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