HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-05/14/2025 Glenn Goldsmith, President zpf sorry Town Hall Annex
A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ,`O� ��� 54375 Route 25
P.O.Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski J J Southold,New York 11971
Liz Gillooly G Q Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth Peeples • �O Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES C E
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
JUN 1 3 2025
Wednesday, May 14, 2025
5:30 PM Southold Town Clerk
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
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening and welcome to our Wednesday,
May 14th, 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.
(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 here this evening.
She is still home with the baby.
To my right we have the attorney to the Trustees, the Hon.
Lori Hulse. We have Administrative Assistant Elizabeth Cantrell,
and with us tonight is our Court Stenographer Wayne Galante.
Agendas for tonight' s meeting is posted on the Town's
website and also located out in the hallway.
We do have a number of postponements tonight. In the
agenda, and also located out in the hallway. We do have a number
of postponements tonight, in the agenda, on page ten, numbers 15
through 19, and on page eleven, numbers 20 to 22, as follows:
Number 15, William Goggins, Esq. , on behalf of HULL CHEW
requests a Wetland Permit to install an 181x38' in-ground
swimming pool, with pool enclosure fencing, a designated 4'X8 '
drywell for pool backwash, and 31X6' pool equipment area.
Located: 600 Inlet View East, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-100-3-10.10
Number 16, 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;
Board of Trustees 2 May 14, 2025
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
Number 17, 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 6' , 121 , 151 , 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
Number 18, 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
Number 19, AS PER REVISED SITE PLAN & WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED 12/23/2024 Twin Forks Permits on behalf of THE WILLIAM
E. GOYDAN REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST, c/o WILLIAM E. GOYDAN,
TRUSTEE & THE KAREN B. GOYDAN REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST, c/o
KAREN B. GOYDAN, TRUSTEE requests a Wetland Permit to demolish
the existing two-story dwelling, detached garage and other
surfaces on the property; construct a new 3, 287sq. ft. Footprint
(5, 802sq.ft. Gross floor area) two-story, single-family dwelling
with an 865sq.ft. Seaward covered patio, 167sq.ft. Side covered
porch, and 149sq. ft. Front covered porch; construct a proposed
161x36' swimming pool with 81x8' spa tub; a 1,357sq.ft. Pool
patio surround with steps to ground, pool enclosure fencing,
pool equipment area, and a drywell for pool backwash; construct
a 752sq.ft. Two-story detached garage, gravel driveway and
parking areas; install an I/A septic system; remove 23 trees and
plant 25 trees on the property; and to establish and perpetually
maintain a 25-foot-wide vegetated non-turf, no fertilization
buffer area along the landward side of the wetland vegetation.
Located: 1645 Marratooka Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-3-2.1
Number 20, 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 41x10' landward extension. and a 4 'x15' seaward
Board of Trustees 3 May 14, 2025
extension for an overall size of 4 'x87' ; the entire new dock
will have Thru-Flow decking.
Located: 190 Fishermans Beach Road, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-111-1-9
Number 21, 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 41xll3' fixed catwalk
(including 4 'x20' landward fixed ramp from foot path to
catwalk) ; relocate existing permitted 32"x14 ' aluminum ramp and
6'x20' floating dock off seaward end in a new "T" configuration.
Located: 6565 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-6-25
Number 22, 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, OOOsq.ft. Of
underbrush and limb trees up to 40' within the 100'
jurisdictional buffer area and a 11, 600sq.ft. Area of phragmites
to be excavated to 3' to 6' depth of root removal with approx.
1, 300 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be added and graded out.
Located: 26342 Main Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-109-4-8.3
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Those are postponed and will not be heard
this evening.
Under Town Code Chapter 275-8 (c) , files were officially
closed seven days ago. The 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 Trustee field inspection Tuesday, June 3rd, 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, June llth, 2025 at 5:30PM at the Town Hall
Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
III. WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next work
sessions Monday, June 9th, 2025 at S:OOPM at the Town Hall Annex
2nd Floor Executive Board Room, and on Wednesday, June 11, 2025
at 5:OOPM in the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall.
Board of Trustees 4 May 14, 2025
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of
the April 16th, 2025 meeting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral V, the Trustees monthly report
for April 2025. A check for $26,373.16 was forwarded to the
Supervisor' s Office for the General Fund.
VI. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral VI, Public Notices. Public
Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for
review.
VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VII, State Environmental
Quality Reviews: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the
Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications
more fully described in Section XI Public Hearings Section of
the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, May 14th, 2025 are
classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and
Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA,
as written.
U.S. Dept. Of Homeland Security, Orient Point Facility & Plum
Island Animal Disease Center SCTM# 1000-16-2-1 & 1000-132-1-30
Nicholas Aliano SCTM# 1000-83-1-11 & 12
Jarrett Burke New York LLC, c/o Mimi Burke SCTM# 1000-73-4-3
Shari Hymes & Mary Scheerer SCTM# 1000-70-4-3
1055 Soundview Road, LLC SCTM# 1000-15-3-13
Starkie Living Trust SCTM# 1000-57-1-7
Carmela Lazio Revocable Trust SCTM# 1000-56-7-21
Hull Chew SCTM# 1000-100-3-10.10
Thomas Rattler SCTM# 1000-33-3-19. 19
KIMDY Realty, LLC SCTM# 1000-56-5-23
George Dangas SCTM# 1000-50-1-3
The Michael E. & Cherylyn R. Foss Joint Revocable Trust
SCTM# 1000-70-4-27
BTK Realty, LLC SCTM# 1000-128-2-7
Board of Trustees 5 May 14, 2025
SHM Greenport, LLC, Brewer Yacht Yard @ Gpt. , Inc.
SCTM# 1000-36-1-1
SHM Greenport, LLC, Brewer Yacht Yard @ Gpt. , Inc.
SCTM# 1000-34-5-6
SHM Greenport, LLC, Brewer Yacht Yard @ Gpt. , Inc.
SCTM# 1000-34-5-7
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
VIII. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral VIII, 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 one and three, as follows:
Number 1, 1280 COREY CREEK LLC requests an Administrative
Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut cut
the Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to 12" in height by hand,
as needed.
Located: 1280 Corey Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-4-17
Number 3, En-Consultants on behalf of RICHARD & KATHLEEN
O'TOOLE & ERIN DOHERTY requests an Administrative Permit for the
as-built, in-kind/in-place reconstruction of 10. 4 ' x 26.2 '
attached deck, with new 51x26. 1' steps in place of previously
existing semi-circular seaward deck protrusion and two sets of
steps.
Located: 760 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-2-7
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, Jerry Cibulski on behalf of SEAN &
DIANE RAINEY requests an Administrative Permit to install a 12'
x 12 ' prefabricated shed with concrete base.
Located: 1195 Rambler Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-88-5-40
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection May 12th,
2025, notes that the shed is too close to the wetland line, pull
back to a minimum of 20 feet from the wetland line.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that the shed be moved a minimum of 20 feet from the
wetland line, and submission of new plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, JORGO CIKOLLA requests an
Administrative Permit to remove existing open porch in front of
property; construct new 5' x 6' open porch in front of property;
Board of Trustees 6 May 14, 2025
replace existing windows; raise roof on existing front dormer
within existing footprint.
Located: 380 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-21
Trustee Goldsmith conducted a field inspection May 12th,
2025, noting that all construction is on the landward side of
the house, no changes to existing footprint, needs gutters to
leaders to drywells.
The LWRP found this inconsistent.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition of gutters to leaders to drywells be installed with
submission of new plans.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, MATTHEW & EILEEN VITUCCI request an
Administrative Permit to install 20KW generator; and install
above ground propane tank to fuel generator.
Located: 620 Rogers Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-66-2-35
The Trustees conducted a field inspection May 6th, 2025,
notes condition that the generator and propane tanks are
installed as far landward as possible.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that the generator and propane tank be moved as far
landward as possible.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Administrative Amendments, once again,
in order to simplify our meeting, I'll make a motion to approve
as a group Items one, two, four through seven, nine and eleven,
as follows:
Number 1, P.W. Grosser on behalf of U.S. DEPT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit
#10354 & Coastal Erosion Permit #10354C, as issued April
19,2023.
Located: 40550 Route 25, Orient & 3250 & 3380 Point Road,
Orient.
SCTM#1000-15-9-9, 1000-15-9-6.1, 1000-16-2-1, & 1000-16-2-2
Number 2, P.W. Grosser on behalf of U.S. DEPT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, PLUM ISLAND ANIMAL DISEASE CENTER requests a One (1)
Year Extension to Wetland Permit# 10355 & Coastal Erosion Permit
#10355C, as issued April 19, 2023.
Located: Plum Island, NY. SCTM# 1000-132-1-30
Number 4, Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf of TBL PLUS TWO
LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #5688, as issued
January 22, 2003 and Amended September 20, 2006, from Arnold &
Board of Trustees 7 May 14, 2025
Geraldine Barton to TBL Plus Two LLC.
Located: 5295 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-9-13
Number 5, Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf of TBL PLUS TWO
LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #6016, as issued
October 20, 2004, from Arnold Barton to TBL Plus Two LLC.
Located: 5295 Nassau Point' Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-9-13
Number 6, HASDAY 2023 FAMILY TRUST requests a Transfer of
Wetland Permit #8207, as issued June 19, 2013 and Amended
October 19, 2016, from Joan R. Chisholm to Hasday 2023 Family
Trust.
Located: 200 MacDonald Crossing, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-4-16
Number 7, Twin Fork Permits on behalf of YASMINE LEGENDRE &
COREY WORCESTER requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #10677, as issued November 13, 2024, to modify the
proposed pool equipment area to be ±72 sq. ft. At 61x121 ,
contained within a fenced area to be 4' or less in height, and
screened with vegetation.
Located: 4355 Aldrich Lane Ext. , Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-112-1-13
Number 9, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. On behalf of SAMID
HUSSAIN requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #8547, as issued
December 17, 2014, from Joseph & Robyn Romano to Samid Hussain.
Located: 1415 North Parish Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-71-1-14
Number 11, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of MIKHAIL & JENNIFER
RAKHMANINE requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #10269, as issued November 16, 2022, to extend permitted
gravel walkway and steps by 5' in width and 32 ' in length in
rear of dwelling; extend permitted gravel walkway and steps 5'
in width and 8 ' in length on side corner of dwelling; install 5'
x 8 ' outdoor shower on east side of garage.
Located: 685 Bungalow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-3-9
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, JACLYN TORTORA requests a Transfer
of Wetland Permit #10040, as issued December 15, 2021, from
Richard Liebowitz & Consuelo Prol to Jaclyn Tortora.
Located: 1000 Beachwood Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-10-59
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection May 12th,
2025, noting that the plans stamped and approved on 12/15/21 six
depict a ten-foot non-turf buffer. This needs to be installed
prior to transfer so it complies with permit number 10040.
In order to give them time to install the buffer, I'll make
a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 8, En-Consultants on behalf of PECONIC
RIVER LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#10235, as issued October 19, 2022 and Amended February 12,
2025, to modify previously approved .4' x 36' access pathway to
consist of 30" round pavers and trimmed/maintained native
Board of Trustees 8 May 14, 2025
grasses; install 15' diameter permeable crushed gravel fire pit
landward of top of bank.
Located: 450 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-1-18. 1
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection May 12th,
2025, noting that the area in the path and around pavers should
be non-turf and non-fertilization.
I'll make motion to approve this application with the
condition that the area around proposed path be non-turf and
non-fertilization.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 10, Millstone Property Services on
behalf of DON & GLENNA RYAN requests an Administrative Amendment
to Wetland Permit #10707, as issued September 18, 2024, for an
±8 ' x 34 ' expansion of the previously approved first and second
story addition to existing dwelling.
Located: 760 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-1-3
The Trustees conducted a field inspection May 12th, 2025,
notes that the pier line to be drawn on plans, and that the
proposed seaward extension of the main level exceeds the pier
line.
We reached out to the applicant to try to get
clarification, but we were unable to do so, so I'll make a
motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
X. MOORING/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, Mooring/stake & pulley
systems, I 'll make a motion to approve number one as follows:
Number 1, KEVIN QUARTY requests a Stake and Pulley System
Permit in Goose Creek for a 13' outboard motorboat, replacing
Stake #818. Access: Public
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral XI, Public Hearings. At this
time I'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and
enter into the public hearings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter of the
following applications for permits under Chapter 275 and Chapter
111 of the Southold Town code. I have an affidavit of
Board of Trustees 9 May 14, 2025
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 GOLDSMITH: Number 1, U.S. Dept. Of Homeland Security
Science & Technology Directorate, c/o Al MacIntyre on behalf of
the U.S. DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ORIENT POINT FACILITY &
PLUM ISLAND ANIMAL DISEASE CENTER requests a Wetland Permit and
a Coastal Erosion Permit to abandon in-place one (1) of the
existing two (2) undersea cables and the installation of one (1)
new undersea cable between Orient Point and the Plum Island
Animal Disease Center consisting of disconnecting, capping off
and abandoning one of the existing cables in-place; install a
new undersea cable by connecting to both existing cable vaults;
from cable vault, running the new cable underground below the
water line and then bottom-laying the cable through Plum Gut;
temporarily remove, store and replace existing soil, sand and
riprap for upland cable installation and replace upon
completion; any disturbed areas are expected to revegetate over
time; in-water trenching to occur to a depth of ±2.5' up to 200'
along the sea floor (±92. 6 cubic yards) , to bury the new cable
then material to be returned to cover the cable; with no
anchoring to the sea floor due to the weight of the cable.
Located: 3250 Point Road, Orient & Plum Island, Orient.
SCTM#'s. 1000-16-2-1 & 1000-132-1-30
The Trustees conducted a field inspection May 6th, 2025,
noting that the application is straightforward.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
(No response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, Charles Cuddy, Esq. On behalf of
NICHOLAS ALIANO requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit to construct a proposed two-story dwelling (885sq.ft. On
each of the two floors) with a 91sq. ft. Front covered patio,
3'x8 ' and 4 'x8 ' second story balconies; install an I/A OWTS
sanitary system; install water and electric services; install a
stone blend driveway; install gutters to leaders to drywells to
Board of Trustees 10 May 14, 2025
contain storm-water runoff; construct a 209 linear foot long
rock revetment from neighbor's bulkhead to west to the edge of
property line to the east; there will be a small area of
excavation along toe of bluff; install filter fabric, 18" of
blanket stone 10 to 15 lbs. , toe stones 3 to 5 tons each, top
and face stones 2 to 4 tons each; place sand backfill raising
the finished grade seaward and over new rock revetment; a
project limiting fence installed prior to construction along
limit of clearing; any disturbed areas to be re-vegetated with
beach grass; to establish and perpetually maintain 28, 127sq.ft.
Non-Disturbance Buffer areas along both bluff faces, and a
3, 022 Non-Turf Buffer along the landward edges of the
Non-Disturbance Buffers.
Located: 3705 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-1-11 & 12
The Trustees most recently had a site inspection. The notes
are as follows: Walk property to determine topography. Entire
property appears to be bluff. Concerns about proximity to bluff
and any activity destabilizing bluff.
The site is well vegetated, and soils appear to be eroded
in several locations where structures are to be located. Storm
events threaten Duck Pond Road and toe of bluff.
It should also be noted that there is a letter from a
neighboring property expressing strong opposition to the
development at 3705 Duck Pond Road. Location lies in a sensitive
bluff in coastal area that is already experiencing significant
erosion. Any construction or increase in human activity at this
site risks accelerating the degradation of bluff, leading to
long-term environmental and structural consequences. Any
development would increase runoff and destabilize the terrain,
which could contribute to further erosion of the adjacent beach,
an area that serves both ecological and recreational purposes.
It goes on to say in the past they had looked into the
property and they were told the development would be extremely
dangerous. The property has unique exposure. Will be at risk of .
land movement, slides of rock falls, preserving the integrity of
the coastline is essential to the health of the community. Once
these natural features are compromised they are exceedingly
difficult, if not impossible to restore.
For these reasons I respectfully urge the planning
commission to reject the development, the application for 3705
Duck Pond Road. Sincerely, Charles Ward.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. CUDDY: I do. My name is Charles Cuddy, I have an office at
445 Griffing Avenue, Riverhead; New York. I'm here on behalf of
the applicant. With me is also my co-counsel, Christopher Abbott
of Smith, Finkelstein, Lundberg, Isler and Yakabowski. And,
further, I have Doug Adams who is a professional engineer and
also a licensed geologist.
As indicated by our survey and plans, the house is setback
56 feet from the top of the bluff. It' s setback more than 100
feet from the shoreline and its height is exempt, by it's height
it's exempt from the DEC jurisdiction.
