst, if I let go of my land, my
property is going to be closer to the water. Would that make it
worse if I move my property back seven feet?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sir, you have one house on this coastline. We
have been doing this for. over a decade on the coast line. It
would not be worth it. We are trying to help you here.
(A conversation is held off the record between Mr. Patanjo and
the applicant) .
MS. HULSE: Mr. Patanjo, do you want address the Board on behalf
of the application?
MR. PATANJO: All right, we will submit --
MR. LAGOUDIS: Can we do less than the seven feet?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You are not understanding that you have to
speak from the microphone.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Patanjo, I think you know what our
concerns are. Do you want to table to address those concerns or
do you want us to move forward with what is submitted. If you
are considering dialing back --
MR. PATANJO: We are considering dialing back.
Board of Trustees 25 June 10, 2026
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: (Continuing) and coming up with new plans
based on the concerns and comments that were made tonight,
otherwise we'll move forward with what was submitted.
MR. PATANJO: We want to modify it. Would you issue an approval
based on pulling it back or would we have to come back next
month?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I 'll make a motion to table this application for
submission of new plans showing a dial back of the deck out of
mean high water and in line with neighboring properties.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland Permits, Number 1, AS PER
REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PLANS RECEIVED 6/2/2026 Jeffrey
Patanjo on behalf of ANVK NY HOLDINGS, LLC requests a Wetland
Permit to remove and replace existing timber bulkhead with 72
linear feet of vinyl bulkhead including a proposed 10' return in
same location as existing, raise new bulkhead height 18" above
existing; and install a 6' wide non-treated timber boardwalk
within a 10' wide vegetated non-turf buffer along the landward
sides of the bulkhead.
Located: 6320 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-7
The Trustees reviewed on 6/3/26, notes read consider
extending buffer to 15 feet to the grade, questions transition
to neighbor and elevation change.
The LWRP finds the project consistent. Welcome comments
from the public.
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant.
It' s a simple remove and replace bulkhead, put an untreated
timber walk on the top of it. And we would have no objection to
the location here for a 15-foot non-turf, vegetated non-turf
buffer, which is from the face of the bulkhead landward, which
is inclusive of the untreated timber deck.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else wish to speak?
(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 GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve application with
land protected 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer landward from
face of bulkhead.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 2, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of SHAWN
Board of Trustees 26 June 10, 2026
McBURNIE & DEVON ANNABEL requests a Wetland Permit to construct
a 16'x36' in-ground swimming pool with 2 ' wide natural stone
patio surround; install a pool backwash drywell and pool
equipment area; install a 76 linear foot long landscape
retaining wall to be a maximum height of 36" tall; install 76
linear feet of native plantings for screening along the
retaining wall face; install 48" high pool enclosure fencing
with gates; with silt fencing installed surrounding the work
site prior to and during construction.
Located: 5015 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-14-3.
The Trustees recently visited the site on the 3rd of June,
noting the retaining wall must be reduced. Three mature oaks to
be removed, question mark. Are there any conditions for buffers
on the dock.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent. The inconsistency states the following:
The proposed pool is to be placed up to the top of the bank
defined in Town Code Chapter 275-2 as land inclined adjoining a
body of water, wetland and/or beach, and does not comply with
Town Code Chapter 275- (g) (d) (a) 5, which states the pool must be
placed in 16 feet from the wetland boundary. If a pool can be
built in the future, it is recommended to retain existing trees
in the development area' to the extent practicable and to retain
to native vegetation within Trustee jurisdiction.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. There is
no objection to planting new oak trees as suggested. There is no
buffer, there was no buffer required or established under that
dock application. I did that back in 2011 or 2012, something
like that. So the, there is no tree removal as part of the pool
installation, right?
Come up, Shawn.
MR. MCBURNIE: Shawn McBurnie. I don't believe there is any tree
removal. I questioned when the Trustees were there, it would be
okay to remove a couple of trees where the retaining wall would
go.
MR. PATANJO: Okay, so as part of any tree removal we would
replant native hardwood trees on the property.
So as far as scaling back the retaining wall, the intent of
this retaining wall is to obviously retain the soil. As you see
in the proposed plan there is very, very limited impervious
surfaces surrounding the deck. We did a simple two-foot wide
coping, just for the purpose of walking around the pool. We want
it very natural. They didn't want to create or induce any
additional runoff.
Runoff is actually going to be mitigated by the
installation of the pool and the retaining wall because it
raises the grade and creates a level surface, and the runoff
will allow to leach back into the ground instead of running down
the bank and the bluff.
