HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-07/16/2025 Glenn Goldsmith,President a Sou�y Town Hall Annex
A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President �0� Old 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski J J Southold, New York 11971
Liz Gillooly va ,r
O Q Telephone 1) 76 -65-1892
Elizabeth Peeples
� Fax(6356641
�ycOUNTY,�
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ;ti ., —^" -*--
Minutes ( AUG 1 5 2025
Wednesday, July 1.6, 2025
5:30 PM IN1
a�� 1d Toxiip�6r6 Clete
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,
July 16th, 2025 meeting. At this time I would like to call the
meeting to order and ask that you please stand for the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance is recited) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So I'll start off the meeting tonight by
announcing the people on the dais.
To my left we have Trustee Krupski, Trustee Sepenoski,
Trustee Gillooly and Trustee Peeples. To my right we shall soon
have the attorney to the Trustees, Lori Hulse. We also have
Administrative Assistant Elizabeth Cantrell, and with us tonight
we have Court Stenographer Wayne Galante.
Agendas for meeting are out in the hallway and also posted
on the website. We do have a number of postponements tonight.
The postponements are in the agenda on page five, under
Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits:
Number 1, 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, 31x8' and
41x8' second story balconies; install an I/A OWTS sanitary
system; install water and electric services; install a stone
Board of Trustees 2 July 16, 2025
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
On page ten, numbers 18 through 20:
Number 18, AS PER REVISED SITE PLAN & WRITTEN PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 6/27/25 Patricia Moore, Esq. On Behalf of
THOMAS RATTLER requests a Wetland Permit to clear vegetation
within 100' of the pond's edge of wetlands with no change in the
existing topography; remove invasive vegetation within the
Non-Disturbance Buffer area and revegetate with native
vegetation; establish and perpetually maintain a Non-Disturbance
Buffer area along the landward edge of the freshwater wetlands
with the width of the buffer to run along the natural topography
for a varying width of 10' on the south side to 40' on the north
side (scallop shape) ; and that the pond will not be used for
irrigation purposes. Located: 67925 County Road 48, Greenport.
SCTM# 1000-33-3-19. 19
Number 19, 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 4 'x5' platform
elevated 4 .5' above grade leading to a raised 4'x50' ramp
leading down to a 41x30' catwalk; reuse existing 3'xl6' 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
Number 20, 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
Board of Trustees 3 July 16, 2025
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. 61 .wide pervious gravel walk. Located: 1695 Bay
Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-9-21. 1
And on page eleven, numbers 21 through 23:
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
20.4 'x6' deck at north end of pool, and a new 11. 8'x21.4' deck
at south end of pool; install two (2) new retaining walls (4'
and 1. 6' tall) under the south end of the deck to create a space
with pea gravel ground cover for the pool equipment and
accessible storage area; railings around raised decking and
locking gates installed for pool enclosure requirements; install
outdoor cooking facilities on existing seaward deck and new
landing with steps down to a 4 ' wide pea-stone gravel walkway
along the south side of dwelling to a freestanding outdoor
shower; at east end of walkway, install a 3' retaining wall, and
two (2) A/C units.
' Located: 1900 Hyatt Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-50-1-3
Number 22, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of DAVID
VENER & ELLEN WEINSTEIN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
4'x158 ' fixed dock with Thru-Flow decking, and a 61x20' 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 23, AS PER REVISED SITE PLAN & WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED 12/23/2024 Twin Forks Permits on behalf of THE WILLIAM
E. GOYDAN REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST, c/o WILLIAM E. GOYDAN,
TRUSTEE & THE KAREN B. GOYDAN REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST, c/o
KAREN B. GOYDAN, TRUSTEE requests a Wetland Permit to demolish
the existing two-story dwelling, detached garage and other
Board of Trustees 4 July 16, 2025
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
Those are all postponed and won't be heard tonight.
Under Town Code Chapter 275-8 (c) , files were officially
closed seven days ago. Submission of any paperwork after that
date may result in a delay of the processing of the application.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to hold our
next field inspection Wednesday, August 6th, 2025 at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next Trustee
meeting Wednesday, August 13th, 2025 at 5:30PM at the Town Hall
Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
III. WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next work
sessions Monday, August 11th, 2025, at 5:00 PM at the Town Hall
Annex 2nd floor Executive Board Room, and on Wednesday, August
13th, 2025, at 5: 00 PM in the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Trustees monthly report for June 2025, a
check for $18, 405.19 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office
for the General Fund.
Board of Trustees 5 July 16, 2025
VI. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral VI, Public Notices are posted
on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the
Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications
more fully described in Section XI Public Hearings Section of
the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, July 16, 2025 are classified
as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and
are not subject to further review under SEQRA, as written. That
is my motion.
Lucy Wohltman SCTM# 1000-116-2-3
Funda Ilgin SCTM# 1000-111-9-12
Peter & Donna Ruttura SCTM# 1000-33-4-4
Lizbeth M. Jansen SCTM# 1000-144-5-27
Halle Eaton SCTM# 1000-87-1-21
Chris & Anna Triantafillou SCTM# 1000-14-2-4
8100 Indian Neck, LLC SCTM# 1000-86-7-9
Blue Marlin Realty, LLC SCTM# 1000-57-1-26
Nunnakoma Waters Association, Inc. SCTM#'s 1000-87-2-42.3,
1000-87-2-40. 1 & 1000-87-2-40.2
. Richard Meyerholz & Susan Meyerholz Living Trust SCTM#
1000-53-6-23
Klein Family Trust SCTM# 1000-121-4-20
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
'VIII. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral VIII, Administrative Permits.
In order to simplify our meetings, the Board of Trustees
regularly groups together actions that are minor or similar in
nature. Accordingly, I'll make a motion to approve as a group
items 1 through 4 and number 6, as follows:
Number 1, Joseph Kollen on behalf of SCOTT KLATSKY requests
an Administrative Permit to construct a 374 sq.ft. First floor
addition and 837 sq.ft. Second story addition to existing
dwelling; demo existing garage and breezeway; construct 30.5' x
6' covered porch; construction activity within 100' of wetlands.
Located: 560 Sunset Way, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-3-2 .1
Number 2, Cole Environmental on behalf of CHRISTOPHER
HELIES 2013 TRUST requests an Administrative Permit to convert
existing garage into living space; construct ±17' x 15'
Board of Trustees 6 July 16, 2025
irregular storage shed on concrete slab on grade; install I/A
Sanitary System.
Located: 2500 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-8-13
Number 3, LAURA WILLUMSTAD requests an Administrative
Permit to relocate existing north to south fence to property
line.
Located: 965 Champlin Place, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-34-4-14
Number 4, HIGH HOUSE WOODS INC. Requests an Administrative
Permit to install two (2) HVAC units beside east wall of
dwelling.
Located: 7134 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-7-7 . 1
Number 6, LINDA S. SANFORD SOUTHOLD RESIDENCE TRUST
requests an Administrative Permit to install posts and rope
across existing bulkhead.
Located: 780 Private Road #17, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-3-27. 1
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, NIKOS THEODOSOPOULOS & ANNA
LOUKISSA request an Administrative Permit to install water and
electric lines from dwelling to existing gazebo; install hose
bib and electrical outlet on gazebo; install sprinkler system.
Located: 595 North Parish Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-71-1-6
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection July 13th,
2025, notes about the concern with the close proximity of the
existing gazebo to the wetlands that have trenched electric and
water. Sprinkler system and trenching so close to wetlands will
have a negative environmental impact.
The LWRP found this to be consistent. Since this will have,
due to the proximity of being right next to the unconsolidated
soils of the beach, and have a negative environmental impact,
I'll make a motion to deny this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 7, 2122 WESTPHALIA GROUP LLC requests
an Administrative Permit for the as-built replacement of 4' x
±14015" wooden walkway with 3111"x±14015" precast concrete
walkway; as-built 3111"x±70' extension of precast concrete
walkway; removal of rotted shed and patio.
Located: 2122 Westphalia Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-114-7-11.2
Trustee Goldsmith conducted a field inspection July 14th,
2025, noting there was impervious concrete from the top of the
slope all the way down to the bottom, and concerns about the
potential for runoff with the non-permeable walkway.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
Due to the fact of excessive runoff going into the wetlands
that have a negative environmental impact on the wetlands and
Board of Trustees 7 July 16, 2025
the habitat, I'll make a motion to deny this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral IX, Applications for
Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments.
Again, in order to simplify our meeting, I'll make a motion
to approve as a group Items 1 through 11, listed as follows:
Number 1, SOFIA ANTONIADIS requests a Final One (1) Year
Extension to Administrative Permit #10180A, as issued July 13,
2022.
Located: 12500 Main Road, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-14-7
Number 2, DEBORAH WETZEL requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit #3671 from Joan & John Wetzel to Deborah Wetzel, as
issued August 18, 1988.
Located: 4635 Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-6
Number 3, Finnegan Law on behalf of PHYLLIS, KEITH, & RANDI
KLEIN requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #2103 & #257 from
William Schwamb to Phyllis, Keith, & Randi Klein, as issued
October 2, 1985.
Located: 1460 North Oakwood Road, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-127-6-11
Number 4, Finnegan Law on behalf of PHYLLIS, KEITH, & RANDI
KLEIN requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #5785 from Emery &
Mary Korpi to Phyllis, Keith, & Randi Klein, as issued July 23,
2003..
Located: 1460 North Oakwood Road, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-127-6-11
Number 5, Finnegan Law on behalf of 945 ORCHARD STREET LLC
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #10674 from Lawrence M.
Tuthill to 945 Orchard Street LLC, as issued November 13, 2024.
Located: 945 Orchard Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-5-46. 4
Number 6, Finnegan Law on behalf of 1405 TERRY LANE LLC
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #6427 from Michael &
Teresa Smith to 1405 Terry Lane LLC, as issued August 23, 2006.
Located: 1405 Terry Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-14-3-2
Number- 7, Finnegan Law on behalf of 1405 TERRY LANE LLC
requests a Transfer of Administrative Permit #6588A from Michael
& Teresa Smith to 1405 Terry Lane LLC, as issued April 18, 2007 .
Located: 1405 Terry Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-14-3-2
Number 8, Finnegan Law on behalf of 1405 TERRY LANE LLC
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #9619 from Michael &
Teresa Smith to 1405 Terry Lane LLC, as issued December 11,
2019.
Located: 1405 Terry Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-14-3-2
Number 9, Absolute Property Care on behalf of HUFFLEPUFF
LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #9808
Board of Trustees 8 July 16, 2025
to install 13'x7 ' in-ground soaking pool with ±490sq.ft.
Bluestone patio in lieu of originally proposed pool and pool
patio.
Located: 1380 North Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-12-34
Number 10, Samuels & Steelman on behalf of STEVE & MARCIA
DONADIC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#9500, as issued July 17, 2019, and Amended October 28, 2020,
for new location of steps down from the deck/porch to grade;
installation of bluestone stepping stones, on grade, surround by
grass; 4 ' wide crushed stone path, surrounded by grass; remove
previously approved steps to beach.
Located: 1071 Bay Home Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56.-5-37
Number 11, DIANNE MYERS requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland -Permit #10382 to install a generator for
approved I/A OWTS septic system.
Located: 1705 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-36
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
X. MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, Moorings/Stake &
Pulley systems, I 'll make a motion to approve:
Number 1, JOHN TARDIFF requests a Mooring in Little Creek
for a 20' outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #110. Access:
Public.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral XI, Public Hearings.
I'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and
enter into Public Hearings.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter of the
following applications for permits under Chapter 275 and Chapter
111 of the Southold Town Code. I have an affidavit of
publication from the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence
may be read prior to asking for comments from the public.
Please keep your comments organized and brief, five minutes or
less if possible.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under Wetland Permits:
Board of Trustees 9 July 16, 2025
Number 1: 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
docks consisting of removing existing 4'x14' 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 41x6' floating finger dock; and the
existing 8'x21' floating boat lift to be relocated to south side
of 4 'x42 ' floating dock.