Board of Trustees 11 May 14, 2025
We don't believe that the application in any sense
contravenes the standards of your code. We -submit there are
really no adverse impacts. The application was made several
years ago to the Trustees, and at that time they actually
approved this application. Subsequently, the Zoning Board did
not, but it now has approved it.
I think, to give you some context, I would just like to
read a short portion from the ZBA decision because I think it
lets you know about this site.
And, by the way, Mr. Adams is here and he certainly will
contest the statements made in that letter.
But the Zoning Board said that the vista bluffs, which is
what this site is, and the adjacent Birch Hills community,
consists of upland and waterfront homes of varying sizes,
developed in the 1970s, most of which do not maintain current
code-compliant setbacks developed in the front, rear or side
yards, nor to the prescribed bluff setback.
All but two lots are developed and we are one of those not
developed. There were 12 lots originally.
The addition of a new, smaller house for this particular
lot, with a footprint of approximately 975 square feet, will be
in keeping with the neighborhood and the intention of the
original 1968 subdivision.
The proposed bluff setback mirrors the existing area
waterfront homes as defined by the pier line, and also is
conforming to the neighborhood's front-yard setbacks, which
several homes do not meet those code requirements.
The residents that use the roadway, which is Duck Pond
Lane, will not see, essentially, anything for this particular
site, and neither will anybody at the Long Island Sound be able
to decipher the relief requested.
And not only visually won't be seen, but physically it
won't be seen.
What I have tonight, and I would like to make a record, is
to offer a number of things in evidence here. I will read them
out and then hand them up as one exhibit, if I may.
I have certified copy of the map which was filed in 1968,
showing this as Lot Five, in a subdivision of 12 lots.
I have in addition to that the 1972 deed for the Aliano's
who have owned this property for more than 50 years.
I have in addition to that the decision from the Zoning
Board which is certified by the Town Clerk.
I have in addition to that an engineering report concerning
the slopes and the 20% question that was raised at one time.
I have some pictures of both the east and the west of this
site. So then on the east, I'm sure you're familiar with the
electrical contractor's site. That shows that there are
completely revetments going for a thousand feet, that take care
of all of those neighboring homes and businesses, and does not
show that there has been any significant harm to the houses
sitting right on the beach.
In addition, I would like to offer up a letter from the
firm of Young & Young, stating that there really is no problem
Board of Trustees 12 May 14, 2025
installing a septic system at this site.
And further, a couple other things, I have a statement from
Andrew Stype Realty, and a further statement from Tom Patton,
both appraisers, setting forth the appraised value of the site.
And finally, I bring to your attention, the Sak decision
that this Board had made for a property at 600 feet from our
property, which essentially said that they could have a 50-foot
setback, and that having a revetment or bulkhead would improve
this site. We think that is true in our case, too.
We are here to answer any questions you have, but we
believe that, two things: One, we should have approval for this
bluff setback as was given to us by the Zoning Board; and, two,
we should have approval for a 209-foot linear revetment, which
is showing on our map in detail as to how it will be affected.
We think that after many, many years, this is an
appropriate place to build, it does not impact essentially
anybody, and the Zoning Board made that clear.
So if you have questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to
speak?
MR. CUDDY: I would like Mr. Adams to speak about the letter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure.
MR. ADAMS: Good evening, Board. Doug Adams, offices at 400
Ostrander Avenue, Riverhead. Young & Young Associates.
Just for the record I'm a licensed professional engineering
and geologist. I have about 40 years of experience. Although I
wear many design hats, I specialize in storm water control
management, grading and drainage design, watershed analysis and
coastal landform identification and stability assessment.
Just regarding the letter from the neighbor that I just
read a few minutes ago, I basically disagree with the entire
assessment in that letter.
The development would stabilize the area, as all other
development has in this neighborhood, basically. Leaving it as
is, will certainly continue, the property will continue to erode
slowly, as it has been for a long time.
I noticed an area photography, . as you have here, that
almost every lot on the bluff in this development that is
developed, except for the second one over from us, has the
development and more maintained right to the top of bluff, it
appears, and there doesn't seem to be any problem where, at
least with this bulkheading, with those properties.
Just a couple of highlights on our plan, the current plan
that is before you. We, at the direction of this Board, right
now we have about 86% of the property as being designated as
either non-disturbance buffer or non-turf buffer. So that does
not leave much. And I think every other house along the bluff
here is closer to the top of bluff than our proposal would be.
And I believe the house is smaller than any other house as well.
And just to piggyback on what Charles said about the Health
Department, right now they are poised to give us an approval for
this. Their only comment at this point is they need approval
from the Town of Southold different agencies.
Board of Trustees 13 May 14, 2025
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is anyone else wishing to speak
regarding this application?
MR. KALAS: John Kalas, I'm an adjacent owner at 995 Glen Court,
which is the house shown on your aerial view. We have been there
for more than 40 years.
I think the issues with the development of the subject
parcel have been going. on for about 20 years. I think the first
permit was issued in 2005. It was for a one-story building then.
Now it's for a two-story. So it's getting more impactful.
I think there has been Zoning Board litigation that was
mentioned. They denied the original variance.
You know, our issue is they want to build where the
foundation that was subject of the stop-work order is there. We
think there could be an alternative to actually build on Duck
Pond Road. Both the driveway and the foundation are going to be
accessible from the top of the bluff, which is on Glen Court.
And really there is no access from Duck Pond Road on any of
this, even though the address is being listed as Duck Pond Road
for this property.
I don't know that there has been any consideration to build
anywhere else but where the existing foundation was wrongfully
laid originally. And we would ask for it to be considered.
I think it would also help with the setback issues. The
driveway is going to be very close to our property line, and I
think that if they did it on Duck Pond Road, which is where the
other house is sort of at the bottom of the screen, that
actually has access to Duck Pond Road, that would be less
impactful to the bluff, and better overall for us for us.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. ALIANO: Members of the Board, hello. My name is Nicholas
Aliano. I'm the son of the original owner of The Beachcomber
Motel which is down below, and we owned at one time all those
lots on that side there.
My father came out here with me in 1968 and we rebuilt The
Beachcomber. It was a dilapidated motel, under foreclosure. And
we fixed it up and, you know, we ran the motel, and then we
purchased those properties along that side in order to one day
hopefully build a house there, you know.
So as the time went on, in the 70s and 80s, I was the
dishwasher and the cook and my sisters who's in the audience,
they cleaned rooms and they waitressed. And we worked hard all
these years at The Beachcomber, and one day of trying to build
on this.
So it' s not only my property, it' s me and my sisters'
property. And I walked it just now, and I walked it for 50
years. It hasn't lost any terrain. The gentleman that just
stood up spoke 20 years ago and said his property didn't lose
anything in 20 years. And I see it's still all intact.
We do have a foundation there. And we were in lieu and
hoping building back from there and coming in from the
cul-de-sac, but I just want to let you know that we owned the
property a long time, paid the taxes, obviously, a long time,
Board of Trustees 14 May 14, 2025
and we were trying, we minimized, the original structure was
two-story, because my friend did the architectural plans. It was
always that way. And we cut it down to 1, 000 square feet, 1050,
without a garage. We are not hindering on anyone.
I know nobody likes anybody to come in and be a neighbor.
They like the woods. But, you know, it was on a filed map, I
think we should be entitled to it. I'll do anything, I did
everything you asked me to ,do,. I gave you stakes where the house
was.
I just got back, we looked at it. Chuck is the builder who
built the other three houses, and I think they complement the
area. They're traditional homes. We don't take away and build a
monstrosity, ugly, you know, house.
And Chuck will tell you that this lot happens to be easier
to build on than the other three were. It' s definitely not a,
problem to build on.
Where you see those stakes where we put it out, where that
drop off is, that is where the foundation is. We made that
happen.
So when the walls are put up and everything, it will look
like a normal lot and everything. And I just want to let you
know, you know, we all worked in the area, my nephews, Southold
Town Police Officers, you know, so my father brought us all out
here. Three of them were in the Air Force, you know. So we all
put back into the community, and we were just trying to get a
little house there.
So, you know, each one of our members of our family. You
know, one is Fedun. One is Krupski -- not related to you -- and
another one Horton.
So, you know, we're all out here. And we are just trying
to, you know, tell me you want something different. We'll put a
smaller house, we'll do anything you tell us you want us to
do.
We did everything, I think, that you asked. We put the
stakes up, we put the setbacks, we showed your bulkhead. We'll
make it nice, we are not going to destroy the area. That's all.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to
speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
So just to address some comments for the record that were
made during the course of the hearing. The original approval by
the Trustees, they were not taking jurisdiction over the house.
So that was for the revetment. So that claim, I believe, could
be untrue. Certainly a lot has changed since 1968 . We are not
filling in wetlands anymore to build houses, and so the ,Board is
looking at things a little differently.
After field inspections and review of the property, it
should also be noted that while the plans seem to claim it sits
back approximately 50 to 54 feet from the top of the bluff,
really the whole site is a bluff going in almost three
Board of Trustees 15 May 14, 2025
directions.
The plans that we have in the file show a home built like a
standard home down in a typical neighborhood with a flat
structure, but in reality there is a 15-foot elevation change
when you look at the topography across the length of the
structure that is currently proposed, to the point that when
hiking the property you can't even make your way stake to stake.
And then in terms of the side along Duck Pond Road, which I
would certainly consider a bluff, the house sits right on top of
that, which is to me it's a challenge to put a structure there
that could tumble down into the Town right-of-way there. So it's
a difficult project to look at it, for sure.
There is also references to other houses built here but
those are permitted by a prior Board, and I'm not sure what
conditions they were looking at there. And to the point that
every other house, that first of all, to the point that this
property has not lost any property that, I mean, this aerial is
a perfect representation that it's lost a tremendous amount of
property from erosion, on both sides, Duck Pond Road and on the
Sound side. And then to the point that the neighboring
properties haven't lost anything either, if you look at the
house immediately adjacent, there is erosion on both sides of
their property lines.
So I think to say it's a straightforward application is not
entirely the truth of the application. It' s a tricky site.
MR. CUDDY: I just want to make a comment. The area that you ,show
as eroded was part of the parkland that was a. separate lot at
one time, not the main part of this lot.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it's still eroded though, right?
MR. CUDDY: But not the main lot at all. The neighbors, don't
forget, have bulkheading across theirs. And to the east is all
bulkheading. And those lots have remained the same over a long
period of time.
So putting a bulkhead there would be a smart thing to do.
It would keep it stable, and in Sak, that' s exactly what you
said. Putting the bulkhead in place stops the runoff and stops
the erosion. And that was something you just did half a dozen
years ago
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, two things, bulkheading versus revetment,
right? And neither stops the runoff, to be clear. But they do
attempt to stabilize a tricky situation and prevent the erosion.
And honestly, another thing, it's not just the habitat and
the sensitive area, but it' s also a concern of somebody's house
tumbling down the bluff on either side. And this property falls
down in three directions.
There is a reason this is the last lot to be developed.
This is a pretty tricky site.
MR. CUDDY: Well, these lots were developed, the earlier lots,
and there are 12 of them, ten of them were developed over 30
years ago. They were developed one after the other. This lot was
left, that's true. And the Aliano' s held on to this lot, but
that shouldn't essentially be a penalty for them.
They have a lot that is a subdivided lot on a subdivided
Board of Trustees 16 May 14, 2025
map. Usually you can build on a lot like that. And it would be
surprising, since the Town made this lot, that you could say you
may have a lot, you can pay taxes on it, but you can't build on
it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, I don't know -- Lori, do you want to say
something?
MS. HULSE: I just want to jump in because you were referring to
the parcel that is, obviously shows erosion, that you are saying
is not part of the original parcel. But the ZBA decision is
requiring you to merge those two parcels. Isn't that correct?
Isn't that a condition of the ZBA decision?
MR. CUDDY: Yes, we agreed to do that --
MS. HULSE: Okay.
MR. CUDDY: But I'm saying that the part that you show is not the
main house part. That's what I was trying to make the point.
MS. HULSE: Right, but those two have to merge as a condition of
the ZBA --
MR. CUDDY: Yes, and we have done that. We actually have deeds in
the same name, and we are just going to have them merged.
TRUSTEE HULSE: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I've got a couple of questions. Looking at
the here, it shows the top of bluff at the beach. Can somebody
explain that to me, please.
MR. ADAMS: Can we put the map up? Do you guys have --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'm looking at the survey provided, stamped
received April 4th, 2025, that shows the top of bluff line, so
at the, you know, southwest corner at approximately elevation
64.
MR. ADAMS: That' s correct.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And then when you go down east, the top of
bluff is below the guide rail at the same elevation as the toe
of bluff where you are proposing the rock revetment.
MR. ADAMS: Correct.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: How do you have a top of bluff and toe of
bluff in the same location?
MR. ADAMS: Well, it comes down to meet the road. There is no
bluff where the road is.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So how do you say that the roadside is not a
bluff.
MR. ADAMS: It's not. What you see coming down Duck Pond Road is
a post-glacial gully. It's not a bluff. A bluff is formed in a
different manner than a gully is. It's a slope. Clearly, it's a
slope, but it's not a bluff.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So the Town Code definition of a bluff is as
follows: Land presenting with precipitous or steeply-sloped
face adjoining a beach or a body of water. For the purposes of
this chapter, a "precipitous or steeply-sloped face" shall be a
face with a slope of 20% or greater, and a height of greater
than 20 feet between the toe of the bluff and the top of the
bluff.
You're on Duck Pond Road goes from elevation 10 to past the
house over 62 . The house -itself goes from elevation of below 50
to an elevation of 64, within the footprint of the house itself,
Board of Trustees 17 May 14, 2025
which alone would constitute about 75% of 20 feet for a bluff.
So I'm confused how we are not saying that that precipitous
slope adjoining a beach is not a bluff.
MR. ADAMS: Well, by the code definition of "bluff, " every slope
in the Town of Southold that has that precipitous slope would be
a bluff. And that bluff is not along a body of water.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It adjoins a body of water.
MR. ADAMS: It adjoins --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Webster' s dictionary defines "adjoining" as
touching or bounding at a point or line. So you yourself on your
plans have a point or line where the top of bluff meets the toe
of bluff, at the beach.
MR. ADAMS: That's right. Because my assessment is at the bluff,
ends at that point.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Not the 60 feet further in toward the house.
MR. ADAMS: No, that's a gully. That's a different slope
adjoining a road, not a body of water. I'm not playing
semantics.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think somebody is arguing semantics, and I
think putting an engineering stamp on this might be a bad idea
for an engineer.
MR. ADAMS: Well, I stand behind it 100%, and I 've done probably
a thousand of these on Long Island, but --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We have walked the .property --
MR. ADAMS: If I can finish.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: (Continuing) we walked Duck Pond Road. I
think any local who has been to Duck Pond Road during any storm
even knows 100% that the Sound is up Duck Pond Road, there is
evidence of erosion on the Duck Pond Road side of the bluff. So,
you know, that didn't come from -- that came from the Sound.
MR. ADAMS:' I'm not arguing that the Code definition is what it
is, I'm just saying, as a geologist, as I was taught, it would
be two different landforms, this is where the bluff ends, and
then it starts up again on the other side of the electrical
union property. And that happens in a lot of cases along the
Sound. I 'm not arguing it's a steep slope. It' s a steep slope.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would argue as a geologist, as I was taught,
that your idea of this is incorrect and this is stamped
incorrectly, and that this is a continuation of the bluff headed
up Duck Pond Road.
MR. ADAMS: So all the houses on Duck Pond Road are on a bluff,
that are built there now?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That doesn't apply to this application.
MR. HULSE: The problem is, is that you can't have plans that
you're describing in one way that the code is describing in
another way. You have to comply with the definitions of the
code. And that' s what this Board is constrained to deal with.
They are constrained by the definitions and if the plans
are different, and you are describing something that the code is
describing differently, that' s a problem. Because they can't
accept plans as being correct that are in complete defiance of
what the code definition is, for example, of a bluff. So that's
the problem.
Board of Trustees 18 May 14, 2025
MR. ADAMS: Okay. I don't agree with that the definition in the
code talks about it being along a body of water.
MS. HULSE: So you disagree with the definition in the code?
MR. ADAMS: No, I agree with it. It's not along a body of water,
it's along Duck Pond Road. And that road goes way back to --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we are arguing about the definition of
"along" now. So, we can go about this all night. I don't know
if you have any additional comments, or if the members of the
Board have any additional comments.
MR. ADAMS: Nope.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The house, at this one point here, the house
you can see up Duck Pond Road, at the bottom of the image, is
actually carved out of that natural feature. So in order to
place that house at road height, the natural feature was carved
away, retaining walls were put in to stabilize the edge of that.