The whole project in final stabilization happens will be
protected with a silt fence, and provide stabilization, which
Board of Trustees 27 June 10, 2026
again mitigates any erosion or runoff running down the bank,
bluff. All of the pool equipment and backwash drywell will be
installed adjacent to the house as shown on the site plan.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, for that information. I do have an
e-mail here from you saying you were going to amend, resubmit
new plans --
Sorry, I 'm just reviewing the new plans that were submitted
with the retaining wall.
MR. PATANJO: The original is still in the mail, I believe.
The proposed plan changed with the installation of an
additional 16 feet of retaining wall going to the north in the
same line of projection as the retaining walls you see in the
plans, and that' s the purpose to create, again, a more level
backyard, in combination with the existing backyard, level
surface of the pool, which will stop and mitigate any runoff
from going down the bluff.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: From the Trustees' perspective after being the
feel field and reviewing plans at work session, I think there
was a general consensus that if the pool is pulled five feet
landward, the need for the retaining wall could be lower. It
could be two feet to comply with what the Trustees have set as
maximum within our code.
So in order to achieve that two-foot retaining wall we
would like to see the pool moved closer to the house
alternatively to reduce the overall size of the pool if there is
a desire to have that space.
MR. MCBURNIE: My goal was kind of was to look kind of like my
neighbor' s property. If you look there and go one property
over, he has nice walls, a little further, kind of the same idea
is what I was trying to accomplish there, to fit in the
neighborhood, I just have the pool up to the edge. My original
idea was having an infinity pool but pulling it back really
doesn't do the picture I was trying to do.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: From the Trustee perspective, the property we
are now viewing is not the ideal. We much prefer to see your
property that has all of the trees and the native vegetation,
which helps to filter the nitrates from your fertilized lawn so
that when it reaches the bay it' s not, you know, quite as
uncomfortable, which I'm sure you can appreciate, and all of us
that like to swim in the water.
So this one I'm not sure who approved these plans or how
the plans got there, but going back to your property, the idea
of pulling the pool back would also eliminate the need to remove
several trees, which is something that the Trustees also would
be looking to do.
MR. PATANJO: So going with that, this general rule of reducing
height of the retaining walls and creating areas to capture
runoff, if we reduce, if we kept the pool where it was, kept the
retaining wall where it is, however reduce the height of that
retaining wall down to two feet tall, create another level area
that would be a vegetated, non-turf area, and the secondary
two-foot tall wall further to the seaward side of things. We
would have the pool, we would have the existing retaining wall
Board of Trustees 28 June 10, 2026
where it's shown here, two-foot in height. Go another six, eight
feet out, another level, non-turf, vegetated, fully vegetated
area, with another two-foot retaining wall. So we would still
have effectively the same pool location, same upper, it will be
the same look as we originally came in with, however you would
be gaining additional non-turf area, vegetated non-turf, and we
would back-pitch it so it doesn't drain over the wall.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Except it already is a non-turf buffer.
MR. PATANJO: It is, without the benefit of anything to stop the
runoff from running down.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: It is, because it' s vegetated. It' s full of
trees and bushes and grasses and natural vegetation that is
serving that function already. So what you are proposing is the
following: You want to re-engineer the entire property near the
edge of the lawn to accomplish the same thing.
MR. PATANJO: Correct. Right.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So the bank itself is a protected feature, and
so re-engineering that area is not something that this Board
would approve. In this case, having a pool that is so close to a
protected feature is very borderline here to begin with.
So I think the Board, in our discussion, had discussed the
idea of pulling back five feet, otherwise it would not be an
appropriate application.
MR. MCBURNIE: For the neighboring property, was that something
that was approved by the Trustees? Because I think that was
done within the last ten years, and, I just want to copy it. I
don't want to go all the way to the water.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Every property is a unique and separate review
process for each parcel. I don't have personal knowledge of the
other property but I would just say that we are looking at your
application and your features on the property, and so our
decision is based on that, not based on anything else.
MR. PATANJO: We'll table the application to review the plans.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No Response) .
Any further questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application at
applicant's request for revision of plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE FINORA: Number 3, AS PER REVISED SITE PLANS AND PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 6/9/26 AMP Architecture on behalf of JOHN &
WENDY COLBERT requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
two-story dwelling (2,362sq.ft. Footprint) with attached garage
and for additions and alterations consisting of a 538.25sq. ft.
One-story addition, a 96sq. ft. Front covered porch, a, 427sq.ft.