Located: 480 N. Riley Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-3-34.1
On June 3rd, 2025, the Trustees visited the site, the notes
read as follows: Check permit history on the dock; check the
pier line; check to see if proposed dock exceeds 25%; and
floating dock not to exceed 120 square feet as per code.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent, and his
notes read as follows: The dock is constructed without 275
Wetlands permit; the dock configuration is not compliant with
the past permit. The dock exceeds the pier line; the floats are
not permitted; one 6x20 is permitted; the number and size
vessels are not shown; the boat lift is not compliant with
Chapter 275 residential boat lifts floating or fixed, are
prohibited except on privately owned basins or private property
at discretion of the Board of Trustees.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
(No response) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are assuming Mr. Just was stuck in traffic.
It is our understanding based on communications with the office
that he wishes to have this application tabled to give him time
to make changes.
Essentially, the Board is looking for an application that
conforms with Chapter 275 in its-current standing.
So unless anyone else would like to speak, or any comments
from the Board?
(Negative response) .
I make a motion to table this application for submission of
new plans.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 2, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on
behalf of SARAH C. TREMAINE requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 43'x20' (860sq. ft. ) Two-story, single-family
dwelling with a 201x20' screened-in porch, a 10'x43' deck with
walkout below; install an I/A OWTS sanitary system; install
gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff; install
water and electric utilities; install a gravel driveway with
parking area; construct three boulder retaining walls (251 , 115'
and 140' in length) and regrade site; and revegetate disturbed
areas.
Board of Trustees 10 July 16, 2025
Located: Brickyard Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-5-12.26
The Trustees reviewed the plans at work session 7/14/25.
The questions we had were why are the walls four feet or more in
height. And what the purpose of the retaining walls.
We also would like to see a non-disturbance buffer, as the
parcel on the seaward side of the project is heavily wooded with
natural native vegetation.
The LWRP found the project to be consistent.
Is there anyone here wish fog speak regarding the
application?
(Negative response) .
Again, we have Glenn Just from JMO Environmental
Consulting. We need answers from him regarding our questions,
and given the location of this project on Fishers Island, and if
no one wishes to speak and no questions from the Board, I'll
make a motion to table the application for further review and
information.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 3, Frederick Weber, Architect on behalf
of PETER & DONNA RUTTURA requests a Wetland Permit to construct
a 161x30' in-ground swimming pool; expand bluestone patio with
grill (total 1,272sq. ft. ) ; install a pool backwash drywell, a
49sq.ft. Pool equipment vault, and pool enclosure fencing with
gates; with the excavation of ±60 cubic yards of material to be
spread and re-graded around the pool/patio perimeter.
Located: 900 Sound Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-4-4
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 9th of
July, and noted to review the buffer area from June Minutes, and
flag significant trees to save. Upon review of those Minutes we
did receive new plans submitted on July 3rd, 2025, after the
office had already beat us to it, and mentioned some of that,
and the vegetated buffer is now marked.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. WEBER: Yes. I'm Fred Weber, I'm the architect for the
Ruttura' s.
The property is an undersized, nonconforming lot in an R-40
zone, fronting on Long Island Sound. There is a
moderately-sized house conforming to the allowable gross floor
area under construction.
On the landward side there is a garage, a sanitary system
which requires leaching fields, and also a detached garage.
The arrangements of the site improvements in a workable
layout establish the location of the house. It is proposed that
a swimming pool and a patio be located on the water side of the
Board of Trustees 11 July 16, 2025
house, and to provide a reasonable patio width between the house
and the swimming pool, and to construct a rectangular swimming
pool that can accommodate a retractable safety cover. It is
requested that the corner of the swimming pool be allowed to be
located 92 and 1/2 feet from the top of the bluff where the
Trustees have jurisdiction to 100 feet.
This location was approved by the ZBA, a 25-foot vegetated
non-turf buffer is proposed along the top of the bluff, and the
pool and patio will be located within six inches the finished
grade.
I believe this request is reasonable considering approvals
were given to both adjacent neighbors. Along this bluff line to
the east, a pool was approved at 80 feet, and to the west a pool
was approved at 65 feet, and we are at like 92' 6" .
And there are similar examples along this bluff front. We
conform to all the other zoning requirements and have a
consistent LWRP, therefore we request your approval in granting
a Trustee permit.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, thank you, so much. The only notes that
I had in here was to add a callout to the plan noting save trees
within Trustees jurisdiction.
MR. WEBER: I did put a note on the plan to that affect. It's in
the lower right-hand corner of the plan.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Sorry, I missed that.
All right, is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Are there any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I 'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. WEBER: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 4, AMP Architecture on behalf of RICHARD
MEYERHOLZ & SUSAN MEYERHOLZ LIVING TRUST requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 4.10'xl6.5' two-story addition onto the
existing dwelling within the footprint of the existing covered
front porch; and construct a new 51x8. 6' covered front entry
porch. Located: 4245 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM#
1000-53-6-23
The Trustees most recently visited this site on July 9th,
2025, and Trustee Gillooly made the following notes: Check
permitting history.
Board of Trustees 12 July 16, 2025
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application.
MR. PORTILLO: Good evening, Anthony Portillo, AMP Architecture.
We are proposing a small addition to the front of the home. The
reason is to make the foyer large enough to put an elevator in.
So that' s the reason for the addition. And then a small portico
at the front. No other work is being done.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And just to confirm what you were just stating,
all the activity is going to be on the landward side of the
house, correct?
MR. PORTILLO: Correct.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay.
MR. PORTILLO: In the front yard.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, great. And then based on the notes the
Trustees made about checking the permitting history, we did
reference the original permit of 8192 that mentions the
conditions that the area on the seaward side of the dwelling is
to remain as a non-turf buffer. And that is noted on the plans.
I thank you for including that, Mr. Portillo.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak?
(Negative response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
MR. PORTILLO: I'm sorry, I just have this green card. I guess it
wasn't -- thank you. (Handing) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to
speak?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, AS PER REVISED PLANS SUBMITTED
7/14/2025 AMP Architecture on behalf of the KLEIN FAMILY TRUST
requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing dwelling, rear wood
deck, walkways and septic system; construct a proposed
two-story, single-family dwelling with a 1,326sq.ft. Footprint;
a 527sq.ft. Uncovered elevated rear deck with stairs to ground,
and a 143sq.ft. Covered elevated rear deck off dwelling; a
349sq. ft. Covered front porch and walkway; and an I/A OWTS
sanitary system and leaching pool landward of dwelling; install
an 181x30' inground swimming pool with 10" coping; install a
574sq.ft. Blue stone pool patio; install a pool drywell, pool
equipment area, and ±250 linear feet of pool enclosure fencing
Board of Trustees 13 July 16, 2025
with gates; install 567sq.ft. Asphalt walkway and parking area;
install a ±1, 467sq.ft. Gravel driveway; install two (2) drywells
in front yard for new impervious structures; install a buried
500-gallon propane tank in front yard; install an A/C condenser
and generator on concrete pads; approximately 296 cubic yards to
be excavated for dwelling, septic and inground pool, and
approximately 1, 028 cubic yards of fill proposed for backfilling
and grading; for any trees that are removed there will be a
one-to-one tree replacement using native hardwoods with an 8"
caliper; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 20-foot
wide vegetated non-turf buffer area long the landward edge of
freshwater wetlands.
Located: 2155 Laurel Way, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-121-4-20
The Trustees conducted field inspection July 9th, notes say
some red flags in the field with some taller wooden stakes.
It's difficult to understand scope of this project. Pool on
sloped wooded area not advisable. Need to see tree plan. And
many mature, native trees on property, need to see flagged.
Steep slopes on property makes property first habitat a
difficult concern.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The
inconsistencies are, the pool in its current location will sit
in the groundwater. The test hole was dug at a much higher
elevation near Crescent Way, and the grading proposed on the
property will impact drainage patterns and vegetation in this
critical environmental area.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
presentation?
MR. PORTILLO: Anthony Portillo, AMP Architecture.
So, regarding the test hole and the pool, I don't agree
with the assessment, but regardless, I think the assessment by
the Trustees we do agree with, and I spoke to my client and I
think we are willing to forego the pool, or possibly pull it
back. But I think they are okay foregoing it for now and maybe
dealing with that situation later. I think the house is the
more important issue.
So due to the home's age and my client' s disabilities, you
know, it did make a lot of sense to try to renovate this because
it would have turned into a reconstruction.
So that was our advice from the beginning to our client, so
decided let' s knock it down and try to move it back. One reason
is that incline, so we tried to bring the house onto a more
flatter portion of the land and more landward.
So our proposal from the flagged wetlands is 70 feet for
the structure, and then we are sort of like, you know, we have
the driveway, and then we are proposing like a pitched asphalt
walkway. Again, my client is in a wheelchair, and that's the
reason they have the ramp there now so, we are trying to do it a
little bit differently with doing like more of an asphalt
natural pitch. And I did provide a drain there to a drywell, we
Board of Trustees 14 July 16, 2025
would like to catch that water.
So that, I mean that's basically how we got here is, you
know, instead of trying to deal with what is here and obviously
turning it into a reconstruction. We are landward of the pier
line. There is a little bit of manipulation to the grade, and it
had to do with our septic design. But I think it's pretty
minor, and you can see that we provided the existing topo and
the proposed topos.
So, kind of back to maybe the beginning of what I said is
some of the decisions were based on not being able to deal with
what was there, kind of trying to put the home on a flatter
portion of land, and we needed some room to kind of get a ramp
up ,from the driveway to the new residence. And I think we can
forego the pool, because I agree with the Trustees on the
location. It doesn't make much sense.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I see that your client wishes to forego the
pool. In our field, our discussion around the pool really
centered around the removal of the trees and native vegetation
and that really beautifully-wooded area. And we thought that as
a way of redesigning the project to incorporate a pool, you
know, small pool, that the house proposed could be pulled back
and the pool would be situated in the current footprint of the
house as it exists in the field. And, you know, meeting the
50-foot setback for the pools, or redesigning in a way that
would minimize that amount of structure, and of course no
retaining walls higher than two feet.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think, this Board, I'm not sure how the
Trustees feel, but I would never vote for a pool on that side
yard because of the amount of trees that would be removed in
that zone.
MR. PORTILLO: Understood.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I think the point, too, or at least from my
viewpoint, is I'm not sure that this is an appropriate property
for the pool, given the slopes and the native aspect, but it
would almost be a shame not on to flush that out now if your
client really wants a pool or not, as opposed to trying to
shoehorn something after the fact. So that's why this Board I
think is bringing that up and having the discussion, because
sometimes makes sense, and we've seen this before, to discuss it
all at once as opposed to you build the house and then say oh,
wait, this is what I wanted.
So I think it' s really up to you and your client if, you
know, because that is something to think about when designing
the whole project.
Board of Trustees 15 July 16, 2025
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And to add to what Trustee Krupski is saying,
I would just say that the idea of potentially pulling this
entire structure back to accommodate a pool directly in front of
it, where the current house is, may be something you wish to
discuss.
I appreciate that you're pulling the structure back, but,
you know, there is even more property that it could go
potentially go further back. So that is an option to look at
with the client.
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you, for the comments. This conversation
about the pool is basically the beginning of this week, so it
was sort of like maybe we should just forego it. They didn't
really have their heart set on it, so I don't know if they are
going to come back any time soon. But I'll have that
conversation with them and the idea of pulling it back and maybe
putting it in front.
If the decision is let's just, you know, the pool is not
something they are looking to do, does the Board think the new
residence, the new residence location is acceptable at 70 feet,
or, you know, would you guys like me to figure out, I guess I'm
not, I was not really sure like, because, you know, it' s
obviously in your jurisdiction, so.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I mean, I think that where the current
proposed structure, that is acceptable to me. I think you've got
the pier line, 70 feet back is pretty good for a structure.
And just to Nick's point, if you really want to have the
discussion about the pool, we should do it now so we can deal
with this project holistically
MR. PORTILLO: Agreed.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: (Continuing) and to shoehorn a pool .in later
down the road, which would require another conversation, another
permit. I understand the owner might be present as well now.
MR. PORTILLO: Yes, he just came in.
TRUSTEE SEPEN08KI: Good evening.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So to piggyback off that and to answer your
question directly, I like the fact you pulled the house back and
are meeting the -- pier line is very important to this Board,
for many reasons.
If the discussion of the pool is completely off the table,
I think it' s a good location for the house. If it' s not
completely off the table, I think you should probably discuss
with your clients and talk about pulling it back further.