But this site, being at the site, we have photographs in the
file depicting just how steep it is in all directions. And if
you stand at the bottom of Duck Pond Road and look at the corner
of that property, it goes like a pyramid edge in both
directions.
MR. ADAMS: Right. One side is a bluff and the other side is a
gully. Sorry, I keep saying that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Houses still fall down gullies, if that' s the
definition.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And I'll just keep saying the Town Code
definition of a "bluff" applies. As well as the top of bluff,
which is confusing with your plans because, again, the Town Code
definition of a "top of bluff" is a receding edge of the bluff,
or in those cases where there is no discernable line of active
erosion, the point of inflection.
The point of inflection is the point where the trend of the
land slope changes to begin its descent to the shoreline.
So you have top of bluff at shoreline, in your plans.
MR. ADAMS: Correct.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The toe of bluff, the waterward limit of a
bluff where the trend of the land slope changes to begin its
ascent towards the top of bluff. Where hardened structure is in
place, the toe of the bluff shall be the bottom of the seaward
side of the structure.
So we have the toe of bluff, as you depicted, in the same
location as the top of bluff, as you depicted, on what you are
calling not a bluff.
MR. ADAMS: Right, I consider that the end of the bluff. If you
look in that picture, there is no bluff to the right of it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So is it a top of bluff or toe of bluff?
MR. ADAMS: At that point, it' s the same. It ends.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So you can have a toe of a bluff and a top of
a bluff in the same location?
MR. ADAMS: Yes, where they end. Correct. If you look at the
picture there is no bluff to the right of Duck Pond Road. It has
to end, right?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think that between Trustee Goldsmith' s
definition and Trustee Sepenoski's depiction of it as a pyramid,
Board of Trustees 19 May 14, 2025
I think that' s really relevant because it' s challenging for us
here in this room to look at this satellite, it does look like a
very flat property, however we are also looking at the plans
that have a flurry of topography lines. So that's not visible
from what we can see on the satellite depiction.
And I think the challenge that I'm also seeing here is we
do have a setback distance from what is labeled on the plans,
arguably whether that's correct or not, but a line labeled "top
of bluff" with a distance for the house. And what we don't see
is the distance from what this Board is reviewing as the
up-bluff that is along Duck Pond Road.
So if you look at that distance of a setback, then it is
very challenging to try to locate a house with the appropriate
setbacks from both bluff faces. And it' s been mentioned earlier
as well, it does appear, and it is cut off here on the survey
that we have, because it goes on to neighboring property, but
there is almost somewhat of a third bluff that is recognizable
in the field. And I was hoping to be able to walk the stakes of
the house when we were on the property, because it is helpful to
understand which, how that is laid out on the site, and I was
not physically able to go from one stake that we entered on that
cul-de-sac, to access the property, and there was a stake that
was closest to that cul-de-sac, and I was not able to hike to
the next stake without physical harm, because of the elevation.
MR. ADAMS: Right. I think a lot of that slope where you entered
the property was from a prior activity located, you know, in and
around where the foundation is.
With that said, just to get back to one of the Board
members mentioned, the other houses along Duck Pond Road, and
also when you walk the grade of the property, how the change of
15 feet from one side to the other, it shows on the plans that
it does change ten feet. And we are running that right along
the foundation. So when you look at the architect' s plans,
which shows it flat in elevation, right, in the elevation
pictures, it doesn't show that it would run down the foundation,
and the foundation would be exposed just like all the other
houses on Duck Pond Road.
They do have walls for driveways, but if you look at the
houses, they all have some sort of access into the basement, and
in the back they don't. So they have the same ten-foot relief
around, running around the house to enable them to build a house
on that property.
The house to the south of us, the house you are looking at
right there, when the subdivision was created, that entire lot
was over 25% slopes. The entire lot.
So, you know, it can be done, and I completely disagree
with the idea that a house will tumble down the hill. The soils
here are not like that. They don't allow for it because they are
sandy soils. There is no possibility of having a slide or a
tumble here. That' s my assessment
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. CUDDY: I appreciate the Board's comments. Is it possible
that at some point in time we could go with the Board and go
Board of Trustees 20 May 14, 2025
through this site so that we can both make sense, because you
are saying one thing and you think we are saying something else.
We are not trying to be difficult. We would just like to build a
house there, and I think it's appropriate where we put it, and
we might be able to at least discuss that with you and make it
rational so that we can all agree one way or the other.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think if you and your client want another
site visit, that would be appropriate. I should also mention we
are not in receipt of the final report from the LWRP
coordinator. So we would need that to render a decision on this
matter regardless.
MR. CUDDY: But if we could do that, I think it would be helpful.
If you wouldn't mind. And I appreciate the fact you've done it
once, but we have a different approach to it. Okay?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sounds good.
MR. CUDDY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So just please contact our office to get on
the next field inspection, which is Tuesday, June 3rd.
MR. CUDDY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else that would like to speak
regarding this application?
(NO RESPONSE) .
Hearing no additional comments, I'll make a motion to table this
application for the LWRP report and for additional site visit.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. CUDDY: Thank you, for taking the time.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
JARRETT BURKE NEW YORK, LLC, c/o MIMI BURKE requests a Wetland
Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove existing storm
damaged bluff stairs; install a proposed 180 linear foot long
rock revetment at existing toe of bluff using 2 to 4 ton
boulders at a maximum of 2.5 tons per lineal foot with
stabilization fabric underneath; install 2"xl2" terrace boards
every 6' along bluff face in area of erosion; add 100 cubic
yards of clean sand from upland source to re-nourish bluff face;
construct proposed bluff stairs consisting of a 41x4 ' top
platform to 41xl2 ' steps down to a 41x8' middle platform to
41xl2' steps to a 4 'x6' bottom platform with 4 'xl2 ' steps to
beach; install Cape American beach grass plugs at 12" on-center
within entire disturbed areas.
Located: 31059 County Road 48, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-73-4-3
The Trustees visited the site on May 6th, 2025; and had
notes from our inspection read severe erosion on bluff and
intense damage to existing bluff stairs. Concerns about
installing new stairs due to destabilized condition of the bluff
without armoring toe of bluff first to ensure stable structure.
Board of Trustees 21 May 14, 2025
The LWRP coordinator found the project inconsistent. The
bluff is actively eroding and unstable in areas. The replacement
of the stairs should not occur. Potential loss of the stair in
the future is moderate to high. The use of boulders naturally
occurring on the beach should be prohibited. Survival rates over
time of planted vegetation should be required.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the
application.
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant.
I would like to first state that this is in fact a bluff.
The project includes the replacement of an existing set of
stairs, as mentioned. One of the things that we would propose
to do here and was not mentioned on the plan, but we could give
you retractable aluminum stairs to avoid any damage during
storms.
The proposed plan is to do re-vegetation of the section
that is eroded. As you see on the typical sections, we do have
some terraced supports, along with replanting of vegetation.
And part of the conditions of the permit, if issued, we'll
verify a five-year guaranteed survival rate.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Mr. Patanjo, do you have DEC approval for the
revetment you are proposing?
MR. PATANJO: I would have to look on my one drive, but they
didn't have any problems with it. If memory serves me right,
they had no issues with it. They received the application, and
I might have a permit. I have to see how fast my service is to
pull this up.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I ask because. the Board is not in the habit
of approving stairs without protection at the toe of bluff
because of just they are going to get wiped out. LWRP speaks to
that.
So I feel confident as a Trustee that with that protection,
the staircase would make sense, especially one that you've
designed that was retractable, and a survivability plan.
So I would feel comfortable moving forward with this
application this evening, but would need to see some sort of
proof that the DEC has approved your plan.
MR. PATANJO: Okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is there anyone else wishing to speak
regarding the application this evening?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I have one comment about the -- it appears that
the revetment is straight across in that area?
MR. PATANJO: It will be following the existing toe of bluff. So
wherever that is. Wherever the existing, that's the DEC's
requirements as well as --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And I believe in reviewing this site, in the
field and also here on the satellite, that there is not a
revetment on either side thereof property; is that correct?
MR. PATANJO: There is not.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, so I believe some sort of softening of
the edges would be appropriate, in order to ensure that there
isn't any sort of negative affects on the neighboring
properties.
Board of Trustees 22 May 14, 2025
MR. PATANJO: We can provide some additional plantings or we can
do some returns of the revetment on the site.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think returns is more kind of the direction I
was looking, to kind of tamper or angle those two ends of the
revetment so it's not straight across there.
MR. PATANJO: So those ends of revetments, it's fairly well
stabilized on both sides, so I don't want to disrupt the
existing natural vegetation. So I would probably say we'll go
back about five, seven feet on each side, and do some plantings
on the corners around anything that is disturbed, with the same
Cape American beach grass on those two sides, the east side and
the west side.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Any other questions from the Board or members
of the public wishing to speak?
(No response) .
Seeing no further wish to comment, I 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 new plans depicting returns on either end of the revetment
of roughly five to seven feet inwards, with re-vegetation in
disturbed areas; a five-year survival rate on vegetation, and
subject to DEC approval for the plans submitted, thereby
bringing it into consistency with the LWRP, addressing its
concerns.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Under Wetland Permits, Number 1, Jeffrey
Patanjo on behalf of SHARI HYNES & MARY SCHEERER requests a
Wetland Permit to remove existing timber bulkhead and construct -
80 linear feet of new vinyl bulkhead in same location as
existing; construct an 8'x16' poured concrete kayak ramp;
removal of 10 cubic yards of fill to construct the kayak ramp to
be removed off-site; remove three (3) trees which will be
compromised as part of the bulkhead replacement work; remove and
replace existing fixed dock and steps as required to replace
bulkhead; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 15' wide
non-turf buffer along the landward side of the new bulkhead.
Located: 3765 Wells Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-3
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 6th of
May, 2025, and Trustee Sepenoski made the following notes: Save
two trees, no kayak ramp because of runoff and sufficient access
on dock.
The LWRP found this application to be inconsistent noting
removal of trees is not consistent with Policy Six, limbing up
of trees is recommended instead of removal.
Board of Trustees 23 May 14, 2025
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant.
I would like to submit revised plans that indicate no
proposed kayak launching ramp, and I would like to present
planting of -- removal of the trees, because we need to remove
the trees to construct the bulkhead. But we'll plant four trees
two-and-a-half inch caliper on the subject property.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So due to the location of those two trees that
are in question, it would impact the bulkhead.
MR. PATANJO: You can't build the bulkhead without removing the
trees, so we'll do two-to-one for the removals.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, that sounds agreeable.
MR. PATANJO: One-for-one.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: What's that? I heard it was two-for-one.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I heard three.
(Participants laughing)
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I have a couple questions for you. I don't know
if there is something that was brought to your attention but the
survey that we have here in the file from 1988, does not have
the dock depicted, and there is -- however it is permitted.
So we just need to make sure that that dock permit is
transferred to this applicant.
MR. PATANJO: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And would'make that a condition of the permit,
so we would need to have that take place prior to being able to
release this permit.
MR. PATANJO: No problem. I'll take care of that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to circle back to the trees, is it a typo
that it says "three trees"?
MR. PATANJO: I don't even see that. Where do you see that?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: In the project description.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because at field inspection there is only two
trees that are even relatively close.
MR. PATANJO: Yeah, I remember those two right by the existing
dock. So that's a typo, yeah.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, I think we covered everything. Thank
you, very much.
So is there anyone else here that 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 SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application
with the following updated project description:
Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of Shari Hymes & Mary Scheerer
requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing timber bulkhead and
construct 80 linear feet of new vinyl bulkhead in the same
location as existing; remove two (2) trees which will be
comprised as part of the bulkhead replacement work; remove and
Board of Trustees 24 May 14, 2025
replace existing fixed dock and steps as required to replace the
bulkhead; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 15' wide
non-turf buffer along the landward side of the new bulkhead,,
with the condition of two-to-one tree replacement of two to
three-inch caliper of native hardwoods, subject to new plans
depicting the removal of the kayak rack, and with the
replacement of the trees, thereby brings it into consistency
with the LWRP. -That is my motion, as amended.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, Shannon Wright on behalf of THE
ROGER D. TODEBUSH FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to
remove existing 31x8 ' steps, 41x35' fixed catwalk and 3'x4 '
steps and replace in same location construct proposed 3'x8'
steps to a proposed 41x61' fixed catwalk with 4' wide steps down
to a proposed 51x20' seaward fixed "T" section; install 31x4'
steps off north side of catwalk; existing 12.2 'xl2.4' attached
upper deck to remain undisturbed.
Located: 1130 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-13-9
The Trustees conducted a field inspection May 12th, 2025.
Notes, the proposed dock appears to be within the pier line,
according to the new plans, and to look for open-grate decking
for the entirety of the proposed dock.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The
inconsistencies are that the dock will extend further into
public waters, thereby hindering the use and access of such
waters, impacting bottom lands and marine benthic species. The
water depth of the terminus of the dock is shallow and can
result in impacts from the operation of a vessel. 151.28
square-foot deck is oversized and attached to the stairs.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. WRIGHT: Hi, this is Shannon Wright, on behalf of the
applicant, just to answer any questions you guys might have. And
also to quickly address the inconsistencies with the LWRP
report.
The US Army Corps of Engineers responded that they approved
the project, but they would like to see us maintain four feet
above the marsh, and also utilize through-flow decking so that
we can minimize any disturbances to the marine life and benthic
life.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. In the deck that the LWRP
referred to, that was approved in a previous permit, correct?
MS. WRIGHT: Yes, that's part of a separate application. Rather
that has its own permit. That is not part of this application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So we also noticed that the fixed dock, with
the exception of the "T" at the end was through flow. So we are
going to require that the whole dock be through-flow.
MS. WRIGHT: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
Board of Trustees 25 May 14, 2025
(No response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that the entirety of the dock, including the
"T" section, be open-grate or through-flow decking; and noting
that the dock is within the pier line and does not extend any
further seaward than the neighboring docks, bringing it into
consistency with the LWRP; and also the condition of subject to
new plans showing the entirety of the dock with open-grate
decking.
MS. WRIGHT: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES)
MS. WRIGHT: Thank you:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have a good night.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, 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. 61x8 . 6' top platform with two benches to 36" wide by ±28.1'
long steps to beach.
Located: 1055 Sound View Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-3-13
The Trustees inspected the property on the 9th of April,
noted that it was a straightforward application, but should
require a five-foot non-turf vegetated buffer.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent, as the
structure was constructed without a wetlands permit. And also it
is recommended that the turf area be reduced and replaced with
native, drought-tolerant vegetated buffer.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak with regard to this
application?
(No response) .
Are there any comments from the members of the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with new plans depicting naturally vegetated five-foot, non-turf
buffer at the top of the bluff, and by granting this a wetland
permit would thereby bring it into consistency with the LWRP
coordinator.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 26 May 14, 2025
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 4, STARKIE LIVING TRUST requests a
Wetland Permit to remove and replace 125 linear feet of existing
timber bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead in same location as
existing; remove and replace existing permitted timber decking
consisting of a 41x125' boardwalk, a 37.51x14' irregular shaped
platform, and 9'x6' steps using untreated timber decking in same
location; remove and replace existing 61x4 ' timber cantilevered
platform, 3'xl6' aluminum ramp, and 61x20' floating dock in same
location as existing; remove three locust trees to allow for the
installation of the bulkhead tie-backs; with the condition to
establish and perpetually maintain a 10" wide non-turf buffer in
areas between the retaining walls and boardwalk.
Located: 630 Tarpon Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-57-1-7
The Trustees made notes in our field inspection day,
reviewed previous field notes at work session.
The LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent.
I welcome comments from the public.
I welcome comments from the public.
MR. STARKIE: I'm the public, I guess. George Starkey, on behalf
of the Starkey Living Trust.
Those trees that I planted years back, do you want those
replaced? I can, but that point of wall has to be removed.
I had Shawn Henney (sic) down, he's going to be doing the
work, and he said they have to go. To, so but now I just heard
you say, if you want trees, I 'm in the nursery business, that's
easy, no problem.
And I just wanted to ask one question. I lost both my folks
within six months and I contacted the Board, and I knew that the
permit had been issued in June of '23, and they said, oh, you
can request a one-year extension.
I wrote the Board about this. I don't know if you got my
letters. I sent them all to you. And I was told, yeah, you can
request an extension. So after my dad passed in January, I came
down and I said, okay, we need to get this done, and they said,
oh, you have to make the request before the permit expires. Is
that the case? Because I just noted in here that the federal
government was asking for an extension, and theirs was done in
April. Mine was in June. Just curious. Is there different rules
for the feds than there is for the township?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I don't believe so.
MR. STARKIE: So, yeah, there' s a note in here. The Plum Island
one, that they're asking for an extension for one year, and it
was issued in April of 2023. And, again, no issues. I just
wanted some clarification. Because no one mentioned that to me
when I went down, that, make sure you do it before it expires.