Second story addition over garage, replace sections of the
dwelling's seaward side wall to add windows and a door; dwelling
to have new siding and roofing; existing 547sq.ft. Seaward deck
Board of Trustees 29 June 10, 2026
with stairs to be replaced in-kind and in-place; install a
20.2sq. ft. Outdoor shower with a dedicated 50 gal. Drywell;
abandon existing septic system and install an I/A OWTS sanitary
system; install a stormwater drainage system; any excavated
material will be used at site for backfill and any extra will be
removed from the site; and to establish and perpetually maintain
a 10' wide non-turf buffer area along the landward edge of the
wetlands.
Located: 2155 Long Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-55-7-7
The Trustees visited the site on June 3rd, noting that the
plans at the time proposed a seaward extension. A seaward
extension should not be permitted. Additions should be no
further that the existing structure. The buffer should be
vegetated.
The LWRP is inconsistent, speaking largely to those
components of the project, specifically Policies Six and One.
(But I note that we are in receipt of new plans depicting
additions and alterations of the structure no longer seaward of
the existing structure and exclusively landward.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of the
application?
MR. PORTILLO: Good evening, Board, Anthony Portillo, AMP
Architecture.
As you mentioned, after receiving the inspection letter, we
revised the plans to show the addition in line with the existing
residence. A couple of other notations, ten-foot vegetated
buffer was also noted on our plans.
We are proposing drywells for the additions, and a new IA
system. I should also note DEC has been filed for
non-jurisdiction for ten-foot elevation.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Any comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
TRUSTEE FINORA: Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to
speak to this application?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE FINORA: I make a motion to approve this application in
accordance with the plans noted June 9th, 2026, with the
inclusion of the 15-foot non-turf vegetated non-turf buffer and
citing the revised plans and modifications to remove the seaward
extension as originally proposed, thereby bringing this project
into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you, Board.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, Margot Coffey on behalf of
NINA ALICE BRONDMO requests a Wetland Permit to demolish
existing garage, main entry stairs to dwelling, and remove
Board of Trustees 30 June 10, 2026
portions of existing driveway; construct additions onto the
existing 999sq. ft. One-story dwelling with a side entry platform
and steps consisting of a 960sq.ft. One-story addition
that includes a 10'xll' front entry terrace on a slab
foundation; remove existing 529sq. ft. Seaward deck and construct
a 605sq. ft. Tiered wood deck with steps; existing walkways and
59sq. ft. Sauna with roof overhang to remain; abandon existing
septic system and install an I/A OWTS sanitary system landward
of dwelling; and reconfigure existing gravel driveway.
Located: 510 Trumans Path, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-12-1
The Trustees conducted a field inspection June 3rd, noting
recommend within existing footprint of garage, due to
embankment, proposal pushes further into embankment, and go up
with addition. Question mark.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The
inconsistencies are: This proposed action is on a nonconforming
lot with a pre-existing residence that is less than 100 feet
from the wetland boundary of Marion Lake.
This proposed action includes the demolition of a garage to
build an extension of the single-family dwelling and the
refurbishment expansion of an existing wood deck.
The proposed action is inconsistent with Policy 6. 1 (b) (q)
because the proposed addition is too close to the embankment and
doesn't do enough to protect the ecological quality of the land
adjacent to the wetlands.
Restricting the proposed addition to the existing footprint
of the garage would allow this action to be more consistent.
Retaining the existing trees and native vegetation within the
native non-turf buffer will mitigate proposed developmental
impacts.
The proposed native non-turf buffer should extend to the
top of the slope to further mitigate impacts.
The proposed action is inconsistent with Policy 6.3 (a)
because it doesn't comply with Town Code Chapter
275-3 (e) (1) (a) (1) that states: Setback for a residence from the
wetlands is 100 feet.
A part of the proposed new addition and a part of the
proposed deck expansion brings it closer to the wetland
boundary.
We also have two letters of support for the project in the
file.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. COFFEY: We do. Pursuant to the site visit, we have a couple
of questions as well.
I'll just introduce myself again. It's been a while since
I've been here. I'm Margot Coffey, I'm a co-founder of Isaac-Rae
Studios, an architecture and design studio locally.
I wanted to just first thank the Board for their thoughtful
consideration. I know that wetland stewardship is really
important. As a local from out here, as a local person who was
raised out here, I'm understand it's very important. I
appreciate what you guys do. Thank you. And it is something that
Board of Trustees 31 June 10, 2026
we take really seriously. We always have that as top of mind in
our design. So wetland preservation is certainly something we
always look at and consider.
