HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-06/11/2025 Glenn Goldsmith,President �DE soUry Town Hall Annex
A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ��� ��� 54375. 25
' P.O.Booxx 11 79
Eric Sepenoski Southold, New'York 11971
Liz Gillooly G Q Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth Peeples �Ol� �O Fax(631) 765-6641
COUNr1,�
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, June 11, 2025 AUG 1 5 2025
5:30 PM ,a.,
8 P 37 "7�
. :..J'7.a xt.G:�'� 6 �5t"SM' 9
1`w. X
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Eric Sepenoski, Trustee
Liz Gillooly, Trustee
Elizabeth Peeples, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Administrative Assistant
Lori Hulse, Board Counsel
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening and welcome to our Wednesday,
June llth, 2025 meeting. At this time I would like to call the
meeting to order and ask that you please stand for the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance is recited) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Our apologies, we got off to a little bit of
a late start, we were locked out of the building.
So I'll start off by announcing the people on the dais.
To my left we have Trustee Krupski, Trustee Sepenoski, returning
new mother Trustee Gillooly, and Trustee Peeples. To my right
we have attorney to the Trustees, the Hon. Lori Hulse,
Administrative Assistant Elizabeth Cantrell, and Court
Stenographer Wayne Galante.
Agendas for tonight' s meeting are in the hallway and posted
on the Town's website.
We do have a number of postponements tonight. The
postponements in the agenda, on page 10, numbers 18 and 19;
page 11, numbers 20 and 21; and page 12, numbers 22-25.
Those are all postponed this evening and are listed as follows:
Number 18, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of
EDWARD QUINTIERI III requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built
docking facility and to relocate and reconfigure the floating
Board of Trustees 2 June 11, 2025
docks consisting of removing existing 41xl4' floating dock
section (not to be replaced) ; remove and relocate the landward
21x14 ' aluminum ramp leading to a 41x16' floating dock to the
4'x42' floating dock with a 4'x6' floating finger dock; and the
existing 81x21' floating boat .lift to be relocated to south side
of 41x42 ' floating dock.
Located: 480 North Riley Ave. , Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-3-34.1
Number 19, L.K. McLean Associates on behalf of AWC
DOCKSIDE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for Marina improvements
consisting of the as-built 61x981 , 6'x218 ' and 6'xl2. 10'
(±1, 988sq. ft. ) Sections of CCA decking along top of existing
southerly bulkhead section; within a 10' wide area in front of
existing bulkhead section incidentally dredge ±140 cubic yards
over ±1, 600ssq. ft. Area to a max. Depth of 6' below Mean Low
Water (EL. -8.86) to reclaim soil lost from behind existing
deteriorated bulkhead; excavate ±2, 015 cubic yards of material
over an area of 4, 030sq.ft. Between existing and proposed
bulkheading to elevation -8.86 max (6' below Mean Low Water)
with unsuitable material to be removed from site; remove ±160
linear feet of existing bulkhead and install new ±161 linear
feet of vinyl bulkhead varying ±15' to ±32' landward of existing
bulkhead location and ±1.8' higher than existing bulkhead;
install a 22.31 north vinyl return and a 14 ' south vinyl return;
construct a 26' long vinyl slotted breakwater off north end of
bulkhead; create nine (9) 151x35 ' slips by installing 10 new
mooring piles and 10 new guide piles; install a 41x40' gangway,
one (1) 8'x53' and one (1) 61x102' floating dock parallel to new
bulkhead and install five (5) 41x30' floating finger docks off
of 6' and 8 ' wide floating docks; spread dredge spoil and raise
grade in area landward of new and portion of existing bulkhead
approximately 4" higher (±140 cubic yards over an area of
12,200sq.ft. ) ; in an area around existing concrete slab, spread
excess fill taken from area landward of bulkhead and raise grade
approximately 18" (±230 cubic yards over an area of
4, 140sq.ft. ) ; a proposed pump-out truck with 1, 000gal. Capacity
with potable water washout; and with the use of a turbidity
curtain during construction.
Located: 5505 West Mill Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-6-1
Number 20, Richard Lark, Esq. On behalf of KEVIN CIERACH
requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built 59. 61x37' three-story
dwelling with garage under and attached wrap-around raised
decking consisting of a 10.2'x33.8 ' raised deck with ±3. 6'xl8'
steps and landing to ground, and ±71x8 ' raised deck with steps
down to on-grade brick landing; modify the height of the
as-built three-story dwelling to become a two-story dwelling by
adding fill and retaining walls around existing foundation
consisting of: Along east foundation wall place 23 cubic yards
of fill in a 34 ' long area to raise the elevation to 3' above
current grade, and add 28 cubic yards of fill in a 21' long area
to raise the elevation to 6' above current grade; along west
Board of Trustees 3 June 11, 2025
foundation wall place 1 cubic yard of fill in a 59' long area to
raise the elevation to 6 inches above current grade; along north
foundation wall construct a 10' high by 20' long retaining wall
and add 78 cubic yards of fill to raise the grade within the
retaining wall area to 10' above current grade; along south
foundation wall construct a 10' high by 34' long retaining wall
and add 104 cubic yards of fill to raise the grade within the
retaining wall area to 10' above current grade.
Located: 4500 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-17-3
Number 21, Joan Chambers on behalf of GEORGE DANGAS
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a raised 181x40' gunite
swimming pool attached to seaward side of existing seaward deck;
add 5' wide steps off north end of existing deck; install a new
20.41x6' 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
Number 22, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of SARAH
C. TREMAINE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 43'x20'
(860sq.ft. ) Two-story, single-family dwelling with a 201x20'
screened-in porch, a 10'x43' deck with walkout below; install an
I/A OWTS sanitary system; install gutters to leaders to drywells
to contain roof runoff; install water and electric utilities;
install a gravel driveway with parking area; construct three
boulder retaining walls (25' , 115' and 140' in length) and
regrade site; and revegetate disturbed areas.
Located: Brickyard Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-5-12.26
Number 23, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of DAVID
VENER & ELLEN WEINSTEIN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
41x158 ' 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 24, AS PER REVISED SITE PLAN & WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED 12/23/2024 Twin Forks Permits on behalf of THE WILLIAM
Board of Trustees 4 June 11, 2025
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 8 'x8' spa tub; a 1, 357sq.ft. Pool
patio surround with steps to ground, pool enclosure fencing,
pool equipment area, and a drywell for pool backwash; construct
a 752sq.ft. Two-story detached garage, gravel driveway and
parking areas; install an I/A septic system; remove 23 trees and
plant 25 trees on the property; and to establish and perpetually
maintain a 25 foot wide vegetated non-turf, no fertilization
buffer area along the landward side of the wetland vegetation.
Located: 1645 Marratooka Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-3-2.1
Number 25, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION & PLANS
RECEIVED 3/14/25 Christopher Dwyer on behalf of NORTH FORK
COUNTRY CLUB requests a Wetland Permit to remove 18, 000sq.ft. Of
underbrush and limb trees up to 40' within the 100'
jurisdictional buffer area and a ll,.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
Under Town Code Chapter 275-8 (c) files were officially
closed seven days ago. Submission of any paperwork after that
date may result in the delay of the processing of the
application.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to have our
next field inspection on Wednesday, July 9th, 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, July 16th, 2025, at 5:30 PM, 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
Board of Trustees 5 June 11, 2025
sessions Monday, July 14th, 2025 at 5:OOPM at the Town Hall
Annex 2nd Floor Executive Board Room, and on Wednesday, July
16th, 2025 at 5:OOPM in the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of
the Trustee meeting of May 14th, 2025.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral V, The Trustees monthly
report for May 2025. A check for $33, 134 .37 was forwarded to the
Supervisor' s Office for the General Fund.
VI. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral VI, Public Notices. Public
Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for
review.
VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VII, State Environmental
Quality Reviews. RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the
Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications
more fully described in Section X Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, June 11, 2025 are classified as
Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are
not subject to further review under SEQRA:
They are listed as follows:
Julu Realty, LLC, c/o Nicholas Sherman SCTM# 1000-51-1-3
Kevin Cierach SCTM# 1000-115-17-3
Walter Chadwick & Mark Lowenheim SCTM# 1000-86-6-25
Soto J. & D.E. Family Trust SCTM# 1000-111-1-9
Edward Quintieri III SCTM# 1000-122-3-34. 1
AWC Dockside, LLC SCTM# 1000-106-6-1
Michael J. & Alexandria Prisco SCTM# 1000-139-1-17
Peter & Donna Ruttura SCTM# 1000-33-4-4
Gil & Tracy Ben-Ami SCTM# 1000-50-1-4
Justin Concannon SCTM# 1000-34-5-20
Lighthouse Point, LLC SCTM# 1000-119-1-10.1
Sangrok Lee SCTM# 1000-97-7-1
Board of Trustees 6 June 11, 2025
Amber Moriarty & Patrick Courtney SCTM# 1000-71-1-7
Douglas P. Robalino Living Trust & Diane E. Robalino Living
Trust SCTM# 1000-31-9-21.1
TBL Plus Two, LLC SCTM# 1000-111-9-13
Jennifer Burrell & Jonathan Perry SCTM# 1000-118-2-11. 4
Luckyfront, LLC SCTM# 1000-15-2-15.8
Joy Kilpatrick & Joshua Herrenkohl SCTM# 1000-90-2-18
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
VIII. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII, Resolutions -
Administrative Permits. In order to simplify our meeting, the
Board of Trustees regularly groups together applications that
are minor or similar in nature. Accordingly, I'll make a motion
to approve as a group Items Four, Five, Seven and Nine, as
follows:
Number 4, Samuels & Steelman on behalf of WATERSEDGE WAY
LLC request an Administrative Permit to construct a 13' x 3413"
permeable paver patio with 1' gravel base and 4" deep pavers;
excavated soil to be regraded at dwelling edge on north side of
property; install drain and drywell at center of drain below
patio; install two precast concrete steps from sliding doors to
patio; remove 3'-4" of existing deck, column, railing, and two
deck steps on east side of property; construct 5'-1" x 11'-7"
permeable paver patio on east side of dwelling with 1' gravel
base and 4" deep pavers, excavated soil to be regraded at
dwelling edge at north side of property; replace all windows and
doors on dwelling in new locations; change roof line at north
side elevation of dwelling; install temporary silt fence at
water edge side; establish and perpetually maintain a 10'
non-turf buffer at water edge side.
Located: 845 Watersedge Way, Southold. SCTM# 1000-88-5-63
Number 5, JEANNE-MARIE BELLOWS requests an Administrative
Permit to replace in-kind/in-place existing 628 sq. ft. wood
pool deck with composite decking; replace existing 3'-4" walkway
and 4' steps; construct 2'-8" x 3' deck extension with 1'-8"
steps.
Located: 4105 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-94-3-1.8
Number 7, En-Consultants on behalf of LOUIS POTTERS &
LENORE BRANCATO requests an Administrative Permit to
construct a 14 .5' x 16.3' addition to existing 546 sq. ft.
attached waterside deck; remove existing outdoor shower and
steps from footprint of proposed deck addition.
Located: 575 Hill Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-29
Number 9, Tim Cloughen on behalf of ANDREA SPINARIS
requests an Administrative Permit for a Ten-Year Maintenance
Board of Trustees 7 June 11, 2025
Permit to hand-cut Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to 12" in
height by hand, as needed; and to trim the bamboo.
Located: 3175 Kenneys Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-6-26
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, FUNDA ILGIN requests an
Administrative Permit to relocate two-story cottage/garage to
the neighboring property; remove/fill in basement; remove
existing retaining wall; construction activity within 100' feet
from the landward edge of the wetlands to construct 2, 193 sq.ft.
Two-story dwelling, 89 sq.ft. Front covered porch, 844 sq.ft.
Deck, 101 sq.ft. Breezeway, 613 sq.ft. Garage.
Located: 5095 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-9-12
Trustee Krupski conducted field inspection June 8th, 2025,
noting the need for a ten-foot vegetated non-turf buffer.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
I 'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition of a ten-foot vegetated non-turf buffer at the top of
bluff, and submission of new plans depicting.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, AMP Architecture on behalf of
THOMAS HUG requests an Administrative Permit for the as-built
12' x 21.7' deck.
Located: 1285 Albo Drive, Laurel. SCTM# 126-3-14
Trustee Goldsmith conducted a field inspection June 9th,
noting straightforward.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is that the as-built deck is inconsistent as it
was built without a permit.
I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted
and by granting it a permit will bring into consistency with the
LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, Formworks Architecture on behalf of
PETE & MAUREEN MAY requests an Administrative Permit to extend
existing deck 22'-9" along south elevation of dwelling.
Located: 2505 Wells Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-18
Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection June 4th.
Notes read one-to-one tree replacement for any trees lost during
construction. It appears one White Oak will need to be removed,
minimum three-inch caliper anywhere on property.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
Board of Trustees 8 June 11, 2025
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition of a one-to-one tree replacement for any trees that
are lost during construction; replacement to be with a native
hardwood, with a minimum of three-inch caliper.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL. AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 6, Long Island Pool Care Corp. , on
behalf of STELIOS & PENELOPE NIKOLAKAKOS requests an
Administrative Permit to install an 8' x 8' spa on a concrete
slab.
Located: 20795 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-13
The Trustee conducted a field inspection June 3rd, noting
that there should be a buffer at the top of the bluff.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent.
I 'll make a motion to approve this application, with the
condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer at top of the bluff, with
new plans depicting. ,
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 8, MATTHEW & EILEEN VITUCCI request an
Administrative Permit to construct a 14'-6" x 13'-6" deck with
steps attached to existing dwelling.
Located: 620 Rogers Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-66-2-35
Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection June 4th,
2025, noting straightforward.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is minimize structure in the flood zone.
I'll make motion to approve this application with the
condition of stainless steel fasteners and ticos, thereby
bringing it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral IX, Applications for
Extensions/Transfers/Administrative Amendments. Again, in order
to simplify the meeting, I'll make a motion to approve as a
group Items One, Three, Five, Six, Eight and Nine, as follows:
Number 1, En-Consultants on behalf of JOHN CARROLL & M.
AMELIA MURPHY requests a Final One (1) Year Extension to Wetland
Permit #10187, as issued July 13, 2022 and Amended May 15, 2024.
Located: 230 Inlet Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-43-5-4
Number 3, Twin Fork Permits on behalf of HOWARD & EVA JAKOB
Board of Trustees 9 June 11, 2025
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10675,
as issued November 13, 2024, to construct a 3' x 20' outdoor
kitchen area within the footprint of the expanded deck.
Located: 2000 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-37
Number 5, En-Consultants on behalf of ANDREA SIMITCH
REVOCABLE TRUST & VAL WARKE REVOCABLE TRUST requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10781, as issued
December 18, 2024, to construct a 10' vinyl bulkhead return at
the west end of the approximately 55 if of vinyl bulkhead to be
constructed in place of (and 6" higher than) existing functional
concrete seawall; install approximately 100 if of 1-2 ton armor
stone (instead of 101 if of vinyl bulkhead) in place/landward of
historical location of collapsed concrete seawall, as required
by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation;
backfill with approximately 40 cy of clean sand/loam to be
trucked in from an approved upland source, including
approximately 560 sq. ft. Of eroded embankment area to be planted
with native vegetation; establish and perpetually maintain a 10'
vegetated non-turf buffer landward of new vinyl bulkhead and to
the top of bank landward of the proposed armor stone.
Located: 2500 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-7
Number 6, Millstone Property Services on behalf of DON &
GLENNA RYAN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #10707, as issued September 18, 2024, for an ±6' x 36.2 '
expansion of the previously approved first and second story
addition to existing dwelling.
Located: 760 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-1-3
Number 8, LaChapelle Architecture PLLC on behalf of DONNA
SNYDER DUNNING requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #10203 for three as-built stone stacking walls.
Located: 704 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.24
Number 9, LaChapelle Architecture PLLC on behalf of GEROSA
FAMILY TRUST requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #10204 to include a switchback in the previously approved
beach stairs.
Located: 315 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-2-3
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, Kathryn Gottlieb on behalf of
MARJORIE GROSS requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #10430, as issued July 19, 2023, to use Forest
Stewardship Council certified 5/4" x 6" ipe decking instead of
thru-flow for resurfacing of dock.