And it was no big deal, except time, obviously, I lost my slot
when Mr. Henney, he's down in Greenport now doing a bunch of
work for the Town.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I can't speak to the specifics, but the same
rule should apply to everyone, and so I can't speak to the
specifics of the Department of Homeland Security, their
application, but I would be happy to follow up with that in the
office after tonight.
Board of Trustees 27 May 14, 2025
MR. STARKIE: You know, again, I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a
farmer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You are doing a pretty good job.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: A better job.
MR. STARKIE: Thank you. Well, I was also on the other side, I
was the mayor of my town, so I know what it' s like. So, thank
you, for what you're doing. It's my greatest day when I was
elected and the next best was when I decided not to run again.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you, for your service.
MR. STARKIE: Thank you. Oh, and I had to reapply, and the
application triple the cost. It went up. So, I'm just saying.
MS. HULSE: If you inquire, the staff will always tell you that
there has to be an application made before the expiration of the
permit. Once it expires, it's done.
So I'm sure that if you did communicate with them, that
they would have advised you of that, because that' s always the
case. That' s always the case.
MR. STARKIE: I get it. I did communicate with them, but it was
never said do it before it expires.
MS. HULSE: Okay.
MR. STARKIE: Just saying.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. STARKIE: Thank you, folks.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Any other comments from the public, members
of the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. STARKIE: Thank you, folks. Good evening.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 5, AS PER REVISED PLANS & PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 5/5/25 En-Consultants on behalf of KEVIN &
JOSEPHINE KLEIN request a Wetland Permit to construct a timber
dock comprised entirely of untreated materials, including
open-grate decking, consisting of a 41x43' fixed catwalk with an
8'xl5' fixed platform at end of catwalk in a "T" configuration.
Located: 2155 Laurel Way, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-121-4-20
The Trustees did an in-house review and on, dated 5/6/25,
and noted we'll review further at work session.
The LWRP found this application to be .inconsistent, noting
to 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
Board of Trustees .28 May 14, 2025
impaired many of the significant habitats.
The impacts that generally result from the construction of
fixed dock structures include: Physical loss of vegetation,
structure placement, construction practices, chronic shading,
wildlife, the physical and functional loss, loss and/or
impairment of habitat, disruptions of habitat and migration
patterns of structure and activity.
And 9.3, preserve the public interest in and use of lands
and waters held in public trust 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 in public lands underwater.
In a 1983 cooperative agreement with the Town, New York
State DEC prohibited structures in Laurel Lake to ensure
adequate access to the fisheries in the lake. Rules and
Regulations, Item F.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Good evening. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants,
on behalf of the applicants Kevin and Josephine Klein, property
owners, they are also here.
This is of course a continuation of the public hearing from
last month. As both at the site inspection prior to the hearing
and then during the hearing, the Trustees had expressed some
concerns about the dock design that was initially submitted.
Specifically, employment of the floating dock at the end of the
fixed catwalk, one of the Board members noted it could create
shading impacts, questioned the need for a float over a
non-tidal lake bottom, and could prevent -- and having the float
instead of a fixed-only dock would prevent the entire structure
from being elevated above the water surface and constructed with
open-grate, light-penetrating decking.
The length of the dock was questioned. I believe it was
suggested by at least one Trustee the length could be reduced by
at least 15 feet.
Some similar concerns as you just noted were raised in a
report submitted to the Board by the LWRP coordinator,
specifically regarding structure placement and shading, which
presumably would also be directly associated with the float. And
while I don't believe there is any scientific evidence that
would support the notion a small dock located at this developed
waterfront property would impact wildlife migration patterns,
because there was water and electricity proposed, and thus
potentially lighting, we would concede that it is feasible that
lighting could potentially impact wildlife behavior and
habitation.
Therefore, in response collectively to those various
concerns, we've made various revisions. The dock design, which
are reflected in the revised description in the agenda, the
float and the associated ramp have been eliminated from the
design in favor of a fixed platform, so that the dock is now
entirely fixed only. The dock can now, entire dock can be
Board of Trustees 29 May 14, 2025
elevated above the water surface. The entire dock can be
constructed with open-grate, light-penetrating decking, and the
dock would continue to be constructed entirely of untreated
materials.
The overall length of the dock has been reduced by 15 feet:
And the proposed water and electricity have been removed from
the design.
With respect to the other comments in the LWRP report, I
had also submitted in a cover letter with the revised plans
dated May 2nd, 2025 and I won't read all that or cover that here
unless the Board wishes to, but there was an agreement that was
in place for five years starting in 1983, but as noted, and as
previously furnished to the Board, the New York State DEC has
issued a permit for the proposed dock in its original form, and
I don't have any reason to believe that the DEC would object to
modifying that permit consistent with the design changes that
have been intended to be responsive to the Board concerns and
the LWRP concerns.
Now that the structure is entirely fixed, entirely
elevated above .the water surface, constructed entirely with,
open-grate decking, and the float has been removed in favor of
that terminal perform, although it is much shorter than the dock
that was approved and constructed pursuant to Town Wetlands
permit 9463 in 2019 two properties to the west, it is now
substantially similar otherwise in design to that dock.
It would also now intrude or encroach less into the lake
than the adjacent dock that is depicted in the aerial photo
presented on this screen. All as is depicted and revised in the
modified project description and the modified plans.
So we are at this point hopeful that this design does
respond to the various comments that were made concerning the
float, concerning length, et cetera, but obviously we can answer
any additional questions if you have them.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, Mr. Herrmann, and thank you for your
efforts in the design changes that were made based on the
Board' s input and the discussion that we had during the last
hearing.
The one thing that I do want to state is that in surveying
the docks that are on Laurel Lake, there are eleven docks, and
six of them are permitted, and those six permitted docks were
all permitted in-kind/in-place. So they were essentially a
rebuild of what was historically already there. So there have
not been any new docks that have been built on Laurel Lake.
And I think the, in review of this in the field with
yourself and work session and discussions. with the Board, there
are concerns about the environmental impacts of this proposed
dock, and the environmental, the concerns of the habitat with
building a new structure to what is fairly untouched property.
MR. HERRMANN: Are there specific concerns that the modified
design does not address?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: While I believe you did address a lot of the
concerns, I think the main concern is that this is a new
structure on Laurel Lake.
Board of Trustees 30 May 14, 2025
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, that had been mentioned at the prior hearing,
but again, there is nothing in the Board's code that prevents a
quote unquote new or non-in-place replacement dock from being
constructed on Laurel Lake, providing it meets the construction
and operation standards, and the standards for wetlands permit
issuance, which is what we were under the impression the Board
were directing us to with the request to reduce the length,
change the design, remove the float, open-grate decking,
untreated materials, et cetera.
Again, while the dock that is two doors to the west may
have been a replacement of a previously existing dock, it is
still newly constructed structure in-place. And if there was
anything in the code preventing that dock from being
constructed, that would have been imposed at the time.
So certainly from our perspective, from the owner's
perspective, there is nothing preventing us from making this
request, provided we are able to be consistent with the code
standards.
And I hear what you are saying but I'm just not sure what
the relevance of the fact that this is a, you know, newly
proposed dock, particularly in the context of -saying of all the
docks on Laurel Lake, half of them are permitted.
I mean, we certainly don't want to encourage the idea that
if you are building a dock on Laurel Lake you might as well just
do it, because obviously these homeowners are here before the
Board --
(Participants speaking over each other for five seconds) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is what you said. So let' s backtrack that.
So, for the record, this Board is certainly not encouraging
that.
MR. HERRMANN: I know you're not.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And there is an historical record of docks on
Laurel Lake, but there is a very small amount. And I think that
the point should be mentioned that, I completely understand
where you and your clients are coming from applying for this.
It's a beautiful location on a pristine lake, in extremely
sensitive habitat that we just don't have a lot of in Southold
Town.
So I think that while the code doesn't speak specifically
to Laurel Lake in terms of applying for a dock, but it does
highlight the fact that, okay, there are so few docks here
already, in this really sensitive habitat, especially tucked up
in this corner where you have all sort of drainage issues, but
every, you know, most of' the lawns are kept very natural, and
with the exception of the one house in the picture, everything
is really small and kind of takes into account of where it is
there.
So when you start to look at other aspects of the code on
how docks adversely could affect the wetlands, it just sort of
highlights that point as to what is there now. And you are a
steward of that land when you purchased that property, and it is
a really special spot.
So I think that' s part of the issue that I'm having my,
Board of Trustees 31 May 14, 2025
having trouble wrapping my head around a new dock application on
a habitat such as this.
MS. HULSE: And just to clarify one point, the permits that were
issued by the Board, were issued on construction on old permits,
previously existing, old docks.
So that' s, there is no new construction that they've
permitted in this area at all.
So this is a completely new application that this Board and
prior Boards have not considered a brand new dock, a brand
facility or structure on this lake.
MR. HERRMANN: I hear that, that you're saying that. I'm also
looking at that aerial photo that appears to show, I think five
properties, four of which have docks. And --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Two are decks, but.
MR. HERRMANN: Well, they're decks in the water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No.
MR. HERRMANN: No? I can't tell from here. I guess what I would
just submit is I'm just asking is there a specific environmental
impact that the code seeks' to prohibit, that is not addressed by
this dock design. Because we have attempted to address, I mean,
there is a philosophical position that is inherent to I would
say nearly 100% of every LWRP report I received on docks, that
could be applied literally to any dock proposed in any of the
vital waterways in the Town of Southold, and used as a
justification to deny almost any dock in almost any waterway in
Southold. And yet docks are an explicitly permissible structure
under Chapter 275, providing they meet certain conditions.
So all I 'm asking is does -- obviously this is an important
application to my clients, and I really don't think that there
is any adverse impacts that would stem from the construction of
the dock, particularly as it has been redesigned.
So I'm just looking to know is there anything that we can
change about the design that would be responsive to some other
specific impact that was not mentioned previously.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So while I appreciate where you've gone with
this application, and the steps you've taken, and the Board
always is -- I mean certainly this Board cannot be accused of
being anti dock --
MR. HERRMANN: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: (Continuing) because I think everyone on this
Board likes to utilize the water and tries to keep it open to
the public and to the public use, which would be another thing
impacted here.
But this is a specific application in an extremely critical
habitat. It's just, it' s a special spot. It' s not something we
come across, so to say every dock could, you could rise to the
level of opposition of every dock under the LWRP, I mean that's
just not something this Board has done.
MR. HERRMANN: I would agree with that. My point is the
statements made in the LWRP report are not, they are not
site-specific lake-specific impacts. They are just ideological
statement that cumulatively building lots, docks in Southold,
can have these generic impacts. They are very similar to almost
Board of Trustees 32 May 14,- 2025
every LWRP report we see in response to dock applications.
So as we always do, lacking some other prohibition in the
code, that prevents us from making the application, we are
trying to do everything we can to make sure that we are
compliant with the construction operation standards and the
standards for permit issuance.
MS. HULSE: (Inaudible) specific deleterious effects of what the
structure would cost. So you're saying that just because those
could be, those are kind of general in your mind that it' s not
specific enough to this application. But this is reviewed as
per this application. So this analysis that he's made, and what
the Trustees are putting on the record and explaining, his that
this particular critical area, this particular spot, which is so
unique, does have these effects that are listed on the LWRP
regarding the vegetation and wildlife. And I think those
concerns were specific, obviously, to this application.
So I don't think it's just a general he threw them in. It
certainly seems like it was specific considering what was being
requested here.
MR. HERRMANN: Understood. But it was also written in response
to the original design, which we have now modified in response
both to the LWRP concerns and the Board' s specific concerns,
which were focused on the employment of a float rather than an
elevated fixed-dock structure with 100% open-grate decking and
also with the overall length. And those were the same concerns
expressed at field inspections.
MS. HULSE: But how much it mitigates this is open for discussion
and debate.
MR. HERRMANN: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, that I would agree with. And just as we
review the code for these' specific applications, I mean, again
I'm falling back on the habit with, you know, the background in
habitat restoration. But you could speak about public use, which
is always issue with these dock applications, certainly. Which I
know the response would be that you are up in the corner of the
lake. But really talking about degradation of surface water
quality, which is number five. Natural resources, number six,
whether the dock will cause habitat fragmentation, loss of
significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats.
This speaks to sea grasses, which obviously being fresh
water, we don't have the zoster that you would, or Ruppia, that
you would run across in saltwater habitats. But it does have all
the other, I mean, we talked Lily Pads and everything else that
is actually natural there, beyond that, that is sustaining the
fish and the wildlife habitats there.
And that's really for me, what makes this a tricky
application.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: We spoke with you in the field, Rob, walked
down gentle slope to the sandy edge of that property, and you
said to us, if I'm able to remember correctly, that this is an
access for a kayak.
MR. HERRMANN: One of the uses, sure.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : One of the uses. And it' s difficult to wade
Board of Trustees 33 May 14, 2025
out in the Lily Pads and get into your kayak with that kind of
vegetation that grows in there in the summer. And that comment
stands out to me because in my mind it's, kayaks, it's all often
get in from the shore and paddle out. So that's still with me.
And I think, you know, access, when it comes to docks, there are
no motor boats permitted in Laurel Lake. Right? There's always
going to be a kayak or canoe launching spot.
So if our code speaks to the right to wharf out, which just
means right to access the water in a safe manner, I think this
property already has those features sort of naturally gifted to
it. And that is what weighs on my decision making, my thinking,
whether or not the structure that will be on this lake for 30 or
more years, is worth the other measures that the Trustees to my
right on the dais had mentioned before.
MR. HERRMANN: I would just -- I hear that, Eric, and I do want
to note for the record I would respectfully disagree with that
position that the right to wharf out is simply the right to walk
into the water. As both state and federal case law established
right to wharf out is in fact the right to wharf out, and as
long as it' s done in an environmentally sensitive manner, and
that's what we are trying to do.
I've said all I think I can say. I do note Kevin, the
property owner, did want to just speak to the Board before you
close the hearing
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Before Mr. Klein speaks, Mr. Herrmann, I do
want to just address a clarification when you were referencing
the LWRP, that it does specifically speak to the impacts that
generally result from the construction of fixed dock structures.
So I did just want to clarify that on the record. Thank you.
MR. KLEIN: Good evening. Kevin Klein.
I agree with a lot of what you said. Look, the reason we
bought the property was for the lake. We love the lake. I'm a
steward of the lake. I want to see that it continues to grow.
And you mentioned, you know, the ability to walk out. And
I agree. But can I show you some pictures that I have taken,
since you've come to my property and you happened to come on a
very nice day, where there was nothing there.
On any given day, when I want to go out, I'll show you the
pictures of what I see right on the. edge of my property. I know
I don't want to walk through it. I 'm afraid to walk through it.
I invite all of you to come back to my property with waders and
walk out ten feet. Because you'll walk into muck up to a foot.
Not my idea of fun to try to launch my kayak or launch my boat.
There are, actually, you were incorrect, you are allowed
electric motors on Laurel Lake.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Electric motors.
MR. KLEIN: And you were also incorrect that all, because I'm
very familiar with all my neighbors, all of those whether you
want to call it a dock or a platform or whatever, they are all
over the waters. So that is --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to be fair, wetland and water and, you
know seasonal fluctuations is more to what I was speaking to.
Those two.
Board of Trustees 34 May 14, 2025
MR. KLEIN: Well, they're all over the water, so. I mean, you
said they weren't --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were just there and walked up to the one
that -- physically walked up to the one on the right there.
MR. KLEIN: The green house?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's right.
MR. KLEIN: Okay, well, part of his, again, it depends on the
time of year where the water is, you're right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's right.
MR. KLEIN: And the reason that I originally wanted the floating
dock is because as I get older, if you look at the docks, the
one that sticks far out, I mean at some point it' s four or five
feet above the water. As I get older it' s a little more
challenging to get in and out of a boat. So that's why I was
originally looking for the floating dock. And again, we are
just trying to enjoy the land, enjoy the lake, keep up with it.
Can I show you the photographs?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure.
MR. KLEIN: Can I come up?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Please.
MR. KLEIN: There are dates on the top.
(Photographs being displayed to the Board members) .
That's kind of the muck that I see on almost a weekly basis. And
you can see the stakes, on some of the pictures you can see the
stakes of where it was staked out, and that would have been
where the float was. I'm just trying to get out, and again, I'm
trying to enjoy the lake. And the other question I would ask,
because you are a stewards of the lake, and, like you, I want
to, when I first, we had the house three years. When I used to
go out and fish, I would go out three or four hours and catch
20, 30 fish. The next year it was 20 fish. Last year I went out
and it was like ten fish.