And I also just wanted to say that the homeowner, in
addition to the two letters, I just wanted to underscore that
she is also really supportive of the Trustees and preservation.
She is a huge champion of Marion Lake South.
She and several other people on her road have started a
fund, it' s called the Marion Lake Project Fund, and they have
raised considerable funds and also put a lot of time into
creating a healthy lake there. So she is just one of those
people that are very respectful and wants to be part of the
solution here.
What we are proposing is really a modest, obviously,
extension. I 'm going to let Clay talk about, responding to some
of the questions of you guys.
MR. COFFEY: Thanks again, for meeting us on Monday. I appreciate
your comments and time.
So when we were designing structure in the building, there
were a couple of constraints. One is that we are trying to fix
the existing entry, right. They say the entry is all about the
house. And it's a one-bedroom, small house. So trying to be very
compact footprint. We note it's a highly constrained site.
We are also trying to build landward of the existing
garage, not within the same footprint, but kind of landward of
the building. And I did have just a quick question because I
didn't, I'm just not clear, based on Town Code, but it' s a
question about the top of bank, and when the top of bank becomes
a non-regulated feature, let' s say.
So I know that top of bank in the definition is facing the
waterfront side of the top of bank, where that is, was most in
question there, in the site meeting, it comes down to an
elevation six and then it goes back up to the neighboring
property elevation of 18 or something like that.
So I don't know if that changes the boundary as far as if
top of bank is regulated. Or if it doesn't. I think we were
concerning this based on the landward, where we were building
was behind currently where the existing house is at top of bank.
So I just have a question around how we define "top of
bank" and if the feature is regulated, or if it' s not.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So to comment on that, that is considered a
bank, basically you are lack of better term on a peninsula, so
you have a bank on at least two side of the property. It' s hard
to quantify that as a ravine, a gully, a whatever, that
ultimately ends up into Marion Lake.
So on the seaward side of the house, toward Marion Lake,
it' s straightforward. However on the garage side of the house,
that slopes down, but then it slopes down and also to Marion
Lake. So that is considered a bank, and you're unfortunately
extremely constrained on this property, as we discussed in the
field, and it's on the footnotes.
I think if this was proposed in its location today it might
be a little more pushback, however it' s existing structure, so
Board of Trustees 32 June 10, 2026
if you use the existing structure, existing corner of the
garage, as kind of the footprint, and to work within that
footprint and landward of that footprint, meaning, you know,
towards the driveway, on both sides, that would be more
appropriate in trying to extend further towards the bank of
Marion Lake, or the ravine/bank that towards Marion Lake.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : So, now, I 'll just add to that, because I think
you are asking a really solid question, and I know that you guys
have a history of, you know, being very conscientious about the
wetland.
We only deal with a handful of these gullies/ravines a
year. Obviously when the glacier retreated, that was the outwash
path to the water, and you end up with this really cool little
ecological/geological feature that we are attempting to protect
in the town.
So we do see a few of these a year, pretty seldom,
throughout town, but we do treat them as a natural feature to be
protected. And to Trustee Goldsmith' s point, the garage is
already very close, probably would not have gotten approval", but
it's obviously been there for a long time. So we are just trying
to work with you. And within the constraints there.
MR. COFFEY: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : And to be honest with you, it's an awesome
piece of property and so to have that in your side yard is
really neat. I think it's really special.
So we are just kind of looking to keep what' s there,
protect what is there. And I also appreciate where you are
proposing the septic. I think that's a good enough --
MR. COFFEY: Thank you. Can I show you a quick sketch here.
(Handing) .
This is what we have. And the edge of driveway. And then
it's 81 inches away from the top of bank. And this big, heavy
line is on the side setback line, right.
So would it be amenable to the Town if we moved it two feet
back? In it' s current configuration, I think we could save that
oak tree that is kind of in the corner there, that we are trying
to build away from. We are kind of constrained by the floor
plan. We would then be drawing all of our setbacks back,
basically, at that point. And that southeast corner of the
building would be behind the line of the 100-foot setback at
that point.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want go just go back to that question.
MR. COFFEY: Sure. So, I guess the next question, would be, would
it be acceptable to essentially keep the structure as designed
but push it back an additional two to three feet, trying to
preserve the tree that's there, and then moving, at that point
it moves the southeast corner of the addition behind the
100-foot setback line.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, just to correct you with that 100-foot
setback line. That 100-foot setback line is from Marion Lake.