Located: 2699 Laurel Way, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-121-4-12.2
Trustee Goldsmith conducted a field inspection June 9th,
noting the adverse environmental impact of switching to decking.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. Notes the
material of the dock decking to be improved to lessen the impact
Board of Trustees 10 June 11, 2025
of the submerged vegetation. The dock is oversized and not
compliant with the standards.
Seeing how we already had this and approved it with
open-grate decking, switching ipe decking would have an adverse
environmental impact, with negative impact of fragmentation, and
the loss of native vegetation.
Therefore, I'll make a motion to deny this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf
of JAMES LUBIN, requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #10587, as issued June 12, 2024, to construct an elevated
3'x33' platform with one step down to grade.
Located: 2765 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-2
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection June 9th,
2025. Notes that the condition of the platform should be made of
decking material.
So I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition of use of decking material during construction.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 7, TOWN CREEK REAL ESTATE, INC. C/o
MICHAEL LIEGY requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #10299, as issued January 18, 2023, for the as-built 12 '
x 5'-11" front porch, 12'-8" x 3' rear steps leading to 12'-8" x
25 '-1" patio, 72" x 64" outdoor Bilco door, AC units on 54" x 8 '
concrete pads.
Located: 480 Ackerly Pond Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-69-3-13
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection June 9th,
2025, noting the patio masonry steps excavation for
non-permitted pool, non-permitted pool fence, are all
non-permitted. Split-rail fence delineating non-turf buffer has
not been installed. And area seaward of the house should be a
non-turf buffer as per permit.
Seeing how this does not comply with the initial permit,
it' s not in compliance with the original permit, I'll make a
permit to deny this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral X. At this time I 'll make a
motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and enter into the
Board of Trustees 11 June 11, 2025
Public Hearings.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter of the
following applications for permits under Chapter 275 and Chapter
111 of the Southold Town Code. I have an affidavit of
publication from the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may
be read prior to asking for comments from the public.
Please keep comments organized and brief, five minutes or
less if possible.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits,
Number 1, AS PER SITE PLAN RECEIVED 6/9/2024 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 41x8' 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 contain storm-water runoff; construct a
2' high retaining wall with a northerly return; 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 conducted a field inspection
June 3rd, 2025, notes that will review at work session after
field site visit with applicant and attorney.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. Notes the
parcel is comprised almost entirely of 20% floats.
Chapter 236 stormwater management states that: On lands
having slopes less than 20%, composed of highly erodible soil,
development proposals shall include consideration of the
load-bearing capacities of the soils, unless it can be
demonstrated that the soils can be stabilized with a minimum of
onsite disturbance, and no adverse impacts to the stability of
neighboring properties, the development proposal shall not be
approved as submitted.
Board of Trustees 12 June 11, 2025
Parcel soils are Carver and Plymouth sands, 15% to 20%
slope. This soil group has severe limitations for sanitary
systems and buildings. He also notes application is incomplete.
The Coastal Erosion Hazard Line not labeled on the survey, and
it's critical information. It is recommended that the following
natural protective features be reassessed and mapped: Bluff
land presenting with precipitous or steeply-sloped face
adjoining a beach or 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 toe of the
bluff and the top of the bluff.
Bluff line: The landward limit of the bluff that is 25
feet landward of the receding edge or in those cases where there
is no discernible line of active erosion, 25 feet landward of
the point of inflection on the top of the bluff.
The "point of inflection" is that point along the top of
the bluff where the trend of the land slope changes to begin its
descent to the shoreline.
Number 5, a stormwater management plan is required for any
disturbance on the parcel.
Chapter 236, Stormwater Plan Management; 236-10, .activities
requiring a stormwater management control plan.
None of the following activities shall be undertaken until
a stormwater management control plan has been approved under the
provisions of this chapter. That site preparation within 100
feet of wetlands, beach, bluff or coastal erosion hazard area.
And the drywells are too close to severe slopes and could
impact erosion from subsurface water flow.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
Before I say that, we also have a couple of letters in the
file, I'll just paraphrase, objecting to the project. One from
a John Kallas (sic) , also one from Charles Ward.
Those letters have been read and are part of the
application folder.
Now is there anyone wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. CUDDY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. My name is Charles Cuddy, I
represent Mr. Aliano, who is here tonight. He' s with his family,
his sisters and also his contractor.
I think you had the opportunity to go out and very
seriously inspect this site. I think that you noted that there
has really been no erosion from what was already the foundation
for the house.
This is a one-acre site, in a 12-lot subdivision. It's one
of two lots that haven't been built on in that entire
subdivision.
I think if you look at it very closely, no one is going to
be impacted by putting a house at this particular location on
Board of Trustees 13 June 11, 2025
that site. I'm a little bit surprised about the slope
considerations because our engineer pointed out there is
virtually no 20% slope in the area that we are building. And we
have a report saying that. So it surprises me that there was
concentration on that.
We have put a, as prescribed by the Zoning Board of
Appeals, we have a non-disturbance area, a non-turf area, which
is virtually going to cover this entire site. So there is very
little that is going to be happen to it, with the exception of
perhaps a 3% or 4% where the area of the house is going to be.
I think that when you look at it, when you look at the fact
that there have been houses built on ten of those 12 lots, and
virtually the same bluff setback, there is nothing here that is
different than that.
Again, I don't think that this is going in any way to harm
any neighbor, it' s not going to disturb the land. We have a
revetment, rock revetment, across the front. And I think all of
you saw that that was a site that had very little disturbance on
it to start with.
I missed one thing, I think, on the site plan that we gave
you. We did not, in the retaining wall, point out that it was
25 feet in length and four feet in depth.
But the contractor is here, if you have questions for him,
he's also available.
But we seriously believe this is an appropriate site to
build a house, single house. And I think that despite what you
just indicated, there really are no violations of the-
environmental code that you have, and I would ask you approve
it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Cuddy, you mentioned that this project,
this lot is one acre?
MR. CUDDY: It's 37, 000 square-feet. It's just about what we call
a virtual acre, which is 40,000 square-feet.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Would that trigger a SPDES permit, since it's
one acre?
MR. CUDDY: I don't know that it will, but if it does, then we
will certainly do that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Can you please talk about the rock revetment.
Where is that placed
MR. CUDDY: The rock revetment is along the very toe of the
bluff. It hooks into the bulkhead that is right next to it on
the west, and it extends all the way to the east, right to the
roadway.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, because you were mentioning before
about the bluff. So the plans that we have here, stamped
received June 13th, 2025, that show that rock revetment where,
at you said, at the toe of bluff, it was also according to these
plans, the toe of bluff in that location is also the top of the
bluff.
So is that rock revetment at the toe of the bluff or the
Board of Trustees 14 June 11, 2025
top of the bluff?
MR. CUDDY: The toe of the bluff. It' s right along The Sound
front that is right there. As rock revetments are really
extensive, probably a thousand feet to the east of us, it's the
same line of rock revetment.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So can you explain how on the plans here it
shows the top of the bluff at that same location on the eastern
side of the property.
MR. CUDDY: I think what happens is when you have a bluff, the
bluff eventually goes down, if you have a road or ravine type of
thing that extends as it does here.
The Duck Pond Road cuts the bluff. If you go on the other
side and you go essentially down that way, the bluff rises
again. So the bluff goes to a point and then it comes down. That
is all that is showing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We discussed this last time, too. I'm just
confused how the top and the bottom of something can be at the
same location.
MR. CUDDY: Well, I think what happens is it ends at a point, and
I think what the engineer was trying to show is there' s a point
of the bluff that goes way up and there is a point that goes
gradually down. This happens with virtually every road that goes
through the bluff.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So what are we calling the 20% or greater,
with more than 20-foot height of Duck Pond Road, what's that
area considered?
MR. CUDDY: I think, according to the engineer, that's a gully
because it doesn't go on to the sea or to the water. So it's a
different terminology.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Based on Town Code definition, that' s a
bluff.
MR. CUDDY: I don't know that that is so, but I understand you
have a disagreement as to where that went. But I think we can
explain what a bluff is.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just for clarification sake here.
Town Code Chapter 275, the definition of a bluff: Land
presenting with a precipitous or steeply-sloped face, adjoining
a beach or 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.
So, on the Duck Pond Road side, that is on the beach, we're
going from an elevation of approximately, what's that, ten feet,
Eight feet, to over 62 or 64 where the house is.
So we have well over 20 feet of height and well over 20% of
slope. So by Town Code definition that would constitute a bluff.
MR. CUDDY: Well, I don't know if you have can have a bluff where
there is no water. And I think that's what I think you are
suggesting.
But again, I'm not the engineer, I'm telling you what I
Board of Trustees 15 June 11, 2025
understand the bluff to be. And we are trying to build at a
point that is as far away from the bluff as we can get. We can't
go any further back than that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So based on our field inspection with you,
based on field inspections with your contractor, there was
discussions about clearing out that whole area, levelling it off
and putting a retaining wall to get a level area to build that
house; is that correct?
MR. CUDDY: We were only going to put a retaining wall if it was
necessary to at that point if the slope was there. But we don't
necessarily believe it. We were going to find out if that
happens. But we are willing to put a retaining wall there if
necessary.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because the latest plans that we have, have
that proposed retaining wall that you mentioned earlier, further
down the slope of the bluff, adjacent to Duck Pond Road.
So based on our field inspection, based on our work
sessions, and obviously based on public comment, this is a very
sensitive area. It's a troubling spot to build on because in
essence you have more or less a bluff on all three sides. It
slopes obviously toward The Sound, it slopes towards Duck Pond
Road, and it also slopes towards the north.
The area that is the most level on any section of this
property is the one closest to Glen Court. And that would be
the southwest-most corner. So in our discussions we were
considering potentially if you would consider moving that
structure closer to that area where there is more level ground
further away from the bluff, potentially using the old
foundation as your retaining wall so we don't have to construct
further seaward than what has already been disturbed, and try to
maintain any construction to that already disturbed area, the
most level area that is closest to Glen Court.
MR. CUDDY: I believe we can do that, yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, I want to speak to that. And I agree
with what Trustee Goldsmith is saying. But I just want to speak
to the record, briefly, based off your opening statement there.
You are discussing how there is no 20% slope where you propose
to build a house, but that's because 20 years ago the contractor
flattened that area before receiving a stop-work order. So that
would not exist where that foundation is if it was not already
manipulated.
You spoke to all the other houses in the area with the same
setback to the bluff, but I just want to mention that none of
the other houses in the area abut a bluff on two sides with
another steep slope on the third.
And then, additionally, there is no current erosion because
there is only a foundation there. There' s not any clearing or
lawn with irrigation. And then if you look at the severe
erosion along The Sound side, I just want to point out that
although I think you proposed a roughly 60-foot setback from The
Board of Trustees 16 June 11, 2025
Sound, and we are not even really discussing that setback at
this time, even with a revetment at the toe, that bluff might
erode some day. It' s a pretty steep spot there.
And I would just say, lastly, it makes sense to try to move
this house. I think you'll have to reduce in size to
accommodate this and pull this off what is legally defined as a
bluff under Town Code. Certainly no structure further than
anything that is there existing now, including a retaining wall.
This is proposed to be built into what I would define as a
bluff.
And then I would just say, lastly, that any plans that I
would want to take seriously would not have the top of the bluff
and the toe of the bluff at the same point. It's just not
something I would look at with a serious lens.
MR. CUDDY: I understand, but we don't have any objection to
Mr. Goldsmith's proposal.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I would like to make one more comment.
While I see the merits that both Trustee Goldsmith and
Trustee Krupski had mentioned, I would also want to see a
significant non-disturbance area that would be seaward of any
sort of structure we are talking about, whether, you know, if
the seaward face is that, the seaward-most face is that existing
foundational wall, which could be utilized as a retaining wall
in the future, that almost everything seaward of that, and
seaward on both bluffs, should be pretty much almost exclusively
a non-disturbance area. Because any removal of any other
vegetation, the vegetation is what is maintaining the stability
of that bluff at this current moment.
MR. CUDDY: Would that be greater than what is proposed on the
map that we have?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes.
MR. CUDDY: We have a fair amount on there.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. In my mind it' s pretty much the area
from that seaward face seaward, should be non-disturbance.
MR. CUDDY: Okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Which is, by the way, something that the
contractor acknowledged in the field that the stability of that
bluff depends entirely on not disturbing the vegetation that
currently exists there.
MR. CUDDY: I understand. My client is willing to do that, yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, Mr. Cuddy, would you like to table this
for revisions of plans on something smaller and closer to Glen
Court with this?
MR. CUDDY: .If we could. Because then I think you would be
satisfied we've done as much as we can.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: One last question: Anybody else wishing to
comment on this application?
Board of Trustees 17 June 11, 2025
(No response) .
Hearing no further, I'll make a motion to table this
application.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
(ALL AYES) .
MR. CUDDY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 1, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JULU
REALTY, LLC, c/o NICHOLAS SHERNAN requests a Wetland Permit and
a Coastal Erosion Permit to stabilize 'a western area of bluff
face with terracing consisting of 2"xl2" ACQ treated boards with
2"x4" stakes every 6' along the face of the disturbed bluff; add
30 cubic yards of clean sand fill for bluff nourishment; plant
disturbed areas with Cape American beach grass plugs 12"
on-center; install a set of bluff stairs consisting of a 4'x4 '
on-grade platform at top of bluff to 41xl3 ' stairs to a 41x8 '
landing to 41xl3' stairs to a 41x8 ' landing to 41xl3' stairs to
a 4'x8 ' landing to 41x13' stairs to a 41x8 ' bottom landing with
4 'x13' steps to beach.
Located: 17665 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-3
the Trustees most recently visited the site the 3rd of
June, and noted review area of erosion, and previous permitting
history, to include buffers.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding the
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant.
The project is remove and replace the existing deteriorated
steps down to the beach, and also for a stabilization of the
existing eroded bluff. So it' s really a maintenance permit, more
or less.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is what we viewed in the field. We were
looking for the plans depicting the vegetated buffer.
MR. PATANJO: I'll have to -- the web, microfiche was down, so I
couldn't pull the past permit, so I'll have to try to acquire
the previous permits and I'll add it to the drawings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, is anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Or Any additional comments from the members of the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve both the Wetland
and Coastal erosion permit with the stipulation of submission of
new plans depicting a 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 18 June 11, 2025
(ALL AYES) .
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Under Wetland Permits Number 1, Jeffrey
Patanjo on behalf of WALTER CHADWICK & MARK LOWENHEIM requests a
Wetland Permit to dredge a total of 50 cubic yards of spoils
that surround the existing 61x20' floating dock to a depth of 3'
below Mean Low Water, with dredged spoils placed into sealed
containers and delivered to an approved upland landfill.
Located: 6565 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-6-25
The Trustees reviewed the application on 6/3/ and 6/9/25,
noting straightforward. Prior notes from our visits to the site
question additional 14-foot length and lack of staking at
property back in February.
The LWRP found the project to, in an earlier iteration
inconsistent, citing a need to preserve public interest in use
of lands and waters held in public trust by the state; to limit
grants, leases, easements, permits or lesser interests of land
underwater in accordance with an assessment of potential adverse
impacts on the proposed use, structure or facility on public
interest and public lands underwater.
This was in reference to the extension of the dock, which
was a concern for the LWRP, as it would result in a net decrease
in access and to public underwater lands.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant.
Some of .those comments were in reference to the previous
application submission for extension of the dock. We modified
the scope of work to include solely the dredging of the area
surrounding the existing permitted dock.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak?
(Negative response) .
So, in review of this application, we noticed the dock
depicted on the May 9th, 2025 plans, and subsequent June 2nd,
2025 plans, both do not list the length or dimensions of the
dock.
And were we to move forward with this application,
straightforward, as we mentioned in the notes, we would want to
see new plans with those dimensions. And in addition to that,
depict the existing vegetation on those plans as it currently
exists in the field. Because that vegetated buffer is healthy,
it's a real benefit to the waterfront ecology, and just the
esthetics of the town.