So something is going on with the lake. Where we are
happens to be, unfortunately for us, we are on the windward
side, so everything blows into my cove. And we are just trying
to get as much use out of the lake as we can.
This is why -- and there was a dock there at some point
because I know when I go out in my kayak, there are still a
couple of poles still in the ground, in the water. Just, so at
some point, whether it was permitted or not, I have no idea.
And again, we are just trying to do the right thing, come
to the Town, get it done right, because that' s the way to do it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, Mr. Klein.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. And to be fair, it' s evident that
you are trying be a good steward. I mean, your backyard, we deal
with a lot of properties that are over-landscaped, over --
fertilized, over-treated, and it's very apparent that that is
not what you are doing there. We appreciate seeing, it' s mostly
moss, right?
MR. KLEIN: Yes. And quite honestly we like it that way because,
(a) it's easier to maintain, and (b) , it takes care of the lake.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely.
Board of Trustees 35 May 14, -2025
MR. KLEIN: So, look, I bought the property because I like to
fish. And I catch and release. I catch a two-pound fish, I throw
it back because I want to catch a three-pounder next year. So,
we love the lake.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yup. And we certainly take that into account
and we appreciate that.
MR. KLEIN: Thank you. Appreciate your time, and hope you vote in
my favor?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, Mr. Klein. Is there anyone else here
who wishes to speak, or any questions or comments from the
Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to deny this application for
the following reasons: Based on Chapter 275-12 (a) , adversely
affects the wetlands of the Town; (b) , causes damage from
erosion, turbidity, or siltation; (c) , adversely affects fish,
shellfish, other beneficial marine organisms and vegetation; and
(f) adversely affects navigation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 6, Nigel Williamson on behalf of
CARMELA LAZIO REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish (As Per Town Code Definition) existing two-story
dwelling including covered porch and steps, covered front deck
and covered rear deck; construct a new two-story dwelling (main
floor 2, 276. 931sq.ft. ) With covered porch entrance and steps
(86. 667sq. ft. ) , and front deck (117sq.ft. ) , construct a detached
two-story rear deck against dwelling (183.262sq.ft. Footprint) ,
rear landing and steps (86 sq.ft. ) ; basement entrance
(43.56sq.ft. ) And a 41x4 ' outdoor shower open to the sky;
construct a detached garage with attic space (660sq.ft. ) ;
install a generator with a 1, 000gal. Propane tank; pump and
remove existing septic system and install a new I/A OWTS on
landward side of dwelling; install gutters to leaders to
drywells to contain roof runoff; reconfigure and reconstruct
driveway to be pervious.
Located: 250 Blue Marlin Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-7-21
The Trustees conducted a field inspection May 6th, 2025,
noting that we needed the pier line on the plans.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Nigel Robert' Williamson for Carmela Lazio, and,
do you want me to read the project description?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No, that's fine.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. I would just like to address the LWRP and
non-consistency.
Board of Trustees 36 May 14, 2025
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It actually was consistent.
MR. WILLIAMSON: What? Oh, because I just argued with the ZBA
last week.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You got a consistent.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just for the record, we did receive plans
that show the pier line subsequent to our field inspection, so
thank you for that.
And also, Mr. Williamson, just to confirm, it does look
like the house is moving slightly landward; is that correct?
MR. WILLIAMSON: That is correct. I did submit two additional
surveys because of the comments by the ZBA, and we were trying
to hold the point at 8. 6 feet, yes, 8. 6 feet on the east side of
the property, and they asked us to move it to be ten feet, to
conform with setbacks, which in turn then moved it from 62. 1
feet from the bulkhead to 63. 8 feet from the bulkhead. The
outside to be eight-something.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Are there any 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 make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second..
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Board members. Just one thing, in
case anyone else is going to do the map with the pier line, put
it in a different color than black.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Noted. Wisdom.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 7, Patricia Moore, Esq. , on behalf of
THOMAS RATTLER requests a Wetland Permit to clear and till the
land with no change to the existing topography, and no regrading
required; a 10' wide limit of clearing and ground disturbance
area to be kept around the top crest. of the pond; farm the
property with crops that will not require a lot of tilling,
plowing, etc. But need mowing, pruning, irrigation, and
harvesting that consist of planting ±3 acres of peonies; 1 to 2
acres planted with varying crops such as annual cut-flowers,
herbs, vegetables, etc. With soil preparation required each
year; 0.5 acres of fruit trees to be planted; and 0.5 acres of
trellised raspberries.
Located: 67925 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-3-19. 19
The Trustees most recently visited the site on May 6th, and
noted to consider at lease a 15-foot ring around the pond to be
a native vegetated buffer, and would need a re-vegetation or a
Board of Trustees 37 May 14, 2025
vegetation plan.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, however
recommends a vegetated buffer encircling the pond, and it is the
recommended farm-managed fertilizer to prevent eutrophic
conditions.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Thank you. Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr.
Rattler, who is the owner of the property. I also have John
Hughes and-Caroline Fish, who are going to be the farmers of
this property.
As you know, this is Lot 19 in Rock Cove Estates. This
subdivision was created with the farm parcel, specifically for
farming purposes. There are covenants on the property that
require restrictive use of the property to farming.
So the reason we are here is that this is a new farming
operation. I would point out that the code does allow farming well, does not require any kind of wetland permit from this
Board, nor does it from the DEC, for a bona fide farming,
existing farming operation.
So obviously they are new, but it's still a farming
operation. And so the, you can't farm this property without
clearing and getting it ready for the purposes of planting.
We did propose a smaller buffer with an ultimately we did
provide you with a re-vegetation plan of the, it's actually a
restoration of the wetlands in that area with plants. That was
already part of your file. You can provide the timeline for
that. I think realistically it's going to be part of the overall
farming plan, but he' s got to get his plants in the ground, and
it's now crucial time.
Did you want to add anything? On the record, what was
discussed at the hearing as far as clearing and grading and so
on.
Just give them your name.
MR. HUGHES: John Hughes.
MS. FISH: Hi, I'm Caroline Fish.
MR. HUGHES: As we discussed when you guys were out there last
time, we don't plan on doing any grading, anything like that.
What we want to do is close to the wetland, we want to restore
that, because it' s all invasive. You saw how messy it was.
This is not a go in there and rip it all out and fill it
all in thing. It' s a two 20-30 foot, this period, like this
season. Do another 20 or 30 foot, slowly move it around, because
you saw also the slopes. You can't use machines. So it' s going
to be slow and long. But that actually is a benefit for the
wetlands itself. Because it means it's not going to get
disturbed all at once. The things are going to get carefully
taken care of. They'll be able to survive well in that short of
environment.
Then, as far as how close we can farm, and also within the
100-foot, we are hoping, we are planning what we plant, which
are perennial plants, peonies, they live 20 years, so you plant
once, you don't disturb the soil after that.
Board of Trustees 38 May 14, 2025
They are also very hardy and resistant to diseases, so
therefore, we don't want to use anything except organic measures
for controlling them.
And as far as silt and erosion, and, you saw how steep the
bowl was. There is a natural lip around it. Then it starts to
get steep. Within that steep area, there are native trees there.
We want to keep them. Because the trees are going to control
the erosion going into the pond. It's just outside of the trees.,
once you get to the flat area, where we would like to do the
planting after that, which depending on where you stand around
the pond is somewhere between, as you saw, maybe five-foot,
ten-foot, up to 20-foot or so. We proposed the ten-foot because
it seems like an average one. But really we are going to go into
it with the idea of we want to make sure we keep it safe around
the edges so it's not eroding in, we replace the stuff on the
inside, we get rid of the invasives and then we plant what we
can reasonably plant on the outside.
Does that answer your question?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes. And thank you for walking with us on
the property and showing us in detail what you had in mind.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, I think that concept, I think you have a
good concept here. However, and I think Ms. Moore can speak to
the fact that we look for something a little bit more specific
and dialed in on our plans when we proceed with the voting on a
hearing.
So the plans that, the color designs I have in front of me
here, depict the peonies planted around the pond, and they show
the setback that is nearly consistent with what we looked at and
talked about in the field. But we really need to see something
that is a little more worked, so that the ten feet is sort of a
minimum that we would apply to, and honestly, we are trying to
increase that to keep nitrogen out of the system in a lot of
these applications, but that's sort of a minimum number we try
to work with on small, constricted lots. And as you yourself
just said, you are not going to even be going that close. So,
you know, we kind of joked at work session as we were trying to
work through this, that you almost need like the shape of an
oyster here where you can get pretty close on the side closest
to where we met you and where the plantings are, but then, you
know, it sort of turns into a ball going back, and you wouldn't
go that close anyway, so we would really like to see a clean
depiction of where that buffer would be, with a little bit of a
planting on top of where the slope ends. And that's certainly
the whole property slopes, and that's not, I think you
understand that's not what I'm speaking to. But just those three
sloped areas, it's two sides and then a little bit of the third.
If we can kind of show that on the plans and survey within say
the ten-foot buffer behind that, where I think the trees are,
and you are going to keep all that, and just show, you know
natively vegetated non-turf buffer, that's what we are really
looking for this project, which I think is what you're looking
for, too.
We just need something we can vote on in front of us.
Board of Trustees 39 May 14, 2025
MR. HUGHES: That sounds good, and I think you're dead-on
target. It' s an oyster-shape thing, when you look at the topo
map, you'll see when you look at it, where all of a sudden it
goes like this. And that's really it. And if we just give you an
enlarged vision of that, our image of that, and then I'll show
you, here .is the idea of where we would like to restore up to,
here is the tree barriers where the trees exist, where there is
going to be the erosion control, and then outside of that we'll
plant, that sounds perfect. Because drawing this circle of ten
foot was a simple way to explain it, when it's really like
you're saying, it's more complex.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, and so if you can just provide us with a
new set of plans with some measurements on how far back that
buffer would go.
MR. HUGHES: Now, can I do those measurements or do we need a
surveyor to do those measurements?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would think you could do this.
MS. MOORE: Oh, good, because it's impossible to get our
surveyor. This was --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Well, yes, because we already have the survey
with the topography in there, so, and we walked the site with
you, so we know.
MR. HUGHES: And if I do the image on it where the topo lines
are, you know these things will align how they match up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's right.. And then if you can also provide
us at the next hearing with a description that doesn't speak to,
because we are really just looking at the clearing --
essentially we are looking at this as the clearing around the
pond. So you can remove the, you know, the one to two acres
planted of the cut flowers, and really I think just tighten this
description up. If you can provide that, too.
MS. MOORE: I thought it was an excellent --
MS. HULSE: Oh, my gosh, Pat.
MS. MOORE: (Continuing) description of what we were doing.
You narrowed it down to one simple little paragraph. I thought,
wow, very good.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is nice but, a lot of it is not what this
Board speaks to,. .
MS. HULSE: So we are not going to approve what you put in, cut
flowers or vegetables. So just take that out.
MS. MOORE: We tried to explain --
MS. HULSE: Just take that out. We don't want the explanation to
be on what they're approving.
MS. MOORE: Okay'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This plan is nice and I think we all found it
interesting and look forward to seeing it, but we need something
a lot less busy and showing the actual just native plantings. I
don't think we need to get into specifics on that but we need to
see a measured-out area.
MS. MOORE: If I could suggest something. Our concern is that
you've got to get the property started. We are already a month
behind. I mean, another month from now is going to really screw
you up.
Board of Trustees 40 May 14, 2025
MS. FISH: Is it possible for us to sort of give you that
document and then you can decide on it?
MS. MOORE: So my thought was if I could get you the drawing that
matches, because he's going to be the one to do it -- that
matches apparently is what you all seem to agree on, it could be
approved subject to receipt of that drawing and then if it
doesn't match, you know --
MR. HUGHES: Or, you all were out there. You saw that in the
south side, between the silo and the pond, that is all flat wood
work. It's all flat area. You're probably going to say you can
do that right up to the edge. Because basically, that' s it. If
we can just go to there, then I can could have the guy who is
doing the tractor work to just load the lungwort down, because
we've got to slowly kill that over time and start clearing that.
And then the other three sides of the oyster, on the left,
north, east and west, that we can wait until we get the plan to
you that way you can know how we are doing with the tricky
parts, but the flat part in front, if we can say, you know what,
that's reasonable, we can go along with that. That would help us
lot.
MS. HULSE: The problem is that this Board can't grant a partial
approval or approve part of your application, and I think,
because the description needs to be changed, because
clarification needs to be made on what particular area that you
are referencing. I mean, I'm going to advise the Board they
can't go forward without that information at the next meeting.
MS. MOORE: Well, let me make one simple suggestion. If you have
a 15-foot and then we come back to amend to the detail that you
are talking, because the 15 feet is kind of a baseline that
would allow us to get the property ready, and then we can work
toward the specific..
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think that' s exactly what we are
looking -- it's not just a standard number, to be honest with
you. But I think we had a brief discussion about, •you know, that
south edge is just mugwort there. I don't think anyone on the
Board would have a problem with that being mowed in between now
and next month. Because there is no --
MS. MOORE: But you're the ones that sent out Code Enforcement,
SO.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yeah, I mean, I think within reason, if you are
mowing in that direction. I wouldn't go right up to the water's
edge, because we would still want to see a buffer on that side
regardless. But it' s not any work. They are not taking down
trees or bushes or anything on that side.
So I would say, under advisement of attorney, we can't
proceed without the things that we require here, but in the eyes
of someone trying to continue with work and, you know, start a
business, I think -- I would not go right to the water' s edge,
and I would not be taking down any trees or large bushes --
MS. MOORE: But mowing --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: (Continuing) but on the south side. And be
conservative with it. But I don't think -- it's an open area
already in that small area we are talking about.
Board of Trustees 41 May 14, 2025
MS. MOORE: We hear you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: You mention mugwort, you've got two farmers
all worked up over here.
MS FISH: Any help we can get is appreciated.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. So is there anyone else that wishes to
speak? Sir? Just approach and state your name, please.
MR. HUZSEK: My name is Andy Huzsek, I live at 535 McCann Lane,
Greenport.
I 'm just concerned about, well, I live there 365 days a
year, my whole life, everywhere in Greenport. I'm concerned
about the runoff of fertilizers or stuff going into the lake.
The pond, rather. And there is a lot of wild habitat there that
live in that pond. And I hate to see it destroyed, but ten-feet
is not half of your stage there. It should be more to save the
environment, what's left in there. What we have left, there' s
all kind of stuff you would not believe that comes out of there.
There are bullfrogs, there's herons, there's eagles. I saw an
eagle. Everything. Everything. Ducks, wild animals.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I would tend to agree with that, and
I think that' s --
MR. HUZSEK: I just worry about the environmental habitat of
these. They are very sensitive. Not much left any more.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You are certainly right about that.
So I think that' s what this Board is trying to achieve with
another set of plans, sort of expanding on that natural buffer
with all native species.
MR. HUZSEK: I don't want to is them disturb everything, you
know, it's just going to make a mess. There is not much left for
Long Island anymore.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, very little left.
MR. HUZSEK: I lived here my whole life, so I know.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. So, thank you.
MR. HUZSEK: Oh, one more question. Are you going to use that
pond as an irrigation pond?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just direct it through us, for the record sake.
MR. HUZSEK: I'm sorry, are they going to use it as an irrigation
pond?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not sure if they can speak to that.
MS. FISH: We don't know yet.
MR. HUZSEK: How are they going to get their irrigation in?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I guess -- it's a good question for next month,
talking about irrigation, where that would come from and how
that would work out there with the natural habitat. Might be
best to consider alternatives, so, something to think about for
next month, certainly. Good question.
MR. HUGHES: The water table, and the pond --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Or any additional comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I 'll make a motion to table this application for
submission of new plans and project description to next month.
Board of Trustees 42 May 14, 2025
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 8, AS PER REVISED PLANS AND PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 5/12/25 Karen Hoeg, Esq. On behalf of KIMDY
REALTY, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing
single-family dwelling with attached garage, wood deck, swimming
pool, timber wall, and frame shed; construct a new two-story,
single-family dwelling (1, 462sq.ft. Footprint) , a ±4 'x14.3'
second-story balcony, ±4'x8' front covered entry platform,
12'xl3.2' raised covered masonry patio with a 12'x13.2' roofed
over second-story deck above; 41x4 ' roofed over masonry landing
with steps; A/C units and a generator on slabs; a 528sq.ft.
Detached garage with attic storage space; a 13. 6'x24' roofed
over patio off garage with masonry fireplace and outdoor
kitchen/bbq area; 41x8' outdoor shower; 1, 902sq.ft. Masonry pool
patio; 201x34 ' in-ground pool; a 51x5' fence enclosure for pool
equipment area; a pool drywell for backwash; pool enclosure
fencing with gates to be installed with the seaward section of
fencing installed along the landward edge of the 20' buffer
line; proposed I/A sanitary system landward of dwelling; and to
establish and perpetually maintain a 20' wide non-disturbance,
non-fertilized buffer area along the landward edge of the
bulkhead with a 4 ' wide woodchip path to dock.
Located: 535 Bay Home Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-23
The Trustees visited the site on the 6th of May and
discussed the location of the pool equipment, limit the height
of the retaining wall to two feet or less. Keep project in pier
line. Vegetated non-turf buffer. Fence 20-feet off of bulkhead.
The LWRP found the project to be consistent. Just to
clarify, outdoor shower drainage, large native planted vegetated
buffer is recommended to further Policy Six, and limbing up of
trees is recommended instead of removal.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding the
application?
MS. HOEG: Good evening, Board members, Karen Hoeg, from Twomey
Latham, on behalf of the applicant. And here with me tonight is
John Grano (sic) , also on behalf of the application.
On Monday we submitted the revised survey dated May 12th,
2025, depicted the modification of the following items in
response to comments made in the field report.
We increased the non-turf buffer to 20 feet, which was
noted in the field report, where previously 15 was proposed. We
also relocated the pool equipment landward of the pier line, and
located the pool fence with a gate to 20 feet from the bulkhead
outside the non-turf buffer. And we also depicted the location
of the outdoor shower to the northerly side of the garage. It
was not on the prior survey.
As noted, this is an application for a demolition of the
existing house, pool, timber retaining wall and decks, and we
are proposing a new construction modified two-story,
three-bedroom house, with a 1, 462 square-footprint, and setbacks
84 .1 feet from the bulkhead, and accessory two-car detached
Board of Trustees 43 May 14, 2025
garage, with a second-floor storage space. We've shifted the
previously in-ground swimming pool so that it is now horizontal
with the house as well as the bulkhead. And pulled that further
back from the bulkhead.
We have a Health Department application for a new IA
system, which is pending, and we have been working on that with
our engineers. And Mr. Grano and I are here to answer any
questions that the Board may have.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you, for the details.
Just noticing on the written description ,and on plans
received May 12th, that there is a non-disturbance buffer
proposed here, 20 feet wide, non-disturbance, non-fertilized
buffer. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Trustees can weigh in
here. But in this location it's not as if we are preserving a
wild and healthy, native 20-foot wide section of land here. But
rather a need just to prevent erosion and create some new
habitat with native plantings, perhaps. So I would wonder if
you would reconsider, rather than a non-disturbance buffer,
which means you can't touch it, and you would watch it overgrow
into invasives and become a mess, if that should not be changed
to a vegetated non-turf buffer.
MS'. HOEG: I think we would be happy to do that. That' s fine. And
I can have the survey revised to reflect that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: You have the fence at 20 feet, we discussed.
The retaining wall and pool is 18 inches.
Any other comments from the Board, or members of the public
wish to speak regarding the application?
MR. SOUTHARD: My name is Charles Southard, I live at 435 Bay
Home Road, Southold. My question could you repeat what you said
about the buffer?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Sure. I notice that on this plan has
something called a non-disturbance buffer, which in many
locations is a wise choice, because it preserves what is natural
and endemic to that property. For example, a wooded lot with
lots of native shrubs and trees and healthy eco-system. We
would not want anyone to tear that down, so a non-disturbance
buffer is one instrument we have within the Town. Code to
preserve that natural feature.
In this location there is no such natural, sort of
pristine, vegetated zone, but one could be created there, and if
maintained over time, it could continue to be a nice visual and
eco-system habitat, prevent erosion in that area.
So instead of a non-disturbance, which you can't touch, I
suggested a vegetated non-turf buffer, which is planted, but no
turf grass.
MR. SOUTHARD: Could I have that, too?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Sure. You are the immediately adjacent
neighbor?
MR. SOUTHARD: Yes, I have the non-disturbance buffer, and it's,
looks like hell, but, anyway, okay, that was one question.
Can you tell me if the house and the garage are connected?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: It would appear not. I mean, if I'm wrong.
MS. HOEG: Right.
Board of Trustees 44 May 14, 2025
MR. SOUTHARD: Okay. It's not clear on the plans. My plans were
from February, and I understand you have an updated one, day
before yesterday, I guess, which I don't have.
But, anyway, I have a couple of other questions, okay.
There is a, you were there, there is a hedge between our
properties on the north side of that. What are we doing about a
fence there? Are they taking that down?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: On the north?
MS. HOEG: Mr. Grano can answer that question.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Speak to the Board.
MR. GRANO: John Grano. We are looking not to disturb that
buffer. So the fence, there no fence there right now, but we
intend to put a fence -- actually there is a fence on his side,
correct, yes. But if he's asking to the road, that' s what I'm,
you know, if you guys want to ask him that.
MR. SOUTHARD: There is a fence within that hedge, and all it is
a wire fence. It's not mine. It was there when, you know, when
we came.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So you like it.
MR. SOUTHARD: It' s not a proper fence for a pool enclosure. So
we leave the hedge there, that's great, it won't disturb
anything on our property. Put that fence to their side of that
hedge, that would be great for the pool.
The other question is, is I don't know, can you see the
boring on your site plan there? It's very small.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I can see the test hole data, yes.
MR. SOUTHARD: Well, on the left-hand side is a boring, and the
boring shows clay. And basically that whole area where are is
clay.
The drainage, I'm concerned about, because of the fact
that, number one, they've got the drainage for the driveway and
it's sitting in water on the top of the clay, the bottom of that
cesspool, they've got the drainage ring. It' s a 4 ' drainage
ring and the elevation is at the top of the grade, and it will
go right in and sit on top of the clay in the water. So the
drainage is a problem there.
Another question is the patio, what is the construction of
the patio?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Masonry patio.
MR. GRANO: Yes, the patio in the rear is going to be pavers.
Pavers with drywells.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: To contain runoff.
MR. SOUTHARD: There is no provision for drainage for the patio.
They show the calculations for the roof of the house, a
covered-over porch, which are totally inadequate to begin with,
and again, sitting in clay. But if it's a hardscaped,
non-porous patio there is nowhere for the water to go. They have
not provided for that.
The other thing is you mentioned before is something about
an outdoor shower.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The LWRP mentions an outdoor shower.
MR. SOUTHARD: They said it's no the north side of the garage.
Well, that would put it on my property or very close, because
Board of Trustees 45 May 14, 2025
the garage is, looks like it' s slightly less than 15-foot from
my property line. So I 'm not sure about that shower, and I'm
not sure about the coding for a kitchen back there behind the
garage. I'm wondering where the waste line for that is going to
go.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: You have a ten-foot wide drainage easement
along your property and their property.
MR. SOUTHARD: It' s on their property.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Looks like eleven feet from the side of the
garage to your property line. That's a 4x8 proposed shower.
Would you address the gentleman's concerns about drainage
and the kitchen?
MR. GRANO: Yes, so the shower is within the setbacks. You know,
we are open to further discussions of other placement for that.
But I mean, we are conforming to setbacks. And it is going to be
enclosed. You know, outdoor shower, it's going to have its own
drainage, it' s not going to be attached to a drywell or
anything.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is the shower just on a bluestone slab, and it
will just naturally --
MR. GRANO: That' s correct, yes
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: (Continuing) feed a garden, essentially?
MR. GRANO: Yes.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And the kitchen.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That seems to be the recent trend with the
showers. Which I think is beneficial, because you have all the
organisms at the surface taking in that water and breaking
anything down.
MR. GRANO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And what about the kitchen, is there a sink in
the kitchen?
MR. GRANO: We don't have a proposed sink right now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
MS. HOEG: Just a built-in barbecue.
MR. GRANO: That's it. Just a barbecue and like a countertop
space. Prep area.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I just have a question. Is there a trench drain
of some kind then, proposed with the patio, to capture that
. water?
MR. GRANO: Yes, so the volume calculations, the drainage
calculations, are shown on here. So the volume, we don't have
anything in for patio drainage, it's more of a, I guess
self-draining patio, where there's going to be aggregate built
into it, and so the only solid patio surface will be under the
covered porch in the rear, which has gutters for that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes, under Chapter 236 in our Town Code
speaks to stormwater runoff. Our purview in the Town Trustees
is really 275, 111 and 96. So what we hope is that the Building
Department, Planning Board, has reviewed this with the Town
Engineer, to ensure that the drainage is adequate for what is
proposed for this property.
MR. SOUTHARD: So they'll do their review after you approve this
or are you going to hold this to their approval?
Board of Trustees 46 May 14, 2025
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Our Board will make a determination about the
plan that we have based on 275 and 111 and 96. It's up to
Building Department and the other departments to ensure that
it's Chapter 236 compliant.
MR. SOUTHARD: Okay. One more question. There was something about
a garage, with a raised deck above it, and a detached garage
with attic storage space.
MR. GRANO: So the raised deck got eliminated. So it's just a
flat roof at this time. So, and then the attic storage is just,
it's not, you can't access it. It's not a staircase going up to
it, it's just a hatch in the garage, just for storage above.
MS. HOEG: The main house has no, it's a crawl space, there's no
foundation. So the attic space will be for additional storage.
MR. SOUTHARD: There is a stair showing going up to that upper
deck, which I'm assuming will lead to that attic storage, in the
garage. But there is a stairway to it.
MS. HULSE: That's really not the purview of this Board. They
don't consider that type of mention.
MR. SOUTHARD: Just bringing that up.
MS. HULSE: This Board has no consideration over things like ,
that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not on our current plans, though. Just for
the record, for you. The stairs are no longer on the plan. MR.
SOUTHARD: Okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Just speaking more holistically about this
application, the site currently has a pool that extends much
further seaward. That will be removed and reoriented, so that
there is much more --
MR. SOUTHARD: They did a great job on the site. Good things.
Yes, I agree. That was nicely done.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So that would be an improvement to the
property. I think that the improvement of the seaward edge of
the property with native plantings, significant natural buffer
there that' s maintained in a good way, and that the drainage is
handled in such a way that way your property is not impacted, or
the waterfront, and the waterbody is not impacted. I think that
speaking holistically and our Board' s purview, I think this is a
good project.
MR. SOUTHARD: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I appreciate your concerns and your attention
to details and I apologize you don't have a current plan before
you as we do, to address some of your issues.
MS. HULSE: Ms. Hoeg, do you have another plan that perhaps you
could show --
MS. HOEG: I can give him mine.
MS. HULSE: Great. Okay. So maybe you can get a newer --
MR. SOUTHARD: Yeah, I'll go downtown --
MS. HOEG: I can give it to you outside.
MR. SOUTHARD: Building plans, too?
MS. HOEG: Yes.
MR. SOUTHARD: Thank you. Appreciate it.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you, for your time.
Is there anyone else wishing to speak regarding
Board of Trustees 47 May 14, 2025
application? Or questions from the Board of Trustees?
(No 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 limiting the retaining wall and the pool to 18 inches, and
new plans depicting a vegetated non-turf buffer on the seaward
edge of the property, 20-foot in width. And that is my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 9, Joan Chambers on behalf of GEORGE
DANGAS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a raised 18 'x40'
gunite swimming pool attached to seaward side of existing
seaward deck; add 5' wide steps off north end of existing deck;
install a new 20.4'x6' deck at north end of pool, and a new
11.8 'x21.4 ' deck at south end of pool; install two (2) new
retaining walls (4' and 1.6' tall) under the south end of the
deck to create a space with pea gravel ground cover for the pool
equipment and accessible storage area; railings around raised
decking and locking gates installed for pool enclosure
requirements; install outdoor cooking facilities on existing
seaward deck and new landing with steps down to a 4 ' wide
pea-stone gravel walkway along the south side of dwelling to a
freestanding outdoor shower; at east end of walkway, install a
3' retaining wall, and two (2) A/C units.
Located: 1900 Hyatt Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-50-1-3 #9
The Trustees most recently visited the site May on 6th,
2025, and Trustee Peeples noted the following: Review height of
retaining walls, reduce size of pool, maintain trees, increase
buffer to 25-foot vegetated. And this is a significant proposed
structure on the bluff.
The LWRP found this application to be consistent with the
following notes:
Number one, clarify outdoor shower drainage.
Number two, a large native plant vegetated buffer is
recommended to further Policy 6.
Number three, limbing up of trees is recommended instead of
removal.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application.
MS. CHAMBERS: Good evening, I 'm Joan Chambers, here to represent
the owners.
I was having trouble hearing, someone else was speaking.
And when you said when the Board made their visit, they made
these recommendations. Could you repeat that, please, I had
trouble hearing that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Absolutely. Review the height of the retaining
walls, reduce the size of the pool, maintain the trees, increase
Board of Trustees 48 May 14, 2025
the buffer to 25-foot vegetated, and noted that this is a
significant proposed structure- on the bluff.
MS. CHAMBERS: I have the project manager with me. I wasn't part
of the design team that designed the swimming pool. Personally,
I found it fits against the house as it is in its current size,
with the addition of the deck. And because most of it is raised
up out of the ground, you know, we are trying not to, you know
do too much disturbance up there on the bluff. And it is as
much as possible a fairly good distance away. I don't think
anyone would have any problem with increasing the size of the
buffer. And can you explain to me what you've got questions
about the height of the retaining walls.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. So the reason we made that note, I'm just
looking for that plan here. Here it is. It appears that the
entirety of what is proposed is above ground; is that correct?
MS. CHAMBERS: Most of it, yes. Most of it is above ground.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, I think the question there, any time we
see a pool, especially above ground, we do question the height
of the retaining walls. Typically we are looking for something
that is two-foot high or less.
MS. CHAMBERS: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So that was, we just wanted you to speak to
that, kind of what the seaward side of the house will look like
in elevation. For the neighbor and off of the bluff there.
MS. CHAMBERS: We have, I don't believe this is included in the
application, but we have an elevation view that gives you an
idea of the height that the pool does stand out of the water,
and where the retaining walls lie. And it might be that that
would be helpful. Can I approach with this?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, please. Considering that it is above
ground, it is helpful to see.
MS. CHAMBERS: (Approaching the dais) .
We used this when we went to the Zoning Board, and they
found it adequate then to explain basically the elevation
viewed, if you are looking at the bluff back at the house.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So this is very helpful, thank you, very much.
MS. CHAMBERS: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: This is not part of our file currently, but if
you wish we can have this stamped in and include this in the
file.
MS. CHAMBERS: I would be happy to stamp that in, yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES We'll stamp it in up here with Ms. Cantrell.
So in looking at this section, and we did, obviously the
house is existing, and it does have an existing deck. So what
I'm seeing here in this section is a retaining wall that is on
the seaward side of the pool.
Do you have the height of that wall?
MS. CHAMBERS: I believe the tallest retaining wall they were
maintaining is -48 inches.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So four-feet high.
MS. CHAMBERS: Four-feet.
MS. AFSHARJAVAN: Good afternoon, my name is Dorsa Afsharjavan.
So there are existing retaining walls that are currently below
Board of Trustees 49 May 14, 2025
the deck. So that's the same height that we will keep on that
end. We are just pushing it inward so we can make use of the
space below the deck. The Zoning Board required us to move the
pool equipment below the deck, away from the property line, so
that's one of the reasons why we basically carved out the area
below the deck, to house the pool equipment there.
And then on the other side, the retaining wall that is
facing the bluff, yes, it's about one-and-a-half feet, two feet
max. But it should be about one-and-one-half feet tall.
And then the pool shall, itself, will - serve as the
frontward facing wall, and that will be finished in stucco.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And that's the wall that is no higher than two
feet that you --
MS. AFSHARJAVAN: No, that's the separate retaining wall off to
the side, closest to an existing drain that we have. An existing
drywell that' s down there. I can point it out to you
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That would be helpful, if you would approach,
please.
(Ms. Afsharjavan approaches the dais) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So what was just reviewed is that the one, I
mean the one-foot to two-foot high retaining wall that was
referenced on the record, is on the western side of the property
and not in front of the pool face. The pool face extends up to
46 inches.
MS. AFSHARJAVAN: So 46 inches up to, it's higher than 46 inches.
46 inches, I think it should be on the elevation now.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Roughly four feet. So typically we like to see
retaining walls, especially around a pool, at no higher than 24
inches.
So understood that this existing house and this existing
deck are raised, however adding now an 18'x40' swimming pool
that is also raised is, as the field notes said, quite a bit of
additional new structure proposed.
MS. AFSHARJAVAN: So I just want to say, the retaining wall
itself is one-and-a-half feet, and that's adjacent to the pool,
the face of the pool. So are you referring to the raised face?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: The raised pool creates a retaining wall. And
the reason this Board is in particular concern with that is that
any sort of, you know, if it was more on a wetland type
situation, any wave energy could deflect off of that onto the
neighboring properties. So there is sort of a precedence this
Board is reviewing, now that we are seeing consistently proposed
raised, not in-ground pools.
MS. AFSHARJAVAN: Correct, so basically when you were at the
house, so you see that it goes from about four feet to about
seven feet on this side. So that's the natural grade.
We could look at amending the grade to make is less of a
steep slope, but then that would kind of open up a can of worms
with the existing drain that is over there and the two existing
trees that are over there.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And also we are not typically fond of the
addition of fill in order to level out a backyard area.
MS. AFSHARJAVAN: Yes. And one of your other comments was the
Board of Trustees 50 May 14, 2025
removal of trees. We are not planning any tree removal at this
site. I just wanted to clarify that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, that's good to hear. I think often we'll
make that as a note because saw there were trees, and any time a
pool is going in, often the next request is to remove the
trees, and so we want you to keep that in mind with your design.
The other question that we noticed in the plan that we did
have received, is that you have the buffer shown here, with I
believe that green swath, and then you have the coastal erosion
hazard line. And what is interesting is the, I don't know if
you can see it in the satellite, but on the plans, on the
survey, it' s kind of arced in shape, and so we have the
dimension for the pool at 97 from the top of bluff, at the
highest point, the most seaward point of the bluff, top of
bluff. And then it curves back on the landward side. And what
we don't have is that dimension to understand. And I think when
the comment about reducing the size of the pool, it wasn't
necessarily the width of the pool but kind of the length in
order to have the setback further from where that curves back,
where the top of bluff curves back.
MS. AFSHARJAVAN: So the one side it shows 78 feet on the most
recent survey, and the other side is 95 feet from the top of the
bluff line.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is that a more recent plan than what we have
here?
MS. AFSHARJAVAN: That should be part of the original file.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So request for the dimension from the closest
point of the top of bluff to the pool.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I think, and a lot this has been covered,
but just to summarize my thoughts, is when this Board views an
in-ground pool, we like to see it in-ground so we are not
increasing just general structure along wetland boundaries or
bluff boundaries. I think- the trouble you are running into with
design is that the house was designed way out of the ground
here, probably for viewshed.
The problem with that is with that retaining wall that is
already existing on the neighboring side to the west, you know,
standing at the deck height before getting to that retaining
wall, it was already around head height for me. And I'm six
feet tall. And there is a few feet at the retaining wall.
So along the neighboring property, we are also just
creating a massively tall structure of, you know, concrete, and
with the neighboring house right there, that's another practice
this Board is not really in, you know, is creating these massive
walls along the property lines. Sort of speaking to the
character of the Town at that point.
So, and then our code speaks to, on bluffs, Sound bluffs,
being 100 feet away from the bluff edge, because we are seeing a
tremendous amount of, you know, bluff erosion in the most recent
years with storm intensity and rising sea level.
So I think that's some of the things that makes this
project so complicated for me, and so anything that you folks
can do with design to remedy that, I think would go a long way.
Board of Trustees 51 May 14, 2025
MS. AFSHARJAVAN: Sure. Regarding the retaining wall, we tried
to push it back underneath the deck so it' s not in the same face
of the house as it currently is. And the reason we had to zigzag
it a little bit is because there is a structural beam below the
existing deck that we wanted to stay away from. That's why it
goes in kind of like a "Z" shape, for, I mean, 90-degree angles.
So we tried our best to keep that as tucked in as possible.
And regarding the retaining wall at the front, again, we
are just trying to adhere to the existing grade and make it as
possible.
And regarding the size of the pool, we can work on amending
the size. I know it's 18x40, so perhaps that 18' is what you are
concerned about, Elizabeth, or was it the 40?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It's actually the 40 because of that proximity
to where the bluff curves back. So if you were to reduce the
length, that 40-foot length, perhaps it' s just on the east side
and not on the west corner.
MS. AFSHARJAVAN: The owner is not here but he's I think 6'4"
6' 5", so that's one of the challenges with him. And he's a lap
swimmer. But, again, we are happy to look at the size of the
pool, and the purpose of this is mostly for the grandkids versus
him swimming laps, probably, so we are happy to look at that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And that's, you know, not designing the
project, there are ways you could perhaps maintain some of that
and move things around so that it would be, you know, more
accommodating for your client.
MS. AFSHARJAVAN: Sure.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: One other thing that I just want to address,
the LWRP mentioned was the question about the drainage for the
outdoor shower.
AFSHARJAVAN: That's draining into a gravel bed, and there will
be additional drains along that, the doorways that are in the
basement, because they do have, they want to make sure the
doorways don't get flooded. There is an existing door down
there. So the homeowners very cautious about water and
floodings and they want to make sure the basement won't get
effected.
So there will be a linear drain down there as well' as the
gravel bed. And it is just an open shower. It's not enclosed.
It's more just for rinsing and sand off to get into the house.
So it's not really functioning as a shower.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, and just speaking of drainage, I noticed
your proposed pool drywell is seaward of the pool. We would like
you to pull that back in line with or landward of the pool, just
so it' s not closer to the bluff.
MS. AFSHARJAVAN: Sure.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. And, you know, it sounds like there are a
number of things that have been indicated that would be
beneficial to have a little further study on in terms of the
design. Perhaps the pool could be more in-ground. You know, I
know that, as it was mentioned the house and the deck are quite
raised up. That doesn't necessarily mean that the pool has to
be as well. So if you could look at how that might work with --
Board of Trustees 52 May 14, 2025
MS. AFSHARJAVAN: The grade.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Well, and not bringing in additional fill to
reduce the height of the retaining wall.
MS. AFSHARJAVAN: Right. So the existing grade is quite
significant, as you saw at the house, so the idea was to raise
it in line with the deck to avoid doing additional grade changes
down there, and to use those retaining walls really just to
carve out the space below the deck for the pool equipment that
was requested. Also for the Zoning Board. But we can certainly
give it a look and see what we can do, specifically to the size
of the pool, and 'again, the location of the drywell and some of
the other features that you guys had mentioned about.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, sounds good. So seems like table to
review further.
MS. AFSHARJAVAN: Sure. Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak, or
any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We'll take a five-minute recess.
(After a five-minute recess these proceedings continue as
follows) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All right, we are back on the record.
Number 10, AS PER REVISED PLANS & WRITTEN PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 5/9/25 Cole Environmental Services on
behalf of THE MICHAEL E. & CHERYLYN R. FOSS JOINT REVOCABLE
TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing two-story
dwelling with porch, paved driveway and chain link fence;
abandon existing sanitary system and install an I/A OWTS system
landward of proposed new two-story approximately 56'x37'
dwelling with an ll'x8' front porch, a 381x10' covered rear
porch with ±7 'x10' hot tub; an 181x12' open patio; construct a
241x22' detached garage with 8 'x11' open air covered walk
between the garage and dwelling; install exterior basement
stairs on west side of dwelling and two basement egresses on
east side; install a 221x10' swimming pool, pool drywell, pool
equipment area, and pool enclosure fencing with gates; install
A/C units and a generator; install a pervious driveway; and
install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff.
Located: 775 Hill Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-27
The Trustees conducted a field inspection May 6th, 2025,
questioning is the pool at grade. Straightforward. Trees to
remain. Base of pool two feet or less.
The LWRP found this to be consistent, with the note that
reduce turf area against the water body. A native plant
non-fertilized vegetated buffer is recommended to further Policy
Six. We also have a letter in the file in support of the
project. It states: We are writing to you to indicate our
support for the project proposed by Cheri and Michael Foss, 775
Board of Trustees 53 May 14, 2025
Hill Road in Southold. They have shared with us their plans and
we are delighted the size of the new build seems appropriate for
the neighborhood, and even more thrilled that the house is being
built more landward.
We are confident that this new bill will enhance the
esthetic appeal of our neighborhood, and we look forward to
having them as neighbors. Signed, Leslie and Sean Olsen.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. RUMMEL: Kate Rummel, Cole Environmental. I also have the
architect present, as well as the property owner.
We've shifted the house beyond the pier line, and you are
in receipt of updated plans that show that the pool face will be
no higher than two feet. And you can't see it in this aerial,
but there is an existing ten-foot buffer that they'll be
maintaining in keeping with the neighbors to the north, or --
I'm not sure which direction. But the west.
And I know that there were questions at the work session
about the area just seaward of the pool fence, and the clients
are going to use that for seating area with Adirondack chairs
and perhaps also kayak storage. Not sure if there were other
questions.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, I'm sorry, did you say you are proposing
to keep the ten-foot buffer, or are you going to increase --
MS. RUMMEL: Yes, the ten-foot buffer will remain, and I know at
the work session there were just questions about the additional
ten feet behind the pool fence, and the clients are planning to
use that for kayak storage as well as, you know, seating with
Adirondack chairs and whatnot.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anybody else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer, and subject to
new plans showing the 15-foot non-turf buffer. That is my
motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MS. RUMMEL: Thank you, have a god night.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 11, LK McLean Associates on behalf of
BTK REALTY, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to replace 139 linear
feet of existing wooden bulkhead and two 9 linear foot long
returns with new vinyl bulkhead and vinyl returns in-place using
a helical tie-back system, CCA treated timber wales and piles,
and top cap to be IPE hardwood; construct a new 41x5. 4 '
Board of Trustees 54 May 14, 2025
cantilevered timber platform to 17. 6'x4.3' aluminum stairs for
beach access off bulkhead; and to establish and perpetually
maintain a 13 foot-wide (1, 790sq.ft. ) Native beach sand non-turf
buffer area along the landward side of the new bulkhead.
Located: 6050 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM#
1000-128-2-7
The Trustees visited the site on the 6th of May, noted it
was straightforward replacement in-kind/in-place.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. CARUSO: Good afternoon, Trustees, Rich Caruso from LK
McLean. And as mentioned, this is a very basic in-place
replacement. We are replacing the timber with vinyl, we're going
to have timber piles, timber wales, and then there is going to
be an aluminum staircase that can, if need be, be easily
removed.
We are going to propose a 13-foot sand non-turf buffer. And
the top cap of the bulkhead is going to be EPE, so it's
non-treated. To our understanding the only restrictions for
treatment were top cap and sheathing. And the platform leading
to the stair case is going to be a 41x 5 '4" timber platform.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application, or additional
comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I 'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI:" Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
I make a motion to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. CARUSO: Thank you, Trustees.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 12, ROUX Associates on behalf of SHM
GREENPORT LLC, BREWER YACHT YARD @ GPT. , INC. , requests a
Wetland Permit to remove 156 linear feet of existing wooden
bulkhead and replace with new vinyl sheeting bulkhead and raised
18" above existing bulkhead height to match adjacent bulkhead;
three existing floating finger docks (460sq. ft. Total) , and
seven (7) existing timber pilings to be removed and will not be
replaced; install 253sq.ft. (547sq.ft. Within Village of
Greenport, total 800sq.ft. ) Of one new 8 ' wide floating dock;
within Town jurisdiction install 200sq.ft. Of two (2) 201x5 ' new
gangways; and to install 14 new timber pilings in new locations
to secure the new floating dockage; and silt booms/turbidity
curtains to be installed prior to construction.
Located: 1410 Manhanset Avenue, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-36-1-1
The Trustees met with the applicant in the field, and we
made notes to review plans further at work session with legal
counsel.
Board of Trustees 55 May 14, 2025
The LWRP coordinator of the Town of Southold found the
project to be consistent with its policies pursuant to Chapter
268. Is there anyone here to speak regarding this application?
MR. BLUM: Hi, my name is Walter Blum, and I have the home at 260
Robinson Road, Greenport, which is, I believe alongside of them.
And I received a notice of a change in the adjoining property on
the 9th of this month. And it showed an extension of what --
they have a dock there now and they are replacing it with a
similar dock, but without fingers on, for individual boats.
The are going to put in larger boats, probably up to about
130, 135 feet long.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Mr. Blum, I do not wish to slow your momentum
or diminish in any way the testimony you want to give here
tonight, but what I see on our agenda are three distinct
applications. One is for Manhanset; one is for Robinson Road,
number 13; and number 14 would be Champlin Place.
MR. BLUM: I would like to show you something, if you don't mind.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: If your --
MR. BLUM: (Continuing) it was the original notice that I
received. May I?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Sure.
MR. BLUM: (Approaching the dais) .
The original notice only shows me with the one, with the
one dock coming out. But this property is not just the only
property involved. It's the whole area there, which is -- you
can have that copy. I have my copy.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sir, as Trustee Sepenoski mentioned, there's
three distinct applications, all similar, being with the
applicant. However, this first one that you are referring to is
within the existing marina itself.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Near the gas pumps.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Near the gas pumps and everything like that.
This isn't the one that is on Champlin Place.
MR. SEPENOSKI: It's the one that I opened the hearing to at the
moment. It does not involve the docks that you spoke of.
MR. BLUM: Oh, I 'm sorry.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So if you wish --
MR. BLUM: It's confusing because they really were not very clear
on how they explained it in the whole thing there. Really, they
are describing a 150-foot dock, which is right alongside my
property.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Those are things I encourage you to revisit
in the next hearing.
MR. BLUM: All right, I'm sorry.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. I apologize for the confusion.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the
application regarding the 1410 Manhanset Avenue application?
(Negative response) .
Just a question for the applicants on this.
This is M-1 Zoning?
MR. GILLIGAN: Yes, it is.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Would you just state your name at the
lectern.
Board of Trustees 56 May 14, 2025
MR. GILLIGAN: I'm Sean Gilligan.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Sean Gilligan, and you said what?
MR. GILLIGAN: Yes. This is M-1 Zoning.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: M-1 Zoning. Okay. Members of the Board of
Trustees, any comments or questions?
(Negative response) .
MR. GILLIGAN: It may be M-2.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Marine Zoning nonetheless. Members of the
public wishing to speak?
(No response) .
Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 13, ROUX Associates on behalf of SHM
GREENPORT LLC, BREWER YACHT YARD & GPT. , INC. , requests a
Wetland Permit to remove 127 linear feet of existing wooden
bulkhead and replace in-place with new vinyl sheeting bulkhead
and raised 18" above existing bulkhead height to match adjacent
bulkhead; install a proposed 10 linear foot long retaining wall
at northerly end of bulkhead; remove 1, 830sq.ft. Of floating
docks and install a proposed 5'x20' gangway to a 61x150'
(900sq.ft. ) Floating dock; remove 16 existing timber pilings and
install seven (7) new timber pilings to support proposed
floating dock and gangway; and silt booms/turbidity curtains to
be installed prior to construction.
Located: 300 Robinson Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-34-5-7
The Trustees visited the site on May 6th, 2025. Trustee
Sepenoski noted the following: Review further at work session
with legal counsel.
The LWRP found this application to be consistent.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
Please state your name again for the record.
MR. GILLIGAN: I'm Sean Gilligan, with Safe Harbor Marinas.
It came to my attention this evening that we have done
rather a rotten job of informing our neighbors to this project.
So, Mr. Blum, obviously received a single application. I am
speaking to both #13 and #14 on the agenda tonight, which are
really a single project that are split because there are two
parcels, are split into two separate applications.
Considering that, I would certainly welcome any member of
the public to voice their concerns, but it's not my intention to
force anything through or be non-neighborly.
We are here to answer any questions they might have, if
that's the case, but otherwise very comfortable tabling this
until we have such time of doing a better job of informing our
Board of Trustees 57 May 14, 2025
neighbors of what our intentions are.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
MR. CARUSO: Well, when I received this, it was such a short
notice of what was going on. I tried to do a little homework on
what was regarding this whole thing. And when I started talking
around to some of the neighbors, many of them didn't even
receive a copy of this. So they have no idea of what is going
on.
They posted something up, just a week ago, so obviously no
one really knew what was really happening until the last minute.
And, the one thing that is, at least according to what I looked
up on the internet, that Safe Harbor Marina is being purchased
by Blackstone. And the price for it is in an is $5. 65 billion in
cash.
And it has been duly noted that what I'm seeing here, and I
checked around with a few other sources, and obviously that is
what is going on with that.
So they may keep the name Safe Harbor Marina, but it's
owned by a multi-billion dollar corporation that is worth $1
trillion. So we are not talking about just the average little
guy walking around the street here.
And I wonder when I started to see, I only have part of
what is going on, not the whole thing. It' s like they ended up
giving me what the foundation of the building is going to be,
and they gave me two stories, and now they are going to add
another 58 stories to make it a 60-story building.
This is really questionable how they are doing all this.
And there is a lot of questions I have as far as when I spoke to
some of the fishermen over there, what they are doing is they
are taking the -- this is probably part of number 14, not 13,
I'm sorry. But in 14 I'm hearing that they want to actually, on
the roadway side, they want to go back ten feet further and make
it ten feet wider. And they want to put two docks more in there.