Also, with the balance of keeping in mind all the mature
trees on the property, that we'd like to see as many as possible
preserved. But I think for the house there's a few big ones that
would have to go. But we would like to save as much as
possible. So that's really where we are at with this. So it's up
to you and your client to figure out.
MR. PORTILLO: Understood. So, with that said, I think tabling,
because I would want to present revised plans anyway. If I can
Board of Trustees 16 July 16, 2025
table and have that conversation and then we would provide you a
revised set. And also locate the trees and do a one-to-one
replacement for the structure being --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And to give you as much information as possible
while you're here, while we're here. That 50 foot is really a
code minimum, but when we are talking slopes and natural
landscapes and freshwater and all that, that's really minimum to
shoot away from. So that's something else to think about, too.
MR. PORTILLO: Understood. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And one more note is that, you know, with
these Texas floods in recent memory here, I think any time there
is an opportunity to pull a structure totally out of Trustee
jurisdiction, a minimum of 100 feet away from the water, I'm
always in support of that option, if it's possible, with the
client. So it's something to think about, if possible. So.
MR. PORTILLO: Understood.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anybody else wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to table this at
the applicant's request.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you, Board. Have a good evening.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 6, Richard Lark, Esq. On behalf of KEVIN
CIERACH requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built 59. 6'x37'
three-story dwelling with garage under and attached wrap-around
raised decking consisting of a 10.2'x33. 8' raised deck with
±3. 61xl8 ' 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
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
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Board most recently visited the site on the 9th of
July, and had noted that it was a bit of an odd project, but it
Board of Trustees 17 July 16, 2025
might be the only option to satisfy the codes. Also noted it
would be in need of a non-turf buffer landward of the wetland
line.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. FABB: Yes, I'm Jonathan Fabb, I'm the agent for the property
owner and the contractor.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So obviously we met with you in the field.
While we don't like getting more structure into the wetlands, it
seems like that is the only option to satisfy the state law.
Ands also, you are fairly far back there. We are just
looking to add 15-foot of non-turf buffer for future owners
there so that they are not, you know, obviously putting dirt
there, hopefully not parking equipment or anything there.
MR. FABB: Sure, understood.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application, or any additional comments from the
Board?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I did have one question. When we were in the
field you mentioned that there would be gutters to leaders to
drywells installed.
MR. FABB: Yes, mandated by the Building Department. Correct.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. I believe that that was not a part of
this description, so.
MR. FABB: It' s on the Building permit requirements that we have
to tie everything in.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, sounds great. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seeing no other comments, I'll make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the submission of new plans to include a 15-foot non-turf
buffer landward of the wetland line, and gutters to leaders to
drywells on the plans.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. FABB: Thank you, good night.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 7, Robert Brown Architects on behalf
of LUCY WOHLTMAN requests a Wetland Permit to remove the
existing trellis and a section of existing on-grade brick patio
to construct a 302sq. ft. Sunroom onto the existing two-story
dwelling (±2, 525sq.ft. Footprint) ; the remaining ±712sq.ft.
On-grade brick patio (including covered area) to remain.
Located: 4955 Moores Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-116-2-3.
The Trustees visited the site on 7/7/25. Notes from that
visit read: Straightforward application.
Board of Trustees 18 July 16, 2025
The LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent
with its policies.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the
application?
MR. SEITER: Ryan Seiter as agent for Robert Brown Architects.
We are looking to put a three-season sunroom over an
existing brick patio. So we are not increasing the lot
coverage, we are not encroaching on any wetlands. We are
building on top of an existing patio.
The wetlands has a non-jurisdiction from the DEC, and it is
farther away from a pool that was approved two years ago by this
Board.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right, do you have any questions for the
Board?
MR. SEITER: I do not.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Do any members of the Board have any
questions or comments?
(Negative response) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Motion to approve in application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf of FUNDA
ILGIN requests a Wetland Permit to replace in-place existing 100
foot long wood bulkhead with new bulkhead using vinyl sheathing,
12" diameter pilings, 6' on-center, horizontal and vertical
lay-log backing system, and 6"x6" whalers; remove remaining
parts of old cantilevered deck extending seaward from bulkhead,
not to be replaced; and to establish and perpetually maintain a
10-foot-wide non-turf buffer along the top crest of the bluff.
Located: 5095 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 10007111-9-12
Trustee Krupski most recently visited the site on the 9th
of July, noting to check permit history on property, prior
permit for demo of house included a non-turf buffer. Want to
check size of said buffer. Also should be vegetated buffer with
natives.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen with Sol Searcher Consulting, on behalf
of Funda Ilgin.
This is a currently permitted, functioning bulkhead, that
Board of Trustees 19 July 16, 2025
needs to be replaced. The bulkhead to the north was replaced
last year. Immediately to the north. The bulkhead immediately
to the south was approved by this Board last month. This will
complete that row of bulkheading that needs to be replaced.
This did receive a GP permit from New York DEC.
Yes, there was a previously, and a couple of different
permits, for this property. A ten-foot non-turf buffer, and you
saw in the plans that we want to maintain that ten-foot non-turf
buffer.
There was one barely visible that you might have seen out
there in the field, but it' s gotten so overgrown you would never
know really that it's there. And we are fine with it being a
vegetated non-turf buffer.
So with that, I'm here to answer any questions you might
have.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Great. Thank you. Is there anyone else here
wishing to speak regarding this application, or any other
questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application
subject to new plans depicting a ten-foot vegetated non-turf
buffer at the top of bluff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. BERGEN: I'm sorry, it's already on the plans. Fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Made and seconded.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 9, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION &
PLANS RECEIVED 7/2/25 L.K. McLean Associates on behalf of NORTH
FORK COUNTRY CLUB requests a Wetland Permit to remove dead,
diseased, or damaged trees within an approximately 18,000sq.ft.
Area with all tree removals to be conducted in a selectively and
minimally invasive manner to avoid disturbing the surrounding
habitat; within an approximately 7, 500sq.ft. Area of the wetland
itself, selectively remove invasive plant species using best
management practices, and for the trimming of phragmites down to
spring high water (el. 4.01) . Located: 26342 Main Road,
Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-109-4-8 .3
The Trustees most recently visited the site on July 14th,
2025. Trustee Krupski made the following notes: Review' of new
plans at work session. Area of phragmites are okay to trim to a
height of 12 inches using hand-trimming method. Not to disturb
natives, including but not limited to high tide bush and the red
Board of Trustees 20 July 16, 2025
cedar currently at location. Moderate trimming of healthy trees.
The Trustees prior to that visited the site on March 12th,
2025, and Trustee Krupski made the following notes:
Underbrush likely acts as a natural buffer to the wetland
and habitat to native wildlife. Should be reviewed more closely
or explained further. Need clarification of what is underbrush
and what are small trees or plans for them. Trees should likely
not be limbed to 40 feet but 20 to 30 is more appropriate for
the tree height.
Discussion in the field about hand trimming the phragmites,
not to excavate out of the wetland area. Other protected species
are intertwined with phragmites and should be protected.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent with its
policies.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regards to this
application?
MR. DWYER: Good evening. Chris Dwyer from L.K. McLean
Associates.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Good evening.
MR. DWYER: I'm here to just answer any questions or comments. I
know there was some further discussion of identifying more of
the trees, having a little clearer understanding of some of the
more. And we identified the dead, diseased and damaged trees to
be the only ones that would be candidates.
There may have been a misunderstanding by the club, because
they seem to identify many of the trees that were outside of the
100-foot buffer that we staked out. So I think they would like
to table this and look a little closer at the ones that fall
within the Trustee jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you. It was
noted when we visited the sight, there were many, many, many
trees that were marked. And I think obviously this Board
understands anything that is damaged or diseased, there is a
need for that for safety and for the health of the other trees.
But there was significant concern about removal that wa-s not
necessary.
And then I think when we were reviewing the rest of the
plans, the 'hand trimming of the phragmites was understood as
sort of a maintenance, however we noted that there were some
cedars in that area and some other salt-tolerant vegetation that
we would not want to be touched.
So I think meeting onsite to review and just have a
understanding with the tabled application would be beneficial.
MR. DWYER: Yes, I think the Board's feelings is consistent with
the DEC as well. We did receive comments to pull back some of
the area for the trimming itself, of the phragmites as well, so.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. Wonderful. Thank you, very much.
MR. DWYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak,
or any other questions or comments from the Board?
Board of Trustees 21 July 16, 2025
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 10, L.K. McLean Associates on behalf
of AWC DOCKSIDE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for Marina
improvements consisting of the as-built 6'x981 , 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 22.3' 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) 81x53' 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# 10007106-6-1
The Trustees most recently conducted an in-house review on
July 14th, 2025. Notes read about the need to remove the CCA
decking, remove the floating docks and fingers, as well as
potentially increase the cutout in the bulkhead more landward to
maximize the distance for the boats.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent.
The inconsistencies are the structures were constructed
without a Chapter 275 Wetlands Permit. The as-built includes
1, 960 square feet of CCA-treated decking. What is the
composition of the dredge spoil used on site. And the number and
size of vessels that can be moored are not shown. .
We also have a letter in the file from Jeff Strong. It
says proposed plan calls for 30' fingers and 35 ' boats. There
Board of Trustees 22 July 16, 2025
is no wiggle room at all. Currently there are commercial boats
onsite that are at least 35' long and they can't get their
sterns flat up against new main floating dock. The slips are
designed to have approximately 14' to 15' beam boats. They get
interest in larger boats with outboards. These outboards stick
off the dock almost five feet when they are dock with their
outboard engines in the tilted-up position, hence a 35'
outboard would protrude almost 40 feet from the main floating
dock.
It goes on to say he discussed this with the property
owner, and suggested moving the bulkhead landward by
approximately ten feet. It would give the needed room to
accommodate larger commercial vessels and larger outboard
vessels.
So that was a letter from Jeff Strong.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. DWYER: Chris Dwyer, from McLean Associates, just here to
represent AWC Dockside. He did want to see this, my client
wanted to see this application tabled, to try to maybe take a
look at the bulkhead moving back a little bit, based upon the
advice he- was given himself by talking to his neighbor. And so
we just have to look at how tight the area is behind there.
There' s not a lot of room. There's a little bit of a pinch
point, so we are taking a look at some options that he have
available. And I think as far as he did want me to at least
state for the Board that the treated timber, he understands,
he's to take the CCA out. He was hoping to replace it with some
type of timber that would last a little bit longer than
untreated timber, and he asked if there would be any
consideration for an MCA-type, you know, timber decking, that is
usually able to be handled by hand. It's a very low treatment
and he just wanted me to represent that idea.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would just submit some data on what they are
looking to use.
MR. DWYER: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think what we are looking for is the
decking material itself not being CCA. Obviously the less
chemically-treated material in proximity to the water the
better. But we are open to that discussion and seeing what you
guys can come up with, as well as taking into consideration both
the LWRP stipulations or concerns, as well as the neighboring
concerns.
As you mentioned, it does get kind of tight with the choke
point up there. But I like the idea of what you guys are looking
to do, cutting it back to give them more room, actually creates
more underwater wetlands for the Town. So I think we are heading
in the right direction with that.
Is there anybody else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
Board of Trustees 23 July 16, 2025
MS. HULSE: Do you know if the violation for the CCA lumber has
been resolved in court?
MR. DWYER: I don't know the status of that. I think he was
trying to include that with this application. So he had the
ability to do that, clean it all up at the same time. That was
his intention.
MS. HULSE: Okay. Is there a pending application in the DEC now?
MR. DWYER: Yes.
MS. HULSE: Good. Okay. Thanks.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a
motion to table this application at the applicant's request.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 11, AS PER REVISED PROJECT PLANS AND
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 7/11/2025 Twin "Forks Permits on behalf of
LIZBETH M. JANSEN requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing
dwelling, covered patio, .at-grade patio, and remove/abandon
existing septic system; construct a proposed (2, 097.5sq.ft.
Footprint) two-story dwelling with one well/crawl space area for
basement egress, a 15. 6sq.ft. Front covered porch, and attached
598sq.ft. Garage; install a 643.3sq.ft. Rear covered porch with
a 126sq.ft. Uncovered raised patio extension off seaward end;
install a 636.4sq.ft. On-grade patio; install a 32sq.ft. Outdoor
shower; install a kitchen area, a 25sq.ft. A/C/mechanical area,
and a 9sq.ft. Generator; install a stormwater drainage system;
install an I/A sanitary system; there will be ±556 cubic yards
of excavation with 513 cubic yards of fill to be used for the
project with remaining ±43 cubic yards to be removed offsite;
for the removal of at least one (1) tree with the replacement of
the trees) to be removed at a 1 to 1 ratio with native hardwood
trees at a 3" caliper size; and to establish and perpetually
maintain a 15-foot-wide non-turf, non-fertilization vegetated
buffer along the landward side of the bulkhead.