So I feel as one Trustee we can conditionally approve this
application with new measurements, dimensions on those new
plans, with the depiction of the vegetation on that property.
MR. PATANJO: I thought I sent those. My plans are dated 5/20/25.
I thought I sent those to Elizabeth and even mailed them in.
Board of Trustees 19 June 11, 2025
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I have a June 2nd, 2025.
MR. PATANJO: You have a newer one that me.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: If you want to take a look. It doesn't have
any dimensions on it.
MR. PATANJO: Yes. All right. I'll modify the plans to include
your request, which is to add all the dock dimensions and also
to add the vegetation.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Anyone else wish to speak regarding the
application?
(No response) .
Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this
application with submission of any new plans depicting
dimensions of the dock and depicting existing vegetation
currently existing in the field. Thereby bringing it into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number two, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of SOTO
J. & D.E. FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace the existing 4'x60' fixed dock in same location as
existing; construct a 4 'x10' landward extension and a 4'x15'
seaward extension for an overall size of 41x871 ; the entire new
dock will have Thru-Flow decking.
Located: 190 Fishermans Beach Rd, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-1-9
The Trustees most recently visited the site on March 12th,
2025, noting the property line concerns. It collides completely
with dock to the east, should be moved over into the middle of
the property, and not extend further seaward. Revegetate non-
disturbance area and new plans.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent.
And I am in receipt of a letter from Mr. Patanjo on May
12th, noting that the applicant is not interested in moving the
dock.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant.
I would like to rescind the letter that you said they are
not in coordination to remove the dock. The applicant will be
moving the dock and I would like to table the application on
behalf of the applicant, for receipt of revised plans.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else wishing to speak
regarding this application?
Board of Trustees 20 June 11, 2025
(Negative response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application at the
applicant' s request.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 3, 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 41X8 ' drywell for pool backwash, and 3'X6' pool
equipment area.
Located: 600 Inlet View East, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-100-3-10.10
The Trustees most recently visited the site on June 3rd,
2025, and Trustee Goldsmith noted will review new plans at work
session, as we had previously visited the site back in March and
in February.
The LWRP found this application to be consistent, and we
are in receipt of new plans stamped received May 19th, 2025.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regards to this
application?
(No response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL YES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the condition of a ten-foot vegetated non-turf buffer and
submission of plans depicting that buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL YES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, AS PER REVISED PLANS & PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 5/28/2025 Baptiste Engineering on behalf of
ALLISON CM FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to install a
trench drain within the existing driveway and an 8' diameter
drainage leaching pool to capture stormwater runoff; install two
(2) 3' high natural stone landscape walls with varying lengths
from approximately 22 ' to 271 ; convert a portion of the existing
driveway to be a pervious landscaped area; install a proposed 3'
wide landscaped buffer area between the property line and the
adjacent properties; remove the existing seaward steps and
replace with 4' wide steps; and no additional fill will be
brought to the site; any excavated material from the stone wall
will be cleaned, graded and reused as backfill.
Board of Trustees 21 June 11, 2025
Located: 820 East Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-110-7-22
The Trustees conducted an inhouse inspection June 3rd,
2025, reviewed the plans further at work session. Notes about
limiting the wall to two feet in height.
The LWRP, finds this project to be consistent. I also have
a letter in the file here from Patricia Moore on behalf of her
client Richard Kilbride who had some concerns regarding the
. proposed project.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. BAPTISTE: Good afternoon. Schillivia Baptiste, of Baptiste
Engineering, Franklin Avenue, Mineola, New York.
Since our last meeting in May we've made some revisions to
the plans and I'm just here to answer any questions that the
Board of Trustees may have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, ma'am. I forgot to mention that we do
have new plans stamped received May 28th, 2025, that address
most of our concerns from the previous meeting.
One of the concerns that we still had was in regard to the
need for the two walls proposed three-foot high. We discussed
limiting those walls to two feet in height. Based on site
conditions on that property, we felt that the bottom wall could
provide you with what you are looking, with proper grading with
this property. The erosion was coming from the landward side,
not so much the seaward side, so with removal of part of that
driveway with the trench drain at the top, and some plantings, I
think you addressed most of those concerns.
So could you just speak regarding the need for those two
three-foot high, or three three-foot high walls?
MS. BAPTISTE: Yes. Two three-foot high walls. So the
applicant, the homeowners, would like to have a place to just
put lawn chairs and relax. So that' s the reason why we have
that five-foot area once you come down the first set of stairs,
so they can put beach chairs there. So, it's more leisure.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
MS. BAPTISTE: We did not have a return on the wall, so it does
not affect the neighbors on, our adjacent property owners. It's
all seaward facing. And the wall, in essence, will tie into the
existing grade.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So just one point of clarification. On the
one seaward most wall, it does look like it has a return to the
neighbor to the east.
MS. BAPTISTE: So that's not a return. That is actually the
landscaped area, the buffer area, that shaded area.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The plans that we have looks like both. You
have the landscaped area and then landward of the landscaped
area it says proposed three-foot stack-stone landscape wall.
MS. BAPTISTE: I stand corrected, yes. And that' s only three
feet returning.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That' s only three foot --
Board of Trustees 22 June 11, 2025
MS. BAPTISTE: Three-foot high return, yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because it looks like a 22-foot return.
MS. BAPTISTE: The length is 22 feet but the height is still
three feet. So it' s not six feet.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Is there anyone else here wishing to
speak regarding this application?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I have one point of clarification on the plan.
There was a note, it looks like it's the area that is an
extension of the driveway where you installed the trench drain
in the area, and then it's labeled "pervious landscaped area. "
What is that area that is seaward of the existing driveway?
MS. BAPTISTE: So that was previous pervious area. We are just
going to make that landscaped. So I just wanted to make it
clear that that's going from impervious to pervious.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, so that area that kind of still looks
like a driveway, that is going to be all vegetation?
MS. BAPTISTE: Yes, landscaped. Lawn. Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you.
MS. BAPTISTE: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I guess part of the issue I'm having, I
appreciate the steps have you taken with your client, I sort of,
I see what they are trying to achieve there. But this Board is
not in the habit of granting, leveling, manipulation of natural
slopes.
MS. BAPTISTE: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So what I would be more inclined to approve
would be a, you know, armoring your toe slightly to prevent any
more, you know, erosion. Plus removal of that driveway and the
trench drain is going to go a very long way to prevent anything
else from happening there.
And then really just, it' s a natural slope going into a
natural buffer which, unconsolidated sands and a really nice a
dunal area. I mean, this is probably the first in a decade, the
first application that I have seen in a situation like this,
trying to straighten things out.
Typically, you armor the toe and then you just plant the
back, and if it has to be tiered slightly, that's what you do.
It' s more of a gentle slope that I personally feel should remain
that way. It' s a transition, if you will, from manicured living,
outdoor living space, and the natural habitat there, which very
few places in town, and certainly very few places down in the
Pequosh neighborhood have that kind of beautiful buffer and
natural habitat. It' s pretty rare.
MS. BAPTISTE: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else wishing to speak?
MS. MOORE: Thank you. Patricia Moore, on behalf of the Kilbride
family.
Yes, I was trying to follow the drawings myself, and we are
certainly, we prefer no walls than walls, if at all possible.
This is certainly a better plan than what was originally .
Board of Trustees 23 June 11, 2025
proposed. So that' s a wonderful direction that they went in.
I'll leave it to the Board to determine whether a wall is
necessary or not.
If a wall is not, if it' s only at the toe of the slope, or
the toe of the gradual slope, then you may not need it on the
sides. It could also be treated more naturally along the
Kilbride side. They have a smaller retaining wall on the Leary
side, and the one on the' Kilbride side is 22 feet. So it's quite
long.
The other issues that we want to make sure that are on the
record, and please let your contractor know, there is, my
client's sanitary system is very old and it's located very close
to the property line. It' s the original sanitary system. Any
activity, equipment and so on, should avoid, obviously it would
be trespassing if it was on the client's property, but sometimes
things happen, it would potentially damage the existing sanitary
system. So something to please keep in mind. We want to make
sure there is no activity occurring on my client' s property.
If a wall was built, it might impact that, might create
more activity than is necessary.
As far as the vegetation, there was just a request my
client had that American beach grass be the preferred planting,
at least adjacent to their property. His concerns with bayberry
is that it has rhizomes and it will extend and be somewhat
invasive. So the preferred approach is the beach grass.
That was pretty much it. Certainly I'm listening to
whether or not you are going to require .or allow for retaining
walls, and the proposal is three-foot high retaining walls,
certainly the lower the better, if at all.
Also, I noted that, and again, the retaining walls are
changing, so I'll leave the design to you. But the drawings had
boulders identified, but the description had stacked stone,
which tends to, I mean, in my head, stack stone is very natural,
flattish, and boulders are more structural.
So there seems to be a description of one thing and a
design of something else. So just take a look at that. That's
all. Thank you.
TRUSTEE` GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I find myself in agreement with you,
Ms. Moore.
MS. MOORE: Shocker.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Well, when you speak from that microphone,
it's different.
MS. MOORE: I should stay over there.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The house is significantly set back, and in
the field, on multiple visits, I had noticed just the erosion
coming from the landward side of the property due to its slope,
due to the impervious driveway that allows water to rush down
and cascade over the edge of that little embankment there.
So to echo Trustee Krupski, I see and appreciate the
Board of Trustees 24 June 11, 2025
efforts you are making to stem that erosion, but the driveway
changes that you proposed, the trench drain that you proposed,
will go a long way to remediate that erosion issue.
And I, again, agree with Ms. Moore that the limit of
retaining walls to both two feet or below, and to limit them in
this location to one, even better, none, would be, in my mind
the right and 'appropriate thing to do here.
I notice that on the property line there is a lot of privet
that is over time wandering downhill, and I think that it's time
to consider whether that privet is an appropriate species of
vegetation to have on that line. I think the American beach
grass is a better solution because of its rooting systems and
its limitation in height.
MS. BAPTISTE: So tonight my client is here. Can I have a minute
to just speak with him?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, ma'am.
While they are discussing, anybody else have any comments
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I would just agree with what's been said so
far, and note that we very rarely allow for a retaining wall
over two feet in height. So I think that's a consideration
here.
MS. BAPTISTE: Thank you for the opportunity to speak with the
client and property owner. We would like to have the opportunity
to make the retaining wall two feet; one at the slope, just to
stabilize the base, and keep the existing grade.
And also the condition of replacing the landscaping on the,
adjacent to the Kilbride's to American beach grass.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, thank you, for that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I encourage the, not part of this
application, but hearing Ms. Moore's speech tonight, I'm
inclined to encourage her to push the Kilbride's in the
direction of an IA system to limit nitrogen intrusion into our
waterways.
MS. MOORE: Agreed.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Ms. Baptiste, one quick question in regards
to that proposed retaining wall. What kind of construction is
that? Was it stack stone, was it --
MS. BAPTISTE: Yes, I did have a picture of the stone we are
proposing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Ms. Baptiste, just to confirm, so you are
talking about that seaward-most retaining wall. Containing that
one.
MS. BAPTISTE: Yes, correct.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: One. other question, Ms. Baptiste. With that
proposed one retaining wall of two foot, would that be the one
including the return on the easterly side, 22-foot return, or is
that going to be removed?
Board of Trustees 25 June 11, 2025
MS. BAPTISTE: The return will no longer be needed because we
won't have the flat area, so the existing slope can remain as
is. Yes. So that will not be proposed.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Any other questions or comments?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
I make a motion to approve this application with the condition
of one seaward-most retaining wall not to exceed two foot in
height, with no return. A non-disturbance buffer seaward of that
retaining wall. A non-turf buffer landward of that retaining
wall to the top of the bank, with submission of new plans and
vegetation using American beach grass for the non-turf buffer
and on the neighboring side.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MS. BAPTISTE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 5, Costello Marine Contracting Corp.', on
behalf of MICHAEL J. & ALEXANDRIA PRISCO requests a Wetland
Permit to remove and dispose of the existing 61x44 ' catwalk;
construct in-place a new landward 4' wide staircase up to a
41x5' platform elevated 4 .5' above grade leading to a raised
41x50' ramp leading down to a 41x30' catwalk; reuse existing
3'x16' ramp and 61x20' floating dock situated in an "L"
configuration; remove existing pilings and install two (2) new
anchor pilings; and the existing landward wood walkway to dock
to be removed and replaced with a mulch walkway.
Located: 905 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-139-1-17
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Trustees last visited the site on June 3rd,
2025, noting that they needed a pier line depicted on plans
between neighboring dock. The proposed dock appears to exceed
the pier line. And would like to put a non-turf buffer in place
on the property, given there' s already a healthy native planted
buffer at this time.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding the
application.
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant. This is
a pretty simple application. You can actually see where the lay
of the land, the pier line is close, and it' s on the outside of
a curve. So we are just bringing this into conformity with the
DEC, turning the float into an "L", to get in the 2.5 feet of
water. I mean this is just a pretty basic application.
We would be willing to put a non-turf buffer, what are we
talking, ten, 15 feet of non-turf buffer?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As it exists now I think it' s like 30 feet. We
Board of Trustees 26 June 11, 2025
were talking 20. Basically leaving what' s there. But I think the
problem is that the pier line, and although it's a slight curve,
it's not much. And this Board has not, I'm not sure that
reflects on the pier line in a long time.
MR. COSTELLO: Well, it's not obstructing navigation. There's a
ton of room across. We are not entering the main of the
channel. And, like I said, we are just basically not extending
the overall length of the dock. We are just turning the float
into an "L" to get the float into 2.5 feet of water.
I don't see why there would be an objection to that. We are
making progress on this application. And we are, you know,
diminishing the width of the dock. And I mean, with a dock, I
don't remember you guys ever attaching a non-turf buffer to a
dock renovation. But, we would be willing to do that, I guess. I
mean --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, again, this Board recently strengthened
the "pier line" definition for the exact reason of preventing
creep in the creek. So I'm not sure that we have flex on that.
MR. COSTELLO: Well, do we have to get hydrographics of the
neighboring docks to make sure they're conforming? Because we
don't want to set a pier line on non-conforming docks. And we
are not talking about, if you put a line across there, we are
not talking about much. I mean, you are talking about inches.
It' s not really a graphic, you know, moving seaward. We are not
moving seaward of the existing structure. We are just changing
it to an "L" . You know what I'm saying?
That floating dock right now, as it appears; is straight in
an "I" configuration. We are just changing the float into an
"L" to get the float into 2.5 feet of water that is regulated by
the DEC.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that dock as permitted from 1960?
MR. COSTELLO: I wasn't alive. But I don't think this -- I viewed
this application as being very simple. Because we are really not
expanding upon the footprint. We are actually diminishing the
footprint and putting the dock in the proper water depth without
going with seaward expansion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So I have to apologize, I forgot my ruler
tonight. However --
MR. COSTELLO: I have another one right here
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: (Continuing) based on plans you submitted
using the old-fashioned paper trick, if I create a pier line
based on the plans you submitted, it looks like the pier line
ends landward of the proposed float, right at the edge of the
ramp.
So if we had plans that depicted the pier line, I think we
could better visualize that. And as Trustee Krupski said, it's
codified for no extension past the pier line. And we've been --
MR. COSTELLO: Like I said, I think pier line is irrelevant in
this particular application because there is no, we are not
impeding navigation. And if you look at those pictures, the
Board of Trustees 27 June 11, 2025
southern dock, we don't know that' s even in, you know, these are
pre-existing nonconforming docks, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With all due respect, it' s not just to impede
navigation. It' s public use, and we are trying to prevent creep
of scope in all creeks. So if somebody wants to kayak or sail --
MR. COSTELLO: We are not going any further out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The reason that we improved the code with
respect to pier line is to avoid this exact conversation. I'll
be honest with you. There might be argument not going further
out, and maybe we should view the history of the neighbors to
see what they have there. I think that if that dock has a permit
as existing and we are not going further out, I personally could
see a good argument there. But we'd have to check the history on
that. Which I don't have.