Our jurisdiction is from the top of bank. So that 100-foot
setback line is inaccurate.
Board of Trustees 33 June 10, 2026
MR. COFFEY: That's my question. Where does the bank become an
unregulated feature.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
MR. COFFEY: And maybe this is my fault, probably. But I think I
designed it based on the bank at that point not being in your
jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which I understand. That's where I was trying
to go with my comment. But I- appreciate where you are coming
from with your application. And especially proposing putting a
slab in addition to, you know, I think that' s extremely helpful.
MS. COFFEY: I would also note that there is no, you know, there
is a big runoff right now from the existing garage. So that' s,
you know, we would be preventing, and once that, you know, once
this project would be, we would actually have a drywell in the
driveway that would prevent any of that runoff from happening.
There is lot of net neutral/net positive adds that we would
be doing with this small addition. So to us it' s a little bit of
weighing nuances, what is, you know, kind of more essential to
protect the site.
. The homeowner is also, it's not something I fully approved
with her, but she's very open to, you know, a need of a
vegetated buffer, if that is also something.
MR. COFFEY: And we can bring that up to the top of bank. That' s
not a problem.
MS. COFFEY: Right. On both sides. You know, maybe native
vegetation can also help bolster that. That is actually
something I would recommend to her, if that feels relevant to
the Board.
TRUSTEE FINORA: I just want to make few points that we had
discussed in the field was visualizing the current footprint,
most forward projection of bulkhead, garage and the house, as
reasonable boundaries to work behind. And that includes the
connection between the two structures.
So normally we are kind of discussing before that those,
that that jurisdiction was really, went from the length of the
top of the bank and then extending beyond that.
This whole structure, where it currently sits in place
that's --
MR. COFFEY: Right. So the existing top of bank setback to
existing garage is 81 inches. So if we can set it back, further
back from 81 inches. And just, we just have a bunch of time and
energy tied up in the design already. So I 'm trying to salvage
the architectural drawings as much as possible without fully
redesigning it. If we can kind of pick it up and push it back
without doing a whole lot of redesign, but if we are, you know,
compressing it on three sides, you know.
TRUSTEE FINORA: This proposal would exchange setbacks, is that
what you are trying to say?
MR. COFFEY: Well, what I'm trying to say is our 81 -- our
closest setback right now to the top of bank is 81 inches. So
the goal would be to set everything back further than 81 inches,
right. So if we move it back an additional -- actually, the
proposed sketch is two feet. If we move it back three feet, I
Board of Trustees 34 June 10, 2026
think we could probably work with that. And then all your
setbacks would go from that point back.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Do you have an overlay that shows the current
footprint with the new plans?
MR. COFFEY: Yes. Certainly. (Handing) . There is a red line here.
The red line is the current, that' s the current footprint.
Right. This is the current driveway.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And this is all, the dotted red line --
MR. COFFEY: The dotted red line is all current. Right. So from
that point to the top of bank is 81 inches. Currently.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Right, but you are extending this way as well.
MR. COFFEY: Right. But that extension is not closer than -- if
we move backward, that extension is no longer closer to the top
of bank at that point. So if we pull this back, we are at 92
inches back to that point. We can just pick the whole thing up
and back.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Is any fill required to make that change?
MR. COFFEY: No.
TRUSTEE FINORA: On both sides?
MR. COFFEY: We are just going to be basically taking the very
top of that little piece off and putting a slab on it.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So with the three-feet retreat, would that
affect your septic proposal at all?
MR. COFFEY: It would not. It would still be in the same
location. We have to update the plans for Suffolk County.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just to confirm, basically what you are
proposing is to take the design that was submitted, and based on
the plans, and shifting that whole thing towards the driveway,
so the entirety of the structure would then be further landward
from the top of the bank than currently exists. The garage
structure.
MR. COFFEY: Correct. Yes. That' s correct.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So nothing would project further seaward than
existing.
MR. COFFEY: Correct.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else?
(No response) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments from the
Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
subject to new plans that show the structure going further
landward, with new plans depicting, so that no structure is
further seaward than current; that there be a non-disturbance
buffer from the top of the bank seaward, also a vegetated
non-turf buffer landward of the top of the bank, therefore
bringing it into consistency with the LWRP. And new plans
depicting the buffer, both buffers, and the new structure
located landward.
Board of Trustees 35 June 10, 2026
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. COFFEY: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Res ectfully submitted by,
Glenn Go
smith, President
Board of Trustees