Located: 260 Sailors Needle Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-144-5-27
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, noted
that the whole parcel was within the FEMA flood zone.
The Trustees most recently visited the property July 9th,
noted that should increase the non-turf vegetated buffer to 15
feet.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. POYER: Lisa Poyer, on behalf of the applicant.
So the project is on a bulkheaded piece of property, we
have a non-jurisdiction letter from the DEC, and the owner is
interested in demolishing the residence and building a new
residence on the property. The habitable space will be more
landward than it is today. There will be one tree removed, which
is a mulberry tree that is actually growing into the existing
Board of Trustees 24 July 16, 2025
sanitary system on the seaward side of the residence. That one
tree will be removed. The sanitary system will be abandoned in
accordance with the Health Department, and a new IA system will
be installed in a landward location of the residence on the
property.
The owner has agreed to expand the existing ten-foot
non-turf vegetated buffer to 15 feet, and I believe that's
reflected on the plans that were submitted to the Board last
week.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to
speak regarding this application, or any comments from the
Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
based on the plans stamped received by the office July llth,
2025, with the condition that there is a two-for-one tree
replacement with native hardwood.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MS. POYER: Good evening. Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 12, Cole Environmental Services on
behalf of HALLE EATON requests a Wetland Permit to demolish
existing two-story dwelling, existing shed and brick path;
construct a proposed two-story 3, 684sq.ft. Dwelling with an
8 'x52' covered front porch; a 101x92' first floor rear deck with
pergola and 15.51xl7' steps to grade; two 17 'xl7 ' second-story
rear decks; a 17 'x38' in-ground pool, pool enclosure fencing
with gates, a pool equipment sound deadening enclosure, and a
pool drywell; install an irregularly shaped 271x68' wood deck
around pool leading to a 4' wide boardwalk; abandon existing
septic system and install a new I/A sanitary system landward of
dwelling; install a permeable roundabout with stone steps at
grade to main and side entrances; relocate existing 6' high
fencing and install additional 6' high fencing; install A/C
units and a generator; install a stormwater drainage system;
existing irregular shaped ±401x±40' two-story garage and koi
pond to remain; with the edge of first floor rear deck and edge
of pool foundation to be planted with native, non-fertilizer
dependent vegetation.
Located: 1480 Old Wood Path, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-1-21
The Trustees reviewed the application in the field on the
9th of July. Notes read utilize silt fence and hay bales to
protect entirety, especially by beach, and consolidated soils
and the wetlands. The planting plan between house and habitat.
Board of Trustees 25 July 16, 2025
Mark trees to be retained and removed. Pull pool back from
wetland. West side of house to be kept natural. Only four-foot
wide access path landward of wetland. Non-disturbance seaward of
existing fence.
The LWRP found the project inconsistent, for several
reasons. The proposed habitable structure will be located within
FEMA flood zones. There is a .2% annual chance of Flood Hazard
X. 1% annual chance of Flood Hazard AE. And underscored the
sentiment of relocating the single-family structure outside of
the AE Structural Hazard Flood Zone to meet Policy Four.
Increase the setback to the swampy area or wetland area
from 27. 1' to the single-family residence by moving the
single-family residence landward to meet Policy Six. And retain
the existing vegetation onsite. There is also mention of the
pier line which should be considered on adjacent properties.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the
application?
MS. RUMMEL: Kate Rummel, Cole Environmental. I also have the
architect here as well, he's here to answer any additional
questions and get all the comments on the record.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you.
Do you wish to make any comment at the moment or have any
questions?
MS. RUMMEL: Not at the moment. I know there are a lot of
comments that we need to address with the plan revision, so I
just want to make sure we get everything to the record so we can
update the plans to reflect that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Wonderful. Anyone else wish to speak
regarding the application?
MS. FINCH: I would like to. My name is Cathy Finch, I live at
739 Old Wood Path, and my biggest concern is the fact that they
want to get a permit in the wetlands. I don't know much about
building and all that, but the wetlands to me are very
important. They are superb at purifying polluted water. They are
replenishing aquifers. That whole area is with well water and
harboring wildlife. So my biggest concern is the destruction of
that. And I also live on that road whereby more than half of it
is a dirt road, with pebbles. Not many.
So with the amount of wood they are going to use to
reconstruct this or build a new construction site, or whatever
you want to call it. I'm a little nervous. The roads will be
just desecrated. It' s only one road. One way in, one way out.
And that's a one-lane road, and it's a dirt road. And, um, to
me, that's a big concern. A big concern. If you look at the
massive amount of wood that this new place is going to be using.
But mostly the destruction of the wetlands is my biggest
concern.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, for your comments.
Board of Trustees 26 July 16, 2025
TRUSTEE 'SEPENOSKI: Upon review -- sorry, ma'am. Go forth.
MS. HARNEY: Good evening, my name is Laura Harney. I'm a
Southold resident and a lifelong friend of the Snellenberg
family, who could not be here for this hearing. So I would like
to read a note from the Snellenberg' s regarding this building.
So, we would like to welcome the Eaton' s to the family of
the Old Wood Path neighborhood. The neighborhood is a wonderful
place to live, and we look out for each other' s property, homes,
and collaborate our neighborhood resources, and we welcome you
into the fold.
The task of building a home can be overwhelming, especially
when homeowners may not be onsite to ensure that things are
going as planned. Having a reliable, thoughtful, competent
project manager who is overseeing many contractors and working
on the homeowner' s behalf is a critical component.
We understand that miscommunications, confusion and time
gaps may occur between the project manager and contractors. We
kindly request to consider consulting with your project manager
to take into account any contractors that are working on the
property and driving up and down the road, as she had alluded to
the road is tiny and a single lane. And it's precious. So it
needs attention.
So, down the road, to be careful to not damage any fence,
trees, shrubs, roads, to include the paved and dirt section of
fellow neighbors. And to keep the road clear of debris such as
nails, and more importantly to keep the roads passable so that
homeowners or emergency vehicles can access their homes daily.
And if any damage occurs that the contractor please .contact the
project manager or the homeowner to discuss repairs or
compensation.
It is wonderful to see how you thoughtful the plans are to
build the house, maintaining the beauty of the community.
Unfortunately, the owner of the home may not realize that
something has happened. Communication may get lost or not
happen.
With that said, the request is to have someone's contact
information if something were to arise and they need to contact
them.
So we would like the town record to reflect that we
acknowledge that the town is not responsible for any homeowner' s
damage, that it is a private matter between property owners.
This evening the Snellenberg' s would like to offer their
contact information to the Eaton family or the project manager,
and please see me for that information, I'll be sitting over
there, and I have that information. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
MS. PARSON: Natalie Parson. I live right across the street, and
I thought it was a thought proposal. I echo some of the concerns
of my neighbors, that it's a private road, so obviously the
matters need to be dealt with internally and it doesn't sort of
Board of Trustees 27 July 16, 2025
go back to the city since it is a private road. If there is
damage, you know, there is a lot of concern amongst the
neighbors about damage happening to the road.
My concern is being across the street that I noticed there
were a lot of upper decks and that the pool is now sort of 20
feet closer to my property. And now you guys are suggesting that
they are moving even further inland direction away from the
wetlands, if I understand it correctly. So just questioning the
placement of the pool, because that is a very wooded area, and
privacy is obviously a huge concern. So, that' s all I have to
say. Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
MS. DAN: My name is Marlene Dan and I live across the street,
and we welcome new neighbors and it' s exciting to have what
looks like is going to be a great house. But I just want to echo
the same concern about that road. It is, it can damage, part of
it is, it' s not all dirt. Part of it is indeed asphalt, however,
it is narrow, now one car goes this way, you have to go back up.
And the idea, I would like, and I don't know exactly what I'm
asking the assurances to be, but we need assurances that the
trucks, if they do any-damage to the trees, to the road, and
that it' s fixed. And that the roof looks like it' s a fairly
massive undertaking, so we also want to make sure there is just
not a lot of traffic on that road, because it' s really a small
road. That' s all.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So we totally support neighbors and community
members getting together and talking about that road with your
client, and how any kind of proposed construction might be
handled. It may not be our purview but I'm glad this is a forum
in which you could express those concerns publicly and have
those conversations afterwards.
MS. RUMMEL: Absolutely. Could I just ask the Board to clarify
details for like a re-vegetation plan. We discussed having the
trees marked out on the plan and do you want just a general
planting area for the buffers? I know we noted on site that
there would be a buffer along the quote unquote swampy area, but
also to keep existing vegetation that is existing bayberry along
the beach, and to have minimal lawn in the rear yard. So beyond
that --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think we should talk about the planting
plan this evening, but I think being in the field together as a
Board again and reviewing the application with you there, you
know, and having a conversation at our work session, we started
to look at that pier line and we are thinking about how this
structure conformed or didn't.
So I know it's difficult because of the shape of these
lots.
Board of Trustees 28 July 16, 2025
MS. RUMMEL: Yes, we had a conversation with you at the
application meeting and because if we were to adhere to the pier
line we would have to clear a lot of, you know, existing large
caliper trees. So the Board at that time said that we could
replace the existing structure essentially in-place --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yeah
MS. RUMMEL: To avoid extensive clearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: At this point I'm wondering if it would make
sense, given the LWRP's comments, to shift the structure
landward, despite the trees, and then we can discuss the
planting plan. Because it is in that flood zone and as the
first speaker mentioned it' s the proximity to wetlands is not
called out on here, but it' s got to be 15 feet to the wetland
boundary on that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He said 21 but it's probably less.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: It's probably less, yes.
MS. RUMMEL: I agree.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Essentially the house is in sort of an upland
beach with its bayberries planted all around the structure.
That' s my concern here in, you know, echoing the speakers
here .this evening, is how, given how much space you have on the
property and the scale of the project that you wish to carry
out, is there a way to move the structure landward, to move it
out of the proximity to wetland boundary and give some buffer
zone between that structure and the beach.
MS. RUMMEL: But it would require moving a number of trees.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think, as one Trustee, I can see the wisdom
in replanting and replacing those trees and moving back from the
wetland boundary in this location. But other Board members feel
free to chime in.
MS. RUMMEL: We will not be able to replace that caliper that we
would be losing. So the ecological value would not be
equivalent.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would like to see a minimum, a pier line
added to the plan with the two adjacent structures, and then at
least a concept of where we could get away from the wetland.
Because it is a tricky lot here. There's already a pretty large
home. I think initially there was not as much anticipation of as
much expansion as there is with this project, given the
sensitivity of the area. And I would at least like to see a
concept of pulling the structure back, trying to get it away
from the wetlands. And obviously minimizing mature tree loss.
Now, there is going to be some regardless, but I would like
to see that, just to see the other options here, because it's a
really special place, as all the folks who live in this
neighborhood. I mean, it' s a beautiful neighbor. I'm even
thinking that, and again, this is something to discuss, because
we are not going to want to see trees cut down for construction,
or at least minimize that as much as possible. So where are
people going to park, too, during that phase, within
Board of Trustees 29 July 16, 2025
jurisdiction. That's something to really consider also. The
construction workers, you know, and Riverhead Building trailers
and stuff.
So I think I would at least like to see another proposal
and then I, for one, would be happy to work to try to find the
most environmentally sensitive option there. Whether that be
moving it one way or another or, you know, maybe minimizing the
footprint and leaving it be. I'm not sure what the answer is,
because it is so tricky, with both the dunal habitat within
jurisdiction, as well as the freshwater wetland:
MS. RUMMEL: Yes, because we are proposing, I mean, the, I guess
the eastern section is proposed to meet seaward of the beach
boundary of the house. But otherwise, you know, we are staying
essentially and staying within the same footprint.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a pretty big expansion, though. It's a
pretty large expansion.
You can step up if you want to speak.
But, no, that is a relatively large expansion for down a
small dirt road on a dune and a freshwater wetland. It's not
nothing, certainly.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And in this area, as you mentioned, is
unique. This is quintessential historical Southold with a beach
community in a wooded area. I know we haven't touched on it, but
you have a nice cleared-out area where a tennis court sits that
you would not have to clear out any trees to, put a fairly
large-sized house right there. Obviously as we are going forward
we want to see structures moved as far back from the wetlands as
possible. But at the same time without cutting down as many
trees as possible. So you've got a nice, flat, cleared area
already on this property that may be suitable.
MS. RUMMEL: So, I guess to explore other options with just a
site plan be acceptable or are you looking for similar scope of
plans side elevations.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think that a site plan is a good place to
start. Obviously you have put an incredible amount of work and
study into this project. You know, when we met onsite, I noticed
in reviewing the plans at work session that there were
references to comments or discussions that had happened during
the pre-submission, and while that is relevant for the
conversation, it is not necessarily a final determination. So
having those notes I think is a little bit confusing on the site
plan.
But I think that in addition to the site plan, while it
doesn't necessarily need to be a fully realized project concept,
I do think that if there is any sort of, you know, retaining
walls that are being proposed, which it doesn't seem like this
property requires that, or anything that might have any
indication of the terrain or, I think that would be important
for this Board to see. And, you know, Trustee Gillooly mentioned
earlier about the flood activity and events that are taking
Board of Trustees 30 July 16, 2025
place all over the country, including most recently New Jersey.
So, that, with the LWRP comments, the low-lying flood zone area,
I do think that that is something that needs to be taken into
very careful consideration. And we also noticed on the property
that, you know, because there has not been a lot of, it seems
uninhabited at this point, so even noticing some of the wetlands
species that have crept within the fence that is existing there.
So that just indicates to me that all of those areas are active
related to the wetland. So moving the structure back as far as
landward as possible of both that swamp area and unconsolidated
soils would have a lot of benefit.
MS. RUMMEL: Okay.
MR. SONNENBORN: I'm Don Sonnenborn, I live next door. I'm at
690 Old Wood Path.
I thought the plan was .really quite nice. I thought it was
simply replacing the existing or Scher (sic) house with a house
that it was approximately the same size. I venture to say, and
the architect could confirm that, that I think it's really the
same size as the Scher house except it's much nicer configured,
it doesn't have mechanical equipment in front of the front door.
It' s not gerrymandered. The Scher house had a playroom that was
sort of grafted on to it, that sort of wandered down the beach.
I thought that this was a much nicer configuration. I
don't know how you move the house back, with the garage where it
is, which John Bertani built. It's a nice structure and I guess
they are retaining it. I thought keeping the house where it is
worked with the garage. If you have to move it back, I think it
has to go back fairly substantially, in order to keep the garage
and make it work. Which is possible. I think from my own
perspective. I think I would rather have the house where it is,
and not next to me. If you move it back to the tennis court, -
which is, you know, becoming disrepaired over the years, then I
have more of a bulking structure adjacent to me. I know that' s
not your interest but I don't, you know, I'm not offended by the
house. I don't know, I have never had water in my house. You
know, I've been here since 2002.
In any event, I like the plan, I think it was well done,
and I guess all I 'm saying is that I personally would just as
soon see the house -- not see the house -- where I cannot see
it now, than have it sort of moved to immediately adjacent to
me.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much.
MS. SONNENBORN: Hi, I'm Vivian Sonnenborn. And I would just like
to add that in addition to the house itself, I think that
disrupting the trees that would have to be taken down to move
this house back, as you mentioned, would be a real blemish on
the nature of our neighborhood, which is woods, really, with
houses that happen to be in there. And I think that while we are
close to the wetlands, no question about that, we are respectful
Board of Trustees 31 July 16, 2025
of them. I think the intention here was to be respectful of the
wetlands, and so I would speak in that regard about the
placement of the house where it is, and what I would consider
significant disruption to the woods and to the wetlands if you
change the configuration of the way it is now. So.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Just as a point with respect to the comments
this evening.
The Board is obligated under New York state law to consider
the LWRP comments, which is why I read them into the record this
evening. And those comments speak directly to the location of
house in proximity to wave energy, flood hazards and the setback
from the wetland area.
So, I think we are here partly because the Board reviewed
the application in the field and at work session, and had some
concerns about its location and proximity to those things, but
also having to in some way speak to the LWRP with whatever
modifications we can find through a redesign of the project.
MS. RUMMEL: Okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So, I take your point, you don't want to lose
the trees, you don't want the house next to you, the a hulking
mass of a house next to you, and neither do we, so we are trying
to find a location that is just a bit back.
TRUSTEE KkUPSKI: And certainly we didn't really get to touch on
this because we were talking about pier line and at least seeing
that on the plans and working with where we are at, and seeing
what kind of trees would have to be removed to move this back,
which I think is a good discussion to have and have some
callouts on some trees that are there.
But I just want to speak to the permit that is in front of
us also. I certainly would not consider a pool that close to the
dunal area.
MS. RUMMEL: Right.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Agreed.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I also think it's worth mentions that the
reason we are getting to this point is because we are looking at
a full demolition under Town Code, so the idea of pulling the
structure back at a time when this much investment is going into
the property and you are demolishing what is currently there,
this is the appropriate time to make those considerations.
And the client does always have the options to do
modifications to the current structure that is there, without
triggering a demolition.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Ms. Rummel, do you have any questions?
MS. RUMMEL: I don't think so.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So we are looking for a pier line, consider
the LWRP' s comments in your review of it. I think the Board is
looking for a site plan and some callouts for trees. And there
was one comment in the work session about a wood walkway?
Board of Trustees 32 July 16, 2025
MS. RUMMEL: Yes, we discussed that onsite.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay. So I think it's unnecessary.
MS. RUMMEL: Right. But some sort of permeable path would be
acceptable up until the natural sand.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sand does make for a good permeable path.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: It does, yes.
Are there any other comments from the public or Members of the
Board?
(Negative response) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: What would you like --
MS. RUMMEL: We would like to table this.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to table at the applicant' s
request.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MS. RUMMEL: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 13, En-Consultants on behalf of CHRIS &
ANNA TRIANTAFILLOU requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
two-story, single-family dwelling with attached decks, swimming
pool, pool enclosure fencing with gates, a pool drywell, a pool
equipment area, a stormwater drainage system, and an I/A
sanitary system; clear the property up to 50 feet from top of
bluff; and establish and perpetually maintain a 50 foot-wide
Non-Disturbance Buffer area along the landward edge- of the top
of the bluff with a 4-foot-wide access path through the buffer.
Located: 75 Pettys Drive, Orient. SCTM# 1000-14-2-4.
The Trustees visited the site on the 9th of July, noting
the following: Project has appropriate setbacks; discuss keeping
trees of significant caliper, hardwoods, between non-disturbance
buffer and 100-foot setback from top of bluff; how might the
project delineate the start of non-disturbance buffer.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent. Is there anyone here wishing to speak?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. I do just
want to give Eric a second.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Sure.
(After a brief pause, this application proceeds as follows) .
MR. HERRMANN: So, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicants. There were three issues which Liz just
summarized, that we discussed during the field inspection, and I
wanted to suggest a solution to each for how we might address
all three, and then if that was suitable to the Trustees and the
Board was inclined to issue the approval we can then submit a
revised plan accordingly.
One of the issues with the trees, obviously we didn't have
time between the field inspection and today to locate trees, but
I think the idea was that if there were any significant hardwood
Board of Trustees 33 July 16, 2025
trees between the 50 and 100-foot bluff setbacks where there
would be clearing, either that they would be retained, or if
they could not be retained, whatever limited number of such
trees that were removed would be replaced one-to-one.
There was a discussion about how to delineate, or a means
of delineating the limit of the 50-foot non-disturbance buffer,
and I wanted to propose establishing like a five-foot wide
vegetated non-turf buffer right along that 50-foot limit that
would basically become a maintained landscape area between the
lawn and the non-disturbance buffer, that would be maintained as
opposed to having an accidental over-mow and those kind of
things into the 50-foot non disturbance buffer.
And there was also a question about the elevation of the
deck. That deck, we, unfortunately the architect had a death in
the family and they were not able to provide updated elevations,
but as I think I had mentioned during field inspection,
originally that was going to be a grade-level patio, but just
trying to sort of incorporate the pool and deck into the house,
it was replaced with a deck.
So that is not going to be a highly elevated pool or deck.
The engineer thinks it may be pretty close to actual flush
with grade level, but we would safely say that it would not be
higher than say 12 inches, 12 to 18 inches, whatever the Board
would be comfortable with before we cross that threshold into
having to worry about screening and plantings and all of that.
Because the idea would be to basically just walk out of the
first-floor elevation in the back of the house and onto the
deck.
And in the front, on the road side, is a big drop there
because of the hill down to the road. But behind the house it
would be relatively level. So that would not be a highly
elevated deck. I mean we can still, obviously, if you want to
issue the permit with a condition stipulating that, we could
give you, along with the updated site plan, some sort of updated
elevation that would demonstrate that, and then you would have
that for your file.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
MR. HERRMANN: So those would be the three revisions,
essentially, that we would give you to address each of those
three comments.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Rob, if you look at that image on the screen
there, is that property line accurate? Is there in fact another
lot directly adjacent on the left or is that just an error in
the overlay?
MR. HERRMANN: No, I think that' s actually right. If you look at
the survey, Eric, when you get to the end of where Grandview
Drive sort of "T' s" into Petty Drive, there is a parcel
referenced as "playgrounds. "
Board of Trustees 34 July 16, 2025
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Playgrounds.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. I mean, there is no playground there.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: No, it's briars and locust.
MR. HERRMANN: But that probably had something to do, I'm just
guessing off the cuff, with the original subdivision of Petty's
Bight that allowed access down to the beach in that location. So
I don't think it's a building lot.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think, I mean, because we're talking a new
project and we had talked in the field about saving some trees,
being uncleared, what's really there, I mean we saw a lot of
locust and Norway maple, and who knows what condition. I think
it makes sense just to talk about planting a few native '
hardwoods to go along with the vegetation.
MR. HERRMANN: Yeah, I think you had mentioned that. Either
independently of or in addition to what I already said, that
basically there would be a few native hardwoods that would be,.
what would be the word, proactively or voluntarily planted
within that 50 to 100-foot area regardless.
And I did -- I'm sorry, I should have mentioned that. I
did relay that to the client. They had no problem with that at
all.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have a number you discussed with your
client?
MR. HERRMANN: You had said a few. So I said three. But that
would be in addition to any that had to be replaced one-to-one.
So basically I was thinking what you were getting at was
one-to-one replacement, plus a few. So if there' s none that are
removed, you are still adding say three trees. And if there' s
three that are, you know, of significance being removed, then
you would end up with six. So it would be a one-to-one
replacement plus three, regardless of the above.
It sounds more complicated than it is. It's just showing
some additional, you know, sort of mitigative planting,
regardless of the number of trees that would be removed and
replanted.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Absolutely. And as we look at the earth
images here, the overhead images, we do see some neighbors that
have kept trees and some neighbors that have not kept trees, and
we're hoping that this will be a project where it remains with
some tree coverage.
MR. HERRMANN: No, that' s fine, and they understood that, and we
are agreeable to it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Even outside our jurisdiction.
MR. HERRMANN: Well, right. But I'm just trying to focus on what
you can control in your permit.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak or
any further questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
Board of Trustees 35 July 16, 2025
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application
subject to new plans depicting significant hardwoods to be
retained or replaced one-to-one between the home and the
non-disturbance buffer, as well as proactively planting a
minimum of three native hardwoods, with a minimum of three-inch
caliper, as well as establishing a five-foot vegetated non-turf
buffer between the lawn and non-disturbance buffer. And with the
condition that retaining walls shall not exceed 12 inches
anywhere on the property, including around the pool. That is my
motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 14, En-Consultants on behalf of 8100
INDIAN NECK, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for the existing ±118
linear foot long' concrete seawall with a ±15 linear foot long
concrete seawall return, and to extend the return landward by
installing a ±10 linear foot long vinyl bulkhead return (inside
east property line) , faced with 1, 000 pound to 1.5 ton stone toe
armor (located partially on Town land) ; and backfill eroded,
naturally vegetated embankment landward of the extended return
with up to five (5) cubic yards of clean sandy fill trucked in
from an approved upland source, to be planted with native
vegetation.
Located: 8100 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-7-9
The Trustees most recently visited the site on July 9th,
2025. Trustee Peeples noted consult legal counsel in Town
Attorney's office for a letter due to the revetment proposed
slightly on the Town beach.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicant.
This is the property the Board has looked at a couple of
times, adjacent to the end of Indian Neck Road where there's
been extensive erosion, there' s Town drainpipes that are
exposed. And the applicant is proposing a landward extension of
the existing seawall return, with a vinyl bulkhead return, and
placement of stone toe armor at the seaward face of the return.
One issue that had been raised was that because some of the
stone would be placed physically on the Town's property, and not
underwater lands, which the Trustees have full control over, or
full regulation of, that we would need a boundary line agreement
with the Town. We did have a boundary line agreement drafted, I
submitted that to the Town Attorney, who responded that I could
Board of Trustees 36 July 16, 2025
present it to you this evening, so that you would know that it
was being handled, but that a Town Board resolution would then
be required to, in order to authorize the Supervisor to sign it,
which all seemed logical to me because it kind of solves the
chicken and egg problem. This way we're giving this to you, you
know we are taking of it, but when the Supervisor goes to sign
it, if you have issued a permit conditioned upon the dual
execution of this, that the Town Board knows that the Trustees
are in favor of the project.
So, with that, and pending Ms. Hulse's nod of approval,
I'll hand up the boundary line agreement. (Handing) .
MS. HULSE: (Perusing) .
MR. HERRMANN: And obviously I've also reviewed that with the
property owner who is willing to, of course, sign it and enter
that agreement with the Town.
MS. HULSE: The issue is typically when you apply you have to
have the agreement of all parties because other owners are
involved.
The issue here is that if we do give approval and then the
Town Board doesn't decide to grant that approval then you have
not met a condition and the permission will, you know, be
revoked, essentially.
MR. HERRMANN: Which we -- we understand that. The idea that I
was thinking, that basically this Board' s approval would be
contingent upon that happening. If that doesn't happen; then
there is no permit.
MS. HULSE: Which this Board doesn't typically do. We wouldn't
give a permit and make it contingent upon something that had to
happen as a requirement essentially to even get before this
Board, which. someone was talking to me about the other day.
However have you, just so that we can sort of come to an
agreement on this without too much problem with undo haste, is
have you gotten any indication from the Town Attorney or the
Town Board that would be receptive to this?
MR. HERRMANN: Just from the Town -- so Ben Johnson requested
this of us, asked me to submit it. I submitted it to him, he
e-mailed me back today and said you can present this to the
Board tonight, but the Supervisor will still have to sign it.
MS. HULSE: The Town Attorney, did you mean Paul DeChance you
- spoke to or did you speak to one of the other --
MR. HERRMANN: Um, Ben Johnson. Is he Assistant Town Attorney,
or --
MS. HULSE: The reason why I'm making that distinction is because
Paul, I'm assuming has had conversation with the Town Board
about it. I'm not sure -- Ben is just giving you the go green
light and let' s hope to get this resolved with the Town Board,
after the fact, having no idea what the Town Board's inclination
is. So that's a little bit of a -- that's what I was hoping you
wouldn't say.
MR. HERRMANN: Oh, well, I mean, and you can correct me if I'm
Board of Trustees 37 July 16, 2025
wrong. But for us there is 'a little bit of a chicken and egg.
So for the Town Board to authorize this, they have to know
that the Trustees are willing to approve it.
MS. HULSE: They could authorize it and then the Trustees could
do whatever they want. There is no real problem with them saying
that you could do this, go ahead and get the approval for it
from the Trustees.
So, I don't see it that way, and I told the Board that, and
I know they want to move forward with this, so they are just,
you know, starting to crumple up paper and throw it at me right
now.
So what I want to just -- we can do it, but I just want to
put out there this is not the typical way to proceed --
MR. HERRMANN: No, I understand.
MS. HULSE: (Continuing) to issue a permit predicated upon
something that has to happen by one of the, you know, potential
owners.
MR. HERRMANN: No, I understand. It's the first time, I mean,
however long I've been doing this, 30 years, I 've even had a
boundary line involved with a permit. So for me there is no
typical.
(Participants laughing) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think with the chicken and the egg issue, not
to belabor this topic, but I don't know that I'd be looking for
a resolution from the Town Board prior to this, but at least an
indication from the head Town Attorney. Because the Trustees
would not want the Town Board to move on this without our
approval. However, we would like an indication that it's
something they would consider.
MR. HERRMANN: From --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The head Town Attorney, ideally, who has talked
with the Board. So, next time.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: With all that said, there is an understandable
need for this project, moving back to the project part of it,
and it does, there is significant erosion on the Town Beach
portion that we are referring to with the legal conversation
here.
So, with all that said, I make a motion -- excuse me, is
there anyone else here who wishes to speak?
(No response) .
Or any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve the application with
the condition that it's subject to a letter from the Town
Attorney's office to be submitted and included in the file
expressing the approval from the Town Board for installing the
Board of Trustees 38 July 16, 2025
toe armor that encroaches slightly onto the Town property.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 15, AS PER REVISED PLANS AND PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 6/26/2025 Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of SOTO
J. & D.E. FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove the
existing fixed dock and in a new location construct a 4 ' wide by
59' long fixed dock consisting of 4' wide landward steps to the
fixed dock with seaward steps down to a 4' wide by 20' long
fixed "T" section; the entire dock shall have Thru-Flow decking.
Located: 190 Fishermans Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#
1000-111-1-9
The Trustees most recently conducted an in-house review of
the plans, noting that the dock was moved to the center of the
property.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant.
As mentioned, we revised the plan based on the comments
addressed in the public hearing last month. We modified the
plans to move the proposed dock to the center of the property,
separating it from the oddly-configured dock as it currently
sits. And pier line has been maintained, and through-flow
decking on the entire dock.
So, any other questions, I'm happy to answer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So one note I forgot to mention, we discussed
during work session, was obviously this is a constrained lot,
being 37 1/2 feet wide. So you are going from what was a 15-foot
pier at the end to now a 20-foot pier. So we'd look to reduce
that back to 15 feet, to give a little more distance between the
"T" and the properties on either side.
MR. PATANJO: Would the Board be okay with 18 feet, scale it back
two feet, and tell me what side you would like to scale it back
on, to get a little added --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's pretty tight there, so.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because there is also a note on your plans
here that the dock is to be utilized for non-motorized access
only. So at 15-foot "T" at the end, which is what was there
originally, would be more than sufficient for any non-motorized
access.
MR. PATANJO: All right, I'll modify the plans to 15 feet.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, is there anyone else here wishing to
speak regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: One other note, obviously this property is
basically a non-turf buffer as is, for the entirety, so we would
like to see it as a non-turf buffer for the entirety of that
Board of Trustees 39 July 16, 2025
property.
MR. PATANJO: Does a covenant need to be filed? And, if so, we
would have to indicate what portion of the property would be
.non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think we were talking about the entirety of
-- everything- within_ Trustee jurisdiction. So that's
37-and-a-half feet plus 70 plus or minus feet.
MR. PATANJO: All right, so the entirety of the property would be
maintained as a non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, sir.
MR. PATANJO: No problem. I'm sure that -- you can't build here,
there's nothing you can do here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
MR. PATANJO: That would be part of the permit conditions that it
would be part of the permit conditions it would be a non-turf
buffer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yup.
Are there any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Anyone else wish to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
I make a motion to approve this application with the condition
that the 20-foot "T" section be reduced to a 15-foot "T"
section, as well as entirety of the property be a non-turf
buffer, and subject to new plans. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 16, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of BLUE
MARLIN REALTY, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace existing timber bulkhead with new 100' long vinyl
bulkhead in same location as existing; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 450 Blue Marlin Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-57-1-26.
The LWRP coordinator noted to require large vegetated
buffer to reduce turf at the location.
The Trustees visited the site on the 9th of July, and noted
that should increase the buffer to match the neighbors.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. I did the
neighboring property. I thought it was ten feet, but if you want
me to increase the buffer to 15-feet, I'll give you modified
plans to increase the buffer to 15-feet.
Board of Trustees 40 July 16, 2025
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application, or any comments from
the Board?
(No 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 to approve this application
with the submission of new plans, noting a 15-foot, non-turf
buffer to match the neighboring property.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 17, Islandwide Engineering & Land
Surveying on behalf of NUNNAKOMA WATERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
Requests a Wetland Permit to remove RCA aggregate and top layers
of a stone retaining wall, backfill area seaward of retaining
wall with clean fill to match to toe and slopes adjacent,
vegetate slopes cover with one layer of jute and plant American
beach grass 18" on-center, place soil over RCA removal and seed
with native grass; install three sections of coir log with Cape
American Beach Grass plantings or equal, measuring 40 linear
feet each one; the existing roadway is proposed to be expanded
with approximately 130 cubic yards of material to be removed and
replaced with permeable bluestone, and install a . 16' wide road
with a ±55' radius turn-around; the installation of a 209 linear
foot long berm planted with native grass along the bluestone
roadway; an 8 ' diameter by 4' effective depth leaching drainage
system is proposed; the 1,500sq.ft. Area containing sand
accumulation from the storm pile-up will be removed and used
onsite to restore the eroded bank; the removal of ±450 cubic
yards of dredge spoil from a ±9, OOOsq.ft. Area is to be
deposited in a designated area of ±11, 000 sq.ft. Surrounded by a
continuous silt fence with silt fencing and staked hay bales
until dewatered, stabilized and left to replenish beach.
Located: 645 Wampum Way, 255 Wigwam Way & 175 Wigwam Way,
Southold: SCTM#' s 1000-87-2-42.3, 1000-87-2L40. 1 &
1000-87-2-40.2
The Trustees visited the site on 7/14/25 and 7/9/25 and
reviewed the application at our work session. Area seems to be
well vegetated, coir logs don't seem necessary, prefers to be
wide and move it further west. No dredge spoil on marsh.
The LWRP said the project was inconsistent. Citing Policy
Six, noting that the level of erosion seems low. The proposal to
place dredge spoil on the area shown due to erosion should be
further evaluated. Risk of damage to the existing natural
functioning low marsh and Spartina, which provides many
functions and benefits to the water body may occur.
Jeff Patanjo, we welcome your comments, as well as members of
Board of Trustees 41 July 16, 2025
the public.
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of Islandwide Engineering,
on behalf of the client.
We were presented with this project from, goes back a
little bit to Mike Kimack. Unfortunately he started the
application for this, I believe you guys had a hearing with him
that was tabled under this matter. So we took over the project
from Mike. We presented the project, we made a couple amendments
and modifications based on what the DEC had recommended, such as
the berm along the top of the bank here. We added that in. We
added in some additional drainage. The original project
included having the drainage swale run off and it runs out into
the water body. We modified that project to stop any run off and
include a leaching pool, so nothing runs off out into the water
body here.
So there's many topics to talk about here. This is a
pretty diverse application. The most simplistic one is going to
be the treatment of the shoreline erosion where the coir logs
are proposed to be. Originally we had a three-tiered coir log
stabilization method. The DEC did not, they had an issue with
that, so we scaled that back to one row of coir logs along the
toe where the erosion is. It' s in sporadic places where there is
specific erosion. The entire bank is well-vegetated, I agree
with that. There are specific areas that the homeowner, they are
trying to protect specifically. Sporadic places. There' s a
40-foot place, another 15-foot place and a 19-foot place. So
there's three small, little areas that we are trying to protect
to stop future erosion. Those are going to be natural coir logs
and some plantings. No major disruption, just really to maintain
the area.
As far as the roadway goes, the original proposal, I
believe, had it all pitched to the water body. We had modified
that. We have it as a more level, flat, roadway with the bermed
area, with the vegetated berm along the water body that runs all
the way down to the south, stops any possible runoff from that,
which was not part of the original application. So anything
that runs off of that, which again is a gravel driveway, is all
going to get held up by a vegetated berm. Fully vegetated. Which
is the best buffer you could possibly have. In addition to
collecting any runoff possibility because we are adding in that
additional drain. Everything leaches into the ground here.
That's the entire intent.