MR. COSTELLO: So what you are asking of me is to check the
neighboring docks' histories, and then give you a set of plans
depicting the pier line?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'd certainly need to see a pier line on the
plans. That' s a requirement we have of all dock applications,
where applicable. And if you'd like, we can dig into the history
on the docks. But it would probably make sense to see that on a
plan, um, as existing versus permitted.
MR. COSTELLO: Okay, well, I can see right on the hydrographic
plans, on page 'five out of eight, where the southerly neighbor
dock is only in 1.8 feet of water. So to establish a pier line
on a nonconforming dock is moot.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, again, we can't really speak to other
applications, but when they come before us, if they don't have
the water depth and they need to, rebuild the dock, then they'll
be going to a fixed pier, is the way the code reads.
MR. COSTELLO: So even though we are diminishing the overall
footprint of this dock, it's still not acceptable by this Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When you say diminishing the footprint --
MR. COSTELLO: Decreasing the width of the dock itself.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. I think that' s a great step. Again, it's
just the way the code is written --
MR. COSTELLO: We set out from the beginning to do the right
thing, you know what I'm saying. So "we diminished the amount of
town bottom that was taken up by this dock, trying to take the
high road. But, I mean, given this whole pier line thing where
it's not impeding navigation seems to be a little ridiculous.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Again, it's not just navigation of -- well, I
would disagree with .you in terms of ridiculousness. It's a
public water body that any structure is impeding navigation,
whether it be a sailboat or a dinghy or a. kayak, so any,
extension of a dock is cutting into the middle of the public
property. It' s public property. It's not your client's property.
MR. COSTELLO: It' s not an extension. We are decreasing the
footprint of it. So we're not extending the dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And there might be an argument there, but I'd
Board of Trustees 28 June 11, 2025
have to, I mean, I'm not going to go back and forth with you.
If you want we can look into the' history of this and we can
review this again next month.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But just another point with that, the
reconstruction of a dock has to abide by all new code of Chapter
275, whether it's reducing the width to four foot, which is part
of 275 and/or pier line, which is also 275. So it's not just
adhering to one part or another of the code, it' s the entirety
of the code.
MR. COSTELLO: All right, I guess we'll have to investigate this,
but.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak on
this application?
(No response) .
Any additional comments from the Members of the Board?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: It's very possible that in the investigation
of the adjacent docks and we find that they are nonconforming,
then we are in a pickle.
MR. COSTELLO: All I 'm saying is they pre-exist the code. I'm not
saying anybody did anything wrong.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Right. No, I'm not indicating that either.
MR. COSTELLO: I'm saying the pier line in this situation seems
irrelevant.
MS. HULSE: See, but it's not. That' s the problem. So I know
what you're saying, and I hear all the positive points that
you've made, and I think they have been acknowledged by the
Board, but the fact of the matter is with the definition of
"pier line, " it' s strict. It' s not discretionary. So that' s the
way it's interpreted and applied by this Board, which is
appropriate, because it complies with the code.
I know what you're saying, but the pier line is the pier
line. They can't disregard it in any way, shape or form. It
doesn't matter about the navigation. It doesn't matter. It's
just that' s the way it is. The code is strict. Strict adherence.
I understand what you're saying, but they are bound by it.
MR. COSTELLO: I don't think that's why we're here to discuss
things. We are here to discuss things that are beyond the code.
I mean, I can certainly stay home and read the code and send an
application in and not even come here. So this is a situation
where the code has to be looked upon and say, okay, this is
where we're going to make an exception, because, like I said,
the dock to the south is non-conforming. It's obvious on the
hydrographic.
MS. HULSE: You might have a good point with that.
MR. COSTELLO: I think I do.
MS. HULSE: I'm just trying to make the point --
MR. COSTELLO: I get it. I understand.
MS. HULSE: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Also permit 108, which was denied a transfer
due to lack of function, was significantly shorter with what is
Board of Trustees 29 June 11, 2025
there now. So since the permit, there has been an expansion, a
non-permitted expansion. Not to mention that the permit is no
longer valid, so. You know, we can look at a history of the
neighbors and sort of go from there.
So if there is no one else that wishes to speak., I'll make
a motion to table the application for submission of additional
information and a pier line applied to the plans for the
application.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 6, Costello Marine Contracting Corp.
on behalf of PETER & DONNA RUTTURA requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a bluff stairway consisting of a top 4 ' x 8 ' platform
to 3' x ±12. 6' stairs down to a 4' x 8 ' platform with a bench to
3' x ±12 . 6' stairs down to a 4 ' x 8' platform with a bench to 3'
x ±12. 6' stairs down to a 4 ' x 8 ' platform with 3 ' x ±13.4 '
stairs to be angled to the beach.
Located: 900 Sound Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-4-4
The Trustees visited the site on 6/3/25, noting we've
reviewed the aerial imagery. We did get down to the crest of the
bluff, took a couple photographs, and in passing through that
area, it was nicely vegetated with lots of trees.
Mr. McGinnis yelled to us from the brick chimney watch out
for the deer. We were safe.
The LWRP found the project to be consistent.
I welcome comments from the public.
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant, just
here to answer any questions. Pretty simple. Staircase right
down the middle of the property. Meets the code, meets the
setbacks. If there are any questions.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Straightforward in my mind. I think the Board
discussed at work session there was a nice vegetated buffer
there. We would like to see that included as part of the
staircase application. I think that a number that made sense to
our mind was 25 feet from the top of bluff landward.
MR. COSTELLO: Was that also -- is that already in there as part
of the house permit they are building? Is this redundancy?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That is a good question.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Do you want me to speak to that?
The house was built outside of jurisdiction, so there was
no buffer associated with the house.
MR. COSTELLO: Okay, so you want the buffer associated with the
staircase.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The staircase, yes, and there was some nice
trees in there, just to retain those trees.
MR. COSTELLO: We'll avoid them at all costs.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I trust the dock will be well built and last
a long time.
Board of Trustees 30 June 11, 2025
Anyone else wish to speak regarding the application?
(No response) .
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application
with plans depicting a 25-foot non-disturbance buffer, and
retaining trees. That' s my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. COSTELLO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. Good night.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 7, Karen Hoeg, Esq. on behalf of
DOUGLAS P. ROBALINO LIVING TRUST & DIANE E. ROBALINO LIVING
TRUST requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built 1, 628sq.ft.
One-story dwelling with attached 186sq.ft. East side deck with
steps and 405sq.ft. West side deck with steps; as-built
181sq. ft. PVC pergola; as-built 345sq.ft. West side concrete
patio; 526sq. ft. Of as built concrete walkways; 827sq.ft. Of
as-built step-stone walks; as-built 598sq.ft. Masonry block
walk; as-built 1, 600sq. ft. Brick & asphalt driveway; existing
previously permitted 1,380sq.ft. Two-story garage; and 10'
diameter by 8 ' deep cesspool with shallow dome; remove the
existing seaward masonry wall and replace with two tiers of 30"
high masonry walls with 36" between the walls and a drain
system, to be planted with native grasses; all debris, including
tires and trash to be removed from the bank face by hand and
place native seed mix in areas of exposed soil; establish and
perpetually maintain a 30' wide Non-Disturbance Buffer along the
landward edge of wetlands, and establish and perpetually
maintain a 1, 978sq.ft. Vegetated Non-Turf Buffer on the east
side of dwelling wrapping around seaward side of dwelling, and
within the area of the retaining walls; remove existing concrete
pad seaward of dwelling and install a ±4 . 6' wide pervious gravel
walk.
Located: 1695 Bay Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-9-21.1
The Trustees most recently conducted an inhouse review on
June 3rd, 2025, and most recently visited the site on March
12th, 2024, noting a need to mitigate stormwater runoff and its
root cause, which is the patio, concrete slabs, turf and absence
of vegetation to hold soil, and we would review further at work
session.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent. The inconsistencies include the installation and
an upgrade of an IA/OWTS, which is recommended; the installation
of a re-vegetation plan on the blank/bluff; the removal of
Board of Trustees 31 June 11, 2025
tires; a non-disturbance buffer was established by covenant in
2019 and is shown on the survey; and the aerial photo suggests
that the area seaward of the concrete wall was cleared; they
also noted to require a vegetated buffer design to control
erosion to be installed from the seaward rear of the house; and
require the applicant to remove all foreign debris; and require
that drainage on all impervious surfaces is installed.
The CAC also reviewed this application and did not support
it. They recommended that the applicant contact Cornell and
obtain a list of appropriate plantings for the area.
I'm in receipt of a new plan received in April of 2025.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MCGIVERN: Joan McGivern, from Twomey Latham, on behalf of
Karen Hoeg.
The revised landscape plan is as written. I 'm happy to
review it with you. The landscape plan proposes to remove the
masonry wall, which is in disrepair, and replace it with two
tiers of 30-inchh masonry walls, with 36 inches between the
walls, planted with- native grasses. All the debris, including
tires and trash, will be removed from the non-disturbance buffer
by hand, and native seed mix will be placed in the areas of
exposed soil. And it's also proposed that a 1, 978 square foot
vegetated non-turf buffer be proposed on the garage side of the
house, and that concrete pad which is at the rear of the house
will be removed and replaced with pervious gravel.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So when you say the rear of the house, are you
referring to the seaward side or the landward side?
MS. MCGIVERN: I'll orient myself here. I believe it's the
seaward side of the house.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, so we did review these plans during our
work session, and we had also met with the applicant in the
field to discuss some of the changes that we would need to see
to consider this application, and unfortunately we are not
seeing a lot of the recommendations that we made in the field,
including the concrete walkway which is on the side of the
house, and the concrete pad underneath the wood deck, which are
both significantly contributing to the runoff issues of the
property.
MS. MCGIVERN: The concrete deck, in order to hold it up, it' s on
concrete.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And the reason that they need the concrete is
because of the extreme erosion that is happening on this
property; is that correct?
MS. MCGIVERN: I can't speak to that.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, well, having been in the field, I can
speak to it. And I would say it more points to the instability
of this area which has been caused by the concrete that is so
close to the top of this bank.
So if you note on the plans that you're looking at here,
Board of Trustees 32 June 11, 2025
the top of bank line goes through that concrete, which is
underneath the wood deck.
MS. MCGIVERN: Well, if the wooden deck was shortened, would that
help?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I believe that would help. There would also
have to be significant removal of the structure in this area,
because all of the concrete, especially on the side of the •house
here which was added without permit.
(After a brief pause, presentation continues as follows) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: (Continuing) . So we did review with the
applicant in the field the concrete walkway, which was added
without permit, on the side of the house, would have to be
removed as a part of this application.
MS. MCGIVERN: I thought that that was our suggestion was to
remove it and replace it with pervious gravel.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So it was unclear to us on the plans. It
appears on the plans that only one section of the concrete was
to be replaced with pervious gravel. And that looks like the
section that is facing the water. We would just want to see that
consistent with the side of the house as well.
And additionally --
MS. MCGIVERN: I'm sorry, the concrete that there --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Maybe it's better if we speak directionally.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Are you talking about the concrete on the
west side of the house?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Which is the large concrete patio with
significant runoff issues on the west side, adjacent to Bay
Avenue
MS. MCGIVERN: There's a wood deck with the chimney, and you're
talking about the concrete walkway there?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes.
MS. MCGIVERN: Okay. That also is to be replaced with pervious
gravel?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I believe what we discussed in the field was
re-vegetating that area to help with the excessive runoff that
is occurring all over this property.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So we had previous discussions about this
property, both at the location and during public hearings, and
the problem that we ran into was the concrete structures were
built without a permit, as was the house rebuilt without a
permit right adjacent to the top of the bank of Marion Lake.
MS. MCGIVERN: Right. But they did have two ZBA approvals.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: If they come in for a permit, we would have
asked them to move that house further away from the bank so that
we didn't run into these problems, which is what we discussed
previously. So basically we are dealing with a self-imposed
hardship where they built things without permits and now they're
coming to us to try to fix the problem that they created.
MS. MCGIVERN: Well, we are trying to work with the Board to fix
Board of Trustees 33 June 11, 2025
the problem. I'm just trying to understand, first we were
talking about the smaller wood deck that intersects with the top
of the bank, so .I suggested maybe if we narrow that deck, would
that solve the problem so that it' s not running into the top of
the bank.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yeah, and going back to our previous hearing,
that was one of the things that we discussed, removal of the
concrete both on the seaward side and the western side, adding
vegetation to address any runoff concerns, potentially dialing
that deck back to bring it back further from the top of the
bank, doing a restoration of the bank that includes removal of
the tires and debris and the old retaining wall.
MS. MCGIVERN: Right. We've already proposed that, so I'm just
trying to -- we, as part of the plan, um, in letter dated April
8th, we proposed to remove the tires and debris by hand and seed
it. So I'm trying to narrow down the to-do list here. So is that
acceptable --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, ma'am.
MS. MCGIVERN: Then we can check it off.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You've checked off some of the boxes we
previously discussed.
MS. MCGIVERN: So I'm trying to figure out what boxes have I not
checked off.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Removal of concrete throughout, both on the
seaward side and the western side.
MS. MCGIVERN: So what we already proposed on the seaward side to
replace that with a pervious walkway, is it possible to remove a
lot of the concrete walkway but have at least a pervious walkway
among the re-veg?
I mean, you need a place to walk without disturbing the
vegetation.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: There is a large wood deck that you've noted
on the side of the house. So I don't see the need for a walkway
outside of that.
MS. MCGIVERN: I believe they would like a walkway, a pervious
walkway on the ground.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, limited to four-feet in width, is our
typical walkway.
MS. MCGIVERN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So as it exists right now, I think it's a four
or five-foot cement walkway. I think the Board would want to see
a vegetated area with small treads through that area, that, you
know, when you had a major rain event, the rain would hit, you
know, bluestone tread, or something to that effect, and
immediately go to the side. And, you know, with .large spacing.
This would not be a high-traffic area
MS. MCGIVERN: No, but they wanted some ability to walk, so I
think we can work with that, and --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Additionally, we had discussed in our work
session, the remedy here, the proposal of adding two tiers of
Board of Trustees 34 June 11, 2025
masonry walls.
MS. MCGIVERN: Which we have in the plan.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I'm not sure the Board is open to adding that
much structure at this point. We had discussed in our work
session, the idea of adding coir logs and plantings this entire
bank to try to re-vegetate.
MS. MCGIVERN: Well, the concern is that the coir logs would not
hold.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why not?
MS. MCGIVERN: It was recommended that we do masonry walls, maybe
along the lines of an earlier application of stack stone.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't fully see the need for it at this site.
I mean I guess we can look at it, something along the base, and
then coir logs and plantings up from there. You know, something
very minor.
MS. MCGIVERN: So have one of them be masonry and one be coir
logs?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Again, I'm not entirely sure there is a need
for it at this site. But especially with the removal of the
cement waterfall at the top of the bank. I think that and some
plantings would go a long way.
And one thing that the DEC gets right is when people come
forward with an application, they start with the least invasive
version of that application possible. So, you know, in some
cases the beginning stage is plantings, and then the next stage
would be coir logs and plantings, and then the next stage after
that would be spread-out rocks, and then the next stage after
that would be, you know, rocks packed tightly together to form
sort of a revetment.
MS. MCGIVERN: Yeah, we just going with what the landscape
architect recommended as the most durable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure.
MS. MCGIVERN: We can take back the idea of coir logs but, um --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Often times landscape architects are looking at
things with a different lens than we are, and, you know, it's
really the job of this Board to balance the property use with
the environmental aspects. And usually a landscape architect is
looking at more use and long-term durability, and also the easy
answer. Because it' s simple to go in there and put in two walls
and walk away forever.
But if we did that all over the place it would mirror
Queens, so we are trying to avoid that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: It's also worth looking at the aerial
photographs. The adjacent properties are treed, they are
vegetated. The property that we are currently discussing is an
open-to-the-sky turf sod lawn, with hardships created by the
illegal construction. So we are trying to --
MS. MCGIVERN: Yeah, and we understand that. It's been pending
for so long that he's been reluctant to do anything proactive
until he gets a clear green light from you.
Board of Trustees 35 June 11, 2025
MS. HULSE: What's been pending? I'm sorry, if I could just
interrupt. What's been pending?
MS. MCGIVERN: This application.