So now, and they are going to be 85 feet.
So now you are talking two boats that could be 130, 135
feet long in there, and they show them stern in, and if anybody
is a boater, you know that they don't put the boat stern in to a
dock that is going to be showing on to a street. It' s going to
be bow in, stern out.
And then what you got to get involved with is the other two
boats that they are going to be putting in there, they are going
to be probably 80 to 90-feet long. So we are talking a total of
four large boats in that marina.
And the problem is electric that they need there, what are
the facilities as far as sanitation, what are they doing there.
Also, on my side, which is on Robinson, there is no
bulkhead there. They would have to put in a bulkhead in there
because if you start using bow thrusters and stern thrusters,
especially with larger boats that size, you'll start to eat away
at the shoreline pretty bad. So I think that would have to be a
necessity.
And then it becomes a situation of what are these boats
going to be? Are they going to be boats that are privately owned .
Board of Trustees 58 May 14, 2025
or are they going to be boats that maybe they are charter boats
where you charter them for the day and they're getting new
people coming in and parking over here all the time. And what
are we dealing with. You know what I 'm saying? So there's a lot
of questions.
And also what they are doing, is from what I understand, is
they are taking all the people that have, the fishermen, and
they are telling them that they are no longer going to be able
to, you know, dock there. They are going to get rid of their
slips all together. And these guys are making a living here for
probably two or three generations or more, and now they don't
even have a place to go. And I think that Town really owes it to
them to understand their dilemma, because they are starting to
hurt people financially. And I think that's a pretty darn bad
thing. Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?
Please approach the podium and state your name.
MR. BETANCOURT: My name is Tim Betancourt, and I have two
properties on Atlantic Avenue. One of them is the last property
before you get to Champlin, and it's residential. And I also
have a small marina next to the hospital. And I did get a
notice, I mean it's been discussed, but I got a notice, but it
was only a week ago. I can't imagine that this was, they didn't
know much sooner than this. It seems to me I should have had
notice for a month or two at least so I could absorb it and
think about what is actually happening.
And I just don't understand in general how you can put a
boat that size, I mean, the property on, at Champlin, the
address is 412 Atlantic Avenue; I think with a boat that size it
would, you know, lose the light, you know, it would shadow some
of the light. I Googled how much it would sit above the water,
and 25 feet above the' water. So, and it would be parked within
ten or 12, 15, 20 feet from the house. From the yard, I should
say.
So I. just don't understand you can even consider that. It
seems to me if you are going to a boat that size, it should be
closer to the mouth of the bay and not -- and it doesn't make
any sense to me.
And I don't understand how, I mean it seems like it's a
contradiction to what the. Town and the Board, the Trustees have
been talking about today, about protecting what you have and
everything. That certainly doesn't seem to be working,
especially if you are putting the biggest boats in the back of
Sterling Harbor. I don't know. I don't understand.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, sir. And just to clarify, you are
speaking about #14.
MR. BETANCOURT: I'm speaking in particular about number 14.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 14 on Champlin Place. Okay.
MR. BETANCOURT: But also the gentleman, just mentioned, I, don't
remember his name, but he said that 13 and 14 are one and� the
same, even though they are two applications. But I didn't get
any information for that part of the application. I only got the
notice for 14, not for 13.
Board of Trustees 59 May 14, 2025
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think his reference is the fact that it' s in
that same basin. But they are two separate tax maps.
MR. BETANCOURT: Right, but it seems logical that somebody would
get notice for both of them since they really do impact the
property. And they, the applicants themselves, seems to think
it's one, but they did it as two applications.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Legally they have to do it as two. So your
comments are going on the hearing for 13 right now, which is the
Robinson one.
1 But holistically, though, you are speaking to the same
project.
MR. BETANCOURT: Right. Well, that' s my point. I'm speaking --
and my neighbors, some of my neighbors, didn't get any notice
whatsoever, so.
But it seems to me like everyone in that immediate area
should be notified. And they should have time to consider it
and think about it. I mean I'm not one to complain about things.
I've been before the Trustees here a few times over the years,
and I've had, you know, I've had good luck, so to speak, and I'm
not against things, but that' s pretty extreme to put a boat that
size in the back end and to move the -- that's quite extreme.
And I can't imagine that, you know, I just don't see how that
can be possible.
And it certainly effects the value of the properties that
are parked along that area, that are attached to where the boats
would be parked.
So, that's it. Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you.
MR. BETANCOURT: So there will be another, I understood he was
going to send out notices and there would be another hearing
date or something, if --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: From what I hear, you and the prior speaker
saying, is that you certainly would like more time to review
these plans and make more sense of the project.
MR. BETANCOURT: I have the notice. I received it, it was mailed
on the 5th, and I received it on the 7th. So that's a week. And
I'm sure that they have known about this for months or years.
And it seems like somebody should have a couple months' notice,
or a month or two to be able to prepare for that. -Maybe an
attorney or something, for example. Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
MR. BLUM: I have one comment that ,I just forgot to bring to your
attention.
My comment is that if Safe Harbor has sold their property
to Blackstone, shouldn't we have someone from Blackstone that
should be here to discuss this with? And speak to and learn?
Because the way this whole thing has been presented to
everybody, it' s like a secret. And when something isn't really
out in the open, it makes people start to doubt and question
what is really going on. And I think that's really the whole
purpose of me being here tonight. That, what is really going
on?
Board of Trustees 60 May 14, 2025
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the part of this that worked is that
you are here tonight, and you want more time. So for future
reference, you've got your notice, you can come here and request
more time to review this. You know, you could request that we
table or something along those lines for future applications.
So the process in essence did work in that now you have,
you can ask for more time and go back with it.
MR. BLUM: There is a woman right back here that has the small
marina right opposite me. And that's Joyce. And she wasn't aware
of this at all. I called her to let her know.
Now, the problem is, you are dealing with a problem with,
when you get the big boats out there. Now, my neighbor on the
other side of me is Richard Davis. He has an 85-foot yacht. He
handles that boat like you are handling a kiddy car. And there
are not too many guys I would say that to. He's that good. He's
very, very good. He moves it so perfect.
But what do we know? Who is going to be coming in there
with what size boats, and if you start getting into 120, 130
foot boat -- I have been boating over 50 years, and I have seen
some crazy things. And let me tell you, when you have a boat
that size, it can do a heck of a lot of damage in an area.
And you also have Alice's fish market right there, that
sticks out with the predator, and then they have a dock, then
they have a boat outside of that. They are out in the harbor 50
feet. You are narrowing everything down. There is no room to
really turn around in those big boats.
I just think that they have to bring it down a little bit.
And it' s just -- unless they are going to limit it to 85-foot
yachts, yes. But if you start getting it to 120, and you have
150-foot dock and you are showing one boat, and maybe one boat
in front of it, what are you talking about? So.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
(UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER) : I just wanted to say, if they are going
1 to send another notice, could they include the information on
the other side, so in 13 and 14, don't you think they should be
included in any notices?
MS. HULSE: I'm Just going to clarify something. Chapter 55 lays
out the requirements for the proper noticing. So all of the
conversation that we are having here about notice, it's in
Chapter 25. So either they comply or they don't comply. And from
the position of this Board, that they are in compliance with
that, so.
(UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER) : They are in compliance. So a week's
notice is enough time.
MS. HULSE: Yes. Yes. Check the code if you want to get any more
information about that.
(UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER) : Okay.
Well, I was going to ask because --
MS. HULSE: Right. I want to make sure you understand.
(UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER) : Okay, thank you. But Would it be
possible that if we are going to be notified, that we can be
notified in the court on both sides of the, on both
Board of Trustees 61 May 14, 2025
applications? Because they do relate to each other.
I mean, the gentleman even said they are one and the same.
It's just two applications.
MS. HULSE: The notice has already been provided, and obviously
you received it because you are here. Right? So that notice is
already done. Any future scheduling will be done by the
Trustees, so you may, if they decide to table, you may want to
check next month's agenda or future month's agenda to see if
it's on, or you can contact the office.
(UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER) : Can I be informed about the other
portion, since I was not informed yet. So I understand. some
people have not been informed, correct?
MS. HULSE: And you can certainly come to the office and peruse
the file, and review it, you know, if you wish.
(UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER) : Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And when you visit the office to look at the
file, you could request to see the others as well, that relate
to this project
(UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER) : Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I'll take this opportunity to just mention the
fact that this property in particular, we are talking about #13,
which is the 300 Robinson Road, Greenport, address, is a zoned
R-40 residential. And that is not for commercial activity. It
does however have a pre-existing, nonconforming permit that was
received in the 1980s, and so what is permitted on that permit
from the 1980s is allowable because of the state, of the
pre-existing, nonconforming. However, any modifications to that
property or to the docks cannot be more non-conforming than
what is currently there. And it is a residential dock.
And according to the code, this is Chapter
275-11 (c) (2) (c) (1) , for. residential docks, and this is (a) , only
one catwalk may be permitted per residential lot. Only one
mooring or dock may be permitted per residential lot.
So that is per the current Southold Town Wetland Code,
Chapter 275. So any modification to the existing nonconforming
permit, would have to comply with current Chapter 275 Wetland
Code.
Now I'll also add that the portion of the bulkhead that is
on this lot, so we are talking about now the very long dock,
with the fingers off each side, there is a portion of bulkhead
there that is kind of parallel to Champlin Place, a bulkhead
replacement is allowable under Chapter 275, on a residential
lot.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak?
(UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER) : Are we still on 13?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, still on number 13, 300 Robinson Road.
MR. LUBITZ: Steve Lubitz, 401 Atlantic Avenue.
The applicant had requested tabling. this. So I'm just
confused. Are we tabling this or are we continuing on?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We haven't voted yet, to answer that.
MR. LUBITZ: Okay.
MS. HULSE: At this juncture they are still taking testimony.
MR. LUBITZ: Okay. Just a little confusing.
Board of Trustees 62 May 14, 2025
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I understand the confusion, however there are a
lot of people who have come out on this evening, and if anyone
wants to speak, we want to give them the opportunity to speak.
MS. PHILLIPS: Hi. Mary Beth Phillips, 210 Atlantic Avenue,
Greenport.
I'm here really as a neutral person, given to full
disclosure, I'm a Village Trustee in the Village of Greenport
and I'm also the property owner for Greenport Seafood Dock.
I did hear a lot of discussion before this meeting from the
neighbors and from the applicants themselves, and I do suggest
that you do table this particular public hearing to gather more
information, because there has been a lot of misinformation that
has been discussed, and only in pieces. And without having the
full application in front of everyone to understand it, it makes
it more of a difficult decision for people to come out with
their comments, and I think that's the best way to deal with
this, would be, I'm suggesting it get tabled. Okay? Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak? Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make 'a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to deny this application as
this Board cannot approve an application for a commercial dock
on a residential lot that does not comply with Southold Town
Wetland Code Chapter 275, and Chapter 280 of the Zoning Code of
the Town of Southold.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 14, ROUX Associates on behalf of SHM
GREENPORT LLC, BREWER YACHT YARD & GPT. , INC. Requests a Wetland
Permit to remove 275 linear feet of existing wooden bulkhead
including a 9' return/retaining wall and replace in-place with
new vinyl sheeting bulkhead and return/retaining wall; install a
proposed 10 linear foot long return/vinyl retaining wall
extension (19 L.F. total) off of existing return/retaining wall;
remove 865sq.ft. Of four existing fixed docks and 43 associated
pilings; install two (2) 51x20' gangways to two (2) 81x85'
floating docks, and install 12 new timber pilings to secure the
proposed floating docks; and silt booms/turbidity curtains to be
installed prior to construction.
Located: 1180 Champlin Place, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-34-5-6
The Trustees conducted a field inspection May 6th, 2025.
Notes to review further, at work session with legal counsel.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. COLT: Hi, my name is Michael Colt, I 'm at 406 Atlantic.
I just wanted to state for the record that we did not
Board of Trustees 63 May 14, 2025
receive any notification of this hearing. And- I know there has
been a lot of conversation about whether or not we should
receive information on 13 and 14.
If you sit on Atlantic Avenue, any of the four houses that
are sitting right there, they are decidedly the same issue.
Might not be your same issue, but those four houses all look out
onto that waterway. And so it' s a particular issue to us.
I'll go to the office and get my readout of both of them,
but you are putting not four but five boats is my understanding;
two floating docks with three 80-foot boats; two 100 to 120-foot
boats on a 150-foot dock. So you are at five.
I sit there daily, and I'm a little confused. And my only
question is what the hell. I don't understand. I talked to
these gentlemen today. But would love to at some point in time
to talk .to them more. I'll talk to you guys more. But I don't
have anything to, specifically to refer to, because I was not
given anything to look at. Thank you.
MS. HULSE: So just to reiterate because this is a new
application we are considering now.
Chapter 55 speaks to the public hearings, the requirements
for notice that was complied with. You are here, which means
that you were somehow notified to be here. So you've had your
opportunity to address the Board, which is all that you are
entitled to is to have the opportunity to address the Board,
which you have done.
MR. COLT: If I sat at my house I would not have been notified.
MS. HULSE: Okay, but you are here, so that means that you are --
MR. COLT: So the system works.
MS. HULSE: Okay, so what my point is, is that you are able to
address the Board and provide whatever testimony it is you wish
to present, which you have done today.
Again, if you wish to have further information, you can
certainly visit the office and you can review the file at your
leisure. That is well within your right as a member of the
public to do.
The notice requirements are either complied with or not.
And in this case they were complied with. The proper notice was
done, so. Check Chapter 55 of the Town Code, if you wish. Just
trying to give you the information, sir.
MR. COLT: I can't believe that that is the definition of --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The positive thing is that you are here, sir,
for your testimony. That's a good thing.
MR. BLUM: Walter Blum again. I ended up going to his house
because he' s directly opposite, he has, there is --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sir, I don't mean to interrupt you. But we
are not, this is relevant to what we are discussing here?
MR. BLUM: She is saying he got notified. He didn't. I notified
him.
MS. HULSE: I didn't say he got notified. I said proper notice
was done in terms of the applicant. Just please check Chapter 55
if you have any confusion. I'm not trying to argue with anybody.
I'm just trying to tell you what the code provides for and what
the applicant's obligation is with respect to notice.
Board of Trustees 64 May 14, 2025
And as the Trustees have already indicated on the record
numerous times, you are here. You are providing testimony. They
are listening to the testimony. If you want any additional
information, you can certainly review the files. That's just
the only point I'm trying to make, sir.
MS. COLT: I'm Nancy Colt, from 406 Atlantic.
There were many people here that got registered letters. We
did not. So I don't feel like I was notified appropriately. How
is that possible that it' s okay?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, just to clarify. So this is a hearing for
the application in front of us. This Board, including our
attorney, doesn't make the code or policy on the notification.
So while I would be happy to send an e-mail following this
meeting to the town Board suggesting that they re-examine the
code in terms of definitions, I suggest that you would do the
same, if you have an issue with that. Because that's not
something within our purview. We don't deal with that at all.
So we deal with the bulkhead and the --
MS. COLT: What if this gentleman hadn't come to my door? I
wouldn't have known.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, again, my point stands. It' s like you
coming to us to buy a used car. We don't deal with this at all.
So I 'm happy to send an e-mail to the Town Board, but you should
really do the same, or contact the Town Attorney' s office and
have a discussion about it.
I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm just saying I
have no idea how to help you with that, aside from passing that
information along.
(Audience member speaking inaudibly) .
MS. HULSE: You can't speak from the audience, sir. Please
approach the podium if you wish to be heard.
MR. BLUM: The applicant stated that they did not properly notify
all the neighbors. So why are we engaging in this conversation?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: We are engaging in this conversation because
our Town Attorney says that the process was followed, and here
we are, four Trustees having reviewed the application before us.
I sense that people are frustrated. They are scared. They
don't know what is happening in their own backyards. And we
really get that, and we care.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: We've done our homework, we've done our
diligence. We've been to the field. We reviewed the history of
these properties.
MS. COLT: And what' s your assessment?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Our assessment on number 14 --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, again, this property, 1180 Champlin
Place, is R-40 residential zoned. What they are applying for is
a commercial application in a residential zone; and we cannot
allow based on Chapter 275 and Chapter 280 of the Town Code.
So, hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to
close this hearing.
Board of Trustees 65 May 14, 2025
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
I 'll make a motion to deny this application due to the fact
that this particular property is in the R-40 residential zone,
and they are proposing a commercial application on a property in
violation of Chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code, as well as
Chapter 280 of the Zoning Code.
So I make a motion to deny this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion to adjourn?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Res ectfully submitted by,
Glenn GolOsmith&, Poresident
Board of Trustees