HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/16/2025 Glenn Goldsmith,President if S0Ujy Town Hall Annex
A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ��� ��� 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski l J Southold, New York 11971
Liz Gillooly G Q Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth Peeples '�► O Fax(631) 765-6641
�VUNTY��
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES f
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 1 SAY '
6 2025
Minutesa, ,a� �
?'Ott
I jcc
Wednesday, April 16, 2025
5:30 PM
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President
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 welcome to Wednesday April 16th
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 by announcing the people on
the dais. To my left we have Trustee Krupski, Trustee Sepenoski
and Trustee Peeples. Trustee Gillooly is not with us tonight.
She is at home with her newborn, neither of whom are getting
much sleep.
To my right we have attorney to the Trustees, the Hon. Lori
Hulse. We have Administrative Assistant Elizabeth Cantrell, and
our Court Stenographer is Wayne Galante.
Agenda for tonight' s meeting is posted on the Town's
website and located out on the hallway.
We do have a number of postponements tonight. The
postponements are, in the agenda, on page eleven, numbers 15
and 16, as follows:
Number 15, Jonathan Foster on behalf of 1055 SOUNDVIEW
ROAD, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built
reconstruction of existing bluff stairs consisting of a
7. 6'x8. 6' top platform with two benches to 36" wide by ±28. 1'
Board of Trustees 2 April 16, 2025
long steps to beach.
Located: 1055 Sound View Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-3-13
Number 16, Shannon Wright on behalf of THE ROGER D.
TODEBUSH FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove
existing 3'x8 ' steps, 4'x35' fixed catwalk and 31x4 ' steps and
replace in same location construct proposed 3'x8 ' steps to a
proposed 4 'x6l' fixed catwalk with 4 ' wide steps down to a
proposed 5'x20' seaward fixed "T" section; install 31x4 ' steps
off north side of catwalk; existing 12 .2'x12.4 ' attached upper
deck to remain undisturbed.
Located: 1130 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-13-9
On page 12, numbers 17 through 20, as follows:
Number 17, AS PER REVISED SITE PLAN & WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED 12/23/2024 Twin Forks Permits on behalf of THE WILLIAX
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
Number 18, 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 41x15' 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
Number 19, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of WALTER CHADWICK &
MARK LOWENHEIM request a Wetland Permit to extend the existing
permitted 41x79' fixed catwalk an additional 14' off seaward end
using Thru-Flow decking on extension for a 4 'xll3' fixed catwalk
(including 41x20' landward fixed ramp from foot path to
catwalk) ; relocate existing permitted 32"xl4' 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
Number 20, 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'
Board of Trustees 3 April 16, 2025
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 on page 13, number 21, William Goggins, Esq. on behalf
of HULL CHEW requests a Wetland Permit to install an 18'x38'
in-ground swimming pool, with pool enclosure fencing, a
designated 4'X8' drywell for pool backwash, and 3'X6' pool
equipment area.
Located: 600 Inlet View East, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-100-3-10. 10
All of those are postponed 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 a delay of the processing of the application.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time, I 'll make a motion to hold our
next field inspection on Tuesday, May 6th, 2025, at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next Trustee
meeting Wednesday, May 14th, 2025 at 5:302M at the Town Hall
Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 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, May 12th, 2025, at S:OOPM at the Town Hall
Annex 2nd Floor Executive Board Room, and on Wednesday, May
14th, 2025 at 5:OOPM in the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve our Minutes of
the March 19th, 2025 meeting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 4 April 16, 2025
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral V, Monthly Report. The
Trustees monthly report for March, 2025. A check for $27,218 . 47
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.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VII, State Environmental
Quality Reviews.
VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
hereby finds that the following applications more fully
described in Section XI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee
agenda dated Wednesday, April 16, 2025, are classified as Type
II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not
subject to further review under SEQRA:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: As written:
Kathryn M. Parsons & The Kathryn M. Parsons Trust, SCTM#
1000-10-5-2.2
ANYTHINGFORTHECHILDREN, LLC SCTM# 1000-10-5-3.1.
Jeanne M. Markel & John C. Wedge SCTM# 1000-27-4-3.1
Sarah C. Tremaine SCTM# 1000-10-5-12.26
920 Cedar Point, LLC SCTM# 1000-90-2-19
Dorothy Psathas Sargeant Trust SCTM# 1000-117-3-9
Kevin & Josephine Klein SCTM# 1000-121-4-20
Alyse Ticker SCTM# 1000-107-7-8
1055 Soundview Road, LLC SCTM# 1000-15-3-13
Maureen Dacimo Revocable Trust SCTM# 1000-27-2-4
185 Old Wood Path Trust, c/o Bridget Jacober SCTM# 1000-87-1-1'
Allison CM Family Trust SCTM# 1000-110-7-22
Joseph Buczek & Christina Spornberger SCTM# 1000-71-1-15
David Vener & Ellen Weinstein SCTM# 1000-113-8-7. 6
Charles Pardee & Jill Mennicken SCTM# 1000-126-11-3. 1
Stephane Segouin SCTM# 1000-21-5-5
Stephen & Heidi Distante SCTM# 1000-91-1-6
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That's my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
VIII. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII, Resolutions -
Board of Trustees 5 April 16, 2025
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 3 and 4 :
Number 3, STEVEN B. & DEBORAH WICK request an
Administrative Permit to install a drywell in their backyard to
connect to three gutters on the rear of dwelling.
Located: 1541 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103.-1-19.7
Number 4, RENATIO STARCIC requests an Administrative Permit
to construct a 10' x 14 ' shed.
Located: 205 Private Road #3, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-6-9.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, BENJAMIN & CAROLYN BENNETT request
an Administrative Permit to trim dead tree limbs; remove
invasive species such as Oriental Bittersweet, Raspberry bushes,
etc. ; replant with native grasses such as Pennsylvania Sedge
(Carex Pensylvanica) , Switchgrass (Panicum Virgatum) and Little
Bluestem (Schizachyrium Scoparium) ; install deer-fence in side
and rear yard not to exceed 6' 5"; install deer-fence in front
yard not to exceed 4' .
Located: 1220 9th Street, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-45-6-9.2
Trustee Sepenoski conducted a field inspection April 4th,
2025, noting removal of invasives okay, planting with
above-mentioned species okay for restoration. Deer fence on
seaward side should be pulled landward a minimum of 25 feet from
the contour line top of bank to prevent erosion of bank due to
wildlife movement, and allow wildlife a corridor to traverse
seaward side of property.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that the deer fence on the bluff be moved back 25 feet
landward from the top of bank.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, JEFFREY & RE STRONG request an
Administrative Permit for the as-built 35' x 14.5 ' on-grade
paver patio.
Located: 1225 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-139-1-1
Trustee Goldsmith conducted a field inspection April 14th,
2025, notes that it was straightforward.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is the patio was constructed without a Wetland
permit.
Board of Trustees 6 April 16, 2025
I'll make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, whereby granting it a permit will bring it into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Number 5, North Fork Pool Care on behalf of 16125 SOUNDVIEW
AVE REALTY LLC requests an Administrative Permit to construct a
±1,214 sq. ft. addition to existing pool patio, including an
outdoor BBQ and masonry stair into rear of dwelling.
Located: 16125 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-50-2-19
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection April 19th,
2025, notes to condition 25-foot vegetated non-turf buffer
landward of top of bluff; patio to extend no further seaward
than existing, and add a trench drain at seaward side of patio
connected to the drywell.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition of a 25-foot vegetated non-turf buffer; the patio is
not to extend any further seaward than existing; and to add a trench
drain on the seaward side of patio connected to a drywell, new
plans submitted showing such.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE 'GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Number 6, ROBERT & LESLEE LADUCA request an Administrative
Permit for an as-built 12' x 14' wooden shed.
Located: 685 Greenway West, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-1-29
Trustee Sepenoski conducted a field inspection April 4th,
2025, noting the project is straightforward.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is the as-built structure was constructed without
a Wetland permit.
I'll make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, and whereby granting it a permit will bring it into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: 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/Administrative Amendments.
Again, in order to simplify the meeting, I'll make a motion
to approve as a group items 1 through 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, and
15 through 18, as follows:
Board of Trustees 7 April 16, 2025
Number 1, Costello Marine on behalf of ORIENT LIGHT LLC
requests a Final One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #10142
and Coastal Erosion Permit #10142C, as issued May 18, 2022.
Located: Plum Gut, Orient. SCTM# 1000-130-1-1.3.
Number 2, DONNA RICCO requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#103, as issued February 21, 1983, from Patrick Carrig to Donna
Ricco.
Located: 1350 Eugene' s Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-97-6-1.2
Number 3, AMP Architecture on behalf of TRAVIS JIMENEZ
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #10403, as issued June 14,
2023, from William Jimenez to Travis Jimenez.
Located: 23900 Route 25, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-109-3-1
Number 4, WYANDANCH REAL ESTATE CORP. requests a Transfer
of Wetland Permit #9957, as issued July 14, 2021, from Michael
Monteforte to Wyandanch Real Estate Corp.
Located: 4060 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-26.2.
Number 5, WYANDANCH REAL ESTATE CORP. requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #9957, as issued July
14, 2021, for the as-built 421 sq.ft. Raised bluestone patio;
as-built 304 sq.ft. Bluestone lower patio; as-built 203 sq.ft.
Walkway; installation of drainage around the bluestone patio;
establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer
landward of fence.
Located: 4060 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-26.2
Number 7, JOSEPH & NANCY COCOPARDO request an
Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit #10637A for
the as-built redecking of raised wooden walkway.
Located: 65 Beachwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-116-4-29
Number 8, Douglas McGahan on behalf of PASQUALE GRANATO
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #9838 for
the revised location and number of stairs and planters.
Located: 1725 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-13-2.4.
Number 11, Frank Uellendahl on behalf of MARY DOWD &
MICHAEL MYERS requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #9867, as issued April 14, 2021, for the 50"x70" landing
flanked by two sets of 11"x39" stairs leading down to grade.
Located: 654990 Route 25, Breezy Shores Cottage #30, Greenport.
SCTM# 1000-53-5-12. 6
Number 12, ANDREW M. PETTERSEN & RANDY A. STATHAM request an
Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit #10162A, as
issued June 15, 2022, to increase the area where Phragmites can
be hand-trimmed.
Located: 5805 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-7-5.5
Number 13, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of BEN &
CHRISTINA HANSEN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #10551, as issued February 14, 2024, for the as-built 4'
x 24' utility closet over existing deck.
Located: 305 Narrow River Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-3-11
Number 15, En-Consultants on behalf of GERARD & BETHANNE
RIEGER requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
Board of Trustees 8 April 16, 2025
#10737, as issued January 15, 2025, to reduce the size of the
previously approved 5 ' x 56' patio area to be removed and
replaced with a minimum 1-foot-wide gravel trench drain and
plantings to a 2.5' x 56' area to be removed and replaced with a
minimum 1-foot-wide gravel trench drain and plantings.
Located: 3693 Pine Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-6-25
Number 16, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of
CHRISTOPHER & ELIZABETH AUSTIN requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit #10315, as issued February 15, 2023,
to include the as-built fence running the width of the property
15' landward of bulkhead; as-built stairs across entire width of
the deck; previously approved proposed retaining walls will no
longer be constructed; previously approved proposed rain garden
will no longer be installed.
Located: 2200 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123.-4-5. 1
Number 17, AMP Architecture on behalf of TRAVIS JIMENEZ
requests an Administrative Amendment to' Wetland Permit #10403,
as issued June 14, 2023, to revise the entirety of the
previously approved project description as follows: Demolish
and remove existing 1-1/2 story dwelling, wood deck, frame
garage, shed, and septic system; construct two story frame
dwelling (50'x20' & 121x321 , 1, 424 sq.ft. ) With covered front
porch (7'x20' , 140 sq.ft. ) , breezeway (8'x10' , 80 sq.ft. ) , rear
screened porch (9'x35' , 135 sq.ft. ) , rear steps (31x5' , 15
sq.ft. ) , garage (251x401 , 1, 000 sq.ft. ) , one concrete apron
(41xl8 ' , 100 sq.ft. ) , Air Conditioner on concrete slab, install
I/A OWTS septic system with absorption trenches at front of
property, pervious driveway (±4, 000 sq.ft. ) , four (4) drywells,
6' high deer-fence at rear and sides of property (±334 linear
feet) .
Located: 23900 Route 25, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-109-3-1.
Number 18, NORTH FORK PROPERTY VENTURES, LLC requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8990, as issued
April 19, 2017, Amended January 17, 2018, and Amended again on
May 16, 2018, to lower the existing "T" section of dock 8".
Located: 5310 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-138-2-15
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Number 6, MARK SCHWARTZ & LAUREN P]�AUS request an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10577, as issued
March 20, 2024, to construct a 12' x 12' open pavilion instead
of previously approved shed with deck.
Located: 1360 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-9-5
Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection April 8th,
2025. It was also reviewed at work session, with the notes to
move the structure a minimum of 50 feet from bulkhead.*
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that the structure be moved a minimum of 50 feet
Board of Trustees 9 April 16, 2025
landward from bulkhead, and also that the base be permeable.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Number 9, CHAMPLIN HOLDINGS LLC requests an Administrative,
Amendment to Wetland Permit #10217 for the removal of a tree
with compromised root system; removal of a cherry tree to
install sanitary system; plant six (6) American Elm Trees with
5"-6" caliper; plant native bayberries and grasses; remove
telephone pole once underground service is complete; pervious
gravel driveway.
Located: 1175 Champlin Place, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-34-4-15
Trustee Sepenoski conducted a field inspection April 4th,
2025. Notes: Removal of trees with compromised roots, okay.
Removal of one cherry, okay. Six trees at 5"-6" caliper, okay.
And to approach one-to-one tree replacement for those cut down
in violation of original permit buffers. Call for an additional
six trees of 2"-3" caliper to replace those cut as part of the
violation. Grasses and shrubs okay.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition an additional six native hardwood trees of 2"-3"
caliper to be planted in addition to the ones already in the
project description, within Trustee jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 10, Katja Patchowsky on behalf of
WILLOW HAVEN LLC & JOAN PATCHOWSKY requests an Administrative
Amendment to Administrative Permit #10696A, as issued December
18, 2024, to change the style and layout of the stairs on the
north end of the deck; relocate hot tub; create landing between
the stairs on the south end of deck.
Located: 1345 Long Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-55-3-30
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection April 16th,
2025, notes ensure area seaward of deck is non-turf as per
original permit number 10696a. Resubmit plan to include
plantings vegetation as per original approved plan, dated
approved on January 7th, 2025.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that seaward of the deck be non-turf as the original
permit, and resubmit new plans to show the non-turf buffer and
the previously approved planting vegetation plan, as approved on
January 7th, 2025.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 14, AMP Architecture on behalf of HC
Board of Trustees 10 April 16, 2025
NOFO LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#10528, as issued January 17, 2024, to install a 26'-7" x 31' -3"
on grade permeable gravel patio (800 sq.ft. ) ; install a 2 '-5" x
22 ' outdoor kitchen with built-in barbeque (53 sq.ft. ) ;
construct 24" x 24" landscape stepping stones and stairs down to
the proposed on grade patio from the approved rear raised
permeable terrace.
Located: 6370 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-5-3.3
Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection the April 8th,
2025. Notes to review with the full Board during work session.
The Board reviewed the new plans at work. session, noting
that the wetland line was incorrect on the plans, noting that
the project was proposed too close to the wetlands, that would
have an adverse environmental impact. That the project would
cause damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation. That the
project would adversely affect fish, shellfish or other
beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation, or
the natural habitat thereof. Otherwise adversely affect the
health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town,
and also adversely affect the esthetic value of the wetlands in
adjacent areas.
Therefore, I'll make a motion to deny this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral XI, Public Hearings. At
this time I'll make a motion to go off the regular meeting
agenda and enter into public hearings.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: 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: Number 1, JMO Environmental Consulting on
behalf of KATHRYN M. PARSONS & THE KATHRYN M. PARSONS TRUST
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
install approximately 185 ' of shore protection by removing and
Board of Trustees 11 April 16, 2025
stockpiling existing boulders on the storm damaged slope;
excavate approx. 4' and install geotextile filter fabric;
install a stone filter layer consisting of 3" crushed stone;
install a boulder slope consisting of 4' minimum rock and fill
voids with crushed stone as needed; and to install and
perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer planted with
native vegetation between the top of the new stone slope and the
edge of the existing lawn.
Located: 1946 Brickyard Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-5-2.2
The LWRP found this to be consistent. Field inspection was
initially conducted by Trustee Sepenoski, noting that existing
rock revetment on both properties, the revetment is in
disrepair. Erosion of bank and there is marsh evident. Check
size of boulders on plan and height of revetment.
Buffer okay install and maintain. Include maintenance of
phragmites and invasives to maintain native species.
The Board additionally reviewed this at work session and
noted the toe of the revetment not to extend further seaward
than existing.
Is there someone here wishing to speak regarding this
Application?
MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just, for the applicant. I think
everything is pretty. much straightforward with this one. It's an
existing wall that is in need of repair.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the only questions we had, is the
structure going higher than it is now, or further seaward, or --
MR. JUST: Not further seaward. In-kind/in-place, all work will be
done from the uplands.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And the slope is going to remain roughly the
same?
MR. JUST: One on three, yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, so I think as part of this, if we were to
move forward with an approval, we would be looking. for
submission of a planting plan just depicting natives to be
installed --
MR. JUST: Didn't the application say we would, but you want
exactly the type of plants?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Pointing us in the right direction there, yes,
I think so.
MR. JUST: Just native plantings, no ornamentals.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, is there anyone else here that wishes to
speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Or any comments from the Members of 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 both the Wetland
Board of Trustees 12 April 1.6, 2025
permit and the Coastal Erosion permit, with the condition that
the structure move no further seaward, and with submission of
new plans depicting the planting plan of all natives.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Number 2, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of
ANYTHINGFORTHECHILDREN, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to install approx. 210' of shore
protection by removing and stockpiling existing boulders on the
storm damaged slope; excavate to a depth of approx. 4 ' and
install geotextile filter fabric; install a stone filter layer
consisting of 3" crushed stone; install boulder slope consisting
of 4' minimum rock and fill voids with crushed stone as needed;
and to establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf
buffer of native vegetation between the top of the new stone
slope and the edge of existing lawn.
Located: 1596 Brickyard Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-5-3.1.
This is the immediately-adjacent property to the one that
was just heard. Our notes from our review of the application on
4/9/25 read: No further seaward than existing. Our prior, my
prior 11/9/24 notes read: Existing rock revetment on both
properties; revetment in disrepair; erosion of bank and marsh is
evident; check/review the size of the boulders 'on the plan and
the height of the revetment; buffers okay to install and
maintain; and include in maintenance clause for phragmites and
invasives to maintain native species.
The LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent
with its policies and its review.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the
application.
MR. JUST: Just to let the rest of the Board know that was not
there, this is just a family compound that happens to be two
single and separate lots. So it continues on from one end of the
property to the other.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay. Members of the Board or public wish to ,
speak further on this application?
. (Negative response) .
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application
with the addition of a plan depicting the plants that will in
the buffer area, the native species that are in that area.
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 13 April 16, 2025
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 3, En-Consultants on behalf of JEANNE M.
MARKEL & JOHN C. WEDGE request a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to reinforce and enhance ±250 linear feet of
existing armor stone with new ±lft to 3.5' diameter stone
(approx. 403 tons of new stone, finished stone <2.5 tons/linear
foot, top elevation = 6.5 ' NAVD, seaward toe of finished stone
to be located at, or landward of existing seaward toe) ; install
±16 linear foot long westerly armor stone return; and restore,
as needed existing ±20-ft. Wide vegetated non-turf buffer along
the landward side of the stone armor with Cape American beach
grass (18" on-center) .
Located: 100 Harbor Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-27-4-3.1
The Trustees visited this site on April 9th, 2025, and
Trustee Sepenoski noted the following: Healthy natural buffer
in place, project not extending further seaward.
The LWRP found this application to be inconsistent with
Policy 9, provide for public access to and recreational use of
coastal waters, public lands and public resources of the Town of .
Southold of the LWRP (a) , provide free and substantially
unobstructed passage along public trust shore lands; (b) , where
public access is substantially impeded, provide passage around
interferences on public trust lands or adjacent upland
easements, or provide other mitigation. The continuation of
adding hardened structure along the foreshore decreases the
ability of the public to access it.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. Also Chris
Wedge, the applicant, is here.
As we discussed in the field, I'm sort of puzzled by the
LWRP report, because there is, as we discussed, there' s no
change in the seaward footprint of the structure. In fact, it's
being tightened up and pulled landward in a few spots.
All of the rock will remain landward of spring high water,
and thus completely out of the intertidal area. In fact, we have
a non-jurisdiction letter from the Department of the Army which
acknowledges that. You can't get that unless the activity is
proposed outside of spring high water.
So, there is nothing there now and nothing proposed that
would impacted public pass and repass along the beach, above or
below mean high tide. The existing native buffer that is behind
the structure which you saw is healthy, it helps the property, .
and that will be maintained and restored as needed. And that's .
really about all there is to it. We are just dealing with a
beach front that has dropped in elevation and has eroded over
the years. And the structure has slumped along with it, fallen
apart a bit, and we are trying to clean that up and tighten that
up.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you.
We did notice that there is nice vegetation there, native
Board of Trustees 14 April 16, 2025
vegetation along the perimeter there. We did note one tree that
was likely to be removed in the course of the project, just due
to some erosion damage, so we would like to see a replacement,
one-to-one replacement of that, if possible.
MR. HERRMANN: Yeah, I think we discussed that. That was, as
Chris mentioned, that was fine. Whether it was lost or not.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It seems that might be likely, just due to the
erosion and the project itself.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak, or any other
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 PEEPLES: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland
permit and Coastal Erosion permit, with the condition of a
one-on-one tree replacement for the one tree lost, and due to
the fact that this project does not extend any further seaward,
and by granting a permit thereby bring it into consistency with
the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
WETLAND PERMITS:
Number 1, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of SARAH
C. TREMAINE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 43'x20'
(860sq.ft. ) Two-story, single-family dwelling with a 201x20'
screened-in porch, a 10'x43' deck with walkout below; install an
I/A OWTS sanitary system; install gutters to leaders to drywells
to contain roof runoff; install water and electric utilities;
install a gravel driveway with parking area; construct three
boulder retaining walls (251 , 115' and 140' in length) and
regrade site; and revegetate disturbed areas.
Located: Brickyard Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-5-12.26
The Trustees conducted an inhouse review April 9th, 2025,
questioning what is the height of the retaining wall, and could
the house be moved any further landward than proposed.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. JUST: Once again, Glenn Just, agent for the applicant.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, Mr. Just, we see there is a bunch of
retaining walls on this plan, but we don't see an elevation for
those proposed.
MR. JUST: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Do you have any idea how high those are?
Board of Trustees 15 April 16, 2025
MR. JUST: The retaining walls?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, sir.
MR. JUST: I truly don't.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. And then in our discussion, it' s kind
of hard to tell based on the topography in the plans, but it
looked to us as potentially you can move that house further to
the northeast to kind of get it away from that bank/bluff. Maybe
get a little more level ground and further away from the bank,
kind of in the area where it looks like the driveway with the
cars are.
Would the applicant consider moving that to get it away
from the slope at all?
MR. JUST: I would have to discuss it with the architect and the
engineer, quite frankly. It's a very steep piece of property, as
you can see from the topos. I don't know what the zoning is
here, you know, what we need for setback as far as side yards
there or the front yard there. But I could easily get that
information, as well as the height of the retaining wall.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, please, because as you mentioned and as
it's shown there, there's a lot of different elevations on this
property. So, if we could move a proposed structure, you know, as
far away from the bank as possible, I think it would serve
everyone the best.
MR. JUST: Yeah, my other question with that is, you know, we are
more than 100 feet away from the wetlands line, so what are we
setting back, off the top of the back?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, it would be from the top of the bank. And
that's also a question, based on this, where exactly that top of
bank is, because on the plans I think it shows top of bank at
40-foot contour elevation. However, where the house is proposed
we are still at 50-60 feet. So that slope continues to go up.
So, there is a little discrepancy as far as where that top of the
bank actually is. Because there is, which could potentially be
a bluff on the seaward side, and then it seems to flatten out a
little bit. But then where the proposed house is, it increases
again.
So, it's a challenging property as far as the slopes go. But
it looks like, based on the plans submitted, the area a little
further northeast where the driveway and the cars are depicted,
looks to be kind of the higher ground, level ground. And it
seems like there is plenty of room to move in-that direction,
which was our concern.
MR. JUST: I 'll go back and discuss it. I know we had the
surveyor and the engineer go back three times and determine a
bank, a hill, a bluff.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No, it's a tough one. I think by definition
it's a bank, just because of the distance. But, you know, the
whole thing seems to slope down toward the water there. So if we
can get answers on the retaining walls and potentially if you
do, or your applicant decides to move that house, potentially
Board of Trustees 16 April 16, 2025
you might not need all those retaining walls as depicted.
MR. JUST: It's interesting to note as well, not to interrupt
you, we did have a letter of non-jurisdiction for the same exact
house prior to the change of the Town Code.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
MR. JUST: Which was only, I think, less than ten years ago.
Maybe seven, eight years ago.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I remember that being in the field, Glenn,
that bank from wetland line to that flat spot is pretty wooded.
It's nice to see it that way. And then --
MR. JUST: There is no intention of --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes, just to keep that natural. Yes.
Like I said, like Glenn said, it' s tough, even reviewing
photographs from that visit I took there that day, it comes up,
flattens off, comes up again. And it' s difficult topography, so
I appreciate the design challenge you have there.
MR. JUST: I've been involved with that site for a long time, so
I'm well aware --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yeah.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, hearing no further questions, I'll make
a motion to table this application so we can get a little more
information on the retaining walls and possibly relocating the
house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 2, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION &
PLANS RECEIVED 4/14/2025 En-Consultants on behalf of 920 CEDAR
POINT, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct an 807sq. ft.
Second-floor addition over part of one-story portion of existing
3, 338sq. ft. 1 & 2 story dwelling with attached garage to remain;
construct on landward side of dwelling a 336sq.ft. Two-story
addition (partially in place of existing 90sq.ft. Stoop with
arbor to be removed) ; 288sq.ft. Front porch addition, and
350sq.ft. Grade-level masonry entry patio/walkway; install a
6'x7 ' outdoor shower (piped to drywell) ; construct on west side
of dwelling a 51x8' landing with steps and 200sq. ft. Grade-level
masonry patio; remove existing conventional septic system and
install a new I/A sanitary system; install storm-water drainage
system; and to establish and perpetually maintain the area between
top of bank and bulkhead (excluding existing ll'x68 ' deck) , as a
vegetated non-turf buffer; and to establish and perpetually
maintain a 5' wide non-turf buffer adjacent to top of bank.
Located: 920 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-2-19
Board of Trustees 17 April 16, 2025
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Trustees visited the site originally on April 9th,
2025, noted that the pool is too close to the top of the bank,
needs to be pulled back a minimum of 50 feet as per Town Code.
In addition, the addition to the house is significant,
containing a large amount of additional structure.
It should be noted that since that field inspection I am in
receipt of new plans stamped received by the office April 14th,
2025, that .the pool has been removed from the application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicant. Michael Macrina, the project architect, is here.
As Nick just mentioned, there are two components to the
project as it was originally submitted. There is no expansion of
the house on the water side. There is no additional footprint
increase on the water side. There is no encroachment to
existing bank or wetland setbacks.
There is an addition proposed on the landward side of the
house, and there is a second story addition proposed in the
center of the house, over what is, over and within the existing
footprint. We have been careful to design the project that way.
Mr. Macrina has reviewed the plans carefully with the Building
Department to make sure that this would not test the threshold
of being a demolition. It's not. It' s a significant house, but
it's a significant lot.
The Town-defined lot coverage increases only to 13% from
the footprint expansion in the front, and that included the
swimming pool, which has ,now been removed.
It' s code compliant, with GFA, sky plane, all the new big
house regulations. We did talk about the setback to the proposed
swimming pool. It seemed clear that the Board was not going to
entertain less than a 50-foot setback here. Right now it' s
really of paramount importance to the owners to proceed with the
renovations, and so there was no way between then and tonight
they were going to be able to make a decision about what to do
about that, and where on the property it might be relocated, et
cetera.
So, we've simply withdrawn the pool and the pool patio
without prejudice from the application, and so now, as Nick
alluded to, the only thing in front of you tonight are the house
renovations.
There is a septic system on the property right now. It's, a
conventional system located less than 60 feet from mean high
water. That is going to be removed and replaced with a low
nitrogen IA system located at least 100 feet from mean high
water.
There is a proposed storm water drainage system to capture
and recharge runoff from the dwelling additions.
Also, we've noted that except for the footprint of the
Board of Trustees 18 , April '16, 2025
previously permitted deck that is adjacent to the bulkhead, we
are proposing to permanently establish the area between the
bulkhead and the top of the bank as a vegetated non-turf buffer,
and then proposed an additional five-foot wide non-turf buffer
at top of the bank in place of existing lawn.
So, we think really given the limitations of the project
within the footprint relative to all the environmental
mitigation being offered, it' s actually, it' s a nice project.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I would say the only follow-up
comments we had from work session were that we would like to see
that buffer added to a little bit. I know that that creates a
small amount of hardship where the structure is nearly hanging
over that bank. However, I think we have done enough of these
projects with you that you could probably figure out a pretty
simple design to work around that so that they could still have
access around that.
MR. HERRMANN: Uh, huh.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, if you have any thoughts on that tonight,
everything else seems pretty straightforward.
MR. HERRMANN: The only thing I can think of was if you were
thinking of like going with ten-foot non-turf, or something like
that, where we could keep that width maybe a little less than
that in that area of the angled portion of the house and kind of
swap that out a little bit farther back on the opposite end of
the property where the patio is removed, so that you would at
least have an average ten-foot, or something like that, from one
side to the other.
Is that something the Board would be amenable to?
Does that make sense, Mike?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sounds good to me.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Sure.
MR. HERRMANN: Great.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone else who would like to speak to
this application?' Or any additional comments from the Members
of 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 make a motion to approve this application
based off the plans stamped received by the office April 14th,
2025, with the following conditions:
That the work performed is not a demolition pursuant to
Chapter 280 of the Town Code. If the Building Department
determines that the work is a demolition, this permit is void at
the time that the determination is made. Any work thereafter
would require a new permit.
New plans to depict gutters to leaders to drywells. Also, to
depict a ten-foot ,buffer with the exception of along the top of
Board of Trustees 19 April 16, 2025
the bank, with the exception of the area where the living
structure juts out, and would require approximately four feet of
access around the home.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 3, En-Consultants on behalf of DOROTHY
PSATHAS SARGEANT TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace in-place approx. 119 linear feet of existing timber
bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; construct ±12' easterly return,
and backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards of clean sand to
be trucked in from an approved upland source; remove and replace
in-place existing ±244sq. ft. Grade-level deck landward of
bulkhead, ±4.5'x5.5' cantilevered landing and 3' by ±10.5 ' steps
to beach; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 15' wide
vegetated non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 1155 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-3-9
The Trustees visited the site on the 9th of this month. The
notes read: Vegetated buffer to include steep-sloped area on
bank and north side of property. And project for replacement
appears straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent
with its policies.
I welcome comments from the public at this time.
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of the
applicant.
This is a straightforward in-place bulkhead. Replacement
application. The one thing we did discuss, and I had actually,
as I said, I don't know really quite what happened. I intended
this from the get go.
Basically, there is that upslope that is naturally vegetated
now, and that area would be maintained and restored as
necessary, so basically I gave, I sent to Liz a revised project
description, that would, I think articulates the buffer clearly
enough, but basically it would be, the buffer would extend from
the bulkhead landward, up to the existing edge of lawn, but no
less than 15 feet.
So, in some places that' s right on the slope. It' s going to
maintain the existing buffer, and then closer to the southerly
property line and the yacht club it' s going to increase the
buffer beyond what is there now, up to 15 feet. And access is
not a problem through there because there is that little walkway
leading into the platform to be replaced.
Liz, you don't happen to have a copy of that e-mail I sent,
do you?
MS. CANTRELL: No.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay. Oh, I do. So, just for the record, the way I
rewrote it, just the last sentence: And established and
perpetually maintain a vegetated non-turf buffer landward of
Board of Trustees 20 April 16, 2025
bulkhead, at least 15-feet wide, and up to existing seaward edge
of lawn on slope. All as depicted on the project plan prepared
by En-Consultants last dated April 14th, 2025.
And I had e-mailed that plan to Liz earlier in the week,
but I just also handed her three hard copies of that plan. So if
she wants to pass one down, you can see that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Legal counsel is suggesting striking from
the current description ahead of us and then revising it.
MS. HULSE: Yes, I think we need to amend the description. You
want it to include --
MR. HERRMANN: It' s the underlying part. It's just the sentence
that describes the buffer.
MS. HULSE: It still needs to be --
MR. HERRMANN: It' s material, I know. That' s why I'm giving it to
you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Would you be submitting any new plans to
depict that?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, I just handed them up to you. Thank you, Liz.
MS. HULSE: So make a motion to amend the description and then
just read it and then you would approve the amended description.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right, I make a motion to amend the
written description.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The new description for the revised project
would read as follows:
Remove and replace in-place approximately 119 linear feet
of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; construct plus
or minus 12-foot easterly return, and backfill with
approximately 25 cubic-yards clean sand to be trucked in from an
approved upland source; remove and replace in-place existing
plus or minus 244 square feet grade-level deck landward of
bulkhead; plus or minus 4 .5' x 5.5' landing; and 3' x plus/minus
10.5' steps to beach; and establish and perpetually maintain a
vegetated non-turf buffer landward of bulkhead, at least 15-feet
wide, and up to existing seaward edge of lawn on slope as
depicted on the project plan prepared by En-Consultants last
dated April 14th, 2025.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That' s the amended description. Now we can
proceed. Does anyone else have any comments?
(Negative response) .
Questions or concerns regarding the upgraded project
description.
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close the
hearing.
Board of Trustees 21 April 16, 2025
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application
with the updated project description and plans, stamped received
April 16th, 2025.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 4, En-Consultants on behalf of KLVIN &
JOSEPHINE KLEIN request a Wetland Permit to construct a timber
dock comprised entirely of untreated materials, including
open-grate decking, consisting of a 41x50' fixed catwalk, a
31x12 ' metal ramp, and a 61x16' floating dock situated in a "T"
configuration and secured by two (2) 8-inch diameter piles.
Located: 2155 Laurel Way, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-121-4-20
The Trustees recently visited the site on April 9th of
2025, and Trustee Goldsmith noted: Dock length? And can it be
shortened?
The LWRP found this application to be inconsistent, noting
Laurel Lake is a critical environmental area; 6. 1, protect and
restore ecological quality throughout the Town of Southold.
Although the ecological complexes and individual habitats of
Southold continue to support large assemblages of plants and
animals, over time human activity has fragmented or otherwise
impaired many of the significant habitats.
The impacts that generally result from the construction of
fixed dock structures include the following: Vegetation,
physical loss. Structure placement, construction practices,
chronic shading. Wildlife - physical and functional loss. Loss
and/or impairment of habitat, destruction of habits and
migration patterns, structure and activity.
And then 9.3, preserve the public interest in and use of
lands and waters held in public trust held by the State and Town
of Southold. Limit grants, leases, easements, permits or lesser
interest in lands underwater in accordance with an assessment of
potential adverse impacts of the proposed use, structure or
facility, on public interest and public lands underwater.
In a 1983 cooperative agreement which is attached, with the
Town, the New York State DEC prohibited structure in Laurel Lake
to ensure adequate access to the fisheries and the lake, Rules
and Regulations Item F.
And there was an attachment also included, that referenced
that LWRP statement.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicant.
Elizabeth, I didn't, when you said that the LWRP
recommendation was, I didn't hear whether you said consistent or
Board of Trustees 22 April 16, 2025
inconsistent
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Inconsistent. And those were the notes
following up.
MR. HERRMANN: I know. Every dock is inconsistent, so I was like
surprised with this happy shock, that I thought you said
consistent.
So, this is a dock that is located two properties to the
south of the Sak' s dock., which is a much larger dock, which you
can see on the aerial photo, that was reconstructed a few years
ago.
We have specifically limited the dock so that it does not
extend significantly upland, and we have limited it to the
length of the adjacent dock to the north, which is kind of an, I
don't know what you would call it, a mosaic of fixed and
floating sections.
Sensitive to the fact that it is in Laurel Lake, the entire
dock is proposed to be constructed entirely of untreated
materials. In terms of the landscape as we mentioned at field
inspection, we have proposed a float for a couple of reasons.
One, because as you can see on the fixed dock to the north,
there is a little bit of variability in the water level of the
lake, and if you are actually using a dock for personal
watercraft, canoes, kayaks et cetera, it's much easier to get in
and out of those from a float, as opposed to a fixed dock that
is raised above the lake then has the additional benefit of
being set farther down on the landscape instead of a completely
raised, fixed dock structure the entire way out.
There is really no, I don't think there is any particular
benefit or lack thereof of one versus the other in that setting.
One of the things to consider in terms of the depth of the
watery, we are proposing around three-and-a-half feet, I don't
know, maybe 90 to 950 of the time the Board is dealing with
docks on tidal bodies which have to reach a minimum depth of
two-and-a-half feet. That means you're going to have a maximum
depth of five feet at high tide, or three-and-a-half feet or so
at mid tide. And that's kind of what we're going with here.
And it's not really driven as much by boat dockage as it
might be for larger boats on a tidal body, but just the
applicant' s desire to use the dock, you know, to swim off,
diving into something a little deeper than two-and-a feet, for
fishing, you know, trying to get out as far as you can into the
lake.
These are all long discussions I've had with him prior to
the design, and so obviously we would not request an excessive
length to accomplish those objectives, but that is why we are
keeping it the same length as the adjacent dock, and really this
is tucked in a cove, which you can see in the aerial, it's only
these two properties. This property and the one physically
adjacent to it to the north that has a dock.
So, there is certainly no conceivable impact here on public
Board of Trustees 23 April 16, 2025
use of the lake, or, navigation, or any of those issues.
So again, just the idea that it would be constructed
entirely of untreated materials, there is really no adverse
impacts to be expected from having a small dock along this piece
of developed waterfront, and just hope that the Board is
amenable to it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, Mr. Herrmann.
So, when the Board was reviewing this at work session, there
are a couple of things that we did discuss, one of which was the
fact that, you know, I know that you just spoke to the fact this
is not necessarily in a tidal area, though there is some
fluctuation. However, if we are looking at the water depth here,
it does appear that the dock could be pulled back, you know ten,
12, 15 feet, something like that.
The other thing that the Board was discussing, and if you
would not mind just clarifying for me. This is an application
for a new dock; is that correct?
MR. HERRMANN: That' s correct. I mean, what we talked about at
the site, you had noticed those floaters in the water. There was
a dock here, many, many years ago, and the remnants of that wood
are in the water. But that is not an existing or functional
dock, but there is some, you know, it' s worth making a note for
historical perspective that there was once a dock here, but we
are not hinging this application or presenting the application
as if it were a replacement, for example.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, I appreciate that clarification.
We did look a little bit further into the dock history
on that lake and noted that there were, let's see, I believe
eleven total docks, six of which have a permit, and- in reviewing
the permit history, they were all replacements of existing .
docks, which implies that they were semi-functional or
functional docks at that point. So, and then there are five that
have no permit whatsoever, which is the nature of a lot of these
structures that have been there for quite a while.
So we did discuss at length the fact that this is an
application for a brand new dock on Laurel Lake.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, we wouldn't contest that, and I don't think
we presented anywhere in the application that it' s a
replacement. Those floaters, again, were in the water to basically
as a guide to not step on the old wood, not to convince the Board
that there was a dock.
The Board does have a prohibition against docks in several
waterbodies in the town, I think that was updated recently.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That's correct.
MR. HERRMANN: I don't think Laurel Lake is on that list.
So we, if it were, we wouldn't be here, so there's no
legislative or regulatory prohibition that I'm aware of.
With respect to the length, since we did discuss that at
work session. I did look at the drawing. In fact, if you brought
the float back exactly eight feet you would basically be in
Board of Trustees 24 April 16, 2025
essentially the same water depth you are in now. You would be at
3.5 instead of 3. 6.
So, if I were looking at it from the Board' s perspective, I
would say the eight additional feet to gain one inch of water or
whatever, is not necessary.
So, since I could see that from your perspective, I would
not contest that. So, if the Board is looking for the dock to be
shortened, that is what I would ask you allow us to shorten it
by, that eight feet, because it's the point where we are not
really gaining any appreciable water depth.
If you cut it back the additional 15 feet or whatever you
mentioned, you start to lose about a half a foot of water there.
And again, we are trying to get to the idea that, you know, we
are looking for at least like sort of the mid-range of depth
that you would have in a tidal body where you would require 30
inches of water at low tide.
So that would be my ask that would enable us to cut it
back, and I would hope would satisfy that concern. We would of
course then be inland of the dock that is to the north, which I
don't know if you found has a permit or doesn't have a permit.
But it's physically there. It' s been there for years, so we use,
that as a guide.
It' s really the only adjacent property where there could be
a dock inside that cove.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: When I was referencing our review of the docks
and everything, we had not yet received the LWRP report. It' s
dated April 15th. So that was post work session. That was
Tuesday, after our work session on Monday. And then the
attachment that Mark Terry references that has some additional
code and notes, was received day, which is April 16th, on
Wednesday.
So, there is, I would say from my perspective as one
Trustee, I would like a chance to review some of these findings
a little bit further from the LWRP. Seeing as the fact that
there is, this is the first new dock application on Laurel Lake,
and I think that it would, some additional study would be
beneficial in this case.
MR. HERRMANN: That' s your prerogative.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would agree with that statement. And I would,
just for the record sake, disagree with the statement that Mr.
Herrmann made saying there would be no impact to public use
because it' s in a cove as a result of a new dock installation,
you know, over publicly entrusted bottom.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I would also add, I know you mentioned about
easy access from a float for a kayak or canoe, it's also easy
access from the shore for a kayak or canoe.
So, I believe you have a DEC permit for this?
MR. HERRMANN: We do.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Was there an elevation on that as far as the
height over anything.
Board of Trustees 25 April 16, 2025
MR. HERRMANN: Um, I e-mailed the permit to you but I'm not
seeing a copy of it in my file. I think it just came yesterday.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: We have a copy in our file.
MR. HERRMANN: Do you want me to look or do you want to look
yourself?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I'm looking at it right now. The section --
MR. HERRMANN: I think, Glenn, are you referring to something
that might be found in special conditions?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I just didn't know if, you know, usually the
DEC requires a dock a certain elevation over vegetation.
MR. HERRMANN: Oh, no. We did not --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
MR. HERRMANN: (Continuing) I mean there is a very light fringe
of some herbaceous wetland vegetation along the edge, and so you
can see in our section that we kind of started it where those
stakes are and just went out level. We didn't show a minimum
elevation there because we were trying to keep it low.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So if the DEC didn't require one and there
is not much tidal change in this location, you could construct a
dock that is pretty low- to the water that would negate the need
for a float for easy access.
MR. HERRMANN: So the DEC would normally require the elevation
over the wetland vegetation, not over the water.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Mr. Herrmann, would you like to approach and
take a look at what we have here in the file, just to refresh
your memory.
MR. HERRMANN: Sure. (Perusing at the dais) .
Glenn, is there potentially objection to the use of a float
here as opposed to having it fixed? I mean normally the Board
requires that if the water depth is insufficient. So I 'm just
wondering is there something different that is driving that
comment here?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I don't think there is another float on
Laurel Lake, correct? It's just with, as you stated, with access
for canoes kayaks, for fishing, for all the purposes you
mentioned, I don't believe that you need a float to accomplish
the goals of what your client is looking for.
MR. HERRMANN: Right.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So therefore, shortening of a dock to a fixed
dock could potentially give the same use as without having --
with having a float. You can construct it in a way that is low
to the water, easy access on, easy access off, for a kayak. As
• I said before, the easiest access on and off a kayak is from the
shore. But, you know, it's not like we have a tidal surge where
we need that float lower to the water to make access on and off
that easier, especially in a condition like this.
MR. HERRMANN: I guess I was just trying to understand, is there
a perception that the float is somehow worse than a fixed dock
section?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think the shading --
Board of Trustees 26 April 16, 2025
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Certainly the chronic shading and construction
practices and, you know, all of the above, which in terms of
aquatic species is, you know, a pretty lengthy studies on impact
of, you know, marine species with below 'fixed piers, especially
with thru-flow decking, but going back even before that, versus
a float that kind of moves around.
But I would piggyback on that, too, and just add, for
myself, to me it' s not so much float or fixed as much as this is
a very critical and sensitive habitat. And, you know, it' s a
new dock we certainly have not seen in decades.
MR. HERRMANN: Do you think it would make sense to have the Board
meet at the site again with the property owner to see if there
is some short of alternate design based on your review of those
comments that would be more acceptable?
Because I'm hearing cutting it back, I'm hearing switching
the float --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think we've got some new information here
from the LWRP that we have not had the benefit of reviewing and
going over. So, he may have a different look on it, on something
that we didn't know.
MR. HERRMANN: That' s what I'm asking, once you've had a chance
to review that, would it make sense to meet at the site --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we are familiar with this. I mean,
we've been to several neighboring properties, and most recently
this property in question, very recently, obviously. So I think
we are familiar enough with the site that we can continue this
conversation after, you know, careful LWRP review, at the
next public hearing.
MR.. HERRMANN: Okay. I'm just trying to figure out if there is a
plan that we can come in with that would be potentially
approvable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know of anything at this time.
MR. HERRMANN: Got it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And, again, from our perspective, from the
research we've done, we can't find a new dock application in
recent memory, in fact at least the 190s, on Laurel Lake. So we
really need to proceed with caution on something like that, in
regard to the environmental impact, and also with the LWRP
comments. So I think we need to take a closer look at this, for
all the reasons we stated.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I would agree with all those comments.
Do you wish to table this application?
MR. HERRMANN: I think following what Nick just said, yes, that' s
what we would have to do, yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, I make a motion to table this application
for further review of the LWRP, due to the critical
environmental area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 27 April 16, 2025
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, En-Consultants on behalf of ALYSE
TICKER requests a Wetland Permit to demolish (Per Town Code
Definition) , and reconstruct in-place an existing 1, 692.8sq.ft.
One-story dwelling with 519.lsq.ft. Attached seaward/west deck,
289.4sq.ft. Seaward side porch, and basement steps; construct a
779.3sq.ft. Second floor and 7 .31x24 ' balcony over reconstructed
seaward side porch roof; remove existing 43. 9sq.ft. Front/east
porch, and construct an 8. 6sq.ft. One-story addition, 36.5sq.ft.
Unconditioned front porch, 29.3sq.ft. Unenclosed/covered front
porch with steps; and 173.5sq. ft. One-story garage addition;
connect new leaders and gutters to existing drywell; connect to
recently upgraded septic system; and to maintain the existing
covenanted 12-foot-wide non-turf buffer between the bulkhead and
retaining wall.
Located: 1685 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-7-8
The Trustees conducted a field inspection May 9, 2025, only
questioning if there was any septic upgrade proposed.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent. Notes that a
12' wide non-turf buffer is required pursuant to covenants and
restrictions filed September 30th, 2021.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant Alyse Ticker. The applicant herself is here.
It is a reasonably straightforward application. There is
significant renovation going on with the house. All of it is
within or over existing footprints except for the proposed
attached garage addition in the front of the house.
As you mentioned, there is a covenanted non-turf buffer
adjacent to the bulkhead.
The question regarding the septic, we had mentioned there
was an older conventional septic system that was replaced in
June of 2021, with a Health Department approved system.
That there was a sanitary upgrade in June of 2021, a 1,250
septic tank and new leaching pool were installed. Those are
shown on the site plan. And there is no change in use or
increase in bedrooms. And we have had an engineer certify that
that system is and remains code compliant and sufficient for the
renovation as there is again no increase, no change in bedroom
count. r
The existing deck on the water side of the house remains in
place, other than the possibility of it being redecked, which we
noted structurally it's sound, and also the entire roofed
portion of the house, which will remain the roofed portion of
the house, is set in line and compliance with the existing pier
line.
I think that covers it, but if I missed anything or you
have any questions.
Board of Trustees 28 April 16, 2025
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, there is also, from the ZBA, it does have
an approved Suffolk County Department of Health septic system.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. I actually have a letter and copies of those
approvals from the engineer if you want me to submit them for
the record. If it's not necessary, I won't. But they had to go
through this review for that purpose.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else here
wishing to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Any 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
as submitted.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 6, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On
behalf of MAUREEN DACIMO REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland
Permit to replace bulkheading and perform modifications to the
marina layout consisting of - In Area "A" remove and dispose of
the existing 261x64 ' over the water Structure "A" and 26 support
pilings; remove and dispose of ±285' of existing bulkheading and
construct new 291.2' vinyl bulkheading; install a new 41x67 '
floating dock, and a 31x10' aluminum ramp with three (3) anchor
pilings, and six (6) mooring pilings in same area as previously
existing mooring pilings; in Area "A" for the existing 6, 511
sq.ft. Gravel driveway; a 34' timber curb; existing docking
consisting of 10 mooring pilings, 61x7' platform to a 3'x10'
ramp to a '41x100' floating dock with one 2 .51x14 ' finger float,
one 2.5'x15 ' finger float and three 2.51xl2' finger floats to be
temporarily removed and replaced. In Area "B", remove and
dispose of 93' of existing bulkhead and construct 93' of vinyl ,
bulkhead in-place using vinyl sheathing; and for the existing
structures consisting of 1, 364sq.ft. Asphalt driveway to boat
ramp area, 62 linear feet of picket fence, a 1, 896sq.ft. Brick
patio, a 119sq. ft. Gravel area, an 823 sq. ft. Wood deck and a
33sq.ft. Overhang deck; and to dredge an area (approx.
13, 897sq.ft. ) To 4 ' below Mean Low Water elevation 0.0' removing
approx. 875 cubic yards of spoil with all dredged material to
remain on site.
Located: 5240 Narrow River Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-27-2-4
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The LWRP coordinator found this to be
consistent, and just noted that turbidity screens are required
during all construction.
Board of Trustees 29 April 16, 2025
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 9th of
April, and noted that they would review further at work session.
There are also two letters in the file, the first being
from Orient Fire District in support of the maintenance and
repairs needed for the docks at Narrow River Marina, for their
use in responding to emergencies.
The second letter is from a Joe O'Leary, saying that he
would like this letter read into the Minutes at the Board
meeting:
In regards to the covered slip building, the issues are at
times of high tide, the fixed dock is in water. Customers can not
safely access their boat. In extremely low. water there is a
safety hazard that needs addressing. I kept my boat there two
different times during two different decades, and it' s since
deteriorated tremendously, and it is of grave concern both for
safety and erosion to the environment around the parking lot,
the covered boat area, as. well as sitting around said docks.
The birds flying out and defecate on my and other boats.
During extreme high tides, the overhead limits boats that
can dock there safely. Regarding the bulkheads, they have
deteriorated and require replacement.
I see this as very necessary to maintain the integrity of
the location, as well as the environmental impact that has been
occurring by not doing anything over many years.
The Trustees should consider granting this a permit for
safe access and wetlands management.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant. I would
also point out the applicant Maureen Dacimo is here, and our
comments will be brief and to the point, because we have none.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any comments from the Members of the Board?
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE) : Yes. My name is Robert --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Can you just step up to the podium there and
just read your name into the record? And we might request a
spelling on that, too.
MR. SPATNY: Yes. My name is Robert Spatny, S-P-A-T-N-Y. I live
on a property adjacent to the subject property at 4045 Narrow
River Road.
I did receive a set of plans since I'm in the radius of the
application.
I have a couple of questions. One is, it indicates that
there are going to be dredging and removing of about 875 cubic
yards of material. As far as I could tell, the plans don't
indicate where that material is going to be stored.' It says it
will be stored onsite, but doesn't indicate where onsite it will
be stored. I would like an answer to that question.
Board of Trustees 30 April 16, 2025
The second question, I'm wondering, is there going to be an
increase in the number of slips that will be provided at the
marina?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Mr. Costello, would you like to speak to
those points?
MR. COSTELLO: No increase in slips, and the materials will stay
onsite, and it' s going to be by where they call the train barn,
the one, big, open lot that is adjacent to the road. You know,
so if you come around the corner, that's where the fill is going
to be stored.
MR. SPATNY: And it will be spread onsite at some point in time?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. It's going to be primarily a berm to protect
that area.
MR. SPATNY: I see. Along .those pine trees?
MR. COSTELLO: Exactly. Just inside --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can't communicate, as you know, back and
forth. So, sir, if you would like to speak again, please stand
back up.
MR. SPATNY: The questions have been answered.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Great. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, standard, you'll dewater it and then
spread it onsite.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, it's going to stay right there by those
Leland Cypress trees, like as a berm.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Great. Is there anyone else that would like to
speak regarding this application?
MS. DACIMO: Maureen Dacimo. Just in response to Mr. Spatny. It
will be in the corral behind the bushes. The dredge spoils will
be within the corral, behind the bushes, not on the roadside.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Great. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any additional comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. COSTELLO: Thank you, guys, very much.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 7, Islandwide Engineering & Land
Surveying on behalf of 185 OLD WOOD PATH TRUST, c/o BRIDGET
JACOBER requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing
sanitary system and replace with a new I/A type sanitary system
at a more landward location; add 20 cubic yards of clean fill to
surround the new sanitary system as required to raise grade to -
meet groundwater separation; and install silt fencing around the
Board of Trustees 31 April 16, 2025
work area until site is fully stabilized.
Located: 185 Old Wood Path, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-1-1
The Trustees visited the site on the 9th of April during
field inspections, and found the project to be straightforward
project. The question is where is the location of the fill to be
deposited.
Improvement on moving multiple septic locations landward
and installing an IA/OWTS system.
The LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent and
recommended that the tank and Dranco pump be relocated outside
of flooding zone threats to the greatest extend.
I welcome comments from the public and Members of the
Board.
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant, from
Islandwide Engineering and Land Surveying.
The proposed plan, as you have seen, and staked in the
field is to remove two existing sanitary systems that are
immediately adjacent to the wetlands. They are both two old,
outdated systems; replacing those with the new IA-style tank, a
pump chamber, and then going up to three leaching galleys which
are at the furthest point on the property we can get away from
the wetlands.
So the new system is going to be replacing two existing
systems, outdated systems. We did move the leaching chambers as
far away as we can from' the wetlands, and the comments regarding
the IA tank and the pump, design-wise, we can't move them any
closer, any further away from the house. They have to be close
to the house for this type of system to operate properly. And
they are fully-sealed systems. No water can get into them, no
water can get out of them. No effluent can get in or out, other
than through the internal piping. And they do have buoyancy, so
there is, in the case of high tides, holds them down on the
ground.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you, for answering those questions.
To me, it strikes me as a marked improvement in the overall
environmental footprint of the structure, to improve the system,
and appreciate that you found a way to make it happen.
Are there any other comments from the public or the Member
of the Board?
(Negative response) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Hearing no further comment, I make a motion
to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 32 April 16, 2025
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 8, Baptiste Engineering on behalf of
ALLISON CM FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to install
gabion walls by removing a seaward portion of the non-pervious
driveway, remove existing steps, wood benches and planters on
the bank; install 3' wide gabion walls of varying height of 3'
to 4.5' high, and 61 , 121 , 15' , 211 , 54 ' and 63' in lengths to
be installed along the west side, along toe of bank, and two
walls along the east side of the property; existing fill removed
to install gabion walls to be used as backfill to level out the
rear yard; install 3' wide vegetated buffers landward of the
property lines along the west and east gabion walls; and install
a set of 6' wide stairs to beach between walls.
Located: 820 East Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-110-7-22
The Trustees most recently visited the site on April 9th,
2025. Trustee Krupski noted: Purpose is to regain and to
prevent loss of property. 4.5 ' gabion walls have exposure times
two. The source of erosion coming from driveway runoff and steep
slope. Six-foot wide steps are excessive. Concrete steps should
be removed. Removal of driveway trench drain and coir fiber logs
would likely solve the problem with much less hard structure and
impact.
The LWRP found this application to be consistent.
And we are in receipt of a letter from Pat Moore, Attorney
at Law: Dear Trustees, my office has been retained by Richard
Kilbride, the adjoining neighbor of the above-referenced
property. And they made several notes in here. As per my
client, the elevations are incorrect. The wall heights and
borders simply do not match the reality of the situation.
The heights provided for the elevation top of wall and
bottom in many cases, do not sync with the major elevations on
this survey. And we are given top views only.
It is impossible, therefore, to understand what the actual
height of the proposed walls would be above grade in certain
locations.
We would request side views or elevations from the
designer. With regard to the drainage, the Allison' s do have a'
long, paved driveway, which channels water from East Road down
toward the dune area plantings. Drainage aspects are missing in
this plan. The Allison family cites erosion as a primary problem
driving the project. As the downhill neighbor of the Allison's
for nearly 50 years, we have seen or been exposed to no amount
of erosion to justify the scope of the project being discussed.
We would like to ensure that water is not redirected to my
client's property, located at 860 East Road in Cutchogue.
We are pleased to note the comment that no fill is to be
used, but also observed pink-flagged markers marked "wall" go
well beyond the Allison bay-frontage slope.
Out client is seeking additional information regarding how
this will come together. They have enjoyed the neighborly
relationship with the family for nearly 50 years, though the
Board of Trustees 33 April 16, 2025
proposed scope and its industrial appearance, baskets of rocks
that are six-feet high, facing their property, do not belong in
this residential environment.
If a side-view elevation can clear this up that has minimal
visual impact and is esthetically designed to contemplate the
unique nature of the environment, we would approach it with an
open mind.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this'
application?
MS. BAPTISTE: Yes, I do. Good evening, my name is Schillivia
Baptiste of Baptiste Engineering, with offices at 1581 Franklin
Avenue, Floor 2, in Mineola. New York, representing an
application entitled residence, located at 820 East Road,
Cutchogue, New York, referred to in the Suffolk County Tax Map
and Assessor' s roll as District 1000, Section 110, Block 7, Lot
22, and the applicant is the Allison CM Family Trust.
The goal of the application is to support the environmental
protection of the property that exists today, realizing that
what has been lost due to erosion, has been lost. But what
remains can be stabilized and maintained for use by the owners
and their family, while still preserving the view to the
neighboring adjacent property owners, and the views along the
Little Peconic Bay.
The preservation of the existing property is the goal. If
we do nothing, erosion continues, and that is what we don't want
and least desire.
Preservation of steep slopes are usually provided by
different means: Retaining walls, gabion walls and geo --
synthetic mats, to name a few. Gabion walls have been accepted
as a softer solution of a hard structure versus concrete because
of the esthetic look, as well as the ability for plantings to
grow through the gabion baskets, and act as re-enforcement to
the gabion baskets while promoting the propagation of native
plantings.
In reviewing the Trustees comments, the recommendation for
the installation of coir logs was recommended. And that was a
document I received yesterday. And it should be noted that coir
logs are a short-term fix, as they are a temporary solution,
that depending on future storm events will require maintenance,
probably on average every five years.
Again, this is dependent on hundred-year storms, and as
we've seen in the last decade they have been more numerous. We
are open to exploring all options recommended by the Board of
Trustees, with the understanding that a temporary fix will
require routine upkeep by the applicant.
We believe that the gabion wall was a viable solution to
preserve the land that exists. Our concern is also not only of .
our property, but also the adjacent property owners. We believe'
that stabilization of our property would also minimize soil
disturbance, which has occurred over the years with some of the.
Board of Trustees 34 April 16, 2025
shrubs, onto the adjacent property owner's property.
Some of the existing soils on the property include Carver
implement soils and those normal slopes include a natural state
of 15% to 35%. These soils are known to allow drainage at a
rapid rate to encourage replenishment of groundwater. With this
high rate of drainage also comes erosion for soils not
stabilized.
I believe that the applicant is in agreement with the
Trustees in wanting to preserve the natural landscape of the
property, while not ignoring the state of what time and nature
has brought the property to, and we would like the opportunity
to address the comments that were recorded in the field notes so
we can come to a mutual agreement.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much. So, a couple of things.
We appreciate your interest in exploring multiple options, and I
think the way that this Board in particular looks at the
situation on the property, which it is clear that there has been
erosion, that that is a viable concern, the comment that, you
know, to keep what, you know, to get back what we had or the
loss of property, technically there is not a loss of property.
It's just been displaced or moved to a different portion within
the tax map. So, I think when we are talking about a property
that is adjacent to the, has an underwater aspect to it, and
perhaps some of that has been eroded, and there is no longer
physically land there in that place where there was, or due to
sea level rise, et cetera, I think we obviously look at that
differently. But in those cases, we often do not allow a
reclaiming of land lost.
So, I think that is something that is important to convey
this evening, is that, you know, we understand the need to
stabilize the property, and to make sure that it' s safe, that
the home is safe, the structure on the property is safe, but I
think there's some other ways perhaps to look at that.
The biggest thing that we notice on the property is there
is a very long asphalt driveway that comes off of East Road, and
the fact that that kind of wrapped around on the seaward side of
the house, indicates that perhaps that is a major portion of the
erosion and contribution to the erosion. By pulling back the
driveway, which we noted has been done here on the plan,
additionally, the installing a trench drain that is connected to
a drywell would encapsulate any of that additional runoff. And ,
then up against that edge of the asphalt driveway here, kind of
on the seaward edge of that termination, it begins immediately
these gabion walls. Having some sort of vegetation in that
area, in addition to a trench drain and then Trustee Krupski' s
comment about the coir logs, or perhaps a different sort of
landscape path that would have to include -- and I don't mean a
physical path, I mean a direction -- in addition to some native
vegetation and plantings, should help secure some of that area,
and so that would reduce the erosion.
Board of Trustees 35 April 16, 2025
That' s sort of the comments that we had during work
session. And I think the concern about the scale of the gabion
walls and baskets, they are quite wide and quite deep. And I,
there was that note in the letter about the fill. I would like
you to address that as well. Because it seems like there would
be fill required in your plan, and I think, you know, obviously
any sort of restoration would require a certain amount of fill,
but I think that is something that the Board would like to see
as minimal as possible.
MS. BAPTISTE: Thank you, for your comments, Trustee Peeples. I
do want to note that I did take initiative to begin to
incorporate some of your comments from the field. I have a
little sketch here, I don't know if I could present it, but it
includes the trench drain, along with the drywell, to catch the
water coming down from the roadway.
So, we are working diligently to address your comments and
just need some more time to actually look into the coir logs and
how that could be incorporated.
I did walk with some pictures of the plantings that we
propose, if you would like to see those as well.
We have the beach plums, and we also have Northern
Bayberries. So can I bring those up.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Sure. And we can have them stamped and
incorporate them into the file, if you would like.
MS. BAPTISTE: I'll bring the plans too, but I'll send the full
copy signed and sealed.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, that sounds good.
MS. BAPTISTE: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, I would just like to add, and I appreciate
the, you know, back and forth, and the willingness to work on
this. Because I think we are headed in a positive direction.
We see situations like this a lot, and even on a much
greater scale. And often times we're dealing with, you know, a '
bluff on the Sound, and just trying, by stabilizing the toe, it
eventually locks in the whole feature.
One thing I just wanted to speak to, and DEC is actually,
this is one thing they're, I think pretty good 'at, - is they start
with the least impactful 'project first and work their way up,
which I'm sure you're familiar with.
MS. BAPTISTE: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was sort of the comment about the coir
logs. And we actually see a lot of those. And I would more spin
it as not so much as a temporary fix, as much as it allows for
the vegetation, the natural vegetation to establish, and then
once you get a good root system there, there, that' s going to
really take over. Especially with, I mean, this is a beautiful
piece of property and a beautiful spot here in town, and you
have this natural bank that rolls down into this dunal area.
And I think we want to try to preserve as much of that natural
feature, while understanding that you do have a home that you
Board of Trustees 36 April 16, 2025
are trying to protect.
And I do think that pulling back that road with the trench
drain and the drywell is going to go a long way. I also think on
this particular property at this time, you know, you have the
privet along the driveway going down, and then that one bush,
which might be a yew, I don't quite remember, but they are
essentially, slowly, year by year, down the slope at this point.
It might benefit from just some native plantings, low level
plantings, some of which you have submitted here, and then some
coir logs tied all together, maybe a year or two of temporary
irrigation, and I think that whole bank will lock in nicely, to
be honest with you.
We have seen it before, time and time again, like I said
this is not really a new situation, and I think at this point
the privet are probably doing more harm than good going down the
side. So that would be my two cents.
MS. BAPTISTE: Thank you, Trustee Krupski.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just to piggyback on what Trustee Krupski
said, we do see this, however this one is a little unique in the
fact that the erosion is coming from the landward side. We
normally see it. coming from the seaward side.
So, if you can address that issue that' s coming from upland,
I think you would alleviate your problem. Also, probably at a
cost saving to your client, not having to go with the hardened
structure, address the root cause of the erosion, which is
coming from upland, not on the seaward side, and doing some
native plantings to address any excessive runoff after you put
the trench drain and permeable bulk driveway further seaward, I
think that would eliminate your problem, at a much less cost to.
your applicant.
MS. BAPTISTE: Thank you. If I could just go back a little bit to
answer your question about the sand. The fill is going to be
bulk-weighted sand and gravel compacted 12-inch lifts.,
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: With the gabion wall design, I believe.
MS. BAPTISTE: With the gabion wall design.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: The hope is that potentially by revisiting the
design, understandable that there would need to be some fill
brought in for some of the vegetation, native vegetation and all
of that, to keep that at minimum, that would be great.
And to, Trustee Krupski was noting kind of a comparison
with a bluff and, you know, how sometimes there is a toe to kind
of secure that, I think it seemed like there was a need to do
some sort of loose rock down there, on a small scale, of course.
This is not, you know, some way to kind of contain that. I
think that would not necessarily be, you know, looked down upon.
Again -- well, not again, but we try not to design projects. I
realize we've put out a lot of suggestions, and I think that' s
because we do feel like it is a beautiful property and
understand there are concerns with this, with the current state
of it, so.
Board of Trustees 37 April 16, 2025
MS. BAPTISTE: Thank you. Might we consider a conditional
approval, with the addressing the comments from the work session
and the field notes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I feel, as one Trustee, this would be quite a ,
bit of a design change on the project. I would like to see
drawings that would reflect, any of the comments that you
incorporated into your design, to review that fully.
MS. BAPTISTE: Okay, I can submit that, yes. Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And thank you for working through all this. We
appreciate that.
MS. BAPTISTE: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Having said all that, I 'll make a motion to
table the application.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Number 9, JOSEPH BUCZEK & CHRISTINA SPORNBERGER request a
Wetland Permit for the existing two-story dwelling (1, 858sq.ft.
Main floor footprint, 677 sq.ft garage footprint; 3, 516 total
sq.ft living space) with existing 1, 743sq.ft. North/northeast
decks, existing 98sq.ft. North/northeast connecting stairwells
and existing 518sq. ft. Detached northwest deck; construct a
91sq.ft. Second-story south .dormer addition onto dwelling; a
337sq.ft. Second-story north/northeast dormer addition onto
dwelling; a 28sq.ft. First-story west addition (by enclosing an
existing exterior porch) ; two 14 .25sq. ft. First-story
north/northeast cantilevered additions; repair in its entirety
the existing 518sq. ft. Detached northwest deck; resurface/repair
as needed the existing 1, 768.5sq. ft north/northeast decks and
98sq.ft. North/northeast connecting stairwells consisting of a
518sq. ft. Detached northwest deck, a 857sq.ft. Wood deck
attached to dwelling down to attached 167sq. ft. West wood deck,
off north end of 857sq.ft. Deck steps down to a 78sq. ft. Wood
deck to 30sq.ft steps to a 50sq. ft. Wood deck and 13sq.ft. Bench
to 32sq.ft. Stairs to a 73.5sq.ft. Wood deck to a 25.5sq.ft.
Wood deck to 36sq.ft. Stairs to beach; demolish existing
24sq.ft. South stone front porch with steps to ground and
construct a 32sq.ft. South covered stone front porch with steps
to ground; add 6sq.ft. west stone porch; existing 16sq. ft.
Enclosed outdoor shower; decommission and remediate existing
1, 000-gallon south oil tank; install three south 5" diameter 350
feet deep closed-loop geothermal wells; re-shingle roof and
siding; move and replace windows; remove existing asphalt
driveway and install asphalt or pavers using existing footprint;
and to maintain the existing vegetated on the embankment.
Located: 1605 North Parish Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-71-1-15
The Trustees conducted a field inspection April 9th, 2025,
Board of Trustees 38 April 16, 2025
needs submission of pier line showing immediate adjacent
structures. Also condition gutters to leaders to drywell on
entirety of house.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is the as-built structure was constructed without
a Wetlands permit.
We did receive new aerials dated April 9th, 2025, that
shows the pier line and shows the existing house seaward of that
pier line in certain sections.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application.
MR. BUCZEK: Good evening. Joseph Buczek.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I know we talked about this in the field, and
thank you, for submitting the aerial. But as we see from the
aerial, part of your existing structure, the living structure,
already exceeds the pier line. So, we did talk about in the field
we did not want to see any extension of any part of the house
further seaward than the existing, since it's already exceeding
the pier line.
Another question, too. This is not, did not meet the
definition of a demo; is that correct?
MR. BUCZEK: As far as I know it has not met the definition of a
demo, correct.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. So, as I said, the proposal that you
submitted here stamped received March 31st, 2025, shows two
bump-outs area of living space cantilevered additions, on the
seaward side. So, as we just discussed, this house already is
seaward of the pier line. We would need to modify that to remove
any sort of extension, any further seaward.
MR. BUCZEK: That would be for both or just --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: For both. Yes, sir.
MR. BUCZEK: Okay. Well, I guess the proposal would be that we
would remove both cantilevered additions, but keep everything
else intact.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The only other part that we didn't, maybe I
missed it on these plans, was there a proposed buffer on the
seaward side •of the house?
MR. BUCZEK: Sorry, I don't understand that question.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, what you have there, you have your house,
you have the deck, and you gave grass that goes right to the top
of the bank that slopes down. So, what we would like to see is a
vegetated non-turf buffer, something other than grass, say, you
know, seaward of your deck, that way it, you know, helps for
erosion, helps to mitigate any pesticides, fertilizers, things
likes that, from going down the slope towards the wetland.
So that would be --
MR. BUCZEK: I mean, as it stands right now, our grass line
doesn't go right to the edge. There is a buffer that I did not
measure but I would estimate is probably three to four feet in,
that is mulched and planted with lavender and St. John' s root
Board of Trustees 39 April 16, 2025
that hopefully will take hold over time.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I will make a motion to approve this
application with the condition that the two areas of living
space cantilevered addition that were proposed, be removed from
the plans; new plans submitted showing removal of those seaward
extensions, as well as note of a non-turf buffer seaward of the
existing deck. And by giving it a permit will bring it into
consistency with the LWRP. And submission of new plans, if I
didn't say that before.
MR. BUCZEK: May I ask a question? What size buffer --
MS. HULSE: One second, sir.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we closed the hearing and made a motion. So
just bear with us.
That's your full motion, right?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That's my full motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we were leaning toward five, right?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yup. So that mulched area that you have, that
counts, so it's just -- that mulched area you already have
counts as part of that non-turf buffer. We would just need the
new set of plans that shows that five foot with the line across
as a non-turf buffer when you submit the new plans.
MR. BUCZEK: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have a good night.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Have a good night.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 10, Cole Environmental Services on
behalf of DAVID VENER & ELLEN WEINSTEIN requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 4 'x158' fixed dock with Thru-Flow decking,
and a 6'x20' fixed platform in a "T" configuration' at terminus;
establish and perpetually maintain a 4' wide access path to
fixed dock; install a proposed 227sq.ft. Circular patio in rear
yard surrounded by a ±2 ' high and 34 ' long retaining wall and a
seaward ±2. 6' tall by 38.8' long retaining wall; existing 12 '
long masonry stone retaining wall to be resituated; install
proposed stone steps and .stepping stone paths for access; with
native vegetation to be planted between the two proposed
retaining walls.
Located: 2793 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-8-7. 6
Board of Trustees 40 April 16, 2025
The Trustees most recently visited the property on the 9th
of April, noted that the retaining wall and -patio close to the
top of the bank, should likely be moved bank. Potential concern
of the dock for more of an, "I" configuration to move it off the
property line.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
design does not meet Chapter 275 dock standards; the proposed
configuration creates potential navigation hazards and a cluster
of dock structures.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. RUMMEL: Kate Rummel, Cole Environmental.
Yes, this assignment does have a few restrictions because
of the neighboring structure, which we spoke about onsite, which
completely crosses the extension of our client's property lines.
So, which is why our proposal is to push it as far to the
northern property line as possible. But I will speak with our
client about the "I" configuration, to see if we can pull that
back. I 'm going to guess just ending at the same location, like
at the end of where we have the "T" now?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If by rotating it, the thought was, I mean I
know it' s not as ideal, but, you know, we did some permit
history here, and probably in the ' 60s when these docks were
originally put in, there was very many less docks, certainly
less houses, and they probably were not thinking about what is
this going to look like in 2025.
So, although it's not perfect, if you could pull that dock
in slightly and reduce length slightly and rotate to an "I", I
think it will still be functional. And if you can bring that as
far off that property line as possible, I think that would be
beneficial.
So there probably some way to work with you here, but
that's the direction I think we need to head.
MS. RUMMEL: Okay, so just, I mean, to maintain some semblance of
depth, I mean we can, you know, I'm sure the clients will be
okay with, you know, an "I" terminating where the "T"
terminates. So that's pulled back from the property line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can take a look at it when you bring it in.
In my head I was envisioning something further back, so just
keep that in mind. So rather than going back and forth you
should probably design it and bring it in in front of us so we
can take a look at it.
MS. RUMMEL: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And then just speaking to the other comments,
we talked about pulling back that structure probably to the sand
area. And I would include in this, because I'm not sure of the
full history on this house, but it's very, very close to the
bank, and if this Board had had a, you know, if it had come
before us, I think the house would probably be in a slightly
different location, certainly further away from what is a
Board of Trustees 41 April 16, 2025
bank/bluff area.
So, if you could include a pretty good buffer with this
project and any, you know, other project here on the future
plans, I think it would be beneficial.
MS. RUMMEL: Yes, because I looked at previous wetland permits
and I know we spoke that you thought there might have been a
permitted buffer there, but I didn't see --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yeah, I think you're right. So, if we can
include that in this, I think it would be helpful for all
parties involved.
MS. RUMMEL: Okay, instead of pulling the fire pit back all the
way to like the existing sandpit, would the Board be amenable to
it maybe on that, like where it transitions from the buffer to
the --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would say if that's what your client wants, I
would apply for it and we can take another look. Where it was, I
think was certainly too far seaward, and again, I think that
whole house, if they wanted more room back there, the house
should have been pulled back another 20-40 feet, then they could
have had the opportunity to do probably a lot more hardscaping
back there.
MS. RUMMEL: In that their defense, they did not build it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh, no, I understand that. And we certainly
didn't get a bite at that apple, so.
So, I would say submit new plans with those two things,
trying to keep in mind we are trying to pull back as close to
that sand area as possible, if not in there; adding the buffer
and then pulling that dock off the property line as far as
possible, with the understanding those are permitted docks that
do cross over the seaward projection.
MS. RUMMEL: Okay, and are you looking for the buffer just to be
along the bank transition?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would include it, I mean, I would include it
as far down as we are going with the dock structure, because
there is a pretty, it is -- although the house is way too far
seaward, I think it's fair to say, there is actually a
beautiful, natural buffer there. It would be nice to see that
preserved, especially when the rest of the property is so
heavily landscaped, fertilized, treated, you know, sod, you
know, probably the 15-step program there. So, those are just our
notes from field inspection, work session.
MS. RUMMEL: Okay, so, yes, if we could just table this and I'll
go back to the clients.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to speak
regarding this application, or any additional comments from the
Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application for the
submission of new plans.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
Board of Trustees 42 April 16, 2025
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 11, Martin Finnegan, Esq. On behalf
of STEPHEN & HEIDI DISTANTE requests a Wetland Permit for the
removal of existing 28. 9'xl4. 9' wood platform adjacent to
bulkhead, 12'x4.10' wood bin, 151x10' sunroom with deck over,
31x5. 6' platform, circular steps, demolish existing attached
garage, remove 6'x4 ' porch, 8 'xl2' shed and ramp, 850sq.ft. Of
asphalt driveway, 140sq.ft. Brick walk and 205sq. ft. Slate
walkway; in location of demolished attached garage construct
living space consisting of a 16. 11x27. 1' area with a 16.11x7.0'
landward addition; construct a 26. 81xl01x24.31x6.5' first floor
deck on west side with a 26.8'x10' second story deck above, and
a 24.3'x6.5' deck and 6.31x40' walkway to 4 ' wide fold-back
stairway to grade with an 8 .31x4 ' landing; construct a 41x4 '
outdoor shower, an 18.81x6' east covered porch; enclose 41x5'
recess on west side; construct a 23. 9'x24' detached one-story
garage; install 38. 4sq.ft. Stone paver landing at the base of
the porch stairs; install a 2, 600-3, OOOsq.ft. Crushed stone,
free form style driveway with a 75sq.ft. Paver apron and a
24 'x6' slab on grade walkway; and to install gutters to leaders
to drywells to contain roof runoff.
Located: 260 Sunset Way, Southold. SCTM# 1000-91-1-6
The Trustees met Mr. Finnegan in the field at the location
on the 9th of April. Notes read: Straightforward. The
structure is moving landward.
The LWRP found the project to be consistent.
I welcome comments from Mr. Finnegan and anyone else who
wishes to speak.
MR. FINNEGAN: Good evening. Martin Finnegan, 13250 Main Road,
Mattituck, for the applicant. I'm joined here this evening by
Mark Schwartz who is the project architect.
I think you kind of said it all, Eric, but it' s a pretty
straightforward project, kind of ripping off what is on the back
and replacing it with eye-level decks along the whole back.
There' s going to be a little stairway down the side. Most of the
rest of the work is landward with the new garage. They are going
to rip up the asphalt driveway, they'll put down gravel. So, it's
all good stuff.
So, if there are any questions, I'm happy to answer them
right now.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I have no questions. Do any members of the
Board have any questions or comments? Or members of the public?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comments or questions, I'll make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 43 April 16, 2025
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 12. REVISED PLANS SUBMITTED 4/2/25
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 Trustees most recently visited the site -- excuse me.
The Trustees visited the site on 3/12/25, and noted recommend
shifting house away from wetland as far as possible, as close to
100 feet as possible; compare buffer to past application which
was approved.
And the Trustees most recently reviewed the revised plans
on April 14th, 2025, noted that the house has been moved further
landward, closer to the 100-foot mark, and 15-foot buffer should
be vegetated and deemed non-disturbance in perpetuity.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
based on the updated plans, and recommends all vegetation around
the wetlands be maintained as a non-disturbance buffer, and the
pool location is adjusted to avoid removal of the trees.
This is dated Wednesday, April 9th, so prior to the new
submission, I believe. Excuse me, after the new submission.
And the LWRP found this application to be consistent.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MS. POYER: Good evening. Lisa Poyer, with Twin Forks Permits,
on behalf of the applicant.
Board of Trustees 44 April 16, 2025
The revised plans which you have in your file do show all
the structures, including the patios pushed back to be 100 feet
or greater on the project. The applicant has agreed to the
additional 15-foot buffer which was part of the original permit,
that was issued previously. That is in addition to an existing
buffer on the property already of about 25 to 40 feet along that
wetland area. So that is in addition to that existing vegetation
which does act as a buffer already.
And the applicant will agree to whatever trees are removed,
tree plant in addition.
I don't think there is very many trees to be removed. I
think it's like two to three. But whatever number it ends up
being.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you. Sounds good.
I have the two plans here. I have the April 2nd that was
referred to as the receiving the revised plans. I also have an
April 10th. I mean, the April 10th plans have a lot of color on
them.
MS. POYER: The April loth plan is a plan by the septic engineer.
There was a change in the water supply. The engineer designed it
for water supply coming from the street. There is no water in
that area, so we are going to be reusing the existing well,
which is located on the survey. And so that was the change. It
doesn't change the geothermal well locations, it doesn't change
the sanitary, it doesn't change anything as far as the
structures or their setbacks. It just changes strictly the water
supply, and that was noted in the Health Department application.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, so this is for our reference, however,
the plan, that is dated stamped and received on April 2nd, is the
one that we should refer to for all of the very many
measurements on here.
MS. POYER: Yes. From March 4th, yes. That is the official site
plan. Correct. And then there was a septic plan, and then there
was the actual architectural plans, so. But --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So, what Trustee Krupski is mentioning, we did
discuss this at the work session, and I had not quite gotten to
that point with these two plans. But I guess the previous plan
included a 15-foot-wide non-disturbance area, additional to the
edge of clearing.
MS. POYER: Correct.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And that is not depicted on here.
MS. POYER: That was an oversight. It shows on the plans, it says
15-foot typical. I think it' s just missing the label. We'll add
that on there. But we are proposing to do the 15-foot wide
non-disturbance, non-fertilization, no-turf buffer, which
matches the prior approval. It' s shown on here, I think it was
just an oversight in the layering of the -- we can resubmit
plans and show that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So, there' s two points here. One is you have the
wetlands, there is the zigzag line that is the edge of lawn, and
Board of Trustees 45 April 16, 2025
then is this dotted line on here, depicting that 15-foot offset?
MS. POYER: There is a label here that shows 15-foot typical. I
think the actual label that describes the buffer was just
accidently turned off in AutoCAT. We can have that added back
there. We are not arguing about that. We are going to propose
the additional 15 foot. It's showing here --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: We just need to see the depiction --
MS. POYER: That' s fine.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: More correctly. And I think the label we would
like this to indicate is a proposed 15-foot-wide non-disturbance
buffer. So, if you can make that modification with the plans.
MS. POYER: Sorry, proposed 15-foot-wide non-disturbance buffer?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. So, in addition to -- it would be the
whole thing from that point back. So, it would not be just
154-feet. Non-disturbance seaward of that line.
Would you like to approach the dais for a moment?
(Indicating on plans) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So, what we just reviewed at the dais is that
the area seaward of that dotted line that indicates the
additional 15 feet is not going to be spelled out as specific 15
feet. It' s going to encompass from that line all the way, and
the entirety seaward.
MS. POYER: And you want that labeled as proposed non-disturbance
wetland buffer?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Just non-disturbance.
MS. POYER: Non-disturbance buffer.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES:. Yes. And I do appreciate the efforts in
redesigning and laying out the property to shift everything
landward, all the structure landward.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak?
MS.. BROWN: Carol Brown, Conservation Advisory Council. I wanted
to second what Trustee Peeples said insofar as the new plans.
We really appreciate you taking the time and the effort to move
things so that it will be better for our environment, but also
for your, for the landowner, that that non-disturbance area,
when Nancy and I went to review the property, there was so much
mucky water around and really want to keep everything away from
that, because there was also such a plethora of songbirds that
were there that, you know, it' s an area that can really be
enjoyed, as long as you have on your mosquito netting.
Thank you.
MS. POYER: Can I ask that it be a conditional approval just
based on submittal of revised plans with that language?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I don't see that would be an issue. So let's
move forward.
MS. POYER: Sure.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak?
(No response) .
Or any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Board of Trustees 46 April 16, 2025
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 this application
with the condition of and the receipt of new plans showing the
non-disturbance buffer seaward of the line that was drawn
15-feet from edge of lawn.
MS. POYER: Correct.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And the one-to-one tree replacement for any
removed trees, .with native hardwoods, two to three-inch caliper.
I would also like to amend the project description to note:
And to establish and perpetually maintain a non-disturbance
buffer seaward of the additional, the line drawn with the
addition of 15 feet to the edge of lawn.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, for bearing with me on that one.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 13, Twin Fork Permits on behalf of
CHARLES PARDEE & JILL MENNICKEN requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish existing 1 '-� story, 3, 981sq.ft. dwelling (Per Town Code
Definition) consisting of demolishing existing second-floor and
construct a new 906.2sq.ft. Second floor with an 81x17 ' balcony;
reconstruct a portion of the first floor and sunroom and
construct a 91. 9sq. ft. Addition and a 355.2sq. ft. Sunroom;
construct a 300.3sq.ft. Northwest addition; construct a 28sq.ft.
South landing and new 415.2sq. ft. Landward covered porch;
install a 5'8"xl6'2" basement egress with retaining walls;
reconstruct existing 4'x4 ' 6" outdoor shower; A/C units against
dwelling; abandon existing septic system and install a new I/Z
sanitary system; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 15'
wide vegetated non-turf, non-fertilization buffer area along the
landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 6760 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM#
1000-126-11-3. 1
The Trustees conducted a field inspection April 9th, 2025,
noting a 15-foot vegetated buffer landward of the retaining
wall.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent. He did note a
variable width non-turf buffer is required pursuant to covenant
and restriction filed September 30th, 2021.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. POYER: Lisa Poyer, Twin Forks Permits, on behalf of the
applicant.
You had seen this application back in October and issued a
Wetland Permit dated October 16th, 2024. At that time the
Building Department previous to that reviewed it, said it was
Board of Trustees 47 April 16, 2025
not a demolition. We then took the Trustee permit, went to the
Building Department. They reviewed the plans, said now it is a
demolition. So we're back to you for the exact same project but
under the heading of now it's a demolition as per the Town Code.
Nothing about the project has changed from your prior review and
approval. That approval still showed the basement expansion,
the second floor, the porch area, all of that stuff. It' s just,
the heading of a demolition versus not. We'll still agree to the
15-foot buffer, that' s no problem. The house is still
significantly landward of the pier line. So I think that's
basically -- the only change is the demolition.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Just one note in regard to the
LWRP comment. I do see that you submitted the new plans that
show the 15-foot-wide buffer landward of the vinyl bulkhead.
Can we get new plans that show the covenant and restricted
non-turf buffer between the bulkhead and the retaining wall on
the new set of plans, please.
MS. POYER: Sure. And that was the sand area between the two
bulkheads.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. Please.
MS. POYER: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wishing to wish to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative 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 submission of' new plans showing the previously approved
non-turf buffer between the bulkhead and the retaining wall, as
well as the addition of a 15-foot-wide vegetated non-turf buffer
landward of the retaining wall. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Number 14, Twin Forks Permits on behalf of
STEPHANE SEGOUIN requests a Wetland Permit to demolish (Per Town
Code Definition) , existing dwelling and construct a (1, 740sq.ft.
Footprint) , two-story dwelling with a 479sq. ft. Second floor
balcony, a raised 653sq.ft. Seaward patio below balcony and a
below grade garage; existing 26sq.ft. East porch and 326sq. ft.
South covered porch to remain; install a 15'x30' swimming pool
with 890sq.ft. At-grade pool patio; 4' high pool enclosure
fencing with gates installed with a top of bluff setback at 21' ;
install a pool drywell, pool equipment area in basement; abandon
existing sanitary system and install an I/A sanitary system
Board of Trustees 48 April 16, 2025
landward of dwelling; the two (2) existing decks located along
the top of bluff will be permanently removed and not replaced by
cutting the footings flush at grade and removing the structures
by hand, no heavy machinery; and to establish and perpetually
maintain a 15 ' wide non-turf, non-fertilized vegetated buffer
along the landward edge of the top crest of the bluff.
Located: 310 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-5-5
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. Consider
the large pool patio and the drainage. Minimize irrigated turf
near the top of the bluff. And a vegetated buffer landward of
the top of the buff is required for Policies Four and Six.
The Trustees most recently visited the property on the 9th
of April and noted that the project appears to be behind the
pier line; check the pool distance against the code. And it
should be noted that I'm in receipt of five letters of support
from neighboring properties, all within this neighborhood.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this
application.
MS. POYER: Lisa Poyer, Twin Forks Permits, on behalf of the
applicant.
You had done a pre-inspection of this project as well, I
think December or January, submitted the new application, and
then obviously you went there in April to just recently do the
inspection.
The project has received Zoning Board of Appeals for the
swimming pool setback at 80 feet, as well as side yard setback
the 7.4 feet where it exists right now. Lot coverage, there is,
that was originally dated September 19th, 2024, and was just
recently amended April 3rd, 2025. Just with new, the final
survey that showed the lot coverage correction for that ZBA
decision.
The applicant is proposing to remove the decking that is on
the edge of the bluff there and then to do .a 15-foot buffer on
the landward side of the bluff there. It' s a demolition, again
by the Town Code. They are not looking to actually demolish the
whole house. It's going to stay in the same footprint and they
are basically adding a second floor and trying to rejuvenate the
site.
We do provide a pool drywell, the pool equipment is going
to be in the basement of the house, and there will be drainage
for the larger house on the landward side of the house as well
as an IA system.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is the pool going to be on-grade?
MS. POYER: Correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, is there anyone else that wishes to speak
regarding this application? Or any comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
Board of Trustees 49 April 16, 2025
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MS. POYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Respectfully submitted by,
Glenn Go#smith, President
Board of Trustees