MS. HULSE: Isn't this the application where your client worked
through numerous stop-work orders, when the Building Department
continued to work, and just came in with photos after the fact?
I'm just curious, are you in a position right now to be
certified by the Building Department?
MS. MCGIVERN: Um, I can't speak to that, but I believe we have
two ZBA approvals already. It was as-built work.
MS. HULSE: So if this Board is of the mind to approve something,
it would have to be conditioned upon that. Because the permit
here is secondary to that. So --
MS. MCGIVERN: Yes. Of course. Of course.
MS. -HULSE: So that's the history here. So this Board has not
been delaying it. In fact it's --
MS. MCGIVERN: No, he' s reluctant to move forward .until he gets a
total green light. I'm not making excuses, I'm just
communicating what the client's position has been.
MS. HULSE: Okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is there a proposal -- does the property have
an AI system during reconstruction of the --
MS. MCGIVERN: This was approved in 2017 when the construction
occurred, which was pre-IA.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, just to clarify, the whole house was
permitted in 2017?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Not by this Board.
MS. MCGIVERN: No, not by this Board.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because Trustee Krupski and I were on that
Board, and what was permitted at that time was a rebuild of the
deck, and now we are here because we have a whole rebuild of the
house, without any approval, without any permits.
MS. MCGIVERN: I believe there is a seven-page letter in the
file, and what happened is they had sought to reconstruct part
of the house, and when the contractor got involved, um, he ended
up taking down the whole house because of rot.
So anyway, there is a long history here, and we' are where
we are, and I 'm trying to move forward with getting this
wetlands permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to clarify, though, for the record,
because, you know, several members of this Board were here eight
years ago and made it very clear to your client in the field
about what he needed to do moving forward, and that if it became
a demolition, it was going to have to conform.
And now we are sort of here, and the frustrating part, sort
of starting from scratch, after many, many meetings and site
visits.
So, yes, I understand that you may be here in good faith to
correct something, but there was no confusion eight years ago,
Board of Trustees 36 June 11, 2025
and this would be the first extension of good faith then
starting new here, but there is too much history to just act
like there' s not, I guess, for lack of better words.
MS. MCGIVERN: No, I understand, but --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I also want to note that these plans were
stamped received April 11th, 2025 in our office. So I don't
believe we have been delaying anything. We have spoken directly
with the client to explain exactly what is needed, and
unfortunately a lot of the recommended changes are not reflected
in the plans we received in April.
MS. MCGIVERN: So I'm trying to work with you, and I suggest that
on the smaller deck, that we move it back to the top of the bank
and remove as much concrete as possible.
With respect to the concrete walkway, on the western side,
that that be replaced with bluestone treads. And re-vegetate,
otherwise re-vegetated. And with respect to the masonry walls,
we can take up whether coir logs could be used instead.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And additionally we are require an IA system
be added to this property, so.
MS. MCGIVERN: And that is not acceptable to my client, and I'm
not sure it's within your jurisdiction.
MS. HULSE: That's one way to approach it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is one way to approach it. And it's not
really you who gets to make that call, so.
MS. MCGIVERN: And we understand that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just to reiterate, we were not the ones --
MS. MCGIVERN: And there is a seven-page letter in the file
addressing this exact issue.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We've reviewed the file.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And we had this conversation with your client
however many months, a year ago, and the problem was he didn't
like what we had to say, so he didn't do it. So there was no
delay on our part. It was his reluctance to do what we had asked
him to do to correct the self-imposed hardship that he created
by doing this without a permit.
Obviously, if we work with people, we could address all
these concerns prior to construction. Now you are here looking
for a fix for something that he created himself.
MS. MCGIVERN: Yeah, but it would be extremely costly for him to
put in an IA system now. He would basically have to tear up the
whole front of his house.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And it would be costly to rebuild the whole
house as well.
MS. MCGIVERN: Yes.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So, we have the benefit tonight of a very
crowded hearing, and lots of people in here who all have had to
play by the rules and have to do an IA system when rebuilding a
house. So for us to look the other way because the client has
already rebuilt the house would be incredibly unfair to
Board of Trustees 37 June 11, 2025
everybody else in Southold Town.
MS. MCGIVERN: But it was approved by the ZBA back in 2019.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Was it approved by the Trustees?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: There is a lot of confusion around ZBA
approvals and the Trustees approvals. We are separate Board with
different portions of the code to consider, as I'm sure you're
aware. I think you have some notes to consider with your client
from this evening, and we look forward to a new project.
MS. MCGIVERN: Well, if I make the three modifications that we
seem to have reached at least a consensus, that that would be
acceptable to the Board, are you saying that notwithstanding
those modifications, you would still deny this application
because --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We would be happy to review new plans with the
changes depicted, and then we would review them and we would
come back here.
That' s how the process works. We can't verbally --
MS. HULSE: We can't give a prospective decision at this point.
MS. MCGIVERN: Well, this very evening I've heard you approve
things subject to receiving the modifications discussed.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: They were minor in nature.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: A three-foot wall to a two-foot wall is a lot
different than an as-built house.
MS. MCGIVERN: Well, I have two masonry walls were suggested --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It' s not something we would be willing to
consider approving an application subject to new plans in this
case because the changes are so dramatic that we would need to
review new plans.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. HULSE: May I just inquire, have you gotten Suffolk County
Health Department approval?
MS. MCGIVERN: That's my understanding, yes. That is my
understanding.
MS. HULSE: Okay.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Any other questions or comments from Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application for
submission of new plans for review.
MS. MCGIVERN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL YES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 8, JUSTIN CONCANNON requests a Wetland
Permit to install a new driveway/parking area at front (east
side) of dwelling; remove existing west side driveway; install
wooden fencing in side and back yards; install three (3) timber
retaining walls consisting of: North Wall to be 64.8 ' long by 2 '
high, East Wall to be 30. 6' long by 2' high, and South Wall to
Board of Trustees 38 June 11, 2025
be 30.7 ' long by 2' high; construct a 5. 101xl8. 9' deck with
stairs on west side of dwelling; replace existing stairs on
north side of dwelling; abandon existing septic tank and pools
to update existing OWTS sanitary system by adding more rings,
and increasing capacity of tank; construct a 30'xl3' in-ground
swimming pool with bluestone coping, a dedicated drywell for
pool backwash, and pool equipment area; install stepping stones
in front of steps down; recap top of bulkhead and 27. 9' long
wood walk landward of bulkhead; remove phragmites by hand
cutting and digging out plants; removal of several shrubs
against bulkhead and fill in voids; and to re-establish and
perpetually maintain the 10' wide vegetated non-turf buffer area
along the landward side of the bulkhead, expand the vegetated
non-turf buffer area an additional 880 square feet by removing
any sod and supplying additional gravel to match existing and
planting Ammophila Brevilgulata with lft. Spacing within the
entire buffer area to create a 20' wide non-turf vegetated
buffer area.
Located: 980 Manhanset Avenue, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-34-5-20
The Trustees most recently visited this site on June 5th,
2025, and Trustee Sepenoski wrote "straightforward".
The LWRP found this application to be consistent.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. TOBIN: Roric Tobin and Justin Concannon, just here if you
have any questions.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you.
I do have one question here on the plan. And I believe you
did a great job walking us through all of this in the field. So,
thank you. So there are not too many questions.
The pool looks like it's just outside of 50 feet; is that
correct.
MR. CONCANNON: It is.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Because I don't have my little protractor
compass and I couldn't figure that out. So I just wanted to
confirm that. Thank you.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak, or any other
questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. CONCANNON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 9, AMP Architecture on behalf of
Board of Trustees 39 June 11, 2025
SANGROK LEE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story
2, 415sq. ft. (Approx. 41110"x6615") , dwelling with basement and
attached garage; a 22.6'xl4 .8' second-floor roof deck, a
456sq.ft. First floor covered patio with steps leading up to a
772sq. ft. Second-floor deck above patio; a proposed 16'x32'
swimming pool with bluestone coping around pool; an 863. 6sq.ft
at-grade stone pool patio; 214 linear feet of pool enclosure
fencing with gates; pool drywell for backwash, install an I/A
Wastewater Treatment System; install a stormwater drainage
system; install a 1, 680sq.ft. Gravel driveway; and to establish
and perpetually maintain a 75' wide Non-Disturbance Buffer
within the areas seaward of the "Limits of Clearing & Grading"
line.
Located: 200 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-97-7-1
The Trustees conducted a field inspection June 3rd, 2025,
noting further review at work session. ,
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PORTILLO: Yes. Good evening, Board, Anthony Portillo, AMP
AMP Architecture.
We do have an IA system designed and approved, and
basically what happened here was the house is still being built.
It was permit lapse, so we are actually here to request
basically a renewal of that permit.
There are some minor changes to our plans, which I would
like to discuss with the Board. One is, the bigger one, I think,
is we are asking if we can build a larger pool. Asking the Board
to consider that. Some of my notes, just from the original
approval of the pool, to what we are requesting.
The original approval was a 12x26 pool. We are requesting a
16x32 pool. Essentially, it changes the wetlands setback from
104 to 101.4, and then on the, I'm sorry, the northeast side,
would change it from 102.3 to 98.3.
So I t,, ink it' s not that significant. We are not outside of
our allowed clearance area, so we ask that the Board possibly
approve that with the approval of the application.
The other thing that happened during the build, which was
something that was not approved originally, is the exterior
staircase was supposed to be built on the raised patio, and it
was built off the raised patio. The raised patio did not change,
in regards to the location of it. It's just that the stair was
moved and the stair going down to grade as well is now
protruding off the patio instead of being inset on the patio on
the original approval.
Those are the changes to the scope, essentially. And the
pool request, we are currently requesting ZBA, because we would
have to get their approval.
So the original application when we came to the Trustees,
we didn't file the pool. The owners held off on it. So we do
Board of Trustees 40 June 11, 2025
have to go through that process, because it isn't in technically
a rear yard. It's past the rear of the house, but because the
patio is attached to the house, it' s considered primary. So
Zoning has to provide us an approval on the pool.
If you have any questions, I can answer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So just the proposed pool and the patio or
deck around it, that is, is that all still proposed landward of
the 75 foot non-disturbance buffer?
MR. PORTILLO: Yes, that's correct. And that is an on-grade
patio.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The new grade or the old grade?
MR. PORTILLO: Well, he started digging the pool, and when I
actually came to the site, having visited since he called me,
because I guess he found out about the -- so he actually called
because he wanted to do the PAA, the amendment on the plans,
because of that stair moving, then that sort of turned into this
because they didn't renew the permit. Unfortunately the owners
just didn't realize it.
So, and there were some like interior changes with some
structure and things like that. So they started digging the
pool, I told them to stop. They didn't actually have a permit
for the pool. I think they didn't realize they didn't have the
permit for the pool. They thought it was together. It was just a
miscommunication on that.
So I think that's -- are you talking about the area where
it was dug, the pool?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It seems like a lot of RCA was brought onto
the property. So we were concerned that no additional fill would
be brought into that site.
MR. PORTILLO: I mean, yes, I mean, that' s what we discussed, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I guess, a few things.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If the Board were to approve a pool expansion,
you are going to the edge of your non-disturbance buffer. So it
had as to be really clear then that there can't be a walking
path outside of that. That' s the line. So there can't be any
landscaped or trimming or anything outside of that. So if that' s
the concession that they are going to make, it just has to be
really clear on that.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure. I just want to note, so the owner decided to
build the house on his own, and basically manage it. I asked him
and we are in discussion that he should probably involve me, at
least, as the architect to just make sure of these things,
right, because I think that there are just some things that
maybe were misunderstood.
I think that, like even the stairs, he put it there and it
was supposed to be on the deck. So we are, just for the Board's
own knowledge, I plan on probably getting more involved now
because there were some things that were not exactly what he
should have done.
Board of Trustees 41 June 11, 2025
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So there' s probably, it's hard to tell, two to
three feet of RCA on a lot of building site.
I think when the project is final, there can't be like a,
we don't want to see a two-to-three foot slope, especially RCA
dumping into the non-disturbance buffer either. So that's going
to have to be tightened.
I mean, first of all, you can't grow anything on it anyway.
So I don't know what the plan is there. I just out of curiosity
would like to know. But, you know, that' s going to have to be
pulled in so it's not, we're not just dumping. Because RCA
locking up, so all the water is just going to blow right off
that with the fines into the buffer, so.
MR. PORTILLO: So basically I think what you are asking is all
that is going to be removed after. construction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Removed or pulled way off the lines, right, so
we're not just running all the water onsite.
MR. PORTILLO: The owner is here.
Do you want to just agree to what they are saying?
MR. LEE: Definitely.
MR. PORTILLO: Okay. And I'll make sure, I mean, like I said,
we're in discussion, that I'm involved, because he' s doing it
himself, so just a little bit of help there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean that' s probably a good idea, right,
because you don't want the RCA drainage on the property. So I 'm
assuming it' s for construction.
MR. PORTILLO: That' s what I think he did it for.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So probably removal of that. And then, again,
we just don't want to see a steep slope. Even if it' s removal of
RCA and they want to bring in a small amount of topsoil. We
don't want to see anything dumping into the buffer. Because it's
an amazing spot.
MR. PORTILLO: Right. And I agree right now it' s higher than we
proposed. If you guys want to write that into the approval, I'll
make sure we are meeting your requirements.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
(No response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close
this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
I make a motion to approve this application with the
condition there is no additional fill brought in, that the
existing RCA be removed from the property, outside of the
existing driveway. And that there is no steep grade change
between the property and the non-disturbance buffer.
Board of Trustees 42 June 11, 2025
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So subject to new plans.
MR. PORTILLO: Understood. Thank you, Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 10, AMP Architecture on behalf of AMBER
MORIARTY & PATRICK COURTNEY requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 1, 945sq. ft. One-story dwelling with 32sq.ft. Front
covered porch and attached garage; remove existing 610sq.ft.
Rear wood deck, 1, 134sq.ft. Rear at-grade patio and traditional
sanitary system in rear yard; construct a 511sq.ft. Rear deck
with 436sq. ft. Raised pool with 10" coping; pool enclosure
fencing with locking gates to be installed around pool and deck;
construct a rear 10.31x10.21 , 201x20' (505sq.ft. ) Screened-in
porch; construct a 101x43' rear wood deck (at first floor
level) ; install a 350sq.ft. At-grade stone patio under rear wood
deck; construct a 6'xll.1' half bath and shower against seaward
side of dwelling; install a ±16' long by 2 ' high retaining wall
along west side of dwelling; remove existing east side retaining
wall and construct new ±14. 6' long by 2.3' high retaining wall
in-place; install an I/A OWTS on landward side of dwelling;
install drywells in rear yard for new structures; approximately
84 cubic yards of fill to be excavated for proposed work,
backfill pool/deck area and ±4 cubic yards used for grade fill
with all excess fill to be removed from site.
Located: 695 North Parish Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-71.-1-7
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Board of Trustees visited the site on June 3rd, 2025,
just noted to review the height of retaining walls on property
and the pool. After brief review it appears there, I think the
highest is 2.3, the Board is really just trying to keep
everything to two foot or below on properties such as this. So
that' s the suggestion of the Board at this time.
MR. PORTILLO: No problem. That's fine.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak to
this application or additional comments from Members of the
Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion approve this application, with
striking 2.3-foot high retaining walls, changing it to two-foot
high retaining walls, with stipulation all retaining walls in
this project are no higher than two feet.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 43 June 11, 2025
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 11, En-Consultants on behalf of
LUCKYFRONT, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit to restore an approximately 201x80' area of
eroded/denuded bluff face with approximately 150 cubic yards of
clean sandy fill trucked in from an approved upland source to be
stabilized with five (5) 80 liner foot long rows of 16-inch
diameter coir logs and native vegetation, including switchgrass
and northern bayberry.
Located: 38015 Route 25, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-2-15. 8
The Trustees visited the site on the 3rd of June, 2025. Our
notes from that visit read: Review further at work session,
don't touch soil sloughed onto beach.
The LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. ROSHAN: Yes. Good evening, my name is Tyler Roshan of
En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant.
The purpose of the application is to restore and stabilize
an eroded section of the bluff face on the subject property.
This erosion was caused by a wash-over event, and occurred from
the top down, so there is no shoreline hardening here. This is
just an effort to restore the historic condition of the bluff.
To do this, we propose to propose to spread sandy fill in
the eroded portion 'to match the surrounding grade, then
stabilize with coir logs and revegetate with native planting.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Kudos for the brevity.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: You sound like an old pro.
Just note that in our visit to the fields, and we walked
through a well-vegetated area to get to the staircase and
observe the erosion and issues, and that in discussions during
work session, it appears that a vegetated buffer would be an
appropriate mitigation measure in the area. What say you?
MR. ROSHAN: Rob says he thinks they have one already. I'm not
sure.
MR. HERRMANN: I 'm not sure. I 'know that he's got some, I'm
pretty sure there is some sort of buffer that has been
established. I don't know if it' s a covenanted buffer. But
basically there would be no clearing of any of that area.
Because I know they have the silt fence, I think is lined up in
connection with construction, but I don't know at what setback.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So in some research, I think the office found
that the, this is from April 17th, 2019, with respect to the
property we are talking about. The condition to no longer
remove anymore trees without Trustee permits, and all vegetation
permitted to be trimmed to no less than three feet in height.
Which would appear is what is taking place on the property, as
we saw it.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, I think there was that deer fence permit that
was also issued. Is that what you're reading from or is that a
Board of Trustees 44 June 11, 2025
different -- I know he' s had a couple of different applications
before the Trustees.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: This is for a ten-year maintenance permit.
MR. HERRMANN: That' s right. That's right. So I think that' s
addressed in that permit.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right. So roughly in the field I think
there's 75 feet of vegetation. You would have the no trim below
three feet in height.
I'm just thinking ahead to the future that if the property
were to change hands, and condition of a buffer on the property
of 50 feet from top of bluff would be a measure that would lock
in that natural feature, and I think strengthen the erosion
mitigation that you are proposing.
MR. HERRMANN: I don't see an issue with it, Eric, because he
would not be permitted to clear that vegetation within that
50-foot setback anyway. So for that, I think I'm hearing what
you're saying, is for that condition do run with this permit.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: With the land. Yes.
Okay, any other comments from the public or members of the
Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application
with new plans depicting a 50-foot vegetated non-turf buffer
landward of the top of bluff.
MR. ROSHAN: Great. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 12, En-Consultants on behalf of JOY
KILPATRICK & JOSHUA HERRENKOHL requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish existing 2, 199 sq. ft. Dwelling (full basement portion
of foundation to remain) , and reconstruct in same location a
1, 781sq. ft. 1 & 2-story dwelling consisting of a 591sq.ft.
Two-story portion over remaining full basement; a 440sq.ft.
Two-story portion over new crawl space foundation; a 1.5-story
addition over new crawl space foundation; a 335.2sq.ft.
One-story portion with 415. 4sq, ft. Roof deck above; an
80.2sq.ft. Unenclosed covered porch with steps; a 215. 6sq.ft.
Deck with steps and pergola above; a 31x10' stoop with steps; a
41x10.5' stoop with steps; and a 41x10.5' unenclosed covered
porch with steps; construct a landward 151x34 ' in-ground
swimming pool and two (2) 128sq.ft. Grade-level masonry patios;
install 4' high pool enclosure fencing; construct 234 linear
foot grade-level masonry walk and 62sq.ft. Masonry landing with
steps; remove and replace existing septic system with new I/A
Board of Trustees 45 June 11, 2025
OWTS sanitary system; install a stormwater drainage system;
replace utility pole and overhead wires with buried electric;
remove portion of existing driveway; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 10-foot wide vegetated non-turf buffer
along the landward edge of the top of bank, allowing for a 4'
wide cleared path to permitted wood deck.
Located: 750 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-90-2-18
The Trustees visited the site on the 3rd of June, noting
the application was straightforward.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. ROSHAN: Yes. Tyler Roshan of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicant.
This project involves the substantial reconstruction of an
existing dwelling, primarily within its current footprint, but
with several improvements.
The new habitable dwelling footprint will be smaller than
the existing one by 418 square feet, and still located behind of
pier line formed by the adjacent dwellings.
In the westerly side yard we eliminate an existing zoning
non-conformity by reducing the encroachment by about two feet.
And we also add two feet to the existing setback from the top of
bank.
We are also proposing to construct a swimming pool, only
about a third of which is in wetland jurisdiction, with an
88-foot setback to the top of bank at its closest point. And as
additionally proposed mitigation measures for the project we
also propose to replace the existing conventional septic system
with a new IA system, install a ne stormwater drainage system
and establish and maintain a ten-foot wide vegetated non-turf
buffer along the top of the bank with a four-foot wide access
path maintained to access the existing bluff stairs.
If you have any questions, I can try to answer them. The
property owner and the project architects are also here as well.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 46 June 11, 2025
(ALL AYES) .
MR. ROSHAN: Thank you, have a nice night.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 13, AS PER REVISED SITE PLAN & WRITTEN
PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 5/13/25 Patricia Moore, Esq. , on
behalf of THOMAS RATTLER requests a Wetland Permit to clear
vegetation within 100' of the pond without a change in the
topography for use as an agricultural operation; establish and
perpetually maintain a non-turf buffer between the wetlands and
the farming activities; the width of the buffer will run along
the natural topography for a varying width of 5' to 25' (scallop
shape) ; and within the non-turf buffer and wetland areas,
invasives may be removed to restore the buffer using native
vegetation.
Located: 67925 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-3-19.19
The Trustees most recently performed an in-house review on
the field notes from June 3rd, 2025. Trustee Goldsmith noted
will review further at work session.
The LWRP found this application to be consistent, with the
following notes:
Number one, a vegetated buffer is recommended encircling
the pond.
Number two, it is recommended that the farm manage the
fertilizer to prevent eutrophic conditions.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore, and I have John Hughes with me.
It's a long night, sorry. We are here to answer any questions.
We presented the redesign based on the last meeting that we
had with respect to following the certain topography and
conditions on the field, and this is for purposes of starting a
farm, so.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you. I will note that I'm in
receipt of the updated kind of detail with notes stamped
received on May 23rd of 2025. I just want to review a couple of
things here.
First, as an oyster farmer, we did discuss more of an
oyster shape on this. As opposed to a scallop shape. You know,
staying in our shellfish lanes here.
(Off record comment) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So I believe that we are on the right path
here, but perhaps not quite fully detailed out here.
I think, when I'm reading these notes, which are a little
challenging to see, so please correct me if I'm not reading this
correctly.
You say on the south side where the land is almost flat,
the boundary will be -- is that almost five feet? I guess
approximately five feet
MR. RATTLER: Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: (Continuing) and planted with native grasses
Board of Trustees 47 June 11, 2025
or flowers that edge the farmland.
And then the north and west sides have the largest buffers
of about 25 feet.
You know, I appreciate you were definitely listening to the
comments about sort of following the contours. I think, you
know, when the Board was reviewing this during work session,
around five feet seemed a little bit light in terms of the
buffer around this pond. I think we would like to see something
a little bit larger. And in discussion we were thinking, you
know, perhaps 25 feet around the perimeter of it.
MS. MOORE: It' s a farm.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Understood. There are many farmers up here so
we do understand.
In looking at this 25-foot buffer, the discussion was in
terms of removing the invasives, kind of a one-time clean-up of
invasives, which we know that you are very knowledgeable about,
and then to provide us a planting plan so that we do understand,
in the spirit of the farm, that you would have that opportunity
to kind of revegetate that area with native vegetation that is
appropriate for that location. And then that that would be a
.non-disturbance area after you've had that opportunity to
address the invasives and also install some tolerant species.
So that's kind of where we left off when we were discussing
it at work session. Otherwise I believe we are sort of in the
right wheelhouse here with everything.
MS. MOORE: I think, the reason that is a smaller buffer on the
south -- is this the south?
MR. RATTLER: Yes, that' s the south side.
MS. MOORE: Is one, the topography, and that is a relatively
flattish area, isn't it?
MR. RATTLER: It's very flat, and as you all saw, it' s nothing
but mugwort the whole way through. And so to move it within
five foot, you know, we're not encroaching anything that is
wetland native. We are taking care of the flat earth and
turning it into farmland. And what we're planting is going to
be perennial flowers. So they are planted once. These are
peonies. They live 20-25 years, and they are not touched again.
So the soil underneath, and all that, will, once it' s
planted, it's going to be stable. And that should be the same
sort of benefit for the wetlands as putting any turf or anything
else there. We'll have these dense, high plants, like this,
which are going to be there in the foreground, in rows, and we
plant them against the slope. Which the slope is, as you can
see, is very, very small. That should have the same benefits for
the pond as anything else which we would put there.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So just one of the concerns with this
property is the topography is a little challenging, so to come
up with a suitable buffer was a little bit challenging. As you
said, one side if flat, one side is steeper. However, our
concern is regarding the existing wildlife that exists around
Board of Trustees 48 June 11, 2025
the pond. I don't think, in my opinion, five feet gives them
enough habitat. So that's why we talked about potentially a
25-foot around, must to make math easy.
You know, ideally, that oyster shape, where when it was a
steeper slope, maybe a little more on that and a little less on
this. However I know it' s kind of difficult to come up with
that number, so that 25-foot felt as a good all-around number to
protect the existing wildlife and the vegetation that is there.
You have a good idea of going in there and removing the
invasives, and I'm sure once you remove them and plant the
natives, there will be even more habitat for what is there. But
we really want to protect and preserve what is existing, and
give the wildlife a chance. I know some neighbors have expressed
a concern regarding that. So I think that 25-foot buffer all the
way about would be a pretty good compromise.
MR. RATTLER: It's in the front part where it's flat, because you
can see in the map, you've got a two-foot drop in like 100-foot.
So the top and the bottom is basically flat. And it's going to
be like a grass, or whatever it' s going to be, native grass
there, how much wildlife and what wildlife is really going to
live in that? Because the sides where there' s bushes and trees
and all that sort of stuff, agree. But this front, I don't know
how much is going to be there.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Again, that goes to our concern where
potentially on the north side it should be 45 feet. You know,
because that' s more steep, it' s got more vegetation, however
with what you proposed, ' 25 feet on the steep slope, with only
five feet on the shallower slope, in my opinion doesn't offer
enough protection, so.
MS. MOORE: Can we maybe compromise with ten, maybe, just because
he's going to be planting vegetation, it's actually going to
provided habitat for the animals. So it's actually, the farming
that he' s doing there is a stable cover for small animals, being
whatever.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I believe one of the neighbors wanted to
speak to express his concerns, and then we can revisit it.
MR. HUSICK: My name is Andy Husick, I live at 535 McCann' s Lane.
I abut the property.
My thoughts and concerns, I think it should be a wider
buffer, and the reasons why, the south and east part, that whole
thing, fish holes goes right down to the pond. It's not flat.
It's a funnel, it funnels right down to the pond on that side.
He said it' s flat, it's not flat at all. Number one. That is
from the south, east and west. Okay, I'm worried about the
runoff, and the runoff will be pesticides, fertilizers, will go
into the pond, because it' s too close.
And the second thing is the underground water flows to the
north which will go right by the pond from the south. It goes to
the Sound, the water flow, underground water flow. And that' s
another thing that could pollute the thing.
Board of Trustees 49 June 11, 2025
And number three, will the pond be staked, for surveyed and
staked when they decide what you are going to have for a buffer
before they start clearing everything to get it clear.
And I'm also worried. about the wild habitat and the pond
preserve, many wildlife is in there.
I'm a native Greenporter, I live my whole life, 73 years,
so I know quite a bit about Southold Town, north fork,
everything. And I'm the only neighbor who lives there 365 days a
year. And I know a lot about land and everything. So that' s the
story about that.
I would like to see it more preserved around it because
there is a lot of animals and probably some endangered species
live up there. I seen herons, I've seen geese, I've seen,
there' s big bullfrogs, there' s tortoises, that come in my yard.
There' s deer, there' s raccoons, there' s other kinds of animals
you don't even notice there. And birds, there' s thousands of
birds that live back there. I'm just worried about that. And
keep it like a natural preserve. And the last thing I don't
want to see is that pond being used for irrigation, because it' s
going to hurt the water. There's even fish in there. So that' s
all I have to say.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Appreciate it. Thank you, sir.
MR. HUSICK: Like I say, I 'm not a good speaker, I'm not a lawyer
or anything.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You did great.
MR. HUSICK: But I know common sense. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You did better than some lawyers.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, so much, for your input.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I guess I would like to add to that,
too. Because I do have a pond located on my property, and I'm
well over 100 feet to any agricultural activity. It' s all
native cedars, eastern red cedar. And having farmed for several
years in Cutchogue, what is Pugliese vineyards now, there
actually was a large pond there that we utilized for irrigation
historically and that any ag activities from there were well
over 50 feet away.
You know, the Board has thrown around the number of 25,
which is pretty minimal. And I think that' s taking into account
of the good faith of what you are trying to do with the flowers,
the long-term flowers there. We're looking to protect the
environment. The whole property does pitch, with the exception
mainly to the front, but that also does have a pitch.
I think the idea, to, is that while you probably have the
best intentions here, I believe that. If this were to sell next
year, someone could come through and just rip that out. So there
is no way to stop that unless we put some small buffer. And 25
feet goes pretty fast when you're talking about from a wetland
and what could be a spongy area seasonally in that flat spot. So
just some fuel for thought there.
Board of Trustees 50 June 11, 2025
MR. RATTLER: That flat spot is about four foot above the water.
There is no spongy. And went I went out there with a wetland
mapper, he was clear, he said the wetland ends basically the
edge of the water. Because it is a true kettle pond. It just
goes down. That's the shortest depth, four-foot drop. Into the
shortest depth, four foot drop. So it's not spongy.
But I hear what you are saying with your concerns. Now, if
I remember, last month you were going to give me 15 feet?
Were you?
MS. HULSE: They haven't made a decision yet.
MR. RATTLER: But you were hinting. Could we maybe get 15-foot
up that front and then we are both kind of feel happy with this?
MS. MOORE: Remember, as far as, the property has covenants as
far as it has to be an agriculture. So it's not going to be as
if some homeowner is going to come in and rip things out and put
in a lawn in.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, but somebody could go through and plant
potatoes within five feet, which would be detrimental to the
environment.
MS. MOORE: I guess, theoretically.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not speaking to potato planting practices,
which, by the way --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think if we're talking a 15-foot buffer on
one side, then we are talking a longer buffer on the other. 25
was a compromise of an average there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we were just trying to make it, because
there was some back and forth here, and not confusion, but we
are trying to find a good, safe common ground we threw the idea
of 25 out just as an average. And while that might be a little
restrictive to you on the front side, it's probably giving a
little on the back side.
So my attempt, at least, was to simplify it for you, to be
honest.
MR. RATTLER: Right. So this buffer, could this buffer be -- and
I'm trying to think of a way for it to work for both of us here.
Could this buffer be where if I go in and we plant native
flowers of some sort that we can use in the business, so they'll
be perennials, we put them in once, and then we let it do it on
its own. Can that be way where we can get something out of this
and you all feel comfortable?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think part of this is it' s a non-disturbance
buffer. So while we would, part of the permit would be allowing
you to go in and revegetate the area, at that point, then it
would just be left to naturalize in the spirit of trying to
maintain the habitat.
MR. RATTLER: If I could revegetate this with something that is
native and will produce something that we can use, and then
after that we just leave it alone and it grows on its own each
year.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think we would not want you to go in and cut
Board of Trustees 51 June 11, 2025
out the flowers to sell or anything like that. So, again, it' s a
non-disturbance buffer, and then, you know, to speak to the
gentleman' s comments earlier, we are looking at this as the
habitat that is currently there and, you know, and the
environmental impacts of all this. With the understanding that
you are farming this property and it's an agricultural property.
MS. HULSE: "Non-disturbance" is defined in the code, and your
attorney will tell you that there are specific definitions. So
if you have uncertainty with that, you should refer to the code.
MS. MOORE: He's very good. He reads very well.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So I think we are now back to the oyster
conversation a little bit.
I mean, we are kind of now going back to the conversation we had
before. If we are looking at, as you suggested, perhaps the 15
foot on the southerly end, then from my perspective I would want
to see about 40 feet on the northern end and have that sort of,
you know, arc up, again, in that sort of oyster-shape that we
talked about.
MR. RATTLER: On the northern end. Yes, that works. This is the
west, east. The northern end is this and it has the least level
terrain at all. So 40 feet in the northern end I would be fine
by that.
The other nice thing about the northern end as it goes to
the souther, the flat area, it has a lot more trees in there
right now, which is a lot more habitat.
So I could go with 40 feet in the northern end if you can
give me 15 feet in the southern end, and the sides stay where
they're at. I think that that would be a nice compromise, from
my perspective.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And then understand that the sides should not
be 15 feet. They should -- it should have some, you know, we'll
want to see that on the plans prior to releasing the permit.
MR. MOORE: Would it make sense if you are following the
contour? Because it looks like the contour map is giving you
some guidance.
MR. RATTLER: The contour map on what I've shown, sort of gives
the guidance where it's going. But I think what you'll see on
there, on the east side, which is the right, and the west side
the left. What I propose goes well beyond the ten foot, which I
have in the line in the front side. In fact I think in the
left-hand side is more like, almost 40 foot on the left side,
too. And the west side right now. Because the land just gets
slopey, and I'm happy to leave that with trees.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: 'Okay, and truthfully, that would be a minimum,
so if you decide that it makes sense to increase that distance
in other areas on the east, west and north, that would be great.
MR. RATTLER: Yes, because I mean, we personally really, really
like this as an esthetic feature of the land. We'd love to keep
it. And we like the wildlife that' s there. It' s just that front
area is too tempting to get that over with a tractor. The sides
Board of Trustees 52 June 11, 2025
I'll leave alone in the back because it's not tempting.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. Is there anyone else here who wishes
to speak, or any other questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think given the -- I mean, I'm not sure what
you intend to do in terms of -- I would like to see plans, but,
because we've taken so long to get back to where we started from
a month ago. But certainly I think, you know, the comments from
the neighbor ring true about this is this a pretty small habitat
area, and to use it for irrigation, I don't know that it would
hold up.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I would agree with that. I think that's a
reasonable condition as well.
Are there any other comments?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
MS. MOORE: How do you want me to draw these plans for you?
MS. HULSE: The hearing is closed.
MS. MOORE: I know, but I don't know what to give you. Oh, you'll
tell us.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I'm not finished. Bear with me here.
Did I hear a second?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Well, I don't want to close it yet. I'm a
nay. I don't want to close it yet. I think we need more clarity.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're a nay to closing the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We should do a roll call vote to close the
hearing then.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I vote nay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Nay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Nay.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Aye.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Are we tabling?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Elizabeth still has to vote.
MS. HULSE: Did you close the hearing?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: She made the motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I made the motion, so.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So just that it's open again.
MS. HULSE: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Before I'm comfortable moving forward with
this, I want to see some new plans that clearly depict the
buffer that we talked about. Just because there has been so much
ambiguity to it, I'm not comfortable moving forward based on the
subject plans without seeing it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Fair enough. So if I understand correctly, you
would like to --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I would like to table it until we get the new
plans showing the buffer that we discussed.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And for the benefit of Ms. Moore, maybe you
Board of Trustees 53 June 11, 2025
could go over the notes of what we were discussing..
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Absolutely. I'm happy to do that.
So we talked about the minimum of 15-foot vegetated
non-disturbance buffer on the southerly side. A minimum of
40-foot of a vegetated non-disturbance buffer on the northerly
side. And please note that we are not looking for just 15 feet
on the east and west. We definitely want to beef that up, and we
would like to have that staked line for review by a Trustee
prior to beginning any of the work.
MS. MOORE: That' s okay because getting surveyor out there has
been difficult. So, yes, that' s not a problem. We can, before
you do the clearing in that area, anything within --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Before you remove or revegetate, we want to be
able to see the stakes of that outline and have a review by the
Trustees. And then we would condition that the pond is not to be
used for irrigation. And we'll need, obviously, the new plans to
review. Okay?
With that said I make a motion to table the application for
new plans with those notes and comments.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 14, Patricia Moore, Esq. On behalf of
LIGHTHOUSE POINT, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built
128 ' long retaining wall along toe of bluff; black pine trees
and grass added to disturbed areas on bluff; as-built 10. 4'x7.2'
covered on-grade brick patio with bench to 4 ' wide bluff stairs
down to a 5'x7' wood landing to 4' wide stairs down to a 41x8 '
wood landing to 4 ' wide stairs down to a 4.81x10.5' wood walkway
over a 10'x10' brick patio on sand to connect bluff stairs to 4'
wide stairs to beach; and the existing 10.71x20' wood deck with
wood bench along retaining wall to be re-adjusted to be
on-grade.
Located: 9975 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#
1000-119-1-10. 1
The Trustees conducted a field inspection June 3rd, 2025.
Notes to remove the pavers down by the bulkhead and also brick,
pull the bricks at the top of the steps back and replace with
gravel.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore. I was able to get from Ken
Woychuk some notations based on what you guys asked. So I 'll
give that to you. But there is one more that I need
clarification on and make sure, so let me give one -- (Handing)
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All stamped. *Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Excuse me. What are we looking at here? How
does this differ from what we already received.
Board of Trustees 54 June 11, 2025
MS. MOORE: No, it doesn't -- it' s the same plan you have. It
includes the notations of the brick being removed. And at the
top, where the covered deck is, to remove to two courses of
brick and replace it with sand. So I wanted to make sure that I
had that for you on this drawing.
The only question I, had was, or in my review of the
existing wood deck, assuming that everything that we've proposed
is acceptable, I'm going to have to remove, there's a box,
bench, odd-looking thing, on the lower wood deck, and I believe
that the Building Department would tell me that as long as the
deck is on-grade, we talked about it in the field, we'll have to
bring some sand because it's eroded away, and the deck is above
grade- only because the sand on either side of the deck has, over
the years, probably gone out to the bay, we needed to include
some sand to tuck into the area around the deck that is landward
of the bulkhead.
That deck was built under the prior permit, but the deck
that is there has been exposed above grade, so we have to bring
sand to tuck it back in. And then once it' s tucked back in, it' s
on grade. That's the intention of this, how it was built was
on-grade. That box seat has to come off, otherwise I need a
variance to keep that seat there, and it makes no sense.
So what I wanted to discuss tonight is that I do need to
take out that box if the deck is, well, it was approved before.
At this point I want to make sure that everything that is
included on the property is listed on this permit. Because the
prior permit had some of these structures approved, but it got
very confusing.
So, the deck only changed to the deck being, that I didn't
anticipate originally when I wrote up the project description,
was that that seat might cause it to have to go to the Zoning
Board because it' s above grade.
So that is the only difference between what we talked about
in the field, and my project description is that that seat can't
stay there, so.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Ms. Moore, with the deck and everything that
you were referring to, is there a buffer already established for
that area that is landward of the bulkhead?
MS. MOORE: That's all sand right now.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I just didn't know if it was conditioned at
any point in time.
MS. MOORE: No, it wasn't, that I say anything.. No.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, and then -- okay. Is there anyone else
here wishing to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Questions?
(Board members perusing) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What we are discussing is, as you know, this
area is well-established with vegetation and existing buffers
and everything, however it's not C&R'd anywhere, and that' s what
Board of Trustees 55 June 11, 2025
we're looking to establish. So I'm just trying to find the
correct distances and verbiage.
MS. MOORE: How about from the bulkhead to the crest of the
bluff. Which is the top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So in the field there is more vegetation that
is landward from the crest of the bluff, which is a non-turf
buffer already. So --
Ms. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just so that they can't clear that.
MS. MOORE: Yes, it' s all very vegetated. So, yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That works. Okay, any other questions or
comments?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the following conditions:
That the bricks are removed landward of the bulkhead. The
pavers are removed.
That a non-turf buffer be established from the bulkhead to
the wood retaining wall.
That a non-disturbance buffer be established between the
wood retaining wall and the crest of bluff as depicted on the
plans stamped June 11th, 2025.
And also a vegetated non-turf buffer 15-feet landward from
that crest of bluff, with the removal of two courses of brick
and replaced with beach stone for drainage at the top of the
stairs. Subject to new plans.
MS. HULSE: Pat, did you want the removal of the language "of
wood bench" as well?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Well, I guess just authorize me to do it. I
have to ask the Building Department, but I 'm assuming I have to
remove it.
MS. HULSE: It' s going to get removed, based on what you put into
the record.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. Remove it. Yes, we'll remove it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And to strike the section in project
description about the wood bench along retaining wall.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MS. MOORE: You didn't mention the sand, to bring sand. Is that
part of it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That's part of the non-turf buffer.
MS. MOORE: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We'll take a five-minute recess.
After a five-minute recess, this proceeding continues as
Board of Trustees 56 June 11, 2025
follows) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 15, Twin Forks Permits on behalf of GIL
& TRACY BEN-AMI requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing
partial foundation, removal/abandonment of existing sanitary
system, remove existing asphalt driveway, demolish existing
188sq.ft. Wooden deck, existing rock wall and existing 101sq.ft.
Pond; construct a new 1, 714sq. ft. Two-story dwelling with
walk-out basement and a landward 683sq.ft. Garage in the
basement, 41sq.ft. second-floor bay window, 311sq.ft. west-side
decking; 181sq.ft. screened-in porch, 244sq. ft. Front covered
porch; 460sq.ft. Lower-level patio; 125sq.ft. Trellis; install
an I/A septic system; install a stormwater drainage system;
construct three (3) retaining walls consisting of one 84' long
wall with top of wall elevation at 68' and bottom of wall
elevation at 60.51 ; one 91' long wall with top of wall elevation
at 61.5 ' and bottom of wall elevation at 57.51 ; one 97' long
wall with top of wall elevation at 66.5' and bottom of wall
elevation at 60.5' ; and to establish and perpetually maintain a
15' wide non-turf, no fertilization vegetated buffer along the
landward edge of the top crest of the bluff.
Located: 1800 Hyatt Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-50-1-4
The Trustees most recently reviewed this application on the
3rd of June, and noted that it was recommended to extend the
vegetated non-turf buffer, discussed the plan for the seaward
area of the house.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. POYER: Lisa Poyer, on behalf of the applicant.
Based upon the site inspection and our discussions there, I had
conversations with the client and he's willing to extend the
buffer to the 25-foot non-disturbance, non-fertilization,
non-turf buffer that the Board had recommended.
And the area between the house where there is that covered
patio area, is just going to be lawn. There will be no other.
There is a small, little strip of patio that runs along the
retaining wall that is about 18-feet in length and about
eight-feet wide, that is immediately adjacent to the wall, just
to give him a little walkout extension. But that's not covered.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else that would like to speak
regarding this application, or any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I just wanted to address the retaining walls.
There are called out for quite a few on the property.
If you could just, and I mean, they are actually in our
description. But what are the heights of those retaining walls
that we are talking about. And I guess in answering that
question, also are they facing the neighbors or facing the
applicant? Because I understand there are both types of
retaining walls. The ones we are the most concerned with are the
Board of Trustees 57 June 11, 2025
ones that would have the to the neighbor or the bluff.
MS. POYER: There are three retaining walls. Most of them run
perpendicular to the bluff, and they are there because of the
natural slope of the topography of the overall bluff area where
it's higher to lower, and we are kind of in the middle, and all
the properties on either side are kind of stair steps down.
So the property to the north of us has a retaining wall
along their property line. We are proposing an additional
retaining wall, which is actually higher than our lot. We are
proposing a retaining wall that is two-and-a-half feet to six
feet. It' s six feet. And it's on the seaward edge of the house,
and that retaining wall is dug in 18 feet from the property
line. And that will be visible to us.
And then there is a secondary wall that is closer to the
road. It's more on the street side, and that one has, it varies
from six-and-a-half feet to one-and-a-half because it's used for
stairs to get into the house from the grade. The driveway is
going underneath the house for the garage.
So that is retaining walls already to get you to the first
floor of the house and up.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So visible on the property.
MS. POYER: It' s visible on property. It' s 52 feet from the front '
property line from the road, and it' s 35 feet from that northern
property line, and that's visible into the property.
Then there is the third retaining wall that is
five-and-a-half feet in height to, and it' s on the south side of
the residence. It's setback 17 feet from the property line to
the south. And the property owner to the south has another
retaining wall on the actual common property line that is
visible to them. That is their retaining wall.
There is significant vegetation along the adjacent neighbor
to the south. So it's not going to be visible, but it's 17 to 22
feet set in from the property line. It's not near the property
line. And we can vegetate it in between as well.
But it's necessary to get a flat area so that we could have
the house built at a certain elevation, because you have a
20-foot grade difference from the northern property line to the
southern property line. But at some point you need, it' s either
a retaining wall or foundation of the house.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: One, two, three, right?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
MS. POYER: The walls are not being used to control erosion of
the bluff, they are not parallel to the bluff, they are
perpendicular to the bluff. They have been maximized and moved
into the .property as far as possible around the house itself.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: On the plan that has the south elevation,
showing the retaining wall on that, how far off the property
line is that proposed retaining wall.
MS. POYER: It ranges from 17 to 22 feet off the property line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On the west side. What I would call the west
Board of Trustees 58 June 11, 2025
side. I think you called it the north.
MS. POYER: On the seaward side or on the landward side of the
house?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, on the neighboring side facing down. In the
picture, facing the bottom.
MS. POYER: I mean the property is pretty much east/west. Because
it' s the way -- that' s, I'm guessing. I'm assuming that is
north up in the aerial.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On this aerial?
MS. POYER: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would have put north to the Sound, but.
MS. POYER: Given the shoreline, north is to the top.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Yup. I see.
MS. POYER: So it' s really a north side and ,a south side.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So to the south side of the property, what is
the height of that retaining wall?
MS. POYER: Which is part of the house at that point.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And it seems to be all consistent at that
height.
MS. POYER: Yes, it's 66.5 down to 60.5 along that whole wall, so
it's a six-foot wall. But it ranges from, it's setback a
significant distance from the bluff itself. It's right around
the house and it' s actually part of an extension of the house
foundation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:• What' s the distance from --
MS. POYER: It's 17 feet to 22 feet from the property line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which is all sloped, though, pretty much,
that' s dropping into the neighbors. So although it' s far off,
it' s a wall and then -- so you far away from the top of bluff is
that wall?
MS. POYER: 118 feet.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is it termination or --
MS. POYER: Termination. So then at the seaward-most point it's
118 feet and then it goes to, probably, another --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: In your elevation it almost looks like the wall
is -- you know, it's like, how do I explain it. Superimposed on
top of the doors, so it looks like that wall perhaps could be
lowered a little bit. Like to be kind of on-grade. It looks like
it' s a wall also. Like a retaining wall and then a wall that is
higher than the patio area.
MS. POYER: It is. They are extending it to make it so that it's
not a basement. It' s not a story as per the code, from the
building aspect.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Say that again, if you don't mind.
MS. POYER: We are trying to deal with the grades of the house
around there. So in order to have it not be a full story for
building, we are trying to --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So are you putting up a retaining wall outside
of the foundation so that you can put fill between the retaining
wall and the house? So it's not a third story?
Board of Trustees 59 June 11, 2025
MS. POYER: Otherwise you would have this significant foundation
wall of the house. So we are trying to break up that angle
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sort of six of one, half a dozen of the other,
right?
MS. POYER: We could add another -- would you prefer we add
another wall between that one, a shorter wall, to break up that
expanse? We can put one, --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know that it's a preference to me.
MS. POYER: And we can vegetated in between.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I'm just looking at what you've labeled the
south elevation, and it just --
MS. POYER: We can add another wall in between, and plant in
between there, to break up that. We could have two walls.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you planting on the neighboring side of
that wall?
MS. POYER: To the south of the wall?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MS. POYER: We can, yes. Like I said, there is significant
vegetation already there, on the neighboring lot, that' s
probably 20 feet tall of trees and other natural vegetation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:. I think they are like liners, but I think the
deer have done their work on the lower parts of them, you know.
MS. POYER: So, yes, we can plant along that southerly property
line, no problem.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think that' s a good start
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak to
this application?