With regard to the dredging, the proposed spoil area, we do
have quite a bit of dredging here. What do we have here, 450
cubic yards. That was, there' s really no other place on the
property to place this dredging. DEC didn't have any issues with
the placement of this dredging. It is going to be protected by a
silt fence and none of the leachate goes back into the water
body. And it will come here and stay here. It will be spread out
and, ultimately, as typical for a lot of these dredging
Board of Trustees 42 July 16, 2025
operations, it naturally revegetates.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I just want to, going backwards and to your
points, the cross-section on a typical coir logs, I see two
rows. You did speak to removing two rows of those and having
just one row.
MR. PATANJO: Okay
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: You have one row of one rather than two rows
of two.
MR. PATANJO: Yes, so since this application was made, the DEC
had asked us to make revised plans. So now we currently have
one row. So it's simply a one row along the base, just for
stabilization. And it's staked in with the 2x2 oak stakes.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay. We in the field we, like you said, we
would visit Mike Kimack in the field there. We'd love to see you
in the field. It would be splendid.
MR. PATANJO: It's tough.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I know.
MR. PATANJO: You guys go from here to here to here to here to
here. It's a full entire date.
MR. SEPENOSKI: But it was a beautiful day and we would have
liked to share it with you in the field.
So we noticed a lot of vegetation taken root there. And it
was a much healthier embankment than our first visit when we had
Michael Kimack out in the field.
Certainly the area on the lower section of the plans was
the most eroded. I think that' s where they have some sort of
like cobbled together revetment there. Cobbles. That' s one
location where I saw the most erosion. So that's speaking to our
points about is the coir log necessary, perhaps, in that area,
but not necessarily in the other two, which seem to be really
thriving in terms of the Spartina alterniflora and the patens
that are re-establishing themselves in those spots.
Our other question really was about the dredge location.
It's difficult to tell from the plans whether the dredged
deposit was sort of on the marsh or on the beach.
Can you clarify that DEC did approve the location of this?
Do you have something in writing about that?
MR. PATANJO: Not yet. We do not have a DEC permit yet. We had
comments from them. Never once did they mention any issues with
the disbursement area for the dredge spoils.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Based on your study of the location and your
plans, is that dredge spoil anywhere in the marsh or is it
located somewhere else on this piece of property?
MR. PATANJO: No, that's' outside that area.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Outside the marsh area.
MR. PATANJO: Yes. And again, you can condition a permit that it
will not be deposited within the marsh area.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And our third, I think it's good to dredge,
get the navigability back in that area as /WREL as the, as long
as the location is off the marsh, I think the Board would take
Board of Trustees 43 July 16, 2025
the DEC' s study of the soil sediments, and the location would be
appropriate for us.
MR. PATANJO: Yes, so, you know, one of the things to also
mention here is if the Trustees do not like the idea, and we
don't like the idea either, to destroy marsh, you wanted to
predicate the permit based on we would distribute all of the
dredge spoils within the area on the beach, at no time will we
be disruptive to the marsh. Any excess spoils will be
distributed out, you know, taken offsite.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Do you know what the composition of the
dredge spoils --
MR. PATANJO: I do not know that. DEC, you know, their
regulations and protocols have changed over time. They had never
previously asked for dredge sediments samplings. Now every
single dredge project that we are doing, they are asking for a
dredge report and sampling, on every single project. So I don't
have that information.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because it usually is typical with the DEC,
depending on that soil sample, where they'll let you dispose of
it.
MR. PATANJO: Exactly.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So if they are okay with it, I would
necessarily be okay with it. You know, otherwise I'll want to an
approved upland location.
MR. PATANJO: Mike Kimack may have done that prior to us taking
over the project. So most likely it was approved by the DEC
based on samples. If they did them. If they were required.
You know, in the most recent years, they have been asking
for every job that we do for dredging, give me a dredge plan and
give me soil samples. Testing. Every one.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The berm is already, a berm in that, along
that driveway, it' s gentle, but it's there. And I think the
Board would be comfortable, based on our conversation out in the
field, the Board would be comfortable with accentuating that
berm, but only landward of its current location. We would not
want to see a berm grow, you know, into the marsh area.
MR. PATANJO: So I respect that. I understand that. So the
proposed plan for the berm is to build it up from, if you take
the existing bank and you continue .that bank up and create a
berm. That berm is also going to be planted with Cape American
beach grass, which is what we typically do on bluffs. So that's
going to take over and stabilize the berm, and also add some
sort, the vegetated buffer as well.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think what we are speaking to is that when
you go to enhance the berm, which is slightly --
MR. PATANJO: Slightly. Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: (Continuing) but not just to dump material on
top and let it go on both sides. Where the current seaward edge
is, should be where the new berm starts, and then if it goes up
or extends in width, it should be up and back. Not in both
Board of Trustees 44 July 16, 2025
directions.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: To the west.
MR. PATANJO: Absolutely. To the west. Yes, that's how we show it
on our cross-section AA. That' s exactly how we show it. I won't
be able to see it from there. But you might.
So you come up to the berm right where the top of the bluff
is, then we come up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
MR. PATANJO: Yes. Absolutely. There' s no encroachment onto the
existing bank. The encroachment of the berm is on the level
ground area.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay. And then finally the road, I think our
comment was that the road expanded would go west. West would be
further landward from the berm.
MR. PATANJO: So they do use that for like bicycle parking, car
parking. It's there, it' s gravel. The difference between gravel
-- runoff coefficients between grass and gravel there, they are
similar 0.03 runoff coefficient. So you're getting the same
leaching ability from grass as you are for grave. And by way of
creating this berm, vegetated berm along there, in engineering
opinions, it' s not necessarily, there' s no difference in runoff.
We are really replacing what' s there. We are actually making it
better than what is there, with pervious gravel
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Improving it.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Improving it. Yes.
I see there are other numbers of the public would like
to speak.
MS. SPIRAKIS: Hi. Beth Spirakis. I'm just a resident at
Nunnakoma Waters and right before Jeff had come onboard with
Mike Kimack, there was a sampling that was done of the material
to be dredged that was submitted to the DEC, and they have that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Do you happen to know what the result was or
just that you know it's on file?
MS. SPIRAKIS: Pardon me?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Do you have any recollection of what the
dredge spoil consisted of or was it just that they have a
sample?
MS. SPIRAKIS: There were several, they asked for, I think, three
different places where they took the soil sampling of the areas
that were to be dredged, and I believe that was sent over to
them, to the members of the DEC, and I believe like everything
was within the limits of what they approved, and they have it
for issuing the permit. So, and that was done, um, I believe
it' s been like a year ago. That was all done.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you.
MR. PATANJO: Yes, thank you, Beth. So based on that, as
mentioned prior, the DEC has their specific protocols for what
Board of Trustees 45 July 16, 2025
the material composition is and where you can place it, and
obviously if that was, that was obviously done, as mentioned
before, which is great confirmation that it was done, and in the
most recent, you know, notices that we received from them, there
was no negative comments regarding the dredge spoils and their
placement where we have proposed to place them.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes?
MR. NARDONE: Hello, my name is Mark Nardone, I'm a resident of
Laughing Waters, adjacent property of Nunnakoma. I have a couple
of concerns. My concerns, like yours, have to do with the
spoils. When we go out and look at that area out there, as far
as placing the spoils on what is a fairly narrow piece of beach,
and the rest of it is marsh, okay, is very concerning to me.
That is an area that does, if again, if it's in the lower
corner, it was hard to see on the sample, and when I kayaked out
there today I didn't see any stakes where they are actually
going to put the materials.
So guessing where, based upon what we saw on the site plan,
it's very narrow. Okay. And what I would be concerned about was
any type of wave action coming from the bay, overreaching the
embankment, and flushing that stuff right into the, and flushing
it into the marsh area. Regardless of where it' s placed.
As you can see, we have, in Laughing Waters, we see a lot
of wave action that overflows our outside beaches, which is
adjacent to that beach. Okay, where the water comes up now so
much that it just floods right over the top of it.
So I would be very, very concerned about that placement of
the dredge spoils. That is my number one concern.
Another concern I have is about the volume of dredging.
Okay? I mean, you're talking about 450 cubic yards, which
according to the calculations is 45 dump trucks. Okay? Of
spoils. That's a lot of spoils, okay? Again, depending on the
size of the dump truck, I want to qualify it. What I'm concerned
about is how it's going to affect the tidal flow in the creek.
The creek is a relatively small area. I mean, the cove, is a
relatively small area. When you start removing that, okay, that
type of material, obviously the water is going to be deeper,
okay, in the places where they are going to dredge. And you are
taking out, you'll have increased water volumes because you
don't have any, you know, you don't have the material on the
bottom anymore and you are going to get increased flows.
So as a participant in the creek, that is going to start
flushing more quicker. So I do have, it's going to flush easier
because of the fact that there is no resistance on the bottom.
Or less resistance on the bottom. So that is a concern, as well
as everybody knows it's fairly tight back there, okay, as far as
bringing in a clamshell dredge. When the county comes in to use
their pump dredge they actually have to refuel, okay, actually
use a boat to bring the fuel back out to the Department of
Public Works dredge, because it is so shallow going through
Board of Trustees 46 July 16, 2025
there.
Now, again, dredging is going to ease some of that, but
when you bring a clamshell dredge in, I'm concerned about the
damage that it can possibly do to the actual, you know, actual
creek itself or to the cove.
And lat, I really concerned about the amount of, you know,
it is a very vibrant, vibrant wildlife area. I mean, you see
Ospreys grabbing fish all the time. I mean, this is really an
active cove. So I'm really concerned about the negative impact
that an accident of having the spoils flush back into it would
cause. Obviously that would have big issues.
So those are my concerns about that. And again, I would
also like the Board, when they consider projects like this, to
look at, maybe we can get a little more sophisticated with the
tidal analysis that we are doing, as far as to see the different
volume we actually have coming forward.
And the last thing I want to say is when we are talking
about the sediment, can we see the sediment results, okay,
because I know, having been in that area, when we dredged, okay,
a similar type of area, when you dredge that, there is a lot of
clay. And that area has to not been dredged, I don't know in how
long, okay, but you're going to find a lot. So I would like to
know that the Board looks at the sediment analysis that does
come up to make sure when you make a decision about the actual
spoils and where the destination of the spoils is, that you
actually have, have actually seen the actual documentation.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So to comment on that, we don't look at the
dredge spoil. That is done by the DEC in their labs, and they
are looking at certain metals and material and TOC and different
things like that, which this Town is not capable of having labs
to analyze what material is or is not in said dredge spoil. So
all of that is deferred to the DEC. Such as is the proper dredge
window when you are allowed to do that. As also with wildlife
monitoring, whether it' s Piping Plover, whether it's Red Knot,
whether it' s whatever it is. All that is looked at by multiple
state and federal agencies that all come together for a dredge.
project.
So it' s not just the Town, there's multiple agencies
looking at that, that have a lot more capability than we do, to
be honest with you. And if the DEC looked at that material and
said it' s okay, which I've heard both, we have seen ones where
it's not okay, where it has to be removed to an approved upland
location. There's multiple times, even with say the county
dredge they are just pumping sand right back on the beach, as
opposed to silt or whatever, where you are allowed to put it on
your property, as long as it' s contained and dewatered and
spread on your property, which seems like is the case with this.
I appreciate your concerns as far as the flushing back into
the marsh, you flow, in a storm event or hurricane or something
like that, you know, kind of all bets are off.
Board of Trustees 47 July 16, 2025
I 've actually recently saw a photo of your beach during
Hurricane Sandy when that whole point was underwater. So, I
mean, on a case like that there is really nothing we can do or
where you can place the spoils that is not going to get affected
by a storm. But you can rest assured that that has been looked
at by other agencies, and if they are okay with it, you know, I
don't see why we would not be.
MR. NARDONE: How do we get confirmation that that agency has --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: A DEC permit. If they get a dredge permit
that there is all the boxes you have to check off in order to
get said permit, with a ten-year maintenance, and one of them is
soil samples. And so, with getting a DEC permit, meant all
those other conditions were adhered to.
MR. NARDONE: Right now there is no permit, there is no DEC
permit for that property right now, okay, they submitted it in
121. I know Mike Kimack too. He' s a friend of mine also. He
submitted it in 2021, so there is no DEC permit right now for
dredging, okay, and again, I'm more concerned about the
placement of the dredging, of .that, and then we have, you know,
that is has been as far as there are options. You can obviously,
you can move it upland, you can move it offsite. So, you know,
we can consider those options as far as moving it actually off
the property so in case you have an overflow situation, you
don't have to deal with it. It's not here. So that would be,
you know, that should be a consideration in moving some of it
off site.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Liz, would you go back in the timeline just
one to 2019. Because Google Earth happened to catch the last
dredging operation live. You can see. It' s a rare opportunity.
MS. CANTRELL: (Complying) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Well, not as clear on yours. Maybe it will
load.
There you go. You can see that' s the dredge boat, and if
you scroll to the west, you can see where the spoils are being
put on, the beach there. Just an interesting point of reference
MR. NARDONE: Right. So, my knowledge of that is that Suffolk
County Department of Public Works, that dredge permit requires
that they put it 500 by New York state, right, and that's where
they choose to put it, which is kind of an interesting choice,
but that is the sand and that is primarily sand from the actual
Laughing Waters beach, okay, that is in that channel. So that's
typically, it's very good sand.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Are there any other comments from the public?
Members of the Board, questions for Jeff?
MR. PATANJO: The only thing I would like to add is that, you
know, this dredge spoil deposition area is indicated on the
plans, it' s outside of the marsh area, and this area to
broadcast all these dredge spoils, it' s only one foot thick over
Board of Trustees 48 July 16, 2025
this entire area. So it' s not going to be an eyesore. You have
to maintain silt fence and hay bales around the perimeter until
it dewaters and stabilizes, so it' s going to be no different
than the existing beach that is there.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I believe we had a question about the drywell,
if there was a landward location that it could be located or if
that was the only place.
MR. PATANJO: There' s one current drywell landward of this just
out in the oil and stone area. You've been to the site,
obviously. So as you drive into the gates, it's to the left.
This one is a little bit further down, and that' s to pick up the
runoff that comes down the road and doesn't make its way into
here. It goes down the gravel driveway. So in an effort to pick
it up before it gets into the water body, we put a drywell here.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is there anyone else that wishes to comment?
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 this application
subject to the following conditions:
That new plans depicting one row of one coir logs with no
ground disturbance during the installation of those.
That the berm proposed be upward when it' s added to, and
landward, and not allowed to topple over seaward.
That the dredge spoils do not encroach whatsoever on marsh
habitat.
And that the dredge window be determined by the DEC to
prevent any imposition on native wildlife.
And subject to approval from the DEC on the dredging.
That' s my motion.
And thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP,
also. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time we'll re-open under Wetland
Permits, number two. The expediter got detained, outside of his
control, and he requested that we reopen it now that he is back
in the audience.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Under Wetlands, Number 2, J.M.O.
Environmental ,Consulting on behalf of SARAH C. TREMAINE requests
a Wetland Permit to construct a 431x20' (860sq.ft. ) Two-story,
single-family dwelling with a 201x20' screened-in porch, a
Board of Trustees 49 July 16, 2025
10'x43' deck with walkout below; install an I/A OWTS sanitary
system; install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof
runoff; install water and electric utilities; install a gravel
driveway with parking area; construct three boulder retaining
walls (251 , 115 ' and 140' in length) and regrade site; and
revegetate disturbed .areas.
Located: Brickyard Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-5-12.26
The Board reviewed revised plans at our work session on
7/14 and our questions: Why are the walls four feet in height
or more. What is the purpose of the retaining walls. And we need
a non-disturbance buffer on the seaward edge of that property to
preserve the trees and native vegetation.
The LWRP found the project consistent with its policies.
Is there anyone here to speak regarding this application?
MR. JUST: Good evening. Glenn Just, JMO Consulting, as the agent
for the applicant.
I apologize for the delay, doing 65, windows open, stereo
cranking, and hit that bank of red lights at Cox, I guess it
was.
MS. HULSE: Yes. There was an MVA. They had it closed up.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: We're happy to have you here, Glenn.
What do you say to our comments?
MR. JUST: Well, I resubmitted the new plans that we've shown the
height of the wall at the bottom. Top and the bottom of the
wall, the finished. See some are like 48 inches at the top. 44
inches. Some are 60 inches. Others are 58 inches. But all
those elevations are depicted as you requested, and we did move
the house to the east as far as we, that we found practical
without having to remove a whole bunch of trees and move around
a whole bunch of boulders.. But we did move it as requested.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. I guess our question at work
session was what was, what' s the purpose of the lower retaining
wall. We can see the upper retaining wall' s purpose would be to
provide space for an IA system, stabilize the soils around the
foundation of the house. But the lower one seems sort of raised
some questions for us. We just didn't know its purpose.
MR. JUST: That didn't come up last time, unfortunately. I don't
know if it' s esthetics or if it' s just, it doesn't look like,
it's going to be a little bit of fill toward the southern end of
the house, between the two walls, you can see there is different
contour lines there where they are going to raise the elevation.
Perhaps they put that lower one in there to contain the fill.
That' s what it looks like to me.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So the lower retaining wall would not have,
it might have esthetic value, it might be to put fill in. ,
Is that something that your client would want to wait on to .
discuss, or would you --
MR. JUST: The engineer prepared it. I'm not an engineer, and
this is the first time we've heard this. We're set so far back
away from the water, so far away from the top of that bluff
Board of Trustees 50 July 16, 2025
there. I just don't see, I don't see what the difference is,
because, again, it looks like it's holding fill in.
You wouldn't even be able to see that wall, I mean, from
the other side of the harbor, or houses on either side
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: They did move it back.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is that a new plan?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: This plan is July 10th.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So we've reviewed that one.
MR. JUST: There's not going to be any ground disturbance seaward
of that second wall either. So it' s all going to be naturally
vegetated and all the trees are going to remain. It's pretty
heavily wooded.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Just, what is the plan for anything
seaward of that lower retaining wall?
MR. JUST: I beg your pardon?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What is the plan for anything seaward of that
lower retaining wall?
MR. JUST: Nothing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
MR. JUST: No land disturbance, all the trees are going to
remain, the brush is going to remain. Just stay in its natural
state.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So non-disturbance.
(Board members continuing perusing plans)
MR. JUST: You know, if you look at the plans between the wall,
it shows that proposed 50-foot contour. And that matches the
shape of the lower retaining wall exactly.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay, we understand. Thank you, for bring
things to light.
So, I was in the field to take a look at this spot. This
whole area has, you know, beautiful trees, boulders, as you
mentioned. There's a lot of native vegetation, low-growing
shrubs. And I think, you know, just environmentally, I think it
would be wise to have a non-turf buffer between those two
retaining walls, to prevent a lawn situation with lots of
nitrogen and anti-fungals and a whole round of procedures that
people use to take care of grass.
A non-turf in that area, and then in the spirit of
preserving those trees in that area, I think a non-disturbance
buffer from the lower retaining wall seaward. So you would have
the embankment would remain treed. And you'd have that area,
really roughly between the 40-foot contour line and the lower
remaining wall would remain non-disturbance.
MR. JUST: The plans don't show any disturbance in that area
whatsoever.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Any other comments from the Board, or --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just whenever we see retaining walls, if there
is a way to minimize them, it might be worth a conversation with
the applicant to see if there is -- and the engineer -- if there
is a way to lower those walls, we always appreciate that.
Board of Trustees 51 July 16, 2025
MR. JUST: The lower wall would be, at the bottom, it would be 44
inches and at the top it would be 48 inches.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it's four feet.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: He' s saying the difference between the top of
the wall up here and the lower --
MR. JUST: The bottom is 44 and the top is 48.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But exposure, it's nearly four feet out of the
ground.
MR. JUST: Correct.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Like the face of it would be 48 inches in
height.
MR. JUST: Right. Again, you went be able to see it from
anywhere.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Not with all those nice trees.
MR. JUST: Huh?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I said not with all those beautiful trees.
And this is a rocky location as well. I mean, there's boulders
all over the place.
MR. JUST: Yes.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Would any boulders on the property be moved
to --
MR. JUST: Just in the building envelope, ultimately.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Just in the building envelope. Okay.
All right, any other comments?
(No 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,
new plans depicting a non-turf buffer between the upper and
lower retaining walls, roughly 50-foot contour line,
thereabouts, and- a non-disturbance buffer from the lower
retaining wall seaward, and any boulders on the property to
remain in location unless moved during the construction of-the
house footprint. New plans depicting.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. JUST: Am I going to have to come back with revised plans?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think all you need, Glenn, is just a plan,
another set of plans that just would show a buffer. It would
show the non-disturbance.
MR. JUST: I know as soon as I call Mrs. Tremaine she' s going to
say is this going to take another month.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No, you got approved subject to new plans.
MR. JUST: Okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And if those plans show the buffers, I don't
Board of Trustees 52 July 16, 2025
feel we have any hang-up with that. If it comes back with a
helicopter on it, we'd have to take another look at it, yes.
MR. JUST: There we go.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
(Board members perusing documents) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Should be re-open that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't, I mean, I don't know how the rest of
the Board feels, but I don't feel it's appropriate to open the
other one without, I mean, there could have been neighbors here.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I also feel I would like some time to review
the plans that were just submitted, so.
MR. JUST: For Quintieri?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: For Quintieri, yes.
MR. JUST: I'll ask you to table it, but I wanted to make some
comments before that. Is that okay?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, Mr. Just, I know you weren't here when we
went over it, but that application was tabled already.
MR. JUST: Earlier tonight.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Quintieri, yes. That one was tabled already.
And you submitted these new plans that we will evaluate between
now and the next meeting. It seems as if you addressed the
concerns or the field notes in this. So we'll review that prior
ton next month' s hearing and then that way anybody else'will
have an opportunity to be heard during next month's meeting.
MR. JUST: I just, it's not my fault there was a car accident. I
just wanted to take the chance to ask you some questions on your
field notes.
I have good responses to it. We revised the plans to
completely meet the code. And that's all I wanted to discuss. I
was going to ask you to table after that, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If the Board is okay with it, I'm a no, but if
the rest of the Board is okay with it, go ahead.
MS. HULSE: It's totally up to you.
It's through no fault of Mr. Just that he was not here, but
then if someone else leaves, it' s not their fault either that
they are not here.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I'm open to the idea of us having a
conversation now on the record and then repeating this
conversation at the following hearing.
MS. HULSE: If the record is made it would be available to the
public.
(A conversation is held off the record) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is obviously no one here to discuss it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So against our better judgment, Mr. Just, we
will re-open Wetland Permit Number 1, 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 docks consisting of removing existing
Board of Trustees 53 July 16, 2025
4 'x14 ' floating dock section (not to be replaced) ; remove and
relocate the landward 2'xl4' aluminum ramp leading to a 41xl6'
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 Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#
1000-122-3-34.1
MR. JUST: If it' s going to cause any bad taste, I would just
rather go ahead and table it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is for your benefit. I'll read the field
notes. I'll read the LWRP report. If there is something that
you want to add to the record, just know that this has been
tabled, so there is nobody here, if they were here to speak in
regard to this. So we're going to have to rinse and repeat next
month. But at least you might have a better idea of what was
presented so that you could come back better informed.
So the Trustees conducted that most recent field inspection
inhouse, July 9th, 2025. Notes about the previous, to see the
previous notes, which said check the permit history on dock,
check the pier line, check to see if the proposed dock exceeds
25%; floating docks not to exceed 120 square feet.
The LWRP found it to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies
were the dock was constructed without a Chapter 275 Wetland
permit, the dock configuration is not compliant with the past
permit; the dock exceeds the pier line; the floats are not
permitted; one 6x20 float is permitted; the number and size of
vessels is not shown; the boat lift is not compliant with
Chapter 275; residential boat lifts, floating or fixed, are
prohibited, except in privately-owned basins on private property
at the discretion of the Board of Trustees.
And I will note that you also submitted some paperwork here
that apparently addresses some of those issues, but since that
just came to our attention right now, obviously we have not had
a chance to review that, so that's even more reason to table
this application.
But if there is anything else that you want to add.
MR. JUST: Perhaps if you can just have your staff forward me a
copy of the LWRP comments, and I'll address that at the next ,
meeting.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. So as you are aware, the file is
available at the Trustees office, and you can come in at any
point and review it and they can make you copies.
MR. JUST: All I want is the LWRP report.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. All right, so hearing no further
comments, I'll make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. JUST: All right, folks, have a good night.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion for adjournment.
Board of Trustees 54 July 16, 2025
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Res/ectfully submitted by,
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees