Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-03/18/2025 Glenn Goldsmith, President QF SU(/r Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ��� ��� P.O. Box 1179 Eric Sepenoski J Southold,New York 11971 Liz Gillooly N Telephone(631) 765-1892 Elizabeth Peeples �Q Fax(631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, March 19, 2025 APR 5:30 PM q[1 r Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President ' _ C A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee Eric Sepenoski, Trustee Liz Gillooly, Trustee - (Absent) Elizabeth Peeples, Trustee Elizabeth Cantrell, Administrative Assistant Lori Hulse, Board Counsel CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening and welcome to our Wednesday March 19, 2025 meeting. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order and ask that you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance is recited) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll start off the meeting by announcing the people on the dais. To my left we have Trustee Krupski, Trustee Sepenoski and Trustee Peeples. To my right we will soon have attorney to the Trustees, Lori Hulse, Esq. We have Administrative Assistant Elizabeth Cantrell. With us tonight is Court Stenographer Wayne Galante. One Trustee is not here tonight, that is Liz Gillooly, who is home with a brand new baby boy, so we would like to wish Liz and her baby Oliver health and happiness, and probably most important for any new parent, plenty of rest. So hopefully she'll be back here next month us. Agendas for tonight's meeting are located out in the hall and also on the Town' s website. We do have a number of postponements tonight. The postponements in the agenda, on page five, under Wetlands and Coastal Erosion, numbers 2 and 3: Number 2, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of NEOFITOS STEFANIDES Board of Trustees 2 March 19, 2025 requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a set of bluff stairs consisting of a 10'x10' top platform flush with surrounding grade to a 41x4' upper walk to 4 'xl6' steps to a 41x4' platform to 41x4' steps to a 4'x4 ' platform to 41x16' steps to a 41x4 ' platform to 41x4' steps to a 41x4 ' platform to 41xl6' steps to a 41x6' platform and 4 'x8 ' retractable aluminum stairs to beach. Located: 1070 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-30-2-77 And Number 3, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of STERLING BRENT REAL ESTATE LTD, c/o BRENT NEMETZ requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a set of bluff stairs consisting of a 101x10' deck (flush with surrounding grade) at top of bluff to a 41x4' top platform to 41x8 ' steps down to a 41x4 ' middle platform to 41x7' steps to a 41x4 ' lower platform with 31x6' retractable aluminum steps to beach; all decking to be un-treated timber. Located: 38255 Route 25, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-2-17. 6 And on page 10, under Wetland Permits, numbers 18 and 19. Number 18, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION & PLANS RECEIVED 3/14/25 Christopher Dwyer on behalf of NORTH FORK COUNTRY CLUB requests a Wetland Permit to remove 18, 000sq.ft. Of underbrush and limb trees up to 40' within the 100' jurisdictional buffer area and a 11, 600sq.ft. Area of phragmites to be excavated to 3' to 6' depth of root removal with approx. 1,300 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be added and graded out. Located: 26342 Main Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-109-4-8.3 And number 19, William Goggins, Esq. On behalf of HULL CHEW requests a Wetland Permit to install an 181x38 ' in-ground swimming pool, with pool enclosure fencing, a designated 4'X8 ' drywell for pool backwash, and 31X6' pool equipment area. Located: 600 Inlet View East, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-100-3-10.10 So those are postponed and will not be heard tonight. Under Town Code Chapter 275-8 (c) , files were officially closed seven days ago. Submission of any paperwork after that date may result in the delay of the processing of the applications. I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to have our next field inspection Wednesday, April 9th, 2025, at 8:00 AM, with a rain date, if the weather is not cooperative. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES) . II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion to hold our next Trustee meeting Wednesday April 16th, 2025, at 5:30 PM at the Town Hall main Board of Trustees 3 March 19, 2025 meeting hall. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: 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, April 14, 2025 at 5: OOPM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd floor Executive Board Room, and on Wednesday, April 16, 2025 at S:OOPM in the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . IV. MINUTES: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of the February 12th, 2025 meeting_ . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . V. MONTHLY REPORT: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral V, Monthly Report. The Trustees monthly report for February 2025. A check for $6,424 .27 was forwarded to the Supervisor' s Office for the General Fund. VI. PUBLIC NOTICES: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk' s Bulletin Board for review. VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section XI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, March 19, 2025 are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: Stuart Thorn SCTM# 1000-51-1-20.1 Crab Cove, LLC SCTM# 1000-3-2-4.3 Russell McCall SCTM#s 1000-116-6-6 & 1000-116-6-7 Barbara Laskin Revocable Trust, c/o Barbara Laskin SCTM# 1000-128-8-8.5 Rosemarie Riccoboni SCTM# 1000-52-2-12. 1 Board of Trustees 4 March 19, 2025 Hull Chew SCTM# 1000-100-3-10.10 The Rodger T. Todebush Family Trust SCTM# 1000-103-13-9 Nicholas & Aspasia Rontiris SCTM# 1000-37-5-15 North Fork Country Club SCTM# 1000-109-4-8.3 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 SCTM# 1000-123-3-2 .1 Nathan Brzozowski SCTM# 1000-97-2-9.1 David Cichanowicz Revocable Trust & V. Cichanowicz Revocable Trust SCTM# 1000-66-3-16 Andrew T. LaGrega Living Trust SCTM# 1000-66-3-9 Raymond Thek SCTM# 1000-53-4-13 David & Randi Vogel SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.41 Gabriel Ferrari SCTM# 1000-52-2-26 Margaret McNamara SCTM# 1000-87-6-10 Soto J. & D.E. Family Trust SCTM# 1000-111-1-9 Walter Chadwick & Mark Lowenheim SCTM# 1000-86-6-25 The D. Cannizzaro QPRT & The B. Miltakis QPRT, c/o John Miltakis, Trustee SCTM# 1000-103-10-29.1 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . VIII. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII, Resolutions - Administrative Permits. In order to simplify our meetings, the Board of Trustees regularly groups together actions that are minor or similar in nature. Accordingly, I'll make a motion to approve as a group Items 4 and 6, as follows: Number 4, Sewn O'Neill on behalf of LAURIS RALL requests an Administrative Permit for the as-built backup generator. Located: 5400 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-128-2-12 And number 6, Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf of KRAM FAMILY TRUST requests an Administrative Permit to construct an ADA compliant set of stairs to beach/adjoining property (lot 13.44) , with condition that should adjoining property be sold separately, stairs would be removed; stairs to include a 60"x60" landing to 48"x84" set of stairs with handrails. Located: 100 West Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-88-6-12 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, Absolute Property Care LLC on behalf of HUFFLEPUFF LLC requests an Administrative Permit for Board of Trustees 5 March 19, 2025 trees already cleared as well as further removal of existing Leyland Cypress; replant with 25-7 ' to 8 ' tall Green Giant Arborvitaes. Located: 1330 North Bayview Road, Southold SCTM# 1000-70-12-33.1 Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection March 17th, 2025, noting that the plan addresses violations for trees; in addition, a ten-foot vegetated non-turf buffer. The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is the trees were removed without Board of Trustee review or permit. I 'll make a motion to approve this application with the condition of adding a ten-foot vegetated non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, Absolute Property Care LLC on behalf of HUFFLEPUFF LLC requests an Administrative Permit for trees already cleared as well as further removal of existing Leyland Cypress; replant with 25-7' to 8' tall Green Giant Arborvitaes. Located: 1380 North Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-12-3.3.2 Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection on March 17th, 2025, again noting that the plans address violations for replanted trees; condition a ten-foot vegetated non-turf buffer. The LWRP found it to be inconsistent.. The inconsistency is the trees were removed without a Board of Trustee review or permit. I'll make a motion to approve this application with the condition of a ten-foot vegetated non-turf buffer, and by granting it a permit will bring it into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf of CHENG FAMILY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST requests an Administrative Permit for the as-built 120' fence on eastern property line; replace 100' permitted fence on western property line along Town Road (Little Neck Road) . Located: 70 Strohson Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-10-16 Trustee Krupski constructed a field inspection March llth, 2025. It says: Do not replace without a permit next time. The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is the fence was installed without a Board of Trustee review or permit. I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted, and thereby granting it a permit will bring it into Board of Trustees 6 March 19, 2025 consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, Ural Talgat on behalf of STEPHEN & ARDA HARATUNIAN requests an Administrative Permit to construct an 18.5' x 12.5 ' trellis; add an additional. 379 sq. ft. Of precast pavers to existing paver patio; construct pool fence. Located: 1205 Soundview Avenue Extension, Southold. SCTM# 1000-50-2-13 Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection March 17th, 2025, noting the need to add a 25-foot vegetated non-turf buffer. The LWRP found this project inconsistent. I'll make a motion to approve this application with the condition of a 25-foot vegetated non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 7, MICHAEL & EILEEN VITUCCI request an Administrative Permit to install an I/A OWTS septic system landward of existing dwelling; abandon existing septic seaward of dwelling. Located: 620 Rogers Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-66-2-35 Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection March 17th, 2025. Notes read: Condition that if more than two cedar trees are required to be removed, that the office receives a request for a tree letter. The project is an environmental benefit, with installation of an IA/OWTS. The LWRP found this project to be consistent. I'll make a motion to approve this application with the condition that more than two trees need to be removed, with the installation of an IA/OWTS system, that the applicant needs to come back to the office for a tree letter. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . X. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, Applications for Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments. Again, in order to simplify the meeting, I'll make a motion to approve as a group Items one, two, five, seven and eight, listed as follows: Number 1. DEKKA LLC requests a One Year Extension to Wetland Permit #9895, as issued May 19, 2021. Board of Trustees 7 March 19, 2025 Located: 120 Bay Home Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-1.3 Number 2, Finnegan Law on behalf of JOHN & LAURA COOPER request a Transfer of Wetland Permit #435, as issued August 7, 1967 and Amended May 25, 1988, from Joseph Henderson to John & Laura Cooper. Located: 4322 Oriental Avenue, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-11-1.2 Number 5, Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf of CHENG FAMILY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #8186, as issued May 15, 2013, from Charles Rodin to Cheng Family Revocable Living Trust. Located: 70 Strohson Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-10-16 Number 7, Samuels & Steelman on behalf of LINDA & DONN COSTANZA, requests an Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit #10638A, as issued September 18, 2024, to remove the approved second-floor addition from the project. Located: 365 Island View, Greenport. SCTM#1000-57-2-28 Number 8, Frank Uellendahl, RA, on behalf of KAHERINE OLIVER requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10507 to install off of dwelling a 61x4.5' gunite spa situated on a 15" high, 8.5'xl6' IPE deck connecting to a 16"wxl5.5' long x 7" high step to pool patio; and to install the proposed pool two feet further seaward. Located 1255 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-4-2. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number- 3, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. On behalf of LIGHTHOUSE POINT, LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #8027, as issued January 23, 2013 and Amended December 17, 2014, from Christopher Stabile to Lighthouse Point, LLC. Located: 9975 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-119-1-10 Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection March 11th, 2025, noting that cannot transfer this permit, an amendment. The proposed 63' retaining wall at the foot of bluff is approved. 135-foot long in newly constructed. No information or permit for this 10x20 deck with bench landward of bulkhead. No permit for two ten-foot by plus or minus 4 ' patios at base of steps. Since what is in the field doesn't match the permit, I'll make a motion to deny this transfer. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf of CHENG FAMILY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #5000, as issued May 26, 1999 and Amended April 17, 2013, from Charles Rodin to Cheng Family Revocable Living Trust. Board of Trustees 8 March 19,2025 Located: 70 Strohson Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-10-16 Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection March 17th, 2025, noting that the rails have not been built on the catwalk. Need a letter to transfer saying they do not intend to build. I will make a motion to approve this application with the following project description: #5000, as issued May 26th, 1999, from Charles Rodin to Cheng Family Revocable Living Trust. Located: 70 Strohson Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-10-16 That is my motion. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . I . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 6, En-Consultants on behalf of BGV HOLDINGS LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10282, as issued September 14, 2022, to eliminate the proposed demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new two-story dwelling with a 3, 130 sq.ft. Footprint, 18 ' x 38' swimming pool, 8' x 8 ' spa, 425 sq.ft. Cabana with outdoor shower, 2, 360 sq. ft. Raised paving stone pool deck with firepit, and 2' high berm; and to authorize renovation of the existing 2, 481 sq.ft. Footprint one-story dwelling to remain, (including new replacement windows with partial re-framing of one waterside wall) and a proposed 615 sq.ft. One-story addition to landward side of house (more than 100 feet from wetlands) ; maintenance of existing 307 sq.ft. Stone patio and removal of existing 221 sq.ft. Grade level patio; construction of 18 ' x 44' in-ground swimming pool and 318 sq.ft. Grade-level pool patio/coping accessed from existing stone steps to remain; installation of an 81x4' pool drywell; modified locations/layouts for the previously proposed I/A OWTS sanitary system on the landward side of the dwelling, pool equipment, and a 4' high pool enclosure fencing with gates; and establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide vegetated non-turf buffer landward of updated wetlands boundary. Located: 250 Midway Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-9 Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection March 17th, 2025, noting that the previous permit #10202, conditioned that four Eastern Red cedars to remain and should transfer at condition of this application. The LWRP found this project to be consistent. I'll make a motion to approve this application with the condition that the four Eastern Red cedars are to remain. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . Board of Trustees 9 March 19, 2025 XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral XI, Public Hearings. At this time I 'll make a motion go off our regular meeting agenda and enter into the Public Hearings. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All- in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter of the following applications for permits under Chapter 275 and Chapter 111 of the Southold Town Code. I have an affidavit of publication from the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read prior to asking for comments from the public. Please keep your comments organized and brief, five minutes or less if possible. WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits, Number 1, Robert Bohn, LLC on behalf of STUART THORN requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove and dispose of existing retaining walls and construct new retaining walls in-place, in-kind consisting of: Ret. Wall #1 is 24' long; Ret. Wall #2 is 12' long with (2) 8 ' returns; Ret. Wall #3 is ±30' long; Ret. Wall #4 is ±40' long; Ret. Wall #5 is 40' long with a 5' west return; Ret. Wall #6 is 40' long with a 5' west return; Ret. Wall #7 is 40' long with a 5' west return; Ret. Wall #8 is 40' long; remove existing bluff stairs and associated platforms and construct a proposed 61x8' upper platform to 31x16' staircase to 91x10' middle platform to 31x5' staircase to 3'x4 ' middle platform to 31x8 ' staircase to 31x4 ' lower platform to 31x10' stairs to area landward of bulkhead; establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer north of the existing patio. Located: 19375 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-20.1 The LWRP found this to be consistent. Minimize turf and require native vegetated buffer to further Policy Six. The Trustees visited the property for a field inspection on March 12th, 2025, noted to review the permit history, replace portions of the privet with native vegetation and grasses, and dial back the patio at top of bluff. Remove irrigation on the top of the bluff. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this Application? (No response) . Any additional comments from the Members of the Board? (No response) . Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. Board of Trustees 10 March 19, 2025 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Motion to approve the Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion permit for this application with the stipulation of new plans to show re-vegetated areas to be native grasses planted where disturbed during construction, and that the project should be hand-dig only. That is my motion. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 1 under Wetland Permits, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. , on behalf of RUSSELL McCALL requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to dredge a 30' wide channel removing approximately 325 cubic yards to a depth of approximately 1' below Mean Low Water with excavated material to be placed to re-establish previously permitted dike (all within Town owned underwater lands) to close off existing creek inlet, and in an upland area owned by applicant for drainage with dewatered excavated material to be used as beach nourishment. Located: Town of Southold Underwater Lands & 11600 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM#s 1000-116-6-6 & 1000-116-6-7 The Trustees reviewed the application on 3/12/25, notes from our field inspections read straightforward. Approval is good idea to maintain the flushing of critical saltwater habitat. The LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent with its policies pursuant to Chapter 268. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the application? (No response) . Members of the Board? (No response) . Hearing no further wish to speak, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted, with turbidity.controls in place at the time of work. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 2, BARBARA LASKIN REVOCABLE TRUST, c/o BARBARA LASKIN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a ±416" x ±11' addition onto the southerly side of the existing permitted Board of Trustees 11 March 19, 2025 one-story dwelling. Located: 480 North Oakwood Road, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-127-8-8.5 The site was visited on March 16th, 2025, by Trustee Goldsmith, with the following: Needs gutters to leaders to drywells. The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent, noting that the structure is an as-built constructed without Board review. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? Please step up to the podium if you would to address the Board. MS. LASKIN: Barbara Laskin. I'm not quite certain what you just said. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I was reading through all of the notes for the project in this submittal, and Trustee Goldsmith noted that there should be gutters to leaders to drywells that are installed as part of this addition. And that simply means that any runoff that comes off of the roof will go into the gutters and then in the drywell so that it's not running off. And then the LWRP found it to be inconsistent due to the fact that it is considered an as-built. It has already been built. And that was the comment from the LWRP, the Local Waterfront Revitalization coordinator. MS. LASKIN: What do you mean it' s already been built? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So that happens quite a bit on older houses that were built prior to needing Trustee permit. So it's been around longer than you needed a permit. So it' s not a big deal. We'll fix it MS. LASKIN: So is it approved or not? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We haven't made a decision yet. MS. LASKIN: Really. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. MS. LASKIN: So should I just sit down and wait? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, ma'am. MS. LASKIN: Forgive me, I don't understand much that's going on. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: No, that's all good. I'll explain a couple of additional things. There was a note here in the file from the previous permit that there was a non-disturbance buffer from the eight-foot contour line seaward, and so we would just like to see that on the submitted plan that we have here. We have one that is stamped received August 16th of. 2024. So we would just want to see that already permitted non-disturbance buffer noted on this plan so we can approve a plan that has everything on one document. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak? (No response) . Any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. Board of Trustees 12 March 19, 2025 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application with the condition of the addition of gutters to leaders to drywells, and subject to the updated plans depicting the previously permitted non-disturbance buffer from the eight-foot contour line, and due to the fact that the addition is not projecting seaward, and by granting a permit, thereby brings it into consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sam Fitzgerald Architect, PC on behalf of CRAB COVE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for the existing one-story dwelling (2, 645sq.ft. Footprint) with existing 146sq.ft. West deck, existing 593sq. ft. North deck, and existing 37sq.ft. South deck; construct a 99sq.ft. One-story east addition and a 14sq.ft. One-story south addition onto dwelling; construct a 235sq.ft. North deck extension with steps to ground (828sq.ft. Deck combined) ; construct a 186sq.ft. Southeast roofed over front porch extension with steps to ground. Located: 12060 East Main Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-3-2-4.3 The Trustees conducted an in-house review on March 17th, 2025, noting the project does not go any further seaward than existing. The LWRP found this project to be consistent. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. FITZGERALD: Good evening, my name is Sam Fitzgerald, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (Negative response) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I don't have any questions, I would just like to commend you for the plans with the shading and everything. It was very helpful to really see what's there versus what is proposed, so. MR. FITZGERALD: I know it's harder to get out to Fishers Island. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, sir. But you made it easy, so, thank you MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. Board of Trustees 13 March 19, 2025 TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have a good night. Number 4, Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf of ROSEMARIE RICCOBONI requests a Wetland Permit to remove 138 ' of failing concrete bulkhead and replace in-place a vinyl bulkhead at present height using 10" diameter piles, 6"x6" timber whalers and 1" tie-rods to horizontal and vertical lay-logs with a non-treated wood cap; remove and replace existing beach stairs using untreated lumber; and to install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead. Located: 290 Old Cove Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-2-12. 1 The LWRP found this to be consistent, but recommended that a vegetated buffer be required landward of the bulkhead to further Policy Six. The Trustees visited individuals the site on the 12th of March, 2025, and noted that it was a fairly straightforward application. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application. MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, with Sol Searcher Consulting, on behalf of the Riccoboni' s. Just to address that one concern from the LWRP and the administrative permit that we came in for previously, we put in the ten-foot non-turf buffer, so we are looking to maintain that non-turf buffer with this project also. I 'm here to answer any questions you might have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Was that buffer vegetated that was put in there? MR. BERGEN: It' s just listed as non-turf buffer. We can have it vegetated if you would like. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it makes sense, I mean, given where it is. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak regarding this application? (Negative response) . Or any additional comments from the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application with the stipulation that the non-turf buffer be vegetated with native species. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. Board of Trustees 14 March 19, 2025 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . MR. BERGEN: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 5, Shannon Wright on behalf of THE ROGER D. TODEBUSH FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing 31x8' steps, 41x35 ' fixed catwalk and 3'x4' steps and replace in same location construct proposed 31x8' steps to a proposed 4 'x61' fixed catwalk with 4 ' wide steps down to a proposed 51x20' seaward fixed "T" section; install 3'x4' steps off north side of catwalk; existing 12 .2 'xl2.4' attached upper deck to remain undisturbed. Located: 1130 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-13-9 The Trustees visited the site on March 12th, 2025, and notes from our visit read that: We need to see pier line of the adjacent docks on plans. Staking does not match plans. Need to have open dock grating on the entire project. The LWRP found the project to be inconsistent with Policy Six, protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold eco-system. 6.3, protect and restore tidal and fresh water wetlands. And the gist of the LWRP determination comes down to the dock extending further into public waters, thereby hindering the use of and access of such waters, impacting bottom lands and marine benthic species. Second, the water depth of the terminus of the dock is shallow and can result in impacts from the operation of a vessel, which is not shown on the plans. And thirdly, the 151.28 square-foot deck is oversized and attached to the stairs. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MS. WRIGHT: Shannon Wright on behalf of Roger Todebush, the property owner. Just to address a few of the things that you said. The existing deck is permitted and not part of this application. Also, there was back and forth before the application was submitted as to whether or not we should include that, and ultimately we were advised against including it on the application, being that the deck has its own permit and it's not part of the dock. As far as the depth, there is a note on there that it's not for motorized boat use, but if the depth, if you wanted us to raise the depth, the property owners did say they are open to that. And you said there was issues with the pier line? Could you clarify that? TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes. The plans we received have a pier line drawn, but we only can see one dock, and typically we want to Board of Trustees 15 March 19, 2025 see both of them visualized and to scale on the plans so that we can have a bigger picture of the coastline in that region. MS. WRIGHT: Okay, sure. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: It helps us, too, if that line is drawn on plans and a satellite, you can strike a line to those immediately adjacent docks and see where that comes out. MS. WRIGHT: So do you need me to submit that before we continue with this application? TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think so. I think the Board members can weigh in. I think we've discussed it at work session, that' s where we landed. MS. WRIGHT: Sounds good. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: One thing I would like to, just to keep in mind with the consistency of the LWRP' s dock extending further into public waters, impacting access to the public on those waters and bottom lands marine benthic species. So in thinking about this plan, if this dock is not for a motorized vessel, I'm assuming kayaks, canoes, some kind of paddle power -- MS. WRIGHT: He' s a kayaker, yes. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: (Continuing) . Yes, I just wondered if it's necessary to go out that far, and how would you reconcile your design with the LWRP's determination? MS. WRIGHT: Sure. All right, we'll get back to that next time. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right, anyone here wish to speak regarding this application, or comments, questions from the Members of the Board? (Negative response) . The open grate is part of the notes, yes. So we want to see open-grate decking on the design as well. Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just a quick comment on that -- TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I love this moment. I make a motion to reopen the hearing. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. (All in favor) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Quickly, it was pointed out that one of those docks that was used for your pier line is not permitted. So we would not be able to use a non-permitted dock as part of the pier line. So when you come back with resubmitted plans, just make sure it' s based off of permitted dock structures. That's it. MS. WRIGHT: Would there be a way in the future for me to know if that is not permitted, or -- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Contact the Trustees office. MS. WRIGHT: Okay. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, ma'am. Thank you. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And the tax map numbers for the adjacent Board of Trustees 16 March 19, 2025 parcels, we give you a way to look up that property, the adjacent properties on Laserfiche within Town's database, and then you can see the permit history for anything along the waterfront. I make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 6, Patricia Moore, Esq. , on behalf of NICHOLAS & ASPASIA RONTIRIS requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 1-1/2 story (1st floor 1, 716 gross sq. ft. ) Dwelling with attached garage, 51x8' outdoor shower, and 2 .5'x10.5' trash bin; install a new 24.8 'x45.10' second floor dormer within footprint of existing; replace and reposition existing windows, replace exterior doors and siding on dwelling; remove east side door and stoop and replace with a window; existing timber deck on west side of dwelling to be repaired as needed (113' in total length by 35. 11' by 3.10' cut around tree), with tree cut down and deck repaired to fill in cut; existing timber retaining walls to remain consisting of a lower wall starting from west to east 8 ' 4-3/8" to 6'11" to 10' 1/8" to 419" steps to upper grade; lower timber wall continues west to east 8' 2-1/2" to 23' 1-1/2" to 17 ' 3-3/4" to existing steps 4' 9-1/2" to upper grade; and upper stone wall 9' 4-1/2" to 29'5" to 1319" to 7 '2". Located: 240 Knoll Circle, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-5-15 The Trustees have visited the site on March 12th, 2025, and Trustee Sepenoski made the following notes: Needs buffer and tree replacement of the native hardwood; 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer. And then the LWRP found this application to be consistent, and noted it is recommended that a vegetated buffer be required landward of the wetland to further Police Six. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. Rontiris, but he' s here, so why don't you come up here. He knows his property better than I do. Just to get a clarification, there is, from your inspection you recall it has an upper level where the house is, and then there is a second tier, and then there is -- is this part boardwalk? MR. RONTIRIS: Sorry. Down here. There is grass and then there is the gravel boardwalk. MS. MOORE: So you want the non-turf as part of the boardwalk at the bottom? I'm not sure where you want the non-turf. That's why, I just want to be sure I identify the right place. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: (Perusing) . Thank you for your patience. We were reminding ourselves. And I'm looking at the plan here, and it does note "gravel, " which is clear in the satellite as well. Board of Trustees 17 March 19, 2025 And there is no dimension on this. So I think if we can just increase that to 15 feet. And if that area, you could add vegetation, or that could just be increased with the gravel as well. MS. MOORE: Is that the portion where the boardwalk is? Because there is gravel -- where is the gravel? TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It says "vinyl" bulkhead. MS. MOORE: That's the front. MR. RONTIRIS: Is the point you just want 15 feet immediately adjacent to the vinyl bulkhead? TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. MR. RONTIRIS: Okay, that's what I'm trying to figure out. I didn't understand if it was anywhere on the side of it. But immediately adjacent to the vinyl bulkhead you want a 15-foot buffer. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. And if you'd like to approach, I can show you really quickly here (Ms. Moore approaches the dais) . (Perusing) . MS. MOORE: So it can be gravel or vegetation -- TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. MS. MOORE: Okay. Depending on what -- TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Correct. And then we did want to have a one-on-one tree replacement for that one tree that is being removed, that was kind of incorporated into the deck area. MR. RONTIRIS: Okay. That's additional from the previous approval. That' s a change? MS. MOORE: The previous approval you wanted one tree. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's tied into this approval because you're working on the deck. There is no change -- TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It would just be a part of. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, it is a change because you are applying to make a change. You're changing everything. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It will just be a part of this permit. MR. RONTIRIS: Waterside? Do you care? MS. MOORE: On the property somewhere? TRUSTEE PEEPLES: On the seaward side of the house, please. MR. RONTIRIS: Okay, thank you. , TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak, or any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer and one-to-one tree replacement with native hardwood for the one that was removed, and new plans depicting the addition of the buffer. That is my motion. Board of Trustees 18 March 19, 2025 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 7, AS PER REVISED SITE PLAN & WRITTEN DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 12/23/2024 Twin Forks Permits on behalf of THE WILLIAM E. GOYDAN REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST, c/o WILLIAM E. GOYDAN, TRUSTEE & THE KAREN B. GOYDAN REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST, c/o KAREN B. GOYDAN, TRUSTEE requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing two-story dwelling, detached garage and other surfaces on the property; construct a new 3,287sq.ft. Footprint (5, 802sq.ft. Gross floor area) two-story, single-family dwelling with an 865sq.ft. Seaward covered patio, 167sq.ft. Side covered porch, and 149sq.ft. Front covered porch; construct a proposed 16'x36' swimming pool with 8 'x8 ' spa tub; a 1,357sq. ft. Pool patio surround with steps to ground, pool enclosure fencing, pool equipment area, and a drywell for pool backwash; construct a 752sq.ft. Two-story detached garage, gravel driveway and parking areas; install an I/A septic system; remove 23 trees and plant 25 trees on the property; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 25-foot wide vegetated non-turf, no fertilization buffer area along the landward side of the wetland vegetation. Located: 1645 Marratooka Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-3-2.1 The Trustees most recently conducted a field inspection March 12th. Notes say concerned about the proposed large amount of tree removal. Very mature and healthy, trees are on the property. Possibly relocate proposed house to save the mature trees. Need a large minimum 25-foot vegetated non-turf buffer. What is the height of the retaining walls. And also the need for an extensive re-vegetation plan. The LWRP found this to be consistent. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MS. POYER: Lisa Poyer, on behalf of the applicant. I also have the landscape architect with Araiys Design here in attendance as well. In response to your comments, submitted to the application along with the project narrative was also some mitigation measures that were submitted as well. The application includes moving the house and the deck farther back from the existing wetland setbacks, where the current deck is at 30 feet, with a 65-foot proposed -- I'm sorry, the house is at 30 feet, and the new proposed house would be shifted further back. The decking improvements will be moved further back as well. The house will be moved out of the flood zone, and therefore making it FEMA compliant. We are proposing to do a no-chlorine swimming pool on the property. The applicant has purchased the lot next door, which is a Board of Trustees 19 March 19, 2025 vacant property, and has actually merged the lots into one property, so there is one development on this lot instead of two. The owner is also willing to do a two-to-one tree replacement for the proposed trees removed, that' s within the hundred-foot jurisdiction, and then a one-to-one replacement for the trees to be removed that is beyond the hundred-foot jurisdiction. It' s a unique lot where it' s kind of wide and not very deep, so we have to conform with the topography of the site, which does start at the street and slopes down toward the water. We're doing an IA system. We have to meet the setbacks for the requirement for standard zoning from the street. The applicant has received a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to locate the proposed garage in the side yard 'of the residence, so that helps to try to make everything linear on the property and not stack it. And then we are eliminating one of the curb cuts that' s on the property to try and make it a little safer on the road there. And then we are also proposing a 25-foot wide vegetated wetland buffer that is, we would considered a better quality wetland buffer than just planting it with some native grasses. The landscape architect can speak to that as well. So we feel, given the situation, there is significant mitigation measures that have been put into place for the project as far as FEMA compliance, moving structures further away from the wetlands, which has always, you know, been the Trustees' goal. We are replacing trees for two-to-one ratio, again, for some trees one-on-one ration in other areas. The two lots have been merged to reduce development along the creek as well. I don't know if the Board has any other questions. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, I know it's kind of hard to tell based on these plans, because a lot of the trees have TBD, which I 'm assuming that means "To Be Determined. " How many proposed trees, or how many trees are you proposing to remove? MS. POYER: There' s five trees within the hundred-foot jurisdiction, and these will be replaced in that same area with two-to-one ratio, and there is an additional 15 trees in the upland area that will be replaced at a one-on-one ratio. So a total of 20. With 25 trees to be planted total on site. With native trees. And some non-native trees are being removed as part of this. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, so that's question one. Now question two, there is a lot of retaining walls on these plans, but we couldn't necessarily determine the overall height. Could you speak to the retaining walls on this property? Because looking at some, like, for example, the one behind the garage, it looks to me approximately ten-foot high. Board of Trustees 20 March 19, 2025 I know as we are all flipping through this giant set of plans, which is great for detail, but it also makes it a little difficult for us to decipher everything. Maybe something like this in the future, if you can have it condensed onto maximum of llxl7 or something like that, it might make it easier for us to find what we are looking for. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: When we found the note about the retaining wall height, where we were trying to figure that out, it was with the elevation of the -- MR. NIERODA: Steve Nieroda, Araiys Design. We were cognizant of the retaining wall being landward of the ten-foot contour for the DEC. That was one thing. For the height of the wall, that's supporting the parking for it, it' s a five-foot wall that we're showing where you are parking and dropping. MS. POYER: That' s along the pool edge as well. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What we're looking at, I guess that' s page L3. 1, the one we are looking at. So it does look at 15 feet elevation for the top of the wall, ten foot for the bottom of the wall, for the pool. MR. NIERODA: Right. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I don't know what direction it is. The left on those plans, where the garage is, it looks like the bottom of that wall is at ten and the top of the wall is above the proposed pool fence. So elevation 20-ish. MR. NIERODA: I can call that out. It looks like elevation 25. But I have to get back to you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So that would be ten feet of exposure, and we really try to minimize putting ten-foot concrete walls on the creek. MS. POYER: We can step that with two walls and then landscape in between the two walls. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Some walls, some sloping, some vegetation. MR. NIERODA: The challenge there is with relocating the driveway entrance, trying to create a level-enough grade. Because of the sloping topography, a level-enough grade for the parking for 'the homeowner. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand and appreciate the effort that I'm sure you put into the application. We are looking at things both to mitigate environmental concerns and concerns with the neighbors and the habitat there. So for us, we are trying to limit putting up, you know, large structures that close to the creek, and viewshed is spoken about in the code as well, so. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And there was another retaining wall that is very close to the property line, on the house side of the project. What is that, north? MS. POYER: Yes, the north side. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Can you speak to that one? It's a little challenging to figure out the height and all that. MS. POYER: That's to deal with the sanitary. But we can call Board of Trustees 21 March 19, 2025 out for the top and bottom of wall elevation. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Do you know what the height of that is? Or do you have to investigate? MS. POYER: I would have to talk to the engineer about that. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And when you're looking at that; if it is in fact for the sanitary, it seems like there is quite a lot of -- because that's on the highest part of the property, almost. MS. POYER: It' s cutting down,, so actually retaining the land behind it, and we are carving into it to create that level area for the sanitary for the house. So it's not going to be exposed and viewed from the road. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, but we are also concerned about the viewshed from the creek side as well. So there are, as you've probably heard at many of the hearings, there seems to. be other engineering solutions for the sanitary system that don't require extensive depth and retaining walls. So if you could please review that as well when you are taking a look at that and try to minimize anything that might be required for that, please. MS. POYER: Okay. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So specifically, on Sheet SP1.2, that retaining wall on the northwest corner, is that the one we are talking about? For IA system? MR. NIERODA: For the IA system, yes. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And that wall -- again, I'm a little bit confused here, because it looks like the IA system itself is right under what it says elevation 16 grade. Right? Is that where -- MS. POYER: Yes. That's the tank, and the pools are beyond that. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The pools are landward of that. MS. POYER: Yes. And that goes into -- the pools are under elevation 20 area. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So what is the need for the wall to the northwest, which is away from the leaching pools? MS. POYER: To tie into, because as you are going from -- I'm looking at the, there is a sanitary plan that was submitted by HomePort, GS1. So it ties in from elevation 16 where it starts along the water, then comes back toward the road and ties in about just before elevation 20, and carries over along to create a level area in front of the house. Can I approach? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Try not to speak, because you are not on the record up here. So we are looking over here, right? MS. POYER: (Indicating) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. You can go back. Thank you. MS. POYER: It just gives a unique topography of the site where we are basically into that hill. It' s, like I said, it' s starting at the road and sloping down. So we can provide the wall elevations for you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And that's a four-foot wall, I guess, it would be going -- it would be stepping down with the grade. MS. POYER: Correct. Board of Trustees 22 March 19, 2025 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it would make sense just to try to pull that off the property line a little bit. I know the face is, the grade is stepping down as you go toward the water, and I understand the face is facing toward the applicant' s home, just to reduce future conflicts or issues there, if you can move that in slightly, I think it would make a lot of sense. MS. POYER: Sure. Okay. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: One other thing that we had discussed, and I think you mentioned something that this lot was merged, so the property to southeast -- MS. POYER: Yes. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Which is vacant. MS. POYER: It was vacant, correct. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So especially due to the size of this project, we would be looking to memorialize a large portion of that as non-disturbance buffer. MS. POYER: We accept that. We have not proposed, other than the area right where the proposed curb cut will be, for any disturbance in that wooded area. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. There is a lot to digest on these plans. That' s for sure. Is there anyone else here to speak regarding this application? (No response) . TRUSTEE PEEPLES: One comment. We've obviously requested some further study on these retaining walls. And I think when you are going back to look at it, instead of perhaps just supplying us with dimensions, maybe you can go a little more in depth in reviewing those locations that will have retaining walls due to the topography of the property. We do understand that it does have these kind of rolling contours, and it' s not necessarily straight across, but perhaps part of that could be a study in reducing some of those, or reconfiguring to really not rely on the retaining wall. MS. POYER: Okay. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. MS. POYER: So we'll table the application? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Let's see -- so the L6. 1, that's the proposed re-vegetation plan with the trees you spoke of previously. MR. NIERODA: I'm sorry, was that -- yes. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response) . ' TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to speak about this or do you want to wait. (The Board is reviewing plans) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, when you come back with new plans, looking at that re-vegetation plan that you submitted, L6.1, you had the line of the proposed 25-foot vegetated non-turf buffer, that kind of stops on that southeasterly corner. I think in Board of Trustees 23 March 19, 2025 concert with what we spoke about earlier, new plans depicting extending that line all the way to property line in that direction and designating that area seaward of that line, on that point part of the property, as a non-disturbance buffer. MR. NIERODA: Okay. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That, with the new plans talking about the elevations of the retaining walls with the proposed step down and a little more detail on the other retaining wall that we discussed earlier. MS. POYER: Okay. . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All right, so I will make a motion to table this application for submission of new plans pertaining to what we just discussed. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . MR. NIERODA: Thank you MS. POYER: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 8, Twin Forks Permits on behalf of NATHAN BRZOZOWSKI requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing foundation and stair remains; construct a new two-story, single-family dwelling with attached garage (2, 422. 9sq. ft. Footprint) with an 86sq.ft. northwest landing with stairs, a 15sq.ft. northwest landing with stairs, ,a 12sq.ft. northeast landing with stairs, an 80sq. ft. breezeway; a 234 .7sq.ft. second floor balcony; a 16sq.ft. outdoor shower; a 560.3sq.ft. raised patio with 30.2sq.ft. stairs; 42.2sq.ft. Bilco cellar entrance; 25sq.ft. A/C unit area; an 181x36' pool; on-grade 3, 659sq.ft. Pool patio surround with 36sq.ft. Outdoor kitchen and 100sq.ft. Spa/hot tub; install pool enclosure fencing with gates, pool equipment area, pool drywell; install an I/A septic system; install an 8 . 000sq.ft, Driveway for the dwelling; install a 601x40' pole barn with a 3, 500sq.ft. Driveway; existing 498sq.ft. Concrete pad to remain; install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff; approx. 1, 645 cubic yards of excavation and 1, 165 cubic yards of fill for the project, the excess fill will be removed from the site; remove three (3) trees and the replace with six (6) 3" caliper native hardwood trees; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 15' wide non-turf, non-fertilization vegetated buffer along the landward edge of lawn. Located: 34460 Route 25, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-97-2-9. 1 The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The Trustees visited the property on the 12th of March, 2025, and recommended shifting the house away from the wetlands as far as possible, as close to 100 feet as possible, given the fact the property has not been built on. Compare buffers to past application which was approved. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this Board of Trustees 24 March 19, 2025 application? MS. POYER: Lisa Poyer, on behalf of the applicant. So based upon the prior approval which I reviewed, the proposed 15-foot wide non-turf non-fertilization buffer, does match the prior approval that was issued by the Town. I think it was decision 10049, dated 12/15 of '21. And this is a buffer in addition to the existing vegetated buffer that already exists on the property right now, which is fairly wide. It ranges from 20 to 40 some odd feet in width along the entire wetland area. The proposed house was designed in the current location based upon the fact that it is located right next to the school and the school parking lot. So the owner would like to have some privacy from all the activities that go on next door. And it is also located in the general area where the prior approval was granted, as well as it' s at the high point of the property. The proposed house is in an existing area that is previously cleared. He is trying to keep it within the area that doesn't have any trees right now. So, potentially moving it further away from the wetlands would potentially require some more tree removal, but right now we are proposing I think it' s two trees to be -removed, which he would then also replace with a one-on-one ratio with native hardwoods on the property. He' s trying to be true a steward of the land and provide the buffer, you know, trying to work within the confines of what exists on site. And it's a very large piece of property. You can have a much larger house with, you know, more development, more coverage, and he's not looking to do that, because it is a long skinny property there. And there will be an IA system. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I appreciate that. This is the second time that comment has been made, that we could build bigger. And I think we are heading in the wrong direction with comments like that, as someone who drew up here and is trying to keep, save what is left, if I may. "Could build bigger" is not something that I want to hear. MS. POYER: He's building a relatively small house on this property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In front of this Board. MS. POYER: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I appreciate you going back and looking at the approved buffer. That was something the Board felt very strongly about, which is the non-disturbance buffer, because this is an extremely sensitive area. As you can see, before 25 was there, the creek system backs up all the way across the road, behind Pugliese there and onward. This is more sensitive than what we typically see here, which is why it should be a restricted property, mainly because we are not dealing with a regularly flushed area. There is a small culvert that goes under Eugene's Road. This is a really special spot, and as a steward of the land, the property owner Board of Trustees 25 March 19, 2025 should know that and treat it that way certainly going forward. He's taking that on with the ownership here. I appreciate the buffer, I think that's a very good direction to head in. I would just strongly recommend, with 180 feet from the road to this -project, the house could be slightly shifted. I'm not saying to get it fully 100 feet, but as close as possible to 100 feet, I think pretty easily. Speaking to the discussion of wanting to build on the high ground, well, the pool is on the high .ground. The house itself is, I don't believe the elevation would change if we shifted it slightly because it slopes off there. So if you want to stick to the high ground, you should reduce the size and put it on the high ground. If we are not going to stick to the high ground, we should shift this project ever so slightly to get it a few feet further away from the wetland. Because it is very low-lying there, and although we are close to 100 feet, you get into the wetlands very quickly on this property. MS. POYER: So you are asking for all development to be shifted to 100 feet because the house -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I said as close as you possibly can, being realistic. Given the fact that this lot has not been built on and this is a rather large project. MS. POYER: I mean, the residence itself is 113 feet from the wetlands, with the, I think there is an overhang of a balcony that' s 91 feet. So we are close to 100 already. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the distance from the patio? MS. POYER: The patio, the nearest point is 87. 4 feet for the raised patio. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which is a raised patio with a retaining wall structure, which again, is increased structure within the boundaries of the wetland. MS. POYER: So that' s what my question is. The structure is not necessarily the house itself that you are -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is quite a lot of structure here. So, right, I'm not necessarily just speaking to the house. Any shift or reduction would be appreciated, I think, given the sensitivity of the location. MS. POYER: Okay. And then obviously we'll show probably additional trees to be removed, and then we'll replace those as well. Okay. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And I know this part falls further than 100 feet from the water, but I would recommend some heavy screening between the proposed pool and the school. I think that kind of goes without screening. We would like to see that. MS. POYER: Yes, and even Main Road as well. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Well, and since you are looking at possible reconfiguration or shifting of it, I think the proximity of that pool location to the property line, which does abut with Cutchogue East elementary school is important to understand Board of Trustees 26 March 19, 2025 that, the condition there. MS. POYER: Okay. I'll go back to the applicant. Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this application, or any additional comments from the Board? (No response) . Hearing none, I motion table this application for submission of new plans. MS. P.OYER: Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Cole Environmental Services on behalf of DAVID CICHANOWICZ REVOCABLE TRUST & V. CICHANOWICZ REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 76 linear foot low-sill bulkhead with top to be +0.131 , constructed using 10" diameter king & batter piles 61 -on-center; install a 15' long north return and connect to proposed low-sill bulkhead to south; install a proposed line of 1, 000 to 1,200 pound boulders ±7 ' landward of low-sill bulkhead; proposed dredging up to 10' seaward of low-sill bulkhead to a depth of -2.51 ; ±20 cubic yards of dredge spoil to be used for backfill with ±7.8 cubic yards of clean sand to be used as supplemental fill; existing permitted dock to be dismantled as needed for construction and reassembled; existing vegetation to be removed and replanted to the greatest extent possible with additional native vegetation to be planted landward of low-sill bulkhead as needed. Located: 1425 Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-66-3-16 The Trustees visited the site on March 12th, 2025, and notes from that read: Dial back low sill bulkhead landward, reduce length of the dock, 10' 6" vegetated non-turf buffer. The LWRP found the project to be consistent with its policies. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this Application? MR. COLE: Chris Cole, Cole Environmental. I met the Trustees onsite and we discussed the project. We discussed pulling back the low sill bulkhead and we are working on getting plans and men to do that and resubmit it to the Trustees. I just want to know that this property and the neighbor are sandwiched between bulkheads on both sides, and they are experiencing erosion over time that they've lost maybe seven feet of land. So the proposal is to set up a low sill bulkhead and create an intertidal and then a high marsh behind it. We don't want to cut into the bank because we want to keep the mature trees that are there, and we have letters of support from the, letters of permission from the water body landowner. One thing we did talk about onsite, the owners would like to keep the docks in the location that they are. The cost to rebuild the docks as is, and, you know, just here to answer any Board of Trustees 27 March 19, 2025 other questions. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I admire the work that has gone into these plans, and I really appreciate the vision that you're brought to this property in terms of creating an intertidal marsh where there is none, and essentially re-wilding the waterfront portion of this property. I think it's a smart direction to move in, and it will be esthetically beautiful from whoever is on the waterfront to enjoy it as well. MR. COLE: Thank you. That's the intention, to create the intertidal marsh that should naturally be in the area and the high marsh that should naturally be behind it. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: You mentioned you are working on the seaward extension of that low sill bulkhead and drafting plans to address those concerns you made in the field notes? MR. COLE: Well, we're going to pull it back based on the comments that we received in the field, just to be slightly further landward, and to tie in, not on this property but to the next one over to the east, to tie in and kind of soften the edge of the shoreline structure. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right. So is it your wish to postpone. MR. COLE: We also were in with the DEC and we obviously need the Trustees and the DEC to be in line. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right. Based on your intentions and how close this project is already to something that we would approve, I feel comfortable moving forward and making a motion to approve the application, with the submittal of new plans describing a low sill bulkhead. I'm ready to, are you okay with that, and is the applicant okay with that? MR. COLE: Yes. We have the homeowner here as well. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay, so I did lead you on there so, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application with the new plans depicting a low sill bulkhead moved landward slightly. MR. COLE: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: ,All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 10, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of ANDREW T. LaGREGA LIVING TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 75 linear foot low-sill vinyl bulkhead with top to be +0. 131 , constructed using 10" diameter king and batter piles 6' on-center; install a 20' long return to the south and connecting to proposed low-sill bulkhead to north; install 1, 000 to 1,200 pound boulders ±7' landward of low-sill Board of Trustees 28 March 19, 2025 bulkhead; proposed dredging up to 10' seaward of low-sill bulkhead to a depth of -2 .5' with ±28 cubic yards of dredge spoils to be used for backfill with clean sand from an upland source to be used as supplemental fill as needed; existing permitted dock to be dismantled as needed for construction and reassembled; existing vegetation to be removed and replanted to the greatest extent possible with additional native vegetation to be planted landward of low-sill as needed. Located: 1505 Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-66-3-9 The Trustees visited the site on March 12th, 2025, and Trustee Peeples made the following notes: Dial back low sill bulkhead landward. Reduce the length of the dock. Soften the return on the southerly side. And a ten-foot vegetated non-turf buffer. The LWRP found this project to be consistent. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak? MR. COLE: Yes. Chris Cole, Cole Environmental. And at the risk of sounding redundant, I'll go through the same spiel. This is the neighboring property are sandwiched between bulkheads on both sides, and we created a low sill bulkhead shoreline stabilization structure that is creating an intertidal marsh and a high marsh behind it to stabilize the shoreline. The bank is eroding and the owner seeks to stabilize the bank, to create a natural shoreline, and keep the large mature trees that are there. We have discussed bringing in the low sill bulkhead several feet as to what the Trustees discussed onsite. And at the eastern end we are going to soften that bulkhead to match the existing bulkhead that is there. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. I echo Trustee Sepenoski' s comments about creating this intertidal marsh. I do feel that is quite a benefit environmentally. I also appreciate the neighbors are working together on this project. That is a big win for everyone. And a cohesive project as well. So the only difference in this property versus the prior one is that it does have this little bit more significant return on the southerly portion of it. In the field we had talked about softening that. MR. COLE: Yes. And that's what we are going to work on, adjusting the plans to soften that, so it won't stick out as angular as it is now. We'll seek to kind of curve that in, either bringing in the low sill, but we'll amend the plans to adjust that. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you. And the reason is that we were concerned about what happens in that sort of inside corner, in the future. So, thank you. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak? (No response) . In the same spirit of understanding that you are working on the plans, based on the input in the field and here at the hearing, I think it's okay to proceed forward. Board of Trustees 29 March 19, 2025 MR. COLE: Thank you. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anyone else wishing to speak? (No response) . Are there any further questions or comments from the Board? (No response) . I make a motion to close the hearing employ. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application subject to new plans that depict the low sill bulkhead pulled back slightly landward, and that the southerly corner is softened as well. That is my motion. MR. COLE: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . MR. COLE: Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 11, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of RAYMOND TREK requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 85 linear feet of existing timber retaining wall with new vinyl retaining wall in same location as existing. Located: 2105 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-4-13 The Trustees conducted a field inspection March 12th, 2025. Notes say retaining wall project straightforward. Allow a lower seaward area to re-wild. Match adjacent properties with a four-foot access path. The LWRP found this to be consistent. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. No problems modifying the plans to include a four-foot wide access path, and to allow the lower section to remain natural. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (No response) . Any other questions or comments from the Board? (No response) . Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application with the condition that seaward of the proposed vinyl retaining wall be a non-disturbance buffer, with a four-foot access path, with the submission of new plans depicting. That is my motion. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . Board of Trustees 30 March 19, 2025 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 12. Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of DAVID & RANDI VOGEL requests a Wetland Permit to dredge 20 cubic yards of sediment from canal to a depth of -3' below Mean Low Water; all dredge spoils to be placed landward of bulkhead in a silt fence enclosure and allowed to dry prior to removing off site to an approved upland location; existing 61x20; floating dock and associated 3'xl2 ' ramp to be relocated parallel to the bulkhead and supported with two 10" diameter CCA piles, and the existing 4'xll' catwalk to be re-decked with un-treated timber decking. Located: 230 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.41 The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, but noted turbidity controls are required. The Trustees visited the property on the 12th of March and noted that this was a straightforward application. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. If there are any questions I'm happy to answer them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't believe so. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak regarding this application, or any comments from the Board? MS. HE: Athena He. So I live the end of the canal, so which if you can see. I have just like a question concern, because we receive this one, but the measurement I want to double check, because the canal is very narrow. So I couldn't really ask other neighbor to really measure it out. But we couldn't really know how much ,is going to be in the water the dock. How much is going to take about the water part. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : So, it's my understanding, I'll answer your question, and if I'm correct we can go with that. So there is currently an existing dock there. Because they are doing this reclamation dredging and lowering the level, they are actually going to be able to move that dock closer to their bulkhead. MS. HE: Closer to the bulkhead. Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So the pier, the fixed pier that sticks out is remaining and then they are turning the ramp and the float and putting it very, very close against the bulkhead. So it's moving in approximately 15 feet? MR. PATANJO: 15 feet. It's the width of the float times two. MS. HE: That' s what we worry, because when I read from the paper, and I saw the boat, you know, and then you have a dock. And I don't know how much go deeper then you park the boat. I live on the corner over there and it's really hard to make a turn. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a great concern. But this is actually going to be tighter on their property than it is existing. So any boat that they put there will be approximately 12 feet even closer. So you should have more room. MS. HE: Great. Good to know that. 'Thank you. Board of Trustees 31 March 19, 2025 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak regarding this application, or any additional comments from the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I' ll make a motion to approve this application with the condition of turbidity controls throughout the project construction. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 13, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of GABRIEL FERRARI requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 32 linear feet of existing bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead in same location as existing along with a proposed 4' bulkhead return on north side along revetment area, and raised 12" in height above existing top cap; removal of 30 linear feet of existing bulkhead and replacement with proposed 30 linear foot long rip-rap revetment in same location as existing bulkhead; add 10 cubic yards of clean sand fill in the area landward of new bulkhead and revetment; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead and revetment. Located: 295 Bayview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-5-26 The Trustees visited the site on March 12th, 2025. Notes read buffer to match south return, approximately 12 to 15 feet. The LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent. Require that the Spartina be left undisturbed or restored following construction. It is recommended that a vegetated buffer be required landward of the wetland, to further Policy Six, echoing what the Trustees had written in their field notes. I invite Jeff Patanjo and anyone else from the public who wishes to speak regarding this application. MR. PATANJO: This is a renewal of an expired permit that was, they just didn't do the project. They still have a valid DEC permit. We have no objection to modifying, to extend the non-turf buffer. If we can, it was echoed 12 to 15. If we could go 12 feet, modify the plans and also wrap it .around by the rip rap wall, where the rip rap is on the north side, follow 12 foot off of that and tie it in. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right, anyone else wish to speak regarding the application? (Negative response) . Trustees? (No response) Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close the hearing. Board of Trustees 32 March 19, 2025 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve this application with the addition of a 12-foot buffer, non-turf buffer, along the seaward portion of this project, and wrapping along to follow the bulkhead on its returns. And new plans depicting that. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 14, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of MARGARET MCNAMARA requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace existing timber bulkhead and return with new 170 linear foot long vinyl bulkhead, including existing 40' return on east side with a 10' long return extension (50 linear foot long east return) , in same location as existing and raised 18" higher than existing, install new 4"x6" CCA timber vertical batter boards along seaward face of new bulkhead spaced 6" between boards to act as a wave break; install rip-rap sizing from 2 to 4 tons along seaward face of bulkhead with a maximum total quantity of 180 tons; maintain the existing 6' wide rock splash-pad along the landward side of the bulkhead; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer area (including the 6' wide splash-pad) along the landward side of the bulkhead. Located: 640 Takaposha Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-6-10 The Trustees recently visited the site on March 13th of 2025, and Trustee Peeples noted reduce the height to a max of 12 inches higher than existing bulkhead. The LWRP found this application to be consistent. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. We have no objection to reducing it to 12 foot above existing height. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Fantastic. Thank you. When we were in the field we noticed that the bulkhead to the north was closer to that 12-inch proximity, and so we wanted to have it a little bit closer to that. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak or any other questions or comments from the Board? (No response) . Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) .' TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve the application subject to a max height of 12 inches for the increased bulkhead height, and subject to new plans with that edited notation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? Board of Trustees 33 March 19, 2025 (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 15, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of SOTO J. & D.E. FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace the existing 4'x60' fixed dock in same location as existing; construct a 4 'x10' landward extension and a 4 'xl5' seaward extension for an overall size of 41x871 ; the entire new dock will have Thru-Flow decking. Located: 190 Fishermans Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-1-9 The Trustees conducted a field inspection March 12th, 2025. Notes about property line concerns, the dock collides completely with the dock to the east. Should be moved over to the middle of the property and not extend any further seaward. Revegetate any disturbed areas and new plans, and non-turf buffer. The LWRP found this to be consistent. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application. MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. No issues with a non-turf buffer. The entire lot is a non-turf buffer, and we can indicate that through covenants. If you want to do a non-turf buffer 15-foot from the wetland line, or can we establish a non-turf buffer at the end of the proposed steps, as shown on the plans, we can do that as well. No problem with that. There' s no plans on doing any work on this property. It's across street, and they walk across there and they go on their boat. This dock is merged with the other dock. The first time I have seen this in my 15-year career working here. They have some sort of agreement. That dock to the east was recently replaced under permit from the Board of Trustees. Jack Costello did it, actually. So this is the next phase of that weird, little relationship that they have. Don't. know how it works out, but they have some sort of little thing going on. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So your dock is little spoon and the other dock is big spoon. MR. PATANJO: Yes. Exactly. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, our concern is, okay, everyone is getting along now, but what happens in the future and I don't want my dock touching your dock. MR. PATANJO: It's been this way since the '40s. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, it said in the LWRP it said something like it got a permit in 1960. However, you know, with code, any structure is supposed to be a minimum of 15 feet off the property line. Looking at the condition of that existing dock, everything will have to get replaced anyway. It' s not like we are reusing the existing pilings or anything like that. So I think now would be a good time to, you know, split the baby, and get this dock up to current standards. MR. PATANJO: I think that may do a disservice to the dock to the Board of Trustees 34 March 19, 2025 east because they had theirs replaced, and now their dock will be rendered useless, because they utilize this dock as well. One person gets the inside, one person -- big spoon/little spoon situation. So they won't be able to utilize their dock if we remove this section. Because they use a piece of it as well. The angled portion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I just try to -- MR. PATANJO: You're never going to see this again in the Town of Southold. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We're trying to fix this problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, from my memory from the field, the property next door, which is Samuels, I believe, it goes out along their boat basin and then where it makes that dogleg left, I guess, they repaired approximately half of that. MR. PATANJO: Right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. MR. PATANJO: If you are talking about, I interrupted you a little bit. Sorry. If you are looking at your property lines and you are worried about the concern of interjecting with the property line, if you project out the property line for this lot that divides these two lots, that property line cuts ,off a section of the dock to the east. So if you're asking us to move this dock, because it's too close to the property line, we are going to have to ask the neighbor who is too close to the property line. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Well, also, two wrongs don't make a right here. So that's why are trying to correct this issue as best we can. And if this has been the state since 1960, and we are going to totally replace this dock, I think it would be time to bring it up to standard and not two docks touching from different property lines. MR. PATANJO: I would be interested to see what Board approved the dock that was just rebuilt to the east. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm, without reading the Minutes from that, my thought is that the dock to the east comes out along the property line, but really what it' s serving as is a border to that basin. So there is some reasoning for it to be there. Is there, and, I mean, I don't have the biggest problem with this. It's just very weird, and I'm wondering if we can somehow correct it while we are doing this. Could they just, I mean if they leave the rebuilt section, there is a lot of bulkhead and a lot of dock there for Samuels to tie up to. And then if they were to build some sort of an L-configurations, would they both end up with two totally usable docks? Is that a possibility? Or is that -- MR. PATANJO: I'm going to say anything is a possibility, if the Board approves it. I'll also say if you are asking us to get away from the property line with this dock, you are going to ask Samuels, if that' s their name, you'll ask them to get away from the property line. So we technically are, by code, 15 feet away Board of Trustees 35 March 19, 2M5 from the property line. We don't meet that here. These crossover property lines. I sorry, Samuels crosses over to my property line, so if you're going to ask us to do that -- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And I get it, being it' s a tight, constricted lot, so the .15 feet, you know, may or may not be applicable. However, we have never, as far as I know, approved two docks from two different properties that connect. MR. PATANJO: You did, though. You did. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So even if we shift it over to the west, that dock, and separate it, you still have two fully-functional docks. And it also eliminates this predicament that we are in, and it doesn't continue a bad precedent that was set at one point in time. MR. PATANJO: Well, the precedent was set, I think it was three years ago, by the Board of Trustees, by approving a dock, exactly what you said would never happen, happened, with the Samuels dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This portion, do we know? Was Soto permitted? MS. CANTRELL: Samuels has gotten -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, but Samuels was permitted. MR. PATANJO: It predates the requirement for permitting. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But Soto is not permitted, correct? MR. PATANJO: It may not be permitted, but it predates the requirement. You said it dates back to 1960, as per the CAC. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let me just ask to try to at least get some clarity. ' Because I don't understand the argument. So why would you not want a remedy this? Or, excuse me, why would your client not want to -- MR. PATANJO: Well, because they are not here and I can't ask them. That' s why. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, that's fair. Right. MR. PATANJO: And here's the thing. I don't know if Samuels is going be like, I use that dock, my grandkids use -- I don't know how old they are. I 'm assuming they are old. I don't know what the situation is. I think we would have to talk to Samuels. Because technically, if you are making us move, now Samuels has projection over the property line. And we have always done extended property lines for riparian rights for docks. I understand that it does kind of channelize that boat basin, but if you look at the dock, there is an angular matter for it, for the last 20 feet of it that projects to this dock, because they used it for years and years and years. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Was there dredging associated with that adjacent property? MR. PATANJO: I'm unsure. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: With the basin, I mean. MR. PATANJO: I did the other six down the road. I didn't do Samuels. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just looking at this, it seems like a very simple solution, and I'm a little perplexed as to why we are Board of Trustees 36 March 19, 2025 digging our heels in to keep it this way. And we didn't even touch on the fact that you are looking to extend that "L" shape even further, which would not be necessary if you moved the dock more to the west, centered it more on the property, you could go out in an "I" configuration or an "L" configuration, and not need the extension. Listening to how you described it, I could assume that you are looking for an extension so that both those property owners can then use that same dock. MR. PATANJO: Correct. To get a little additional water depth. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Even though the property owner to the west has a boat basin that they could put a boat in. Your client can put a boat or two on their dock if they move it further to the center. MR. PATANJO: I agree. I think what we should do, so I can leave, is we should table this, and I 'll talk to the client to see if they are okay with doing a revised "I" configuration. Is there any idea as far as, you know, we have pier line, we have bulkhead line, we have bulkhead on the east, we have bulkhead on the west. They extend out more. Can we establish a pier line by the bulkheads? Because I just did the one, if you go up, to the left a little bit. I'm going to walk, because I can't see. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just don't speak while you are up there and missing the record. MR. PATANJO: (Indicating) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would probably argue, I understand the point you are trying to make. I don't think we are going to get a pier line here. MR. PATANJO: 'Could we use the bulkheads as the pier line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would argue to try to limit going much further seaward -- just try to limit going seaward as much as possible. MR. PATANJO: Right. Okay. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And I would also point out that on your plans details and location map, it does look like the further out you go, the less water depth you have. So MR. PATANJO: Yes, we'll try to hit that two foot. Keep it fixed and hit the two foot. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It turns into flats there. It does. I think it just, as you said, it would make sense to table to at least ask that question. If they for some reason want to keep the relationship alive there, we can follow it up next month. But I do think it's worth the time in asking. MR. PATANJO: I can get the neighboring owner here to see -- I don't know the situation. So they may be like we have been using this since my grandfather's. here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It might be worth having the conversation. Great. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions? Anyone else want to comment on this application. Board of Trustees 37 March 19, 2025 (No response) . I'll make a motion to table this application for further review. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 16, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of WALTER CHADWICK & MARK LOWENHEIM request a Wetland Permit to extend the existing permitted 4 'x79' fixed catwalk an additional 14' off seaward end using Thru-Flow decking on extension for a 4'xll3' fixed catwalk (including 4'x20' landward fixed ramp from foot •path to catwalk) ; relocate existing permitted 32"x14' aluminum ramp and 6'x20' floating dock off seaward end in a new "T" configuration. Located: 6565 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-6-25 The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency lies with extension of the dock will result in a net decrease in public access to public underwater lands. The Board visited the property on March 12th, 2025, questioned the addition to 14-foot length. Recommended dialing back the length. It should also be noted there is an e-mail in the file from a Greg Kakhor (sic) . I'm writing in support of the application to modify the existing dock to the property immediately to the west of Parker's Landing on Richmond Creek. My property is just opposite side of Indian Neck Lane from the boat landing. Because the profile of the bottom of the shoreline to the west of Parker's Landing has changed over the years, there are two ways to make the existing dock useful again. One way is to extend the existing structure deeper into the water. The other would be to do a limited amount of dredging next to the existing dock. Neither alternative would interfere with navigation of the creek unless there are plans to do additional dredging in Richmond Creek in the near future. What is being proposed seems to be the best alternative and the one least likely to disturb shellfish and other marine life and aquatic grasses along the shoreline. Is there anyone that wishes to speak regarding the application? MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. And your e-mail said it very well. This little area, when this is a permitted dock, it was permitted as originally a "T" configuration. After Hurricane Sandy, as you see here, the whole point completely filled in with material, and the float was sitting on the bottom at that time. I don't know if it was this, I don't know if they purchased the home before or after. Just spun it to an "I" to get a little use out of- it: It hits bottom at low tide, and there is no obstruction to navigation. There' s no adjacent docks to do any sort of a pier line. And as mentioned by the across-the-street neighbor, who obviously knows the waters pretty well, it won't Board of Trustees 38 March 19, 2025 pose a navigation issue. The best option for this is to keep it as tight as we can possible, and still get water depth, would be to extend it out the additional 14 feet and return it to the original permitted configuration, which is a "T" configuration, which will get them the appropriate water depth at low tide, and it won't be bouncing off the bottom during low tides. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to this application? (No response) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I personally would disagree with the letter that was sent in speaking that there, is the least likely to disturb shellfish other marine life and aquatic grasses along the shoreline, as well as interfere with navigation along the creek. Any time you extend a structure into the creek, into the habitat and over the public right-of-way, you are certainly disturbing all of the mentioned items there. So the dock was put on the point, it' s a very lengthy dock, a very lengthy location, at least, to reach this. It was an interesting choice. I'm not sure why it went there, but I for one have some real concerns about extending it. And what I suspect will happen and what I have seen happen there over the last decade of sort of watching this point, is that sand is just going to just continue to wrap that corner and build and build off of that flat, and in a few years we'll have to come back and have to extend it another 14 feet. That' s my sense there. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I would concur with Trustee Krupski. And it looks like just outside of where you are proposing, it does drop off considerably. But that sand is migrating. So the dock can't migrate with the sand because as you said it would be move out. I know you have another application on tonight about dredging. That would be my recommendation to maybe consider that and make an application to the DEC for potential dredging. It did look when we were onsite that was all just sandy material, which should be fairly easy. I know the county does dredge the entrance to the channel. So that would be my recommendation for a potential solution. But if we were extending a dock now, you'll be back extending it again because you'll keep running out of water. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I agreed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments? MR. PATANJO: I have a comment. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Please. MR. PATANJO: Before you say anything, is this going to be a revised submission or is -- I would rather not deny this and we can come back with a modified plan. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know that it would be denied, but I guess my question would be for the Board and the Town Attorney. This is an application for a dock extension, which is pretty far off from a dredge application. How -- Board of Trustees 39 March 19, 2025 MR. PATANJO: I'm raising my hand like I'm in elementary school. The originally-permitted dock shows a "T" configuration. And if we did dredging I would anticipate keeping it in an "I" configuration, which is not necessarily permitted, so I would like to modify my permit to not extend it, but to modify the original permit, which would be a "T" configuration going into an "I" configuration with additional dredging. MS. HULSE: He has to submit a new application for the dredging if he wants us to leave this, based on what he's just explained. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. So he can table it and modify it. MS. HULSE: Correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, so it would be your wish then to table and modify this application? MR. PATANJO: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You would have to also apply for the dredging. I don't know that that could be rolled into in application. It cannot be rolled into this application. MR. PATANJO: Is dredging and a dock job a separate application? The one I did prior to this was a dock reconfiguration dredging. It was one application. MS. HULSE: Well, it can be, because you're asking for this one to be tabled and modified, so if you put them in together, yes, it could be. But it can also be done separately. MR. PATANJO: Okay. Wait. What? MS. HULSE: It can be done separately as two applications. MR. PATANJO: Oh, I want to do it as one. MS. HULSE: Then you'll have to go through the whole process of re-noticing. I thought that's what you were trying to avoid when you were -- MR. PATANJO: Yes, I was trying to avoid re-noticing and re-application. MS. HULSE: Correct. You are trying to avoid. MR. PATANJO: Yes. MS. HULSE: Right. So I'm saying you can't avoid re-noticing. MR.. PATANJO: Okay. MS. HULSE: So you either have to -- you can join it but you're still going to have to re-notice, so you're not going to be able to circumvent what you are trying to circumvent. MR. PATANJO: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, so we'll leave it up to him if he wants to do two or re-notice on this one. But, regardless, if no one else wishes to speak, I make a motion to table this application for submission reconfigured plans. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor. (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 17, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of THE D. CANNIZZARO QPRT & THE B. MILTAKIS QPRT, c/o JOHN MILTAKIS, TRUSTEE requests a Wetland Permit to dredge a total of 40 cubic Board of Trustees 40 March 19, 2025 yards of spoils surrounding existing floating dock to a depth of 4' below Mean Low Water, and placement of .spoils into sealed containers and delivered to an approved upland landfill; and the use of a turbidity curtain surrounding entire dredging limits. Located: 1460 Strohson Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-10-29.1 The Trustees reviewed the application in the field 3/12/25. Notes read ensure a DEC permit had been issued. The LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding application. MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. This is nothing more than a resubmission of an expired permit, and we still have a current DEC permit which expires in 2027, this five-year permit for DEC, and this was issued in 122, originally. So, yes, DEC permit is active, and it does include turbidity controls. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just a question. Did the dredging just fill in? MR. PATANJO: Yes. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. MR. PATANJO: Well, no, they never did it. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Oh, they never did it. MR. PATANJO: No, they never did it. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. MR. PATANJO: They didn't fill it, they just never did it. The permit expired. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Any other members of the public wish to speak or Members of the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing no further wish to comment, I make motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make motion to prove the application as submitted. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion for adjournment. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . (THE TIME NOTED IS 7:07 P.M. ) Res fully b //�jitted Glenn Goldsmith, President Board of Trustees