(Negative response) .
Or- any additional comments from the Members of the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the submission of new plans depicting the buffer along the
top of the bluff to be 25-foot vegetated native species,
non-turf buffer. And with the submission of a planting plan
along the southern side of the property, between the retaining
wall and the property line, with native, drought-tolerant
species to break up the wall. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MS. POYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 16, David Bergen on behalf of TBL PLUS
TWO, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to replace in-place 124 feet
of existing bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead; temporarily remove
and replace in-place post construction existing permitted 41x4'
Board of Trustees 60 June 11, 2025
cantilevered platform with 41x8' retractable stairs, existing
permitted 4'x20' walkway behind bulkhead, and existing davit
stair lift.
Located: 5295 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-_9-13
The Trustees visited the site on 6/3/25 and noted that the
bulkhead replacement is straightforward; davit to the removed.
The LWRP found the project to be consistent.
Does anyone wish to speak regarding the application?
MR: BERGEN: Dave Bergen, Sol Searcher Consulting, on behalf of
TBL Plus Two, LLC.
As you alluded to, it' s a straightforward bulkhead
replacement. We already got the GP permit and I brought a copy
in for you folks from the DEC.
The davit, because we wanted to make the stairs now
retractable, we wanted to move the davit from its present
location as you saw on the plans down, so it can be used to
hoist the stairs up and down. So that' s why we wanted to retain
the davit and move it to this secondary location.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right. Anyone else wish to speak
regarding the application?
MR. JUTAGIR: Yes. I would like to speak. My name is Avi Jutagir,
I'm a nearby neighbor, and I had some concerns about this
project that I wanted to share with the Board.
Most of what I'm concerned about stems from the fact that
the topology of that waterfront wetland area, has changed
considerably since the bulkhead was originally constructed. I
don't know when it was constructed but, you know, anyone from
the area is probably aware that there used to be a considerably
wider beach at that location. And at this point, based on my
observations, the bulkhead is now in the intertidal zone due to
erosion that has occurred along the beach.
Therefore, if the bulkhead were to be rebuilt, it would
actually be rebuilt in the intertidal zone, which is public
land. It is town land, which is held in the public trust for the
public interest to use, and I think normally such a project
would not be approved.
I don't think the Board is required to approve a bulkhead
reconstruction, although it is permitted to do so by the code.
However, I did note a couple of things from Section, sorry,
Chapter 275, I think, section 12, which discusses the standards
of issuance for these types of wetland permits.
So first, you know, it should not, the Board must determine
that these operations do not substantially adversely affect the
wetlands of the town. The beach is a wetland, by the definition
that is in the code. I have it here, but I'm sure you guys are
familiar with it. And the bulkhead is clearly contributing to
the erosion of that location.
I have here from the Southold Town website this paper, that
I'm sure you are familiar with, by the Conservation Advisory
Council, discussing called the starvation of Southold's beaches,
Board of Trustees 61 June 11, 2025
which discusses extensively how the bulkheads contribute to the
loss of land along the beaches.
So basically if the bulkhead is maintained, it will
completely destroy the wetland. It will be underwater probably
in a couple of years.
Two, the next criteria here, does it cause damage from
erosion, turbidity or siltation.
Well, I mean it' s eroding the beach, which is an area used
by the public, and, you know, seems to fit that criteria.
(D) adversely affects fish, shellfish'and other beneficial
marine organisms. Well, anything that lives in the intertidal
zone is going to be wiped out by that.
The, does it adversely affect navigation on tidal waters.
Well, yes it does, because you cannot really access those
waters to land a boat or craft or use the navigable water
because it' s now almost always underwater.
Will it weaken or undermine lateral support of other. lands
in the vicinity. Well, based on the paper, it sounds like it
would, by altering the patterns in which currents redistribute
silt along the beach.
Then, would it otherwise adversely affect the health,
safety and general welfare of the people of the Town.
Well, I would say there is an important point here,
because, you know, in Nassau Point there is a number of access
points available to Nassau Point residents to use to access the
water. And these are deeded property rights, so they are
frequently used. And in the past it was possible to walk most
of the time, perhaps all of the time, you know, through the
intertidal zone to get to other places on the point.
Now, people who were doing that, are almost, you know, very
frequently, because at much of the tide the bulkhead is
underwater, are forced to walk along the road. And there have
been a number of traffic accidents on that road. So I would say
the loss of that area, that public beach area, is causing people
to walk on the road, where it' s more dangerous.
In addition to that, obviously, the welfare of the people
that are not really going to able to use that area as a beach
because it will be underwater almost all the time.
So, yes, and then, you know, the one other thing I would
add, that I would like to share here, in a way, maintenance of
the bulkhead is basically now, after the erosion, is kind of a
public nuisance, in my view, and I think that, you know, one
concern that the Trustees may have is whether this, you know,
whether denying this permit could be considered arbitrary and
capricious and challenged in an Article 78 .
But I think that, you know, there's no question it's
rational to try to preserve this intertidal area for the use of
the Town. I think the Board has a responsibility to do it,
actually the Town does, based on the public trust doctrine. And,
you know, I mean, even if similar projects have been approved in
Board of Trustees 62 June 11, 2025
the past, in this particular case I think there is a lot of
evidence that it' s detrimental to the wetlands and the people of
the Town for it to be maintained there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Mr. Bergen, would you like to respond to
those points the gentleman has made
MR. BERGEN: Well, it's quite obvious that this whole eastern
side of Nassau Point probably, I'm guessing 90% of it is
bulkheaded, has been historically bulkheaded. You can walk the
foreshore in front of the bulkhead. That's one of the reasons
for the retractable stairs, so the stairs will be able to come
up, so you will be able to walk the foreshore.
And we had, excuse me, this Board had approved a bulkhead
recently two properties to the north. There is an application
into this Board for the property immediately to the north to
replace that bulkhead.
The bulkhead to the south of the Nassau Point Property
Owners Association, replaced post-Sandy, as well as the next
bulkhead that the Leonard's had replaced was post-Sandy.
The gentleman is correct in that there is access via the
right-of-way that's there in the Nassau Point stairs, as it is
part of that right-of-way, that everybody has deeded right to,
to access the beach.
So that is my response for as far as access to the beach.
MR., JUTIGIR: Just a quick follow-up on that.
Although, as I said, the Board may have in the past
approved similar projects, the erosion has continued to be
closer to the bulkhead, making these problems perhaps new and,
you know, I think even if nobody brought these matters to the
Board' s attention in the past, you know, that doesn't mean that
they shouldn't do the right thing for the Town today.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. I appreciate your concerns and
your logic. This has been well established policy of the Board
and the Town for in-kind/in-place replacement of a functional
bulkhead, which is actually exempt from SEQRA.
If we could wind the clock back 100 years, I get it. But if
you want to make this bulkhead go away, that would also make the
bluff go away, which would make the house go away, which would
also endanger the neighboring properties.
So it' s an unfortunate situation that we are facing
throughout Southold Town, with beaches disappearing. Bulkheads
do exacerbate the disappearance.
MR. JUTIGIR: They could move the bulkhead back.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It's a permitted structure, in-kind/in-place.
Moving it back does create its own set of complications for the
neighboring properties, and where that return now lies, creating
weak points, as opposed to one long, continuous bulkhead. So it
has been standard policy for bulkhead replacements.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would agree with a long of your comments in
that, and I talk about this all the time, this particular areas,
Board of Trustees 63 June 11, 2025
it's one of the worst areas in Town in terms of bulkheads. It's
this and an area up in Mattituck where years ago they just
filled with bulkheads and wiped out their beach. And then the
neighboring properties with other beaches wonder why they have
no sand. And it's because the whole strip is bulkheaded.
At this point we are almost just maintaining not just the
properties but the natural feature, which is the bluff, which
that can be jeopardized if we were to get rid of it. And I'm
certainly not saying we are going to moving forward with this,
but that has been the current practice.
MR. JUTIGIR: Well the bluff might be protected by restoring a
softer --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just for your information, we don't allow new
bulkheads in the Town. So this Board especially, and prior
Boards, have long recognized that bulkheads ,are a major problem
and have been pushing for softer solutions, I should say, and
lack of shoreline hardening.
MR. JUTIGIR: So why not take an action now and try to help the
situation. Because if we build another one it will probably be
there for 50 years.
MS. HULSE: Sir, if you want to refer to 275-11 (b) , shoreline
structures, bulkheads, (1) (a) , it refers to in-place replacement
of an existing functional bulkhead. So it's --
MR. JUTIGIR: The code does allow it, but it doesn't require --
MS. HULSE: Sure it does.
MR. JUTIGIR: It has to meet other requirements.
MS. HULSE: Right. But I 'm pointing out it specifically permits
it.
MR. JUTIGIR: It permits it? It permits the Board to issue a
permit for it if it's otherwise appropriate, right? And so what
I'm pointing out, though, is that it really is in complete
opposition to 275-12, where it basically, you know, conflicts
with all of these things, almost all of them. I think it
doesn't cause saltwater intrusion into freshwater resources. I
can't think of a reason it does that.
But other than that, you know, it adversely affects the.
wetlands. They are going to be underwater. You know, it
adversely affects intertidal organisms. It adversely affects
navigation, you know, and it is clearly adversely affecting the
health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I understand where you are coming from. I do
disagree with your points about this property in general.
I mean, moving it in could only exaggerate the problem, if
you put in angles and the littoral drift slams off those and
bounces off. I also have concerns, because I would love to pull
everything out there and just do a rock revetment, right --
MR. JUTIGIR: Maybe if you --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I just finish, sir?
MR. JUTIGIR: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, in a perfect world, the homeowners would
Board of Trustees 64 June 11, 2025
all rip this out and do rock revetment there, and maybe gain
some beach back. But if you open up the can of worms, so to
speak, there, and we get the next Sandy, and it's just going to
take out all the bluff. And I'm not just concerned for the
homeowner' s property, but for that natural feature, the little
bit that's remaining there. And I think this is a very imperfect
solution, I just don't see another option, personally, having
done this for a decade. And just you know, my background is in
environmental and habitat restoration. So I do take it very
seriously.
MR. JUTIGIR: I understand what you are saying. I would suggest,
then, that perhaps if it were removed, the neighbors finding
this problem would also kind of maybe be forced to remove theirs
as well.
MS. HULSE: Well, Just to let you know what I cited in the code
before, this structure has been permitted. It' s been permitted
by this Board previously. If this Board were to decide to jump
off a cliff and essentially say no to this, I'm going to advise
them they are going to be potentially successfully sued.
This is not -- listen,. I appreciate what you're saying, but
I'm telling you, as their attorney, I would advise again that
strongly.
MR. JUTIGIR: But they would lose because the --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Who would lose?
MR. JUTIGIR: Whoever files the Article 78 against this Board,
because the bulkhead was not underwater when they got a permit
for it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So by definition, a bulkhead is underwater.
By definition a bulkhead gets its feet wet otherwise it's a
retaining wall.
MR. JUTIGIR: It was above the high tide line when it was
permitted. Now, it is on Town land, or would be if it were
rebuilt. So that's enough of a distinction that I think the
Board could safely, you know, make a distinction there.
MR. BERGEN: If I could add something. As was alluded to, this
was found consistent under the LWRP, so it's been reviewed under
the LWRP and found consistent.
It is a previously permitted structure, as it' s already on
the record.
Also, I can tell you with the DEC 'nowadays, they are really
challenging all bulkhead applications that are coming in, and
they gave a general permit to this within a week. Which was
unheard of. Which includes, their habitat division looking at
this. So I think everything has been said that needs to be said
at this point.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Bergen, in your experience with the DEC,
are they allowing extensions or height, increase in height on
bulkheads due to sea level rise?
MR. BERGEN: It' s very interesting, Glenn, as everybody, excuse
me, as you folks know, there has been a standard of 18-inch rise
Board of Trustees 65 June 11, 2025
allowed for bulkheads, and now I have had a couple of recent
applications where they are not approving the 18-inch rise. Not
in the bays, but in creeks. Due to sea level rise they are not
approved. This is within the last year, because there has been
change in personnel in the DEC and the marine habitat division.
But in the bay, um, we did not ask for, I asked the client
do you want an 18-inch increase because the adjoining properties
are not higher, and he said, no, I'll just go with the same
height as the adjoining properties.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, thank you.
MR. JUTIGIR: Just one last thing, quickly. I would say that this
is a situation that is changed, you know, versus what made sense
maybe 50 years ago, versus now. You know, the conditions along
those beaches, the erosion problems, the sea level rise, right,
these are all issues that are new. And I think that the Town
should respond by setting the correct direction, you know, that
is going to work for the next 50 years.
So it may, you know, at some point it's going to have to
happen. You know, you know, so to say that you can't sort of at
all change a policy in light of new evidence, you know, in a
changing world, would probably be detrimental to the people of
the Town. That' s all I have to say. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, very much, and thanks for doing the
research and for coming in and for being a concerned neighbor.
I think it's really important that people get involved in their
neighborhoods and do all of this.
I just want to agree with the Board. Unfortunately in this
case I don't see the benefit of pulling out this bulkhead.
In terms of the fact that it is protecting a natural
feature here and it would cause unreasonable hardship to the
homeowner in this particular case. But I do want to mention
that this Board does always take into consideration the changing
conditions of sea level rise and, you know, we are not always
going to approve something that was created 50 years ago.
I think that is something that this Board is always looking
at. So I just want to assure you that in this case, while I
don't agree with your assessment of this exact bulkhead, I do
appreciate everything that you've come here to say. So, thank
you, very much.
MR. JUTIGIR: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Any other comments from the public or Members
of the Board?
(No response) .
All right, I 've already all the arguments. I think our
legal counsel has spoken wisely in her experience with the
Trustee Board for many, many years. Trustees Krupski and
Goldsmith have reminded me of the environmental impacts of
Board of Trustees 66 June 11, 2025
bulkheading, and also the detriment to the bluff of removing
bulkhead in a drastic fashion. Mr. Bergen has spoken about it,
and Trustee Gillooly as well.
I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 17, David Bergen on behalf of JENNIFER
BURRELL & JONATHAN PERRY requests a Wetland Permit to replace
in-place existing ±166 linear foot bulkhead with new vinyl
bulkhead; replace in-place existing ±45 linear foot long return
with new vinyl return; replace in-place existing ±72 linear foot
long jetty with new vinyl jetty; install approximately 40sq.ft.
(Approximately 5 cubic yards limited to 5 tons of boulders,
stones to be 100-500 lbs. In size) , along the landward end of
bulkhead return for erosion control; perform reclamation
dredging to a depth of -4 ' within the canal along proposed
bulkhead with approximately 25 cubic yards of dredge spoils to
be placed along the landward side of new bulkhead to fill in
washed out areas.
Located: 750 Aborn Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-2-11. 4
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 3rd of
June, noting that it was a straightforward replacement. And also
noting where are boulders going.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, with Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf
of Jennifer Burrell and Jonathan Perry.
This is obviously you're been out and seen it. This is a
bulkhead that has been compromised to a great extent. It needs
to be replaced. This inlet is a navigable inlet in the lagoon.
It was dredged recently, so with Trustee approval as well as
other agencies.
I had submitted some new plans I believe on the 3rd that
showed the rocks on the inside of the bulkhead which is, I call
it a return, that was adjusted as per the DEC' s request, and
what has happened, and it should be on those plans, is a
straight line, 90 degrees of one row of rocks, there will be
some sand put behind it, and then plantings of Cape American
beach grass.
What happens is, as the littoral drift goes from south to
north here, and as it comes in, the tidal flow comes in and
squirrels around, it squirrels around behind that return, and
you saw it, if you were out there, it's eating away behind the
return. And you can see the great sand spit that's caused out
Board of Trustees 67 June 11, 2025
in front of it.
So all we are looking to do now is one row of rocks to try
to maintain the sand in the bank behind the return. And, again,
it will be a little bit of the sand from the dredge spoil will
go into that area behind that one row of rock, and be planted
with Cape American beach grass to help that be sustained. And
that is the project.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this project. Or any other questions or
comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. BERGEN: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Make a motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Res ectfully submitted by,
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees