HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-08/13/2025 Glenn Goldsmith, President QF SO�r Town Hall Annex
A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President h�� ��� 54375 Route 25
P.O.Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski 1 J Southold,New York 11971
Liz Gillooly G Q Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth Peeples • �O Fax(631) 765-6641
COU
a A—
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD S E P 1 8 2025
Minutes
Southold Town Clerk
Wednesday, August 13, 2025
5 : 30 PM
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, August
13th, 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 by announcing the
people on the dais . To my left we have Trustee Krupski, Trustee
Sepenoski, Trustee Gillooly, Trustee Peeples. To my right we have
attorney to the Trustees, the Hon. Lori Hulse, Administrative
Assistant Elizabeth Cantrell, and with us tonight is Court
Stenographer Wayne Galante.
Agendas for tonight ' s meeting are located out in the hall and
are also posted on the Town' s website.
We do have a number of postponements tonight. The postponements
tonight on the agenda, page five, under Wetland & Coastal Erosion
Permits :
Number 4, AS PER SITE PLAN RECEIVED 6/9/2024 Charles Cuddy, Esq.
on behalf of NICHOLAS ALIANO requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to construct a proposed two-story dwelling (885sq. ft.
On each of the two floors) with a 91sq. ft. Front covered patio, 3 ' x8 '
and 4 'x8 ' second story balconies; install an I/A OWTS sanitary
system; install water and electric services; install a stone blend
driveway; install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain
Board of Trustees 2 August 13, 2025
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 Rd. , Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-1-11 & 12 .
On page eight:
Number 12, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 8/13/2025
South Fork Environmental Consulting, LLC on behalf of 106 MULBERRY '
CORP. , c/o STUART MOY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two
story, single family dwelling (25 'x4214", ±1, 058 . 25sq. ft. ) With
attached 7 . 3 'x48 . 2 ' (351. 86sq. ft) deck on south side of dwelling;
install a 25 'x6 ' (±150sq. ft. ) Stone driveway, a 12 'x20 ' parking area
on west side of proposed dwelling, and an 11 'x20 ' parking area on
north side of proposed dwelling; install a new innovative,
alternative nitrogen reducing water treatment system (AI/OWTS) ;
install sanitary retaining wall at an overall length of 99. 5 ' and a
width of 8 . 0" across the top of the wall.
Located: 750 West Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-2-1
Number 13, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of
MICHAEL J. & ALEXANDRIA PRISCO requests a Wetland Permit to remove
and dispose of the existing 6 'x44 ' 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 41x50 ' ramp leading down to a 4 'x30 '
catwalk; reuse existing 31x16 ' 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
On page nine, numbers 14 through 16, as follows :
Number 14, 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 41x14 ' floating dock section (not to
be replaced) ; remove and relocate the landward 2 ' x14 ' aluminum ramp
leading to a 4 'x16 ' floating dock to the 4 'x42 ' floating dock with a
4 'x6' floating finger dock; and the existing 8 'x21 ' 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
Number 15, 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
i
Board of Trustees 3 August 13, 2025
within an approximately 18, 000sq. f 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
Number 16, 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'x12 . 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) 15 ' x35 '
slips by installing 10 new mooring piles and 10 new guide piles;
install a 41x40 ' gangway, one (1) 8 'x53 ' and one (1) 6 ' x102 ' floating
dock parallel to new bulkhead and install five (5) 4 ' x30 ' floating
finger docks off of 6 ' and 8 ' wide floating docks; spread dredge
spoil and raise grade in area landward of new and portion of existing
bulkhead approximately 4" higher (±140 cubic yards over an area of
12, 200sq. ft. ) ; in an area around existing concrete slab, spread
excess fill taken from area landward of bulkhead and raise grade
approximately 18" (±230 cubic yards over an area of 4, 140sq. ft. ) ; a
proposed pump-out truck with 1, 000gal. Capacity with potable water
washout; and with the use of a turbidity curtain during construction.
Located: 5505 West Mill Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-6-1
On page ten, numbers 17 through 19, as follows :
Number 17, 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 2 'x14 ' aluminum ramp
leading to a 4 'x16 ' floating dock to the 4 ' x42 ' floating dock with a
4 ' x6' floating finger dock; and the existing 8 'x2l ' 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
Number 18, 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
Board of Trustees 4 August 13, 2025
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
Number 19, 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) 15 'x35 '
slips by installing 10 new mooring piles and 10 new guide piles;
install a 41x40 ' gangway, one (1) 8 'x53 ' and one (1) 6' x102 ' floating
dock parallel to new bulkhead and install five (5) 4 'x30 ' floating
finger docks off of 6 ' and 8 ' wide floating docks; spread dredge
spoil and raise grade in area landward of new and portion of existing
bulkhead approximately 4" higher (±140 cubic yards over an area of
12, 200sq. ft. ) ; in an area around existing concrete slab, spread
. excess fill taken from area landward of bulkhead and raise grade
approximately 18" (±230 cubic yards over an area of 4, 140sq. ft. ) ; a
proposed pump-out truck with 1, 000gal . Capacity with potable water
washout; and with the use of a turbidity curtain during construction.
Located: 5505 West Mill Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-6-1
And on page eleven, numbers 20 and 21, as follows:
Number 20, Joan Chambers on behalf of GEORGE DANGAS requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a raised 18 'x40 ' gunite swimming pool
attached to seaward side of existing seaward deck; add 5 ' wide steps
off north end of existing deck; install a new 20 . 4 'x6 ' deck at north
end of pool, and a new 11 . 8 'x21 . 4 ' deck at south end of pool; install
two (2) new retaining walls (4 ' and 1. 6 ' tall) under the south end of
the deck to create a space with pea gravel ground cover for the pool
equipment and accessible storage area; railings around raised decking
and locking gates installed for pool enclosure requirements; install
outdoor cooking facilities on existing seaward deck and new landing
with steps down to a 4 ' wide pea-stone gravel walkway along the south
side of dwelling to a freestanding outdoor shower; at east end of
walkway, install a 3 ' retaining wall, and two (2) A/C units.
Located: 1900 Hyatt Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-50-1-3
Number 21, AS PER REVISED SITE PLAN & WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED 12/23/2024 Twin Forks Permits on behalf of THE WILLIAM E.
Board of Trustees 5 August 13, 2025
GOYDAN REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST, c/o WILLIAM E. GOYDAN, TRUSTEE &
THE KAREN B. GOYDAN REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST, c/o KAREN B. GOYDAN,
TRUSTEE requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing two-story
dwelling, detached garage and other surfaces on the property;
construct a new 3, 287sq. ft. Footprint (5, 802sq. ft . Gross floor area)
two-story, single-family dwelling with an 865sq. ft . Seaward covered
patio, 167sq. ft . Side covered porch, and 149sq. ft. Front covered
porch; construct a proposed 16 'x36 ' swimming pool with 8 'x8 ' spa tub;
a 1, 357sq. ft. Pool patio surround with steps to ground, pool
enclosure fencing, pool equipment area, and a drywell for pool
backwash; construct a 752sq. ft. Two-story detached garage, gravel
driveway and parking areas; install an I/A septic system; remove 23
trees and plant 25 trees on the property; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 25 foot wide vegetated non-turf, no
fertilization buffer area along the landward side of the wetland
vegetation.
Located: 1645 Marratooka Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-3-2 . 1
All of those are postponed and will not be heard this evening.
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, September 10th, 2025, at 8 : 00 AM.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : 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 on Wednesday, September 17th, 2025, at 5: 30 PM, at the Town
Hall Main Meeting Hall
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
III. WORK SESSIONS :
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to hold our next work sessions
Monday, September 15th, 2025, at 5 : 00 PM, at the Town Hall Annex
second floor Executive Board Room and on Wednesday September 17th,
2025, 5 : 00 PM, at the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 6 August 13, 2025
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve the Minutes of the June
llth, 2025 and July 16, 2025 Trustee meetings
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral V, Monthly. The Trustees Monthly
Report for July 2025, a check for $25, 763 . 11 was forwarded to the
Supervisor' s office for the General Fund.
VI . PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman Numeral VI, Public Notices .
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk' s bulletin board for
review.
VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral VII, State Environmental Quality
Reviews .
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby
finds that the following applications more fully described in Section
10 . 00 Public Hearing section of the Trustee agenda, dated Wednesday
August 13th, 2025, are classified as Type II actions pursuant to
SEQRA rules and regulations and are not subject to further review
under SEQRA, as written
The Carroll M. Carpenter Revocable Trust SCTM# 1000-7-4-3. 1
Lee & Robyn Spirer SCTM# 1000-30-2-85
536 Bayview LLC SCTM# 1000-52-1-9
Nicholas & Aspasia Rontiris SCTM# 1000-37-5-15
Mardik Donikyan SCTM# 1000-52-1-4
106 Mulberry Corp. , c/o Stuart Moy SCTM# 1000-90-2-1
Thomas & Jennifer Smith SCTM# 1000-70-6-10
Carolyn Kerwick SCTM# 10000-75-6-13 . 1
1420 Smith Drive, LLC SCTM# 1000-76-3-10 . 1
Andrew L. Terrono Revocable Trust 2011 SCTM# 1000-86-6-29
Christopher & Mairi Young SCTM# 1000-115-17-17 . 11
Michael J. & Alexandria Prisco SCTM# 1000-139-1-17
Maureen Dacimo Revocable Trust SCTM# 1000-27-2-4
Zolee, LLC, c/o Susan Norris SCTM# 1000-123-6-22 . 9
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That ' s my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 7 August 13, 2025
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 make a motion to approve as group Items 4 and 5, as
follows :
Number 4, KEITH, RANDI & PHYLLIS KLEIN request an Administrative
Permit to repair 36 ' long x 4 . 5 ' high retaining wall and 4 ' long x 2 '
high retaining wall . Located: 1460 North Oakwood Road, Laurel.
SCTM# 1000-127-6-11
Number 5, GLEN COURT, LLC requests an Administrative Permit to
excavate an approximate 51x35 ' area against the northern foundation
wall in order to waterproof the wall; any clay soils that were
removed to perform the work will be taken off site and replaced with
clean fill in-place of existing within this area.
Located: 545 Glen Court, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-1-6
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, En-Consultants on behalf of NINA ALICE
BRONDMO requests an Administrative Permit for the as-built 13 . 3 ' x
35 ' tiered wood deck attached to existing 1-story dwelling with
accessory garage; as-built 117 sq. ft. Of wood walkways and associated
steps; and as-built 5 . 9 ' x 7 . 8 ' shed with sauna heater.
Located: 510 Trumans Path, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-12-1
. Trustee Sepenoski conducted a field inspection August llth,
2025, noting that the project was okay and had very minimal
environmental impact.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent as built, so it
was built without a Trustees permit .
I will make a motion to approve this application as submitted,
and by granting it a permit will bring it into consistency with the
LWRP.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, DEBORAH L. McKEAND & SHANNON J. GOLDMAN
request an Administrative Permit to trim tree tops and remove dead
branches; conduct general maintenance of trees on property.
Located: 100 Salt Marsh Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-68-3-11 . 1
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection August 6th, 2025,
notes approximately five to six trees for minor tree-top trimming. If
larger are branches or tree removal required, please return to the
Trustees office for request.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
I ' ll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition of five to six trees for minor trimming.
Board of Trustees 8 August 13, 2025
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, VERADEANA PROPERTIES LLC requests an
Administrative Permit to install ±30 ' of fence along property line.
Located: 9555 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-6-23
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection August 6th, 2025,
notes that the fence not to encroach within 20 feet of the Wetlands .
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
I ' ll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that the fence is on the applicant ' s property and that it
stays at least 20 feet away from the edge of the Wetlands .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We' re just going to reopen Number 3, VeraDeana
Properties LLC.
I ' ll make a motion to approve the application with the following
project description: Request an Administrative Permit to install
plus or minus 30 feet of fence located 955 Soundview Avenue,
Southold.
Also with the condition the fence is at least 20 feet from edge
of wetlands . That is my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral IX, Transfers, Administrative
Amendments .
Again, in order to simplify our meeting, I ' ll make a motion to
approve as a group Items 1 through 5, as follows :
Number 1, Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf of CHRISTOPHER &
ARIANNA MARTELL requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #439 from
Gerald H. Schultheis to Christopher & Arianna Martell, as issued
November 25, 1987 .
Located: 1640 First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-5-46. 3
Number 2, En-Consultants on behalf of ADF VENTURES, LLC requests
an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10691 to construct a
20 ' x 46' swimming pool, set back 73 feet from the top of bank;
construct a 1, 483 sq. ft . Grade-level masonry pool patio, set back 72
feet from the top of bank; install pool enclosure fencing along the
landward limit of 20 ' wide vegetated non-turf buffer.
Located: 1775 Point Pleasant Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-114-1-6
Number 3, 225 WILLIAMSBURG DRIVE, LLC requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit #10631' to reduce total square footage of
proposed dwelling to 2, 582 . 7 sq. ft. ; gable over storage shed to be
Board of Trustees 9 August 13, 2025
replaced with a shed roof; change storage area to an open porch;
second-story gable relocated to right side of dwelling; construct hip
roof on left side of dwelling to comply with sky plane regulations;
construct two bay windows on first floor.
Located: 145 Williamsburg Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-13
Number 4, 67 SOUND CHESHIRE LP requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit #10406 to no longer construct approved
pool, increase non-disturbance buffer to 35 ' on northern side of the
property; increase non-disturbance buffer to minimum of 15 ' on
western side of property; install chain link and split rail fence
along landward edge of non-disturbance buffers; increase width of
previously approved permeable gravel driveway to ±600 sq. ft.
Located: 520 Madison Avenue, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-42-1-1
Number 5, DHC LAND, LLC c/o WILL PECKHAM requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10579 to reduce the width
of the approved T-section of dock to 4 feet .
Located: 4180 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-10-1
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral X Public Hearings .
At this time I ' ll make a motion to go off our regular meeting
agenda and enter into Public Hearings .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
This is a public hearing in the matter of the following applications
for permits under Chapter 275 and 111 of the Southold Town Code. I
have an affidavit of publication from the Suffolk Times . Pertinent
correspondence may be read prior to asking for comments from the
public. Please keep your comments organized and brief, five minutes
or less if possible.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland & Coastal Erosion permits,
Number 1, Docko, Inc. On behalf of THE CARROLL M. CARPENTER REVOCABLE
TRUST requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
remove the existing landward wood ramps and construct a new landward
7 ' wide by ±42 linear foot long access ramp to pier with handrails
and two beach access stairs; in-place reconstruction of existing 7 '
wide by ±112 linear foot long fixed pier with handrails; reconstruct
existing 7 ' wide by 22 ' long fixed "L" pier with a ships ladder;
install a new 3 ' x20 ' hinged ramp to a 81x15 ' floating dock secured by
four pilings; install two new tie-off piles, and relocate existing
tie-of pile; and to install new water and electric to pier.
Board of Trustees 10 August 13, 2025
Located: 2512 Brickyard Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-7-4-3 . 1
Trustee Sepenoski conducted a field inspection August 5th, 2025,
noting submerged aquatic vegetation noted on plans and survey, float
and ramps vegetation noted on plans and survey. Float and ramp
removable, to be removed seasonal. Proposed location of float is
within the existing tie-off location of vessel.
On further discussion at work session, the Trustees had concerns
with the amount of eel grass in this area and any potential damage
from the structure to the eel grass.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The
inconsistencies are: Portion of the proposed dock is within the
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. All development is prohibited in the
near-shore area pursuant to 111-11 unless specifically provided for
in Chapter 111. Pursuant to 111-6, allowable activities in these
areas may include open timber piles or other similar open-work
supports with a top surface area of less than 200-square feet, which
are removed in the Fall of each year. Therefore, the dock as
proposed is prohibited in the near-shore area pursuant to Chapter 111
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area as it is greater than 200-square feet and
not removable. And that is the inconsistency.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BAYNE: I 'm Bill Bayne, from Docko. I ' ll keep this brief. Thank
you, for your time.
So this project is to reconstruct a dock at 2512 Brickyard Road
in the same footprint that it has existed in since the 1960s . It was
rebuilt in the mid-80 ' s . And we are also proposing a new access
walkway and 120 square-foot float and hinged ramp.
So the fixed pier will stay in the exact same footprint as I
said. There is SAV emanating, starting about 100 feet from the
shoreline. We designed this dock with a primarily north/south
orientation, and higher than typical docks . It ' s about four feet
above the water line, eight feet below mean low water, meaning some
light can penetrate underneath it and reach the seabed.
When we were out there, there was eel grass growing directly
underneath the dock. The new float will emanate from the L-shape back
towards the shoreline, with the ramp transversing the eel grass bed,
so the float itself will be in four-feet of water per regulations,
but not over any eel grass, to minimize all the shading.
There is some patches of tidal vegetation on the upper beach,
which is mostly out of project area. The new walkway and ramp will
be also in the same footprint as the existing, just a little bit
wider, and where the walkway crosses the tidal vegetation, there is a
freshwater drainage stream currently, so there is not actually much
vegetation growing at all in that spot . And that will go straight
from the landward of the mean high water to the pier.
You know, the dock itself is greater than 200 square-feet, but
being that it was built in the 1960s it predates that regulation, and
the new float is only about 120 square-feet, and as stated it will be
Board of Trustees 11 August 13, 2025
removed in the Fall at the end of each season, along with the new
hinged ramp.
And I 'm happy to take any questions .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: One of the things we talked about, or questioned,
what ' s the purpose for the float?
MR. BAYNE: It ' s for recreational boating access and really safety.
So to accommodate and minimize the effects on the SAV, this dock, as
I said, the decking is much higher, but as a result of that it ' s very
difficult to access, especially during low tide. So little float goes
inside the L-shape, which is where they currently tie their boat up
just to ease safer access on and off the pier.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And with the rebuild where they consider using the
open-grade decking?
MR. BAYNE: That is an option we are happy to do, and we have
considered it, thru-decking is something we use on a lot of projects .
We didn't put it in the initial proposal because, like we said, the
decking is high enough in the north/south orientation of this pier
and has really had little to no effect on the eel grass in the area.
But that is something we are happy to do if required.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because one of the things we discussed was
potentially lowering that L-section as a stepdown with thru-flow
decking so it allows you easier access on and off the boat. But with
the open-grade decking it still will be beneficial for the eel grass
underneath. In my opinion that ' s a better overall project. Instead of
putting the floating dock, because with the floating dock you
obviously can get shading on that eel grass .
MR. BAYNE: That is an alternative we considered. And we would still
be open to it. I think we have the opportunity here, though, given
that the floating dock is inside the tie-off piles and that it ' s
inside the eel grass bed, the only shading is going to be from an
approximately 60 square-foot ramp, which also will be running
north/south so, you know, even that, the shading will be pretty
minimal on the eel grass there.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) . ,
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I found from my time in working on eel grass
restoration that if you have a fixed pier with piles, it does not
create much disturbance to the eel grass . Obviously install is the
biggest problem, but you already have an existing structure here.
And oddly enough a boat, probably because the boats don' t spend a
tremendous amount of time here because it is kind of high-wave
energy, that there doesn' t seem to be very much disturbance from a
boat as long as you have a deck and you are not prop-scouring the
meadow. '
But what I have seen is that floats and ramps are just a death
sentence. So if there eel grass there, there won' t be, and if there
isn't, it will never be able to grow into that area.
Board of Trustees 12 August 13, 2025
So, for that reason a float over eel grass is pretty problematic
for a Board that is trying to balance environment with property use.
MR. BAYNE: Understood. And I just want to reiterate again the float
itself is not over the eel grass . It ' s inside the SAV boundary that
we had surveyed. It ' s only the ramp which would be directly over the
eel grass .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Which other, it looks like under current
conditions, yes, but that also prevents that eel grass from ever
migrating. Now, if you had that float and everything, that little
bare spot is going to continue to stay bare, as opposed to the eel
grass migrating closer to the shoreline. Because looking at that
overhead, it ' s a very extensive eel grass meadow, besides that one
section closer.
So, again, I think from our standpoint an open-grade dock
entirely with a lowered L-section at the end would definitely be
preferable to any float.
So do you wish two table to come up with new plans or do you
want to go forward with what you submitted here?
MR. BAYNE: We ' ll have to table. We' ll have to talk to our client
about if this is something they want to pursue.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Any other questions or comments?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Number 2, AS PER REVISED SITE PLANS SUBMITTED
8/6/2025 Taplow Consulting, Ltd. On behalf of LEE & ROBYN SPIRER
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove the
existing bluff stairs and associated decking; in the same location,
construct a new set of bluff stairs consisting of a 101x19. 5 ' top
deck to a 4 ' x9 ' walkway to 41x9 ' stairs down to a 41x8 ' platform to
41x16 ' stairs down to a 4 'xl2 ' platform to 4 ' x17 ' stairs down to a
4 'x4 ' platform .to 4 ' x6 ' stairs down to a 41x4 ' platform to 4 'xl6'
stairs down to a 4 'x4 ' bottom platform that leads to a 61x9 ' east
bottom platform and a 41x20 ' set of removable stairs to beach;
install geotextile fabric beneath the bluff stairs from the toe of
the bluff to the top that is 16' wide and centered beneath the
stairs; install core/bio logs horizontally every 10 ' along the fabric
areas and then revegetate using native vegetation; within the upland
lawn area install a 3 'x25 ' French drain and a 4 'x4 ' catch basin, all
connected to a 12" diameter piping that will capture storm water
runoff and convey it a drywell located on the landward side of the
property.
Located: 680 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-30-2-85
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent, noted that a
common beach access stair exists for the community, maintained by the
homeowner' s association.
Board of Trustees 13 August 13, 2025
The Trustees most recently visited the property on August 6th:
Noted that remove irrigation on the bluff; reduce size of upper
landing to below the square footage listed for CEHA limits. Upper
deck recommended much smaller, 10x10, 100 square-feet and pulled
landward. Midway stone landing should be removed to prevent erosion.
Wood chips are recommended. Filter fabric should be limited as much
as possible.
It should also be noted that I 'm in receipt of a set of new
plans here for the stair rebuild that do depict removing the stone
that is actually on the bluff, as well as limiting the replanting and
disturbance area for that.
It should also be noted that there are two letters from
neighbors to this property in support of the application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. CARR: Ed Carr, 22 New Harbor Road, Northport. I am a licensed
marine engineer, and I am the agent for the applicant. So as you all
know this plan has two phases . One is to replace an existing
staircase, which currently right now is about three-quarters
walkable. The last quarter was removed to install a rock revetment at
the bottom that needs to be .rebuilt. The second phase would be a
drainage issue that exists landward of the top of the bluff.
From both the Trustees visit on August 6th, as well as the
description that you see before you, in the description that you see
before you we just had one de minimis change at the end regarding the
French drain.
Before I get to that, the plans were revised, as Trustee Krupski
indicated. You should have before you two sets of plans . The large
copy is for the drainage. The smaller copy that you have is for the
stair detail .
If we begin on the stair detail plan, on page two of four, we
added a note that existing slate area to be removed and replaced with
gravel and/or wood chip to provide proper drainage, all within the
bounds -of the property. So that satisfies one of the four Trustees
comments during your visit. The second comment you had was
regarding irrigation. That can be found on page four of four. This
was the small plan. On item #8, on four of four, it says existing
irrigation system, i. e. heads, piping, et cetera, located within the
ten-foot buffer zone to be removed. So that satisfies the second
. condition that the Trustees had asked us for.
Likewise, on page four of four, on item #6, it says any use of
geo-textile matting for purposes of erosion control within the
proximity of the proposed bluff stairway, to be relegated to areas of
denuded natural vegetation only. So we are only putting that
geo-textile fabric in, we are only doing the re-vegetation in
appropriate areas, and the areas right now that have good vegetation,
we are leaving. So that satisfies the third comment that the Trustees
had.
On the fourth comment, this is a slight change, which I ' ll
address . After the Trustees inspection we had contacted the New York
Board of Trustees 14 August 13, 2025
state DEC, just to let them know that you guys had comments and what
those comments were, and some changes we were making. And one of the
things that the DEC pointed out to us is that when we install these
catch basins and drains up top, we' re going to be removing material
within the CEHA, the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, and they said what
are you going to do with this material . We said, well, you know, we
have excess material we ' re pulling out of the ground, it ' s 20-feet
back from the bluff or whatever, we ' re probably going to cart it
away. They said under DEC regulations you are not supposed to remove
any material from the CEHA area. It ' s really supposed to be put back
on the bluff or back on the beach down below. But you are really not
supposed to be carting it away and taking it offsite.
So they said come up with some plan to address that material,
how many cubic yards it is.
Then we find would up looking at that top deck, trying to figure
out how is it possible that in 1990, whenever it was replaced, there
is a 10 'xl9. 5 ' deck adding up to around 195 square-feet that is
actually seaward of the top of slope. So it ' s in that coastal
erosion area. As you guys pointed out, you are limited to 10x10 .
And then what we noticed was on the surveyor' s lines, if you
look right here, on the large drawing, this is from the surveyor,
you' ll see there is an elevation 56, which is denoted by the surveyor
as crest of bluff. That runs right here at elevation 56, and it goes
to the seaward edge of this existing deck, and then picks up on the
opposite seaward side at 56.
So we figured maybe that deck was put on solid ground ten or 15
years ago and the only reason you can crawl under it now is because
this deck and stairway is built in a valley. And from having years
of unmitigated storm erosion coming off the lawn, it gouged it out.
And once this deck is removed, we asked the DEC, would this be an
appropriate place to put the fill, to basically rebuild that
elevation 56 top of slope. The DEC said absolutely. That is manmade
damage. It ' s not natural damage, it wasn' t created by an act of God.
It wasn' t sand naturally leaving the steep slope with a clastic
material entrained on long shore currents building up the beach. This
is a direct result out of the owner' s lawn being pitched to a low
point in the lawn, which creates a natural valley, which is under
this deck, that gouged out a couple of feet of soil under the deck.
So we are proposing to put this back, this material pulled out
of the catch basin, the drywell, the French drains, to put this back
with the DEC' s approval, to rebuild this damaged area, and then this
deck could remain, it would then be landward of the top of slope, as
it had been maybe 15 years ago. And then it would qualify to be a
replacement in-kind of an existing 195-foot deck.
So in order to accommodate that, we did put on page four of four
of the small plan here, condition V, which reads: Areas of erosion
along the crest of the bluff, below the seaward portion of the
proposed top platform walkway, to be reestablished via the use of
fill from excavated materials associated with the installation of
onsite stormwater drainage system.
Board of Trustees 15 August 13, 2025
And the de minimis change there for, on the description that you
guys have on your agenda, it would really just be the last line where
it says, currently says, I 'm going to read it: Within the upland lawn
area install a 3 ' x25 ' French drain and a 4 'x4 ' catch basin, all
connected to a 12" diameter pipe that captures stormwater runoff and
conveys it to a drywell.
This replacement language would be installing an 18-inch by
118-inch, um, foot. So it would be a thin French drain running along
the whole edge of the bluff, the top of bluff, will set back a little
bit from the top of bluff, including returns . And then instead of
going to a 4x4 catch basin, it would go to three 18xl8 catch basins .
Much smaller, much less weight. And instead of going into a 12-inch
diameter pipe it would go into an 8-inch diameter pipe. So a smaller
pipe, smaller catch basins, longer and narrower and smaller French
drain, but at least it encompasses everywhere so that you don' t
getter errant stormwater running on either side of the formerly
proposed 3x25 French drain.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, quick question. That top of platform, the
10x19. 5, that ' s connected to the stairway, correct?
MR. CARR: Yes, that ' s correct. That, originally, when we went and
looked at it, it really has no center supports . Because it appears
when that platform was built, it was built on dry ground. Those
joists were physically laid on ground. So they had no support. So
that whole thing is being supported right now from the right and left
of what is left of the 56-foot elevation top of contour, which if you
look on the drawing you' ll see it ' s meant to go in front of that
seaward edge of that deck, but now obviously there is a V-shaped
cavity underneath it .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So --
MR. CARR: And that would all be re-vegetated, obviously. Once it ' s
filled, the face of it heading down the cliff would have to be at a
60-degree angle of repose. We 've added all that onto the plans, to
show that, and re-vegetate it.
So basically we are restoring what was there maybe 15 years ago
and with the DEC' s mandate we are not removing any of the material
offsite.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All right. So the platform itself, in Chapter
275-A(6) (a) , platforms associated with stairs may not be larger than
100 square feet. So that ' s outside of coastal erosion, Chapter 275 .
MR. CARR: We do have a tiny walkway there, so the idea, the deck
would be landward of the new top of bluff.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But it ' s still associated with the stairs .
MR. CARR: Well, off of that platform you have a stair that is show,
that is on there before the stairs begin, there is a little catwalk
off the deck, and that would be the first instance of going seaward
of the top of bluff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : What Chapter 111 speaks to, and, you know, we have
been audited by the state before, but associated with the stairs
doesn' t mean platform stairs . It means associated with. So platform
walk stairs is still associated with, under that code.
Board of Trustees 16 August 13, 2025
MR. CARR: How would you separate it, then, if you were to bring that
platform back landward of the top of slope.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It can't be connected to the stairs .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : You couldn' t walk wood to wood to stairs . It can' t
be attached.
MR. CARR: Okay, so if the, if we rebuilt the top of slope and that
deck was built say 12 or 15 inches back, with a strip of grass, and
then you start the walkway, would that be acceptable?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: As long as it ' s not connected to the stairway
itself.
MR. CARR: All right. So we need some type of physical separation
where you don' t just go from the stairs right into that walkway, 'that
you have some type of -- and that would occur if we put the fill back
in the damaged area, we would maintain that 56' topographical top of
bluff elevation. That would be the restored top of slope, and the
deck would have to be about a foot back behind that, and the walkway
begins forward of that .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : So again, it ' s a little difficult because we are
bouncing back and forth to essentially what is- two projects here. To
me a rebuilt of the stairs is pretty straightforward because they are
existing, they are nearly all there, although you might want to
tighten up a few steps, but they are mostly all there. But, I think
this is a first time I 've seen a proposal to fill back in a bluff
that was damaged caused by the homeowner. And also arguably, you
know, this is built in a swale which when they developed this area,
you know, they dug out the houses, they knocked all the trees down,
the vegetation, and pushed all the fill and kind of filled in areas
to make more lawn. So this is what was left, which is probably why
that washed out so easily already. Because that was the natural
drainage point through this site.
Just for me, and I ' d love to hear comments from the rest of the
Board, but because this is such a different project from what I
looked at in the field, I would like to take another look at it.
And before we go that far, the other point I just would like to
ask, or a few points I would like to clarify about the drainage
system.
So you changed it to a pre-cast. What ' s the depth on those?
MR. CARR: I would have to look at the plan to see. It ' s 18-inch by
18-inch on the surface. They generally don't go down about the same
amount. They are generally boxes . It' s not like it ' s 18xl8 and go
down four feet or whatever, you couldn' t get down to clean it out.
It ' s generally a box. The assumption would be 18xl8x18
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Yeah, I would like to see a depth on that. And then
that is just a catch, correct, so you are not actually, that' s
literally just a concrete box that is going to be collecting --
MR. CARR: Collecting that water into an eight-inch pipe that is then
goes to the ten-foot diameter by ten-foot deep pools .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Okay. And then you touched on what is labeled on
here as new drainage interceptor.
MR. CARR: That ' s a fancy word for French drain.
Board of Trustees 17 August 13, 2025
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Right. So that ' s a French drain. Can you just
touch on those dimensions again?
MR. CARR: Sure, if it said eight inch tip up I think is what it is,
where it ' s eight-inch wide, by 118-feet long, including the two
returns on the side. And the depth of it would be shallow. It might
be eight-inch, filled with rock. It' s basically a rock trough.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : And now you are just sending it back closer to the
house.
MR. CARR: Correct. Back to, it ' s being conveyed back to the ten-foot
diameter drywells which are a -good 40 feet back from the edge.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Okay. I mean I think just the change in this
proposal, and I don' t know if the rest of the Board wants to look at
this, or just agree we should probably take another look at it,
especially when we are talking about, you know, filling in the
outwash from the swale there, I think it begs another look. It would
also be nice to see the staking for the three catch basins now. And
then also just a staked line along where the French drain is .
And then also I think some consideration, too, .you know, I like
drainage plans and I do like catching water, and we deal with this
problem all over town. Adding to the vegetated buffer might be a
huge help here because it ' s a rock-hard lawn in this area, and if you
were to add to the buffer, with a drainage plan, I think it would be
helpful. But that is just something to think about . But either way,
as proposed, I would just like to take another look at it and see.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yeah, and just, while you are staking it, maybe
reconsider that location of that ten-foot drywell, because according
to plans here you are about 28 feet from the top of bluff by the
stairs, with more than 20 feet off the house. So if you could
relocate that drywell further landward from the bluff. You can even
kick it to the east side more, you' ll get a greater distance from
that top of bluff.
MR. CARR: Okay, I don' t think the engineer would have any objections
to moving the drywell further east, to move it away from the bluff.
I think the only concern, speaking for the homeowner, is that we
are hopeful to begin this before the weather really sets in. So if
there is any possibility of getting this I guess the Trustees are not
typically issuing permits for partial?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You just submitted these new plans to us tonight,
right?
MR. CARR: With these tweaks, yes .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is the first time we' re seeing it. So it ' s
supposed to be seven days prior, so that we have a chance to review
these. So I think Trustee Krupski ' s advice to table this so we can
look at it. I think, obviously I think we even have to by 875-8 (c) ,
files need to be submitted seven days prior.
MR. KRUPSKI : And for minor changes we could try to work with it. But
this is just a little bit too much for the Board to take it at public
hearing without seeing it in the field.
MR. CARR: Okay.
Board of Trustees 18 August 13, 2025
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : I would echo those sentiments . I have not even had
a chance to review. I appreciate your further study, however I don' t
even feel like I 'm able to weigh in on these changes, not having seen
plans, you know, just receiving, them this evening.
Two comments I would like to also add. While we are going to
study this further, your comment about the space between the platform
and the. stairs, you mentioned lawn. I don' t think that ' s a spot we
would want to see lawn, because that would indicate there would
likely be irrigation, and that could further cause erosion in the
future.
So that area, in addition to what was referenced as the
vegetated non-turf buffer, that would extend in that area as well . So
we would not want to see lawn there.
MR. CARR: We are just looking to have some type of transition between
an existing deck that has been there for decades, and the beginning
of a walkway leading to the stairs .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : Absolutely. And we understand that. There are many
other materials, gravel, which, that sort of thing, that would be
utilized, that would not be lawn. So just something to consider while
you are looking at that .
You know, I understand the drainage, the engineering that is
involved with all of that . I do appreciate that you've kind of looked
at ways to reduce some of that structure, I guess, that is there on
the top of bluff. So if there are any other options that would be
more minimal, I would be interested in seeing those as well. I don' t
experience with that, ,so --
MR. CARR: The engineer felt strongly that having a three-foot wide by
20-foot long French drain was excessive, and we would be much better
of protecting the entire length of the slope. Just inboard or seaward
of the slope, with a small eight-inch by eight-inch rock French
drain, which I think you called, I forget the fancy term that was
used for it, and that convey all the water through eight-inch pipes,
which are smaller than the 12-inch pipes going to the 18-inch catch
basins. 18xl8 . It ' s a much smaller system. I believe he designed it
for a five-inch rainfall is what he told me.
Does the Board have any conceptual issue with putting the fill
in the --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : So I wasn' t quite finished with that. I think
typically this Board doesn' t entertain the idea of sort of reclaiming
what was lost in some of areas, especially as you mentioned, it ' s an
area that was manmade loss due to the structure on the property. I
would just ask that you look at other options for where that fill
could go as opposed to sort of building out that top of slope.
MR. CARR: Many hearings I have been to, usually the comments about
trying to get back what was lost are referencing trying to project
into the water or, you know, move rocks further out toward the tide
line or something like that.
This is obviously 56 feet up. If you look at, to the east and
west of where that "V" channel is, I don' t know who well you can Zoom
on the aerial there, but it' s somewhat of an anomaly that you have
Board of Trustees 19 August 13, 2025
this natural valley off the lawn that has been scoured. And the
scouring is not a deep scour. It ' s maybe only a couple feet down by
maybe ten, 15 feet long.
So what is really being done is just, if you were to remove the
deck and then add the fill, it would basically just match the rest of
the top of bluff. It would basically connect it, as you can see on
the large plan, 56-foot contour elevation would just be connected
across the seaward face of that deck, as it had once been. It just
seems like an ideal place to put the fill because we don' t need it
anywhere else on the bluff. It ' s not like we can just take it and
dump it randomly down on the bluff somewhere.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Well, and I do understand your reference. Typically
we do refer to projects like that there where there is sort of trying
not to march further seaward at typical, you know, wetland
boundaries . This is however a bluff, which is a protected feature.
So that is why I mentioned that in this conversation that
perhaps you could revisit alternatives to the fill placement. The
bluff and the top of bluff are a protected feature.
MR. CARR: Right. It ' s just that under the current deck nothing grows .
It ' s shaded, obviously. So it' s just if you look under there it ' s
just denuded clay from years of scouring off the lawn. That ' s the
only issue. So it just seems like an ideal place to put the fill,
which would then enable the owner to at least keep a deck that has
been there for decades . And quite frankly wouldn' t have had damage
had this lawn been pitched properly or had proper drainage a couple
of decades ago. That ' s all.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We've also seen berms at the top of the bluff,
vegetated, that have worked out well. So that could be potentially
another location for your fill.
MR. CARR: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Slight berms .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I guess since we 've gone down this route. The point
you make is a good one about the deck causing there to be .a lack of
vegetation on the bluff. And, I mean this Board regularly tries
increase the buffers to protect the property as a whole. Which then
makes an argument, okay, if the deck needs to be pulled out and
rebuilt . If the DEC and this Board to allow you put the fill back in
that shallow depression, maybe it should just be planted, then the
deck should be pulled landward. And then you have a natural buffer,
which is only going to help with the drainage concerns there.
MR. CARR: Okay, we ' ll discuss it, look at it and get back to the
drawing table and get you a new plan. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak regarding
this application or any additional comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application for an
additional site visit .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 20 August 13, 2025
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Number 3, Patricia Moore, Esq. On behalf of 536
BAYVIEW, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit
for all of the existing structures on the property consisting of a
42 . 5 'x30. 5 ' 1 & 1-� story dwelling with seaward 16. 4 ' x28 ' on-grade
paver patio, 7 . 81x22 ' front open wood porch with a garage below that
has a 69. 69sq. ft. Concrete driveway with retaining walls for below
grade area up to a 1, 896sq. ft. Asphalt driveway; a 1 & ;.� story,
two-car detached garage; a/c unit for dwelling; an 8 . 11x31. 1 '
wood-tie curb area; and for 3 'x6. 4 ' wood steps in pathway down to
2 . 6 ' x9 ' beach stairs .
Located: 54505 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-52-1-9
The Trustees visited the site on the 6th of August, and our
notes from that field inspection are as follows : Increase the
vegetated non-turf buffer, striking a straight line. Drywell to
connect gutters to leaders .
The LWRP coordinator found the project inconsistent, and the
notes from that finding are permanent non-moveable structure is
located seaward of .the CEHA.
Is there anyone wishing to speak regarding the application.
MS. MOORE: Yes . Good evening. Patricia Moore. Thank you, for
meeting me out there.
The reason I came in for this application is the house is a
pre-CO. It was built in the 1930s . There had been a deck in the
backyard, of the seaward side of the property. That deck was removed
and replaced with just brick, on-grade brick on sand. So my client,
both clients, they are my clients now, was the seller, and we had- to
make sure that everything was legal and that the patio, because it
was replaced, or it was installed, replacing the deck, had been done
while the, when the Trustees, I think the Trustees had jurisdiction,
I 'm not sure. It ' s pretty old. But in any case, we had to come in
and come in for a permit to make sure that everything is current and
has permits in place .
There was really no issue with vegetation. Increasing it there,
I want to call them bald spots that appear throughout the vegetation,
it ' s very heavily vegetated. As far as the straight line, it ' s hard
because the survey shows the vegetation that is not quite straight.
We can fill it in but it would not necessarily be a straight line. We
increased the vegetation to the west of the pathway that goes to the
set of steps down. That area was, in my book, clearly an area that
had to be vegetated. There was also a bald spot there, I couldn' t
identify where it came from. And then we can include some additional
vegetation that fills in, it ' s pretty far into the property. So on
the west side of the property was vegetated there pretty evenly. And
then there was an indentation that we would fill in, and then it
actually expands out closer to the house and the larger buffer there.
So we are, it was hard for me to give you a straight line. I
think it makes more sense to just say enhance the vegetated buffer
for an even width and you can just give me the width that you want. I
think I see from the surveyor there is the distance from the bluff to
the edge of the vegetation, I can't see the number, I don' t have my
Board of Trustees 21 August 13, 2025
glasses. But if you want to give me a measurement I can at least
identify it and have the surveyor just mark it and we can resubmit
it.
As far as the drywell, that was a concern because the house does
have the gutters and leaders . There are no drywells on this house
because it predates . The drywells were installed when the garage was
installed because it was under a current permit. The request by the
owner was we could get extenders on the ends of the drywells, since
the property already pitches toward the street and we have probably
200 feet to the road, that would work for now. The new family, the
new owners, Mrs . Ragucci (sic) might be here. Eventually there will
be building permits that they will get, and at that point they will
have to meet the drainage code. So it would make sense to do it when
a building permit is issued, CO is issued for any renovation to the
house rather than at this point in time.
Oh, there' s a vegetated buffer. So you can see on the right
there is like the wider area about center on the property, then there
is like a little bit of a caving in toward the shoreline. We filled
that area in, and then fill in, there is a bald spot, as I said, to
the west of the opening for the staircase. And that would make sense
to fill that area in. We were just trying to make sense of the
existing conditions .
That, as I said, this is an existing house, there is no
construction going on. This is bringing everything into conformity
with 275, which is putting everything under a wetland permit, but
there is no activity, no construction taking place.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I think the Board discussed in the field, Ms .
Moore, just an easy point of reference for buffer would be three feet
off of that bocci court edge.
MS . MOORE: Okay, I did not get that message. Okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : So just striking the line off on new plans that
you would submit, just mark off three feet seaward of that bocce
court edge. That should be sufficient.
MS . MOORE: So that would give us a distance that I could give the
surveyor. Just make this a vegetated buffer. That ' s why.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Yes .
MS. MOORE: Thank you. I didn't have that . That would have helped.
Sorry.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : So this application is pretty straightforward in
my mind, andcI think the question that really befalls the Trustees is
let ' s imagine that a person never goes before the Building Department
to renovate it, and the gutters to leaders to drywells just never
takes place.
So we could possibly find a way to condition it of postponing
that, but ultimately we would like to see that water caught on
property.
May be can propose something like a condition of a year of grace
period before they would have to come in and apply for that, or
install that, rather.
MS. MOORE: Install, yes, because I 'm like I don't want to come back.
Board of Trustees 22 August 13, 2025
Okay, so within a year, one year, put in some drainage to the --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Yeah, I understand what you are saying, it ' s like
you don' t want to put something in then have to tear it all out
again. But maybe if you have a year to do that. To decide.
MS. MOORE: So if the owners decide that they are going to be doing
something with the house, then that year would essentially be
extended because it would be part of the building permit. That make
sense.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Yes .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All right. That ' s fair.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : So we ' ll see it on our plans, the eventual
location.
MS . MOORE: Well, we ' ll keep all the drainage landward of the front
of, seaward side of the house, for sure.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Yes . I think if you submit new plans, we ' ll have
the buffer three feet off the bocce court ends, and show the proposed
location of drywells with the condition of installing them within one
year of issuance of permit.
Does that make sense?
MS. MOORE: Yes .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Okay, so there are a few components to this .
There is the Wetland permit, and the Coastal Erosion permit. And as
is pretty routine, this Board is unable to approve the coastal
erosion permit because of the size of the structure within that zone .
MS . MOORE: No, because this is a pre-existing structure, it was built
in 1930s . So.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : We have had this discussion with you actually
several times for applications along this road. So, yes .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : So it would be potentially a denial of the 111 and
you go before the Town Board to appeal it.
MS. MOORE: (Perusing) . But that implies -- well, then I ' ll take the
house out of the permit process . The only reason I was putting the
house in the permit process was because the Board prefers to have all
existing structures as part of the permit. The only thing that was,
potentially, was a removal of an old deck, replaced with a patio
on-grade, that is on, it ' s pervious pavers.
So we removed, see , that round thing that had been a gazebo,
which I had the owner remove, so that way they did not have to either
get a variance or wetland permit for a structure, that would have
required a building permit at the time.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I wouldn' t over think it. I think it ' s a visit to
the Town Board.
MS . MOORE: It ' s not just a visit. I mean, clients pay, they pay legal
fees and they pay application fees, and it goes to the Town Board as
a public hearings process .
MS. HULSE: But it ' s not a separate application fee.
It ' s just you appear in front of the Town Board, and they' ll consider
it and make .a decision. It ' s not even going to delay this to any
great extent.
Board of Trustees 23 August 13, 2025
MS. MOORE: It makes no sense because this is a house that predates
zoning. You don't need a coastal. It ' s exempt from a coastal erosion
permit.
MS. HULSE: It ' s not exempt. There is no exemption under 111. It would
be nice to be able to exempt it. It would be sort of the common-sense
approach to it but unfortunately not within the code to do that. So I
think this Board would really love to accommodate you on that. It
seems sort of like a pro forma type of thing, however they are still
bound by what 111 allows and doesn' t allow.
MS. MOORE: But 111 does not apply other than if you are putting in an
application for a structure within the Coastal Erosion. This house
predates Coastal Erosion, so.
MS . HULSE: Which is the reason why it ' s inconsistent with the LWRP.
That ' s exactly the reason.
MS. MOORE: Well, LWRP makes no sense, but that ' s another day for
another conversation.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And, Pat, just on top of that, the 16. 4 buy
28-foot on-grade paver patio is over 200-square foot anyway. So you
need Coastal Erosion for that .
MS. MOORE: Pervious on-grade. Okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I think that there' s two directions to head in
this evening. One is to proceed with everything, the other is to lop
off the house. So it ' s not even a possibility.
MS. MOORE: At this point, that ' s fine, because if I 'm going to put
the brick paver replacing, bricks that replace the deck, you know.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : And if you want to petition the state to make the
change there, I would be happy to write a letter of support.
MS. MOORE: I personally read Coastal Erosion law differently than
you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And you are also welcome to just send the
applicants themselves to Town Board. You don't have to represent
them there. It ' s not necessary.
MS. MOORE: Thank you, very much, for your --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak regarding
the application.
(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 Wetland permit with
new plans depicting a vegetated non-turf buffer delineated three feet
seaward off the edge of the bocce court; the depiction of gutters to
leaders to drywells landward of the structure, with the condition
that they be installed after one year of issuance of the permit.
So that is my motion on the Wetland permit.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 24 August 13, 2025
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I make a motion to deny the Coastal Erosion permit
portion of this application because the structures located in this
Coastal Erosion hazard area exceed the allowable square footage the
Trustees can allow.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Under Wetland Permits, Number 1, Patricia Moore,
Esq. On behalf of NICHOLAS & ASPASIA RONTIRIS requests a Wetland
Permit to demolish (Per Town Code Definition) , and reconstruct the
existing 1-1,� story (1st floor 1, 716 gross sq. ft. ) . dwelling with
attached garage, 5 ' x8 ' outdoor shower, and 2 . 5 'x10 . 5 ' trash bin;
within the footprint of the roof install a new 24 . 8 'x45. 10 ' second
floor dormer; replace and reposition existing windows, replace
exterior doors and siding on dwelling; remove east side door and
stoop and replace with a window; install a stormwater drainage
system; existing timber deck on west side of dwelling to be repaired
as needed (113 ' in total length by 35 . 11 ' by 3 . 10 ' cut around tree) ,
with tree cut down and deck repaired to fill in cut; existing timber
retaining walls to remain consisting of a lower wall starting from
west to east 8 ' 4-3/8" to 6' 11" to 10 ' 1/8" to 419" steps to upper
grade; lower timber wall continues west to east 8 ' 2-1/2" to 23 '
1-1/2" to 17 ' 3-3/4" to existing steps 4 ' 9-1/2" to upper grade; and
upper stone wall 9 ' 4-1/2" to 2915" to 1319" to 712"; a one-to-one
tree replacement for any trees removed; and to establish and
perpetually maintain 15 ' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge
of the bulkhead.
Located: 240 Knoll Circle, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-5-15
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 6th of
August, noting requested plans of pier line to adjacent structures .
The Trustees are in receipt of a pier line study dated August
llth, 2025, as well as a note from the attorney representing the
clients .
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent.
Ms . Moore, I see you are here to speak regarding this
application. I would just ask that you limit your comments to
anything that was not already submitted to the file.
MS. MOORE: Do you have questions .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: My one question was I see there are trees on this
property that are very mature. Are they going to lose any trees in
the construction of this project?
MS. MOORE: The only tree that had gotten a permit to be removed was
the one on the waterfront side that is between the two neighbors by
the deck that had gotten a previous approval to be removed because
it ' s an insurance risk wear it ' s located.
Board of Trustees 25 August 13, 2025
As a cause of the construction we are not aware of any that are
going to be needed.
So here is the architect. We had not met, we only had spoken.
So, go ahead.
Just to make sure that it ' s on the record, that you know we have
HOA that is next to us that is the adjacent property, not a house, so
to make that clear.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: That was clear from the note.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application, or any further questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application subject
to new plans depicting the addition of an IA system on the landward
side of the house and noting any trees that are proposed to be
removed as a cause of construction, and where the replacements will
be located if necessary, and that any replacement trees be no smaller
than three inches it caliper.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 2, AS PER REVISED PLANS & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SUBMITTED 8/5/2025 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 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 240 cubic
yards to be excavated for dwelling and septic with approximately
1, 028 cubic yards of fill proposed for backfilling and grading; the
dwelling depth to be 7 ' at front yard and property slopes to rear
yard; 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 reviewed the new plans on August 11th, 2025, and
noted that there is no pool on the new plans, and to increase the
buffer.
Board of Trustees 26 August 13, 2025
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent with Polices 5
and 6, noting the following:
Number one, the pool in its current location will sit in the
groundwater. The test hole was dug at a much higher elevation near
Crescent Way.
Number two, the grading proposed on the property will impact
drainage patterns and vegetation in this critical environmental area.
I will note that the date on this LWRP is July 5th of 2025 .
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application.
MS . EPPERSON: I 'm Brit Epperson, with AMP Architecture. I 'm here
representing for Anthony who could -not be here. He sends his
apologies .
So, yes, after the July hearing, the Board did present
speculation with the pool that it might not be in the best location.
So we did remove the pool from the application.
There was also discussion that you guys wanted to see the trees
that would need to be removed. We did bring Cole Environmental on
board to show the mitigation and the tree removal, so Kate is here,
and I will have her speak about that . But if there is anything you
want to discuss about the site plan as it sits now, with the pool
removed and the house, I can answer any of those questions.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : Okay, great . I did have one question.
In reviewing, these are the plans stamp dated August 4th, 2025,
received. It ' s unclear what I 'm looking at the elevations . Are there
any retaining walls?
MS. EPPERSON: No. So because of the natural grade of the property,
when you are looking at the house from the front, it ' s at a higher
elevation than the natural grade at the rear. So the house does slope
naturally on the side of the house, and you will come to the back of
the house where it will have a full height basement. So the sides
will just be the basement foundation walls .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : That does make sense based on the southwest
elevation that I 'm looking at.
The one question that I had, would you mind just approaching the
dais, please.
MS. EPPERSON: Sure.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I 'm looking at the northwest elevation right there.
And if you would just answer back at the podium, please.
Thank you.
MS. EPPERSON: So that is, it won't be higher than two feet, that is
to -- we had to grade that side slightly because we are removing the
house. The location of the existing house, will, where it sits now,
we' ll have to fill that in, and this is our approximation of where
the fill will have to go. And that two-foot high retaining wall may
or may not be needed. But from what we can see right now there is a
potential that we will need a retaining wall that area.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : Okay, and as you noted, anything, we would not want
to see a retaining wall any higher than two feet. I do understand
that due to the site conditions that that is a possibility. And I do
Board of Trustees 27 August 13, 2025
appreciate that in the design, both with you all and the client, it ' s
kind of a one-story house at the fact, and then the rear that is on
the seaward side is in fact only two stories complete instead of
where often is tried to squeeze in as three. So that has been noted
and appreciated.
So I would just say that if for some reason you do decide you .
need to install retaining walls, you would need to come back to the
Trustees just for an amendment with that.
MS. EPPERSON: Not a problem.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : Great . Thank you.
MS. EPPERSON: Then I guess do you have any more questions?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : I don' t.
MS. EPPERSON: Do you want to hear from Kate about the mitigation?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : Yes, please. Thank you.
MS. RUMMEL: Kate Rummel, Cole Environmental. You should be in receipt
of a narrative, but because of the amount of trees on this site the
canopy is rather dense and there is a lot of competition.
So we proposed, instead of doing the typical like one-to-one
replacement would be for tree removal, to replace some of those trees
with a three-to-one ratio of native shrubs. So that would add to the
vertical diversity, you know, habitat for animals, it would help
restore the area, create resilience, I could go on, but there are a
lot of benefits to having like a natural shrub layer on the property.
And in the narrative there are some photos, so it ' s like very obvious
that that shrub area is missing from the property.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : Thank you, for explaining that. I think I might be
missing that narrative. Was that submitted --
MS. RUMMEL: It was submitted with a --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : Because I just see the architectural plans .
MS . RUMMEL: There is a table, we plotted out the trees that would,
are proposed to come down with their caliper, and plotted them on the
site plan. But -- yes . I can submit -- I don' t know if I could submit
a copy now.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : (Perusing) . Okay, it was buried, bear with me one
moment, please. So it looks like a three-page document. Is that what
I 'm looking at?
MS . RUMMEL: So, yes . There is a three-page narrative, and then you
also have a table of the trees that were plotted that would be
removed, and then there are three on that chart that are outside
Trustee jurisdiction but within the footprint of the proposed house.
But just because there is significant competition of the existing
trees, squeezing in --
(Board members perusing documents) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : While they talk, I reviewed plans, the side of the
house where the previous application depicted a pool, would that area
be left wooded?
MS . RUMMEL: Yeah, I mean --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : (Continuing) . There ' s rhododendrons and --
MS. RUMMEL: Yes, there' s mountain laurels there,. and, I mean, we are
not opposed to replanting some trees, but there are, I mean there are
Board of Trustees 28 August 13, 2025
a few onsite that are leaning significantly just trying to reach
sunlight. But, yes, I do believe that area would be part of the
natural shrub layer.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : Thank you, we had a chance to look at that . We must
have missed that with everything else here. I do think that it would
be helpful to see a planting plan.
MS. RUMMEL: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : When we were looking, it appears in reviewing this
document, the submitted, the plan, that the trees numbered one
through 16 are all kind of in the building envelope of the house, the
foundation envelope, sort of.
MS. RUMMEL: Uh, huh.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : Okay. So this Board does understand any building
does require some tree removal. What we think is so special about
this property are the number of trees on the property. However, there
is already a structure there and a home there.
So I think what would be helpful to see in this proposed
planting plan is that we understand those trees need to be removed
within the foundation of the house. Our concern is are any trees that
are removed outside of that, which will need to happen for
construction, and so those are the ones . that I think would be helpful
to indicate removal . And with those we would like a two-to-one tree
replacement.
MS . RUMMEL: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So, does that makes sense?
MS . RUMMEL: So two-to-one for any tree that would be taken down
outside of the proposed footprint.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Exactly. Yes . Well put.
MS. RUMMEL: I do think if there were trees to be taken down, that it
would be relatively minimal because where the proposed house is
going, I mean, I understand there are 16 trees being taken down but
compared to other areas on the site, it is relatively open.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : Right. And I think kind of preserve that wooded
feel, the two-to-one tree replacement is appropriate, because we are
not talking about the 16, necessarily, we are talking about the ones
outside of that perimeter.
In terms of the, you were talking about the shrubs or the
bushes, that is an important part of a wooded environment, so when I
was reviewing the elevations for the structure, on the northwest
elevation and the southeast elevation, it ' s part of that sort of
lower level wall that the architect was referring to. So that ' s an
area that would be nice to see some of those shrubs, to sort of have
a little bit of a buffer area.
MS . RUMMEL: Northwest and southeast?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I 'm looking at the southeast elevation, and the
northwest.
MS . RUMMEL: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And then obviously including in your planting plan,
the area kind of seaward of the house would be nice with some lower,
native vegetation there. Some of the bush kind of style shrubs that
Board of Trustees 29 August 13, 2025
you were referring to. But again that would be helpful to see in the
planting plan.
MS . RUMMEL: Sure. Could the Board I guess approve the project pending
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think we are prepared to proceed with that, as
long as you can kind of work within those bounds for the submission.
MS . RUMMEL: That ' s fine. Just to reiterate. Two-to-one for trees
outside of the footprint . Shrub layer northeast/southeast side of
the house, and then additional plantings seaward of the house.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Northwest and southeast. Yes .
MS. RUMMEL: Sorry, yes .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Essentially the exposed walls. We don't want to see
that, you know, stark wall. Let ' s soften that and 'kind of help blend
that into the environment .
MS. RUMMEL: Okay, not a problem.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : Okay, is there anyone else here who wishes to speak,
or any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application with the
following conditions : Two-to-one replacement of trees with native
hardwoods of two-to-three inch caliper; increase the buffer to a
30-foot vegetated non-turf buffer due to the slope of the property;
want to minimize the height of retaining walls and minimize any fill
on the property; and submission of a planting plan depicting the
existing trees; and note any trees to remove during construction;
propose the new trees and the native plantings to buffer the exposed
walls on the southeast and northwest elevation. And due to the
removal of the pool within recent submission, and increasing the
buffer, and the planting of the trees, thereby brings it into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, REVISED SITE PLANS & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED 7/21/2025 Cole Environmental Services on behalf of DAVID
VENER & ELLEN WEINSTEIN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
4 'x161 ' fixed catwalk with Thru-Flow decking with a ladder at
terminus; maintain a 4 ' wide natural access path to fixed catwalk;
and to establish and perpetually maintain an approximately
1, 500sq. ft. Non-turf buffer area located landward of the top of bank.
Located: 2793 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-8-7 . 6
The Trustees most recently conducted an inhouse inspection on
August llth, notes that we reviewed the new plans . Note less than
one-foot of water depth at the dock terminus . Questioned the non-turf
Board of Trustees 30 August 13, 2025
buffer, and at the top of the blank seaward should be a
non-disturbance buffer.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The
inconsistencies are the design does not meet Chapter 275 dock
standards . The proposed configuration creates potential navigation
hazards and a cluster of dock structures .
Is there anyone here wishing to speak to this application?
MS . RUMMEL: Kate Rummel, Cole Environmental, on behalf of the client .
So you are in receipt of modified plans which now show an "I"
instead of -- actually I can' t remember if we did it . We had a "T"
previously.
And we 've also pulled back the structure from that northern
property line. We included a non-turf buffer which is an area, the
sandy area that was by the top of the bank, and the firepit and patio
area that were proposed upland had been removed from the project.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So just in regard to that, with the proposed
non-turf buffer, what is going to happen seaward of the non-turf
buffer between the top of the bank and the non-turf buffer?
MS . RUMMEL: So it is pretty well vegetated, this, like the proposed
area was roughly the area based on like GIS, the area that right now
is, it ' s sparsely vegetated. I think you can kind of see the top of
the bank, it was, there were talks there had been a previous buffer,
but I don' t think there is any evidence of that. But otherwise the
area is pretty vegetated.
If you' d like, we can extend the buffer that ' s --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, that is something we talked about during work
session. So the top of the bank seaward, being a non-disturbance
buffer, and from the top of the bank landward to your current edge of
area proposed non-turf buffer, for that whole area to be non-turf
buffer.
MS. RUMMEL: Okay, basically just within the confines of I guess the
northern property line and like the path?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes .
MS. RUMMEL: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Another question. Do you have a DEC permit on
this yet?
MS . RUMMEL: We are, so we previously had a DEC permit for a structure
that crossed the property line, so we are kind of like just in the
process of modifying the permit.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Another one of the things we talked about,
obviously there is a chokepoint with docks, not necessarily your
client ' s fault, seeing that the dock to the east crosses over the
property line, so. But obviously it is a hazard to navigation if
people try to dock a boat on both sides of that dock. It ' s going to
present a problem.
MS. RUMMEL: Right. This, I mean the water that is along the use of,
but the intention is only for like a kayak or a skull.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. And the DEC didn' t have any problems with
that, with going seven inches of water at the end dock?
Board of Trustees 31 August 13, 2025
Because it looks like you have about 110 over intertidal marsh to get
to seven inches of water.
MS. RUMMEL: So far there has not been any pushback.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: One of the things that, another thing that we did
talk about was tabling this before the DEC, just in case there was
any modifications from them. We would not want to go forward and
have you bounce back and forth between agencies .
MS. RUMMEL: Okay, yes, that ' s fine.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application for a DEC
permit.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of
1420 SMITH DRIVE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a dock
consisting of a 4 'x12 ' fixed dock using 8" diameter pilings and
Thru-Flow decking with a 3 'x12 ' aluminum ramp to a 6 'x20 ' floating
dock installed off the west side of the fixed dock and secured with
two (2) 12" diameter pilings; install water and electric to the dock;
and to install a 4 ' wide permeable access path through the non-turf
buffer to the dock.
Located: 1420 Smith Drive South, Southold. SCTM# 1000-76-3-10 . 1
The Trustees most recently visited the property on the 6th of
August, and noted that it was a straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application.
MS . RUMMEL: Kate Rummel, Cole Environmental .
So we had new depth taken and it ' s pretty straightforward. The
proposed structure is now just within, I mean it ' s easy to see the
new channel,
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Any comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion on close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 32 August 13, 2025
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Number 5, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On
behalf of MAUREEN DACIMO REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit
for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to maintenance dredge two
shoaled areas "A" & "B" of the existing navigational channel to a
depth of -4 . 5 ' below Mean Low Water elevation 0 . 0 ' ; the resultant
spoil (sand-mud & silt) , ±600 cubic yards from area "A", and ±370
cubic yards from area "B" to be transported to shore by barge and
trucked off to an approved upland disposal site.
Located: 5240 Narrow River Road, Orient . SCTM# 1000-27-2-4
The Trustees reviewed the application on the llth of August,
noted straightforward.
The LWRP finds it consistent.
I welcome comments from the public.
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant. If there are
any questions, I 'm here to answer them.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Questions from the Board; members of the public?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 6, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On
behalf of ZOLEE, LLC, c/o SUSAN NORRIS requests a Wetland Permit to
remove and dispose of existing 46 ' long jetty and construct in-place
a new 40 ' long low-profile jetty using vinyl sheathing.
Located: 620 Terry Path, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-6-22 . 9
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 6th of
August, noting no more than 18 inches in height over grade.
And the LWRP found this project to be consistent.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant. It ' s pretty
straightforward, it ' s less than 18 inches above the beach, it ' s been
cut back six feet at low water. Just here to answer any questions .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application, or any questions or comments from the
Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
Board of Trustees 33 August 13, 2025
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 7, En-Consultants on behalf of MARDIK
DONIKYAN requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing one-story
dwelling and masonry patio; construct a two-story, 1, 645sq. ft .
Single-family dwelling with attached 16sq. ft . , 80sq. ft. And 435sq. ft .
Porches with associated steps, a second-story 151x15 ' covered roof
deck, a second story 10 'x20 ' roof deck, basement stairs and window
wells for egress; construct a 10 'x30 ' in-ground swimming pool with
hot tub; install a pool drywell and pool equipment area; install
1, 160sq. ft. Grade-level masonry pool patio; a 12 'xl2 ' shed; a 4 'x8 '
outdoor shower; install 4 ' to 6 ' high pool enclosure fencing with
gates; install a/c units and a generator; remove existing septic
system and install an I/A OWTS sanitary system landward of new
dwelling; install a stormwater drainage system; fill an approximately
520sq. ft. Area of recessed driveway with on-site soil material to
match surrounding grades; and to establish and perpetually maintain
an 18 ' to 22 ' wide vegetated non-turf buffer along the landward edge
of the retaining wall (minimum 15 feet landward of top of bank) , with
a 4 ' wide cleared path.
Located: 54255 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-52-1-4
The Trustees most recently visited the site on August 6th 2025,
and Trustee Gillooly made the following notes: Increase buffer on
western portion of property, relocate drywell landward.
The LWRP found this application to be inconsistent with Polices
4 and 6. 3 of the LWRP, noting the following: Permanent non-movable
structure is locate adjacent to CEHA. Expansion of structure in
vulnerable areas subject to wind and erosion caused by storms is 'not
supported by this policy. Is there anyone here wishing to speak.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes . Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant . The applicant Donikyan is here also with the project
engineer Mike McKreena.
I was a little puzzled by the LWRP recommendation only because
the house is currently very close to the Coastal Erosion Hazard area,
and this project proposes to move it substantially farther landward
and in line with the house that was recently constructed, is being
constructed, recently approved for construction, on the lot to the
west. And so it is, that the new house is actually significantly
behind the pier lines, both of the previously existing homes to the
west and to the east, and also to the newly constructed home, or home
being newly constructed on the property to the west.
We did talk about a couple of things during field inspections.
One was the widening of the proposed vegetated non-turf buffer on the
west side of the property, extending that back five feet from the
point that it was . So what we now have is a uniform buffer of 22
foot in width landward of that upper retaining wall. And that was
presented on a revised plan which I had e-mailed over to Liz, and I
Board of Trustees 34 August 13, 2025
just handed up the hardcopids now, and it looks like Trustee
Goldsmith is looking at that .
So we did modify that buffer in accordance with the Trustees
suggestion, excuse me, recommendation. It was also recommended to
relocate that` drywell for the patio on the east side of the property,
farther landward, which was also done.
So both of those changes were made to the site plan that you now
have in front of you.
Otherwise, I mean it ' s a reasonably straightforward application.
It is a significant landward relocation and improvement over the
existing conditions . There will be an IA sanitary system on the
roadside of the house close to the highway in place of the existing
conventional septic system. And again, everything is really
basically designed to be in-line with the new development on the lot
to the west, it terms of its relative spacing to the top of the bank
and Long Island Sound.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. I ' ll note we are in receipt of updated
plans as mentioned, showing the 22-foot vegetated non-turf buffer,
that increased buffer, and the drywell that was moved landward. And
these plans were stamped received August 13th, 2025 .
Is there anyone else that wishes to speak?
(No response) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application with the
plans stamped received on August 13th, 2025, and due to the fact that
the house has been moved further landward, that thereby brings it
into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 8, Richard Mato, Architect on behalf of
CHRISTOPHER & MAIRI YOUNG requests a Wetland Permit to remove
163sq. ft. Of existing rear covered porch, remove 509sq. ft. Impervious
bluestone patio at grade, and reconstruct in same location a new
392sq. ft. One-story addition onto dwelling over a new 336sq. ft.
Crawlspace and 56sq. ft. Partial basement with a 28sq. ft. Bilco door;
install a new approximately 300sq. ft. Bluestone patio set in lawn in
same location as existing with a bluestone stepping path to pool
patio; remove existing 1, 037sq. ft. Bluestone pool patio, 39sq. ft.
Bilco door with basement steps, and 44sq. ft. Landing and steps, and
construct a new 1, 164sq. ft. Porcelain pavers patio, and a new 41xl3 '
entry platform with steps; the existing retaining walls for pool
patio are to remain.
Board of Trustees 35 August 13, 2025
Located: 470 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-17-17 . 11
The Trustees conducted a field inspection, August 6th, 2025 .
Notes say no addition further seaward than the existing structure.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent .
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. MATO: Yes . Richard Mato, Architect, on behalf of the owner.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So I believe we met with you in the field
MR. MATO: You did.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So there was that one bump-out on the northwest
corner.
MR. MATO: Correct. We will eliminate that and that will be reflected
in the construction drawings .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, thank you.
Anyone else wishing to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application with
the condition that no structure extends further seaward than
existing, and subject to new plans depicting that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Number 9, Leonardo Manno on behalf of CAROLYN
KERWICK requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 15 'x32 ' inground
pool with a 12" coping; a 423sq. ft. Stone pool patio, pool enclosure
fencing with gates, a 41x8 ' pool equipment area, a pool drywell for
backwash, and a 3 ' xl2 ' outdoor bbq counter area.
Located: 1235 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-75-6-13 . 1
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. Noted the
protection of Richmond Creek' s water quality is essential . Pool water
disposal should be located far from the surface water if the pool is
chlorinated. Due to the proximity of the pool to high-quality marine
wetlands a bromide water pool should be considered. A proposed pool
is located too close to a FEMA AE flood and velocity hazard zone.
Structures in FEMA flood zones should be avoided, relocated or
minimized to prevent loss .
The Trustees visited the site on August 6th. The notes are as
follows : Vegetated non-turf buffer 15 feet landward of wetland line
surrounding the entire property. The pool would need to be shifted to
be pulled back 50 feet from the wetland line. The survey appears to
be wrong, with the wetland line that was done in 2023 . So it says
shift pool back in line with house to ensure 50 feet from wetlands .
Board of Trustees 36 August 13, 2025
Trustees still feel appropriate location for pool to be on east
side of house. Gutters to leaders to drywell on house. Also
questioning how high are the retaining walls, and then limit the fill
on the property.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. MANNO: Leonardo Manno, here for the clients .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : How are you doing.
So just to clarify the field notes, we measured in the field
when we were there on inspections, and the pool is between five and
eight feet from the wetland line. On here it says 50, but the actual
measurement in the field is, the line' s a little off. So the proposed
solution to that would be to just pull that pool more in line with
the house, which should get it the five feet out of the wetland
boundary there.
MR. MANNO: Sure. I was not aware of that part, of the line being
incorrect, so pulling it closer to the roadway, west?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : No. So, if you look at the plans, it technically I
guess east. But if you look at the plans, shifting that pool further
in front of the house, essentially, several feet, would pull it the
five feet because of the angle away.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : And think likely reducing the size of the pool to
accommodate that, not shifting it entirely so it ' s closer to the
wetland on the other boundary.
MR. MANNO: I guess I 'm not following which direction. I know -- I
think one of the requests, I 'm not sure if it was this Board, was to
shift it over toward the roadway. So we did that. And we also
decreased the size of the pool as well as the patio. Now do you want
to go the other way, or -- I just want to make sure I understand.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : No, so the issue is the wetland wraps around the
whole property. So you are voiding setbacks on multiple sides . The
original proposal, which is also awfully close that we discussed, but
that might be too close to the neighbors here, was to try to tuck it
in on the side of the house, and get it even further away from the
wetlands . Because it really is a tight spot for us to work with.
But what I 'm talking about is if you look at the plans, you
look at the edge of house where the driveway comes up, the pool
sticks out a few feet past the edge of that house on that side. If
that was pulled in line or slightly past the edge of the house, you
would get the 50 feet away from the wetland line.
MR. MANNO: Gotcha. Okay, that ' s what I 'm saying, because we just
shifted it like before this . The prior plan should have shown it was
actually more in line with the house
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : It was. Okay. So that was probably an effort to get
it away from the wetlands on the other side. So what I would probably
just shorten it a few feet down from, I believe it ' s a 15x32 . So
depending on what that measurement in the field is, we' re about five
feet. But there is an angle. So I 'm just throwing out rough numbers,
but if you shorten the pool by three feet, you' d probably have the 50
feet that we require by code.
Board of Trustees 37 August 13, 2025
MR. MANNO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : And then can you speak to the LWRP' s comments, that
the flooding is a little tricky, but at least not having a
chlorinated pool?
MR. MANNO: I can' t speak to that . I 'm not sure if the homeowners
decided to go salt water or chlorinated, but what I will add is the
location of that well is nearby an existing septic system, is my
understanding. I don' t know if that has any --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Most people installing new pools now are not doing
chlorine. So it ' s likely it ' s not. But that is something the Board
regularly stipulates, that it be salt water.
And then also there was a question about the height of the
retaining walls, the face. So when we are talking about that, we are
talking about if you are standing at the wetlands, looking back at
the pool and/or the house, what is the height of the retaining wall
that is sticking out of the ground.
MR. MANNO: Yes, so my understanding is there is going to be no
retaining wall. I know at one point prior to my involvement with
this project there was a retaining wall involved. My understanding is
now there is not going to be one.
If anything, maybe, you know, five to six-inch height
differential . We ' re going to use the existing material taken out of
the earth and use it to re-grade the area so that there will not be a.
retaining wall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : So the pool itself will also not be sticking out of
the ground, because you' re going to flare the material up against
that itself?
MR. MANNO: My understanding is at most we ' ll have is approximately
six inches or so of pool coming out of the ground. I think there was
something in here, in the past, regarding I guess a two-foot
retaining wall or something like that, but that ' s no longer the case.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Okay. Then the outdoor barbecue counter, that ' s a
fairly unlevel area, so we were not quite clear what was going to
happen with that . Is there any other deck or patio proposed there, or
it ' s just --
MR. MANNO: So there ' s existing -- you guys went to the site, right?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Yes .
MR. MANNO: .There ' s existing stones right there on the grass at grade,
so my understanding is the back of that patio, the back of the
proposed countertop does drop off, you know, the property drops off
there, but it ' s going to be at grade. So they are going to use that
sort of flat surface area, that walking area, as the space in front
of the counter, if that makes sense.
So they are not really worried about, you know, sort of any
walls or anything behind the counter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Okay. And then you understand what I 'm talking
about, the Board regularly would do a vegetated non-turf buffer, and
when the house was first purchased here, you know, I think the
landscapers came through and sort of clear-cut the whole swath along
the wetland line. There is definitely Round-Up sprayed when we first
Board of Trustees 38 August 13, 2025
visited the site, I think a year ago. And so typically with any
application we install a vegetated non-turf buffer along the wetland
lines, so we would just need to see that on the next set of plans .
MR. MANNO: Okay. There is something pending with the DEC. They have
our application. They are proposing some sort of vegetated buffer.
Can I kind of come together in one swoop with you guys once I have
what they want and see if you guys would accept what they propose.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Probably so. I mean, we have our own sort of,
we' ll probably end up pretty close on that. We can probably move
forward with this, and then if the DEC says you need more of a buffer
you can just install more of a buffer kind of a thing than our
proposed.
So, with us, you can always install more. So if we quantify a
15-foot swath and the DEC says 20, that ' s okay with us if you plant
more.
MR. MANNO: Okay, and just so I understand, too, the Board is
recommending a 15-foot buffer across the entire back portion of the
yard?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Surrounding the wetlands line, yes .
MR. MANNO: Okay. So an adjustment of the pool three feet, roughly,
making it smaller, more in line with the home; a 15-foot buffer along
the wetland portion of the property, and/or an additional
recommendation from the DEC as well.
Was there anything else I 'm missing?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I believe that' s it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Gutters to leaders to drywells .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : The house doesn' t have gutters to leaders to
drywells, so it ' s currently discharging into the wetland.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And the drywells to be kind of landward of the
house. So not on the seaward side of the property.
MR. MANNO: Sorry, say that again.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: The installation of the drywells should be sort of
inline with the house or landward of the seaward face of the house,
so that the drywell is not on the seaward side of the house.
MR. MANNO: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : And just so, we threw that "three" number out there,
but it ' s really just to get it away. You are roughly five to eight
feet too close. But because of the angle, moving it roughly three
feet will get it away. So just whatever that is, if it ' s two feet,
if it ' s four feet, it just has to be reduced by that much to get it
out of the way.
MR. MANNO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : All right, is there anyone else here that wishes to
speak regarding this application or any additional comments from the
Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 39 August 13, 2025
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I make a motion to approve this application with the
following stipulations : New plans showing a reduction of the pool to
pull it roughly five feet further from the wetland line, for a total
of 50 feet as per code; condition of a salt water pool only; new
plans depicting a 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer along the wetland
lines surrounding property; gutters to leaders to drywells; and by
reducing the scope of this project and the distance to the wetland
and flood zones, thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP
coordinator
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
(ALL AYES) .
MR. MANNO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Number 10, THOMAS & JENNIFER SMITH request a
Wetland Permit to demolish the existing one-story dwelling and
construct a new one-story dwelling in-place consisting of raising the
existing foundation ±16 inches to meet FEMA compliance, and backfill
inside entire foundation with compacted clean fill; construct a
1, 203sq. ft. One-story dwelling with two 19. 5sq. ft. Stoops and one
15sq. ft. Stoop; remove/abandon existing septic system and install an
I/A OWTS sanitary system with 42 . 29 cubic yards of clean fill and a
retaining wall enclosure of a 0 . 7 'H x 20 . 5 'L x 8"W section, a 1 . 1 'H x
4 . 3 'L x 8"W section, a 1. 5 'H x 22 . 1 'L x 8"W section; relocate 20 L. F.
of Belgian curb; existing brick walks and patios to be removed and
replaced with concrete pavers and permeable stones; install a
stormwater drainage system for the dwelling and garage; for the
existing 12 . 5 ' x24 . 5 ' garage and to construct a second-story addition
with a '-� bath, a 3 . 6 'x6 ' second-story balcony and a 13 . 2 'x3 . 6'
exterior landing with stairs to grade; install a 4 ' x6 ' outdoor shower
off garage; construct a 101x10 ' pergola; install a 6. 81x7 . 9 ' jacuzzi
on an elevated berm that sits 33 inches above current grade; remove
existing retaining wall behind garage and construct a 26'L x 33"H x
8"W retaining wall; install underground water and electric; and to
establish and perpetually maintain the entirety of the property
except for a 380sq. ft. Area be a non-turf buffer area.
Located: 3121 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-6-10
The Trustee visited the site at our field inspection on August
6th. Notes read: Proposed project includes an incredible amount of
structure for the parcel. IA system should be moved landward.
Question excess of programming for such a constrained parcel.
The LWRP found the project to be inconsistent.
Number one, the proposed structure is located in the FEMA AE and
Velocity Hazard VE flood hazard zones. And, number two, structures in
FEMA flood zones should be avoided, relocated or minimized to prevent
loss.
We also have received letters . The first is from Patricia
Burkel. Thank you for the opportunity to express my concern and
objection to the Smith renovations . The home I reside in has been in
Board of Trustees 40 August 13, 2025
my family since 1950 . I 've witnessed storm surges from hurricanes and
nor' easters which flooded their small home and driveway.
Despite their home being raised higher in the past, the pattern
and trend reveals our water level rising, not just in Jockey Creek
but globally as well .
I recall the beach on our shore along with safe, clean water to
swim, fish and clam from my childhood. They no longer exist. I have
grave concerns to the contributions to an already contaminated creek.
I object to an outdoor shower, jacuzzi tub and a bathroom in a
storage unit . Chemicals in the jacuzzi consist of chlorine, bromine,
clarifier and alkalinity increaser. Chlorine is hazardous . It ' s a
chemical second to arsenic. Bromine is a skin irritant. Leakage
would not be welcome by our fish, wildlife, and would be further
detrimental to our creek.
The letter continues to say that the Smith'.s knew the size of
their property when purchased. Their proposals are not consistent
with the character of the neighborhood. Tom Smith reports he does
not want to overbuild. His intentions are to the contrary.
If Southold Town approves their proposal of additions, a
precedent will be established. This could encourage other property
owners to follow suit on Southold' s creeks and waterfront .
Furthermore, approval of this proposal could make Southold town
subject to liability if property damage is incurred as a result of
flooding.
I 'm hopeful that Southold town will approve the demolition and
rebuilding of the Smith residence and deny the proposals that
endanger the health of our creek. Thank you, for your time and
attention. Again, Patricia Burkel .
We also have a letter in the file from Marjorie Moffet Stevens,
located 335 Private Road U, Southold.
I have no objection to the Smith' s replacing their current
house, as I realize that after more than 100 years of nor' easter
hurricanes flooding, the house and garage must be in very poor
condition. My parents bought my house in 1942 and I have a vested
interest in Jockey Creek. I remember how it was and see how it is
now. The creek already has enough problems .
In my childhood we caught and ate clams and blue craw crabs
right in front of my house all summer long. It ' s now closed to
shellfishing by April each year because of pollution. I fee a hot tub
full of chemicals has no business being so close to the water.
Echoing the Trustees notes from our field inspection, the
Smith' s, Moffett ' s, Stevens are right, the Smith' s have applied for
an amazing amount of construction on a very small lot, including a
second-story addition to the garage, which will include balconies and
a stair case outside the original footprint of the garage. Pergola,
outdoor shower and the aforementioned hot tub.
By my calculations, this is about an additional 250 square feet
of space. I question whether the garage is even in a good enough
condition to support a second-story safely.
Board of Trustees 41 August 13, 2025
The house and lot size has not changed since the Smith' s bought
the property. If they wanted a bigger lot with more amenities, they
bought the wrong house, and Jockey Creek should not have to pay the
price.
I hope the Trustees will consider making the new septic system
the first thing that must be installed, especially if they intend to
have a second bathroom on the property.
Thank you, for your attention to this matter.
Those are the two letters in the file. Is there anyone wishing
to speak regarding the application.
MR. SMITH: Yes . I 'm Tom Smith, the owner. I 'm here with my wife
Jennifer. Maybe I can just provide a quick five-minute overview of
the project.
A year ago we came before the Trustees and we' re doing a major
renovation, so just under that 50% threshold. So I think it ' s a year
ago tomorrow we received a permit to do that.
So when we started the construction, we opened up the house --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Mr. Smith, I 'm sorry to interrupt you. Would you
just bring the microphone a little closer, it may be better for the
people in the audience to hear you.
MR. SMITH: Okay. So we quickly realized that beyond 50% had to be
done, okay. So it was pretty clear. So here we are today, I just
want to emphasize that there is no change to the plans that were
submitted a year ago. So as far as the house size, the setbacks, the
coverage, number. of bedrooms, number of the baths, it ' s still one
story. It ' s the same plans that were submitted a year ago. But now
technically we are over that 50% threshold. So now it falls into the
category of a demo and a rebuild rather than a major renovation.
So the plans that were approved are the same plans, but now that
since we 've fallen into the demo/rebuild, there are some great things
we have to do environmentally. So one is we have to lift the house
per FEMA, okay, and that ' s part of the plans . So the house has to be
lifted about 16 to 18 inches . That ' s in my application.
A new IA system has to be added, okay. And a storm water runoff
system is being installed as well.
So those are three of the significant environmental improvements
that are being done . But I want to again highlight that the plans
are the same plans that were approved before, it ' s just that the
house was in such poor condition when we opened up, we realized more
work had to be done, okay.
As far as phase two, yes, we are adding a second-story to the
garage. We talked to the ZBA about that. We are doing the other
things that are mentioned.
In total, those represent only 190 square feet. So quite small.
Now, the challenge with our property is it adds a fair amount to
lot coverage just based on the fact that I have the smallest parcel
on Jockey Creek. It ' s 6, 953 square feet. The largest parcel, my
neighbor' s if you go to the left and right, about four lots, it ' s
about 11, 500 square feet.
Board of Trustees 42 August 13, 2025
So it ' s just a little bit more pressure from a lot coverage
standpoint because of the denominator in that equation is much
smaller for me since my parcel is smaller.
One of the other things I want to really mention is with the
LWRP, and I realize this week, when my file was sent to them, it was
sent on March 3rd, okay. At that point there was no reference to an
IA system being put in. That was added about three or four weeks
later.
So there was no awareness by the LWRP that that was being added.
There was also a document, and I can share that with you, I can
also share letters showing the dates that they didn' t have the
information on that IA stem. It just highlighted six, to me, very
positive environmental changes that we are making to the property.
So, if you look back a year ago, okay, and I think pictures were
shown in the application, it ' s the same size house, it ' s 1, 200 square
feet. It doesn't get much smaller. Two bedrooms, bedrooms, two baths,
one closet in the house.
No change to that is planned, right. It ' s basically reproducing
what was there. So if you look back a year ago, that was the
condition of the house, and we had a 50-year old cesspool, only 20-25
feet from the creek. Obviously not what we want to see from an
environmental standpoint.
So now hopefully I look forward nine months from now, as far as
what we' re improving. Again, same house, same size, elevated a little
bit . We are adding an IA system. We are removing the old cesspool.
We ' re lifting the house so it ' s now technically protected to a
five-hundred year storm. We are adding a storm drainage system. We
are putting underground electric, which I 'm going to coordinate with
my neighbor doing that. We have a 95% non-turf buffer. And we are
actually replacing the walkways and the patios with a system that is
more permeable.
So I really struggle with how from a Trustee or environmental
standpoint we are not in a tremendously better position than we were
a year ago. A dilapidated house that honestly was not livable, with a
50-year old cesspool .
If there is anything else people want me to do, let ' s add it to
the list.
I think we are complying with every law and regulation that we
are aware of. If I 'm missing something, please let me know. But,
again when I look at the before and after scenario, I just struggle
to see why this is not better for the neighborhood, for the
community, for the Trustees . Obviously for us. Everything we've done
is very much in character with the neighborhood.
I could have built a two-story house. I chose not to. It' s the
same house, it just has to be 16 inches higher per FEMA.
(UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER) . (INAUDIBLE) .
MS. HULSE: Ma ' am, you can' t address the Board unless you step up to
the mic and be recognized by the Board.
MR. SMITH: So, hopefully -- I know it' s been a year since you saw my
application and I thought it ' s important just to highlight what was
Board of Trustees 43 August 13, 2025
approved then, how little it was really changing and all the really
positive things I think we ' re doing to, you know, improve, again, the
community, the neighborhood, the environment . So I welcome any
questions that you may have.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Is there anyone else wishing to speak regarding
the application?
MS. SIMONS: Carol Simons I have a packet of letters .
This is a packet of letters that have been sent to the Trustees,
in addition to what I 'm going to read now. And some past documents.
Do you want me to give them to you now. -
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : You can give them to the clerk there.
MS. SIMONS: (Handing) .
Okay, I 'm basically going to present a letter that you have in your
packet, but overview it, that Lucy Harris, who would like very much
to have been here but could not be, and I wrote, and signed by other
community members summarizing our real concerns about this project.
These concerns center on the proposed alterations likely impact
on Jockey Creek and adjacent or nearby properties .
Jockey Creek was once a beautiful waterway, but now, especially
in spring and summer, it ' s seriously polluted by runoff from
construction and landscaping work on surrounding properties . The
proposed alterations and the work they will entail will further
damage this fragile waterway.
And it ' s important to note, again, that the Board of Trustees
has, pardon me, the Zoning Board of Appeals, has already turned down
the proposal three times . And the Board of Trustees has issued a
stop-work order on alterations at the site when the work exceeded
what the Trustees had approved and deemed permissible.
Our objections are as follows: The hot tub will be situated on
an earthen berm. The weight of the requested tup is 4, 000-5, 000
pounds . What will happen to the berm when carrying this weight.
Moreover, hot tubs need chemical which must be stored and used.
Chemicals should not be allowed near Jockey Creek because of possible
flooding, leakage or accidents . Plus, the hot tub will be on the
property line. Town Code does not allow construction directly on
property lines .
The outdoor shower will also be located on the earthen berm.
The water will erode the dirt underneath. And where will the water
drain? In the creek?
The added storage of the garage raises several issues . Since
the garage has been continuously flooded over the decades, its
foundation, like that of the house must be eroded. The garage will
likely need to be demolished and rebuilt, but this action is not in
the proposal.
The proposed renovations include a tiny 306 square foot
apartment, with a 13-foot landing for the staircase. It will also
have a six-foot balcony. And the outdoor staircase will be on the
property line. Again, Town Code does not allow construction directly
on property lines .
Board of Trustees 44 August 13, 2025
The added coverage of the property will include the staircase,
the landing, the hot tub, the outdoor shower, and a pergola 10x10
feet . Legal coverage of the property is already exceeded, and legal
setbacks are not being adhered to.
The proposal says the house will be raised plus or minus 16. 5
inches . That leaves wide open the exact height of the new raised
house. It also says that the original size of the house will not be
changed.
We propose that the height of the roof be lowered as much as the
house is raised to be in keeping with the size and scale of the
neighborhood. The house has a vaulted ceiling, so lowering it by 16. 5
inches should be okay.
The demolition and rebuilding from scratch of this property will
require heavy machinery, pile drivers, backhoes, bulldozers, cement
mixers, dumpsters . How will the dirt and debris generated in this
project affect the health of the already compromised creek.
How will the construction traffic impact the dirt roads leading
to the house? This road is always underwater when it rains because
the water table is so close to the surface.
And how will the vibrations, noise, dust and dirt affect our
small community, its people, its animals and its plants .
In the Private Road #3 community, most of the homes are
longtime, permanent, year-round residences . Any adverse impacts of
the proposed Smith project will be felt all year.
Moreover, the proposed garage renovations and taller house, will
severely obstruct the views from at least three properties . Aren' t
these homeowners entitled to the enjoyment of their domiciles?
The Smith' s bought the property knowingly. They were aware of
its size and limitations . Why must the creek and those who live on
it suffer because the Smith' s want more than they originally bought.
Is the damage to be done to the fragile creek and wetlands worth
the gain of a higher house and garage, 306 square feet of extra
space, and a hot tub and outdoor shower?
In short, this plan compromises the living community surrounding
it, human, animal and vegetable, by paving it over with concrete and
adding structures . Why would the Town approve such desecration?
Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : At this point in the hearing, if anyone wishes to
take to the lectern and offer their comments, by all means . And Mr.
Smith, you can respond. But make sure you respond to the Board.
MR. SMITH: Sure. Happy to.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : `Does anyone else wish to speak before Mr. Smith
responds?
(No response) .
MR. SMITH: There ' s a lot to respond to, but I ' ll do my best. But I do
appreciate the fact that my neighbors are here. We love Jockey Creek.
I 've owned this property for 20 years . And honestly, everything we
Board of Trustees 45 August 13, 2025
are doing is with a vision of staying with the, within the character,
the character of the neighborhood and doing what is right
environmentally.
So just a couple of things I ' ll touch on. You know, the hot tub
as far as the chemicals, I just don't see how that is ever an issue..
That ' s all contained within the system. It ' s the furthest point away
from the creek itself, so it does meet the setback requirements, it' s
been discussed with the ZBA. So it does meet the setback requirements
on that side yard.
The shower would have a drywell, which they always do, it ' s
going to be a modest, probably four-foot drywell, so the water would
be contained.
The garage has been looked at by my engineer and my builder.
Structurally it ' s all very sound, and he ' ll be building from what is
there existing. So just to address that comment.
No apartment is planned. This is, our house, I have three
daughters and a wife. This is a 1, 200 square foot house. We have one
closet. So it ' s an unfinished area above the garage that is planned.
And that ' s in my write-up.
Will we consider an apartment in the future, perhaps, but right
now our plan is to use that as just a storage, unfurnished storage
area.
It mentions that the staircase, that is not, none of this is on
the property line. That ' s five feet off the property line. The
pergola is 10x10 . It ' s just there, it ' s open air, it ' s there, just to
be esthetically pleasing as far as connecting the house. I 'm happy to
consider doing something smaller there if it ' s, you know, maybe do a
5 ' x10 ' as opposed to a 101x10 ' .
Let ' s see. I 'm raising the house because I have to raise the
house. A year ago it was not my plan. Nor was it my plan to do an IA
system or any of this . So I have to do these things, and I 'm happy to
do it. And it ' s probably costing me another $100, 000 . So FEMA is
telling me I have to lift the house. I 'm not going to reduce my
cathedral. I 'm allowed to put a two-story house here. So I think
people should be pleased with the fact that we are not doing that,
and there would be no views for anybody. So I really think we are
being fair there as well .
I think that ' s really it. Again, all along we've been very
mindful of the community, staying in character with what is there.
It ' s the same house. I 've submitted pictures before and after. It ' s
the same house, same size. Essentially new.
So, I don' t know if I missed anything, Jennifer
MS . SMITH: Hi, I 'm Jen Smith. I don't want to say much because I get
emotional.
But I just, as Tom said, I just feel like with letters, I mean,
I could work through people that come support, right, but I think
with letters it makes it sound like we ' re building the Taj Mahal
here. It ' s the exact same blueprint . I mean, we didn' t change one
thing. It ' s just a house we need to be able to live in. And it was
not livable. And I think some people would just like it to not change
Board of Trustees 46 August 13, 2025
at all . And that happens in the world, right, you've been somewhere
for a while and you don' t like change. But to say, I think the last
time, the last time I heard that we were ruining Jockey Creek, and I
think what is ruining Jockey Creek is if we don' t pick up the system
that ' s there.
I think what we ' re doing is helping Jockey Creek. We are good
people. We want to give back to the environment. We ' ll do whatever
we ' re told. But I don' t think we are asking too much to keep the
exact same house and keep the exact same blueprint.
So I just don' t want there to be a misrepresentation, because it
sounds like we are building something that we are not really
building. Even when we need a pergola, it ' s, I mean do we even put
this, like an open-air thing. I 'm like, that ' s on there? It ' s almost
like something we can take out .
All right, not much to add but.
MR. SMITH: I just want to add one other comment . We started this
process a year ago. We have been homeless for eight months . We are
really looking to move forward. So if there is anything we need to
do modify or table something, we are open to that. We are really
looking to move on with our lives . We think we are being very fair.
So, we are hope to your thoughts .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Do you currently have a Suffolk County Health
Department permit for the IA system?
MR. SMITH: That ' s a great question. So I 'm working with Clear River
and Island Wide Engineering, that submitted three applications
already. And it ' s just pending. Everything looks very positive, and
we are right there at the door step. But it says they will not
approve until I get Trustee and ZBA.
So it ' s right there on the doorstep. It needs a variance because
I think it' s a setback issue, when you look at the retaining wall and
infiltrators, I think it ' s five feet, needs to be ten. So that ' s one
minor variance. But we have had endless discussions with them.
Everything seems to be very positive. But I 'm being told you just
have to wait until, and I 'm happy to share documentation and letters
from the Health Department. It ' s been a good discussion going back
and forth on that .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I apologize, I 've been trying to look up the
Suffolk County Health Department, and from what I found for leaching
structures, from surface water, is 100 feet. And I believe you have
it proposed at five feet.
MR. SMITH: From surface water or from the --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Surface water. So you have it proposed right at
the edge of that bulkhead on the northwest side of the property. I
believe the retaining wall is literally at the bulkhead, and the
leaching pool is five feet off of that.
MR. SMITH: That' s correct . I mean, again, when you look at the
parcel, and even when they came out and looked at this . They said
this was one of the more challenging ones we 've seen. They know I ' ll
get approved, it ' s just a matter of what ' s the best they can do. So,
yes, you are correct .
Board of Trustees 47 August 13, 2025
When you go in, that retaining wall hugs the bulkhead and then
the furthest point, I think juts out like 21 feet across the front
lawn. But every indication is they are supportive of that. They said
it will be, it ' s been done before, it will be waterproof, etc.
I was hoping they would join me today to speak, if necessary,
but they've had, like I said, endless discussions, three submissions .
And I 'm happy to share the documentation I have to that point.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because from our perspective from an environmental
standpoint, have the leaching field five feet away from a creek is
not the most environmentally friendly option there is . You know,
especially when you have other locations on this property.
If I 'm not mistaken, I think the test hole data showed two feet
to groundwater?
MR. SMITH: I think it ' s two-and-a-half, but, okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And normally the bottom of the leaching pool needs
to be a minimum of two feet above groundwater. So if you are
two-and-a-half to groundwater currently, and you' re going to put a
three foot trench, or whatever it is, it looks like we ' re going to
need to raise the grade four, five feet, to accommodate that septic
system, literally on the edge of the bulkhead on the creek.
MR. SMITH: Yes, again, that ' s all in the plans I submitted from the
IA system. It looks like they built it based on groundwater being as
low as like 1 . 43. So they are factoring that in. It ' s going to be a
pump system.
I have some information here I could read you about it.
It ' s a Fuji Sen 5 with pump, and a low-profile infiltration system.
Retaining walls, as you mentioned, Glenn, as far as where they are
located, is true. That ' s why I required a variance.
They looked at the property. There is nowhere else, in their
opinion, to put this . So I 'm here for a variance, so.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I understand that challenge but from our
perspective our challenge is to protect that creek, protect that
surface water, to protect the wetlands . So five feet for a septic
system, when by Town Code it ' s 75 feet, for me that ' s in
environmental impact, an adverse environmental impact, which should
definitely be looked at to relocate, you know, as far back from that
wetland as you can get. You know, that might be having to re-do your
design a little bit, putting it under the driveway, putting it under
the pergola. Doing something. But I, in my experience on the Board
have never seen a septic system literally on a bulkhead. And I don't
think that is necessarily the best.
MR. SMITH: The retaining wall is on the bulkhead, not the
filtration --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yeah, five feet off, so.
MR. SMITH: As I said, there is limited -- first of all we had a
50-year old, cement block system, that was probably leaching into
Jockey Creek for the last 50 years . So that ' s a starting point. They
spent endless time looking at this lot. It ' s just, I mean it ' s 7, 000
square feet. We need a system. And this they said is the best they
could find. And that ' s why it requires a variance. And Suffolk
Board of Trustees 48 August 13, 2025
County, and I 'm happy to submit something after the fact, the letter
has not pushed back on that. And I know we had endless discussions
about it, and I mentioned how the driveway wouldn't work because you
have the utility lines coming through, you have the right-of-way, you
know, the electric, the water. Even the water is being diverted. The
waterline around the garage, to accommodate and not be too close to
-- you know, the water itself is going around the garage into the
house, just to be further enough away from this system.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Mr. Smith, you were at our work session, I
believe, on Monday evening. There was a presentation from Peconic
Estuary Partnership which kind of led us in the direction of our
LWRP. The Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. And certainly one
of the things that this Board must accommodate, must address, are the
LWRP' s comments, which are the proposed structures located in the
FEMA zone. I know you spoke to that, raising the house and gaining
some clearance from those waters .
But the second one I really think is the crux of the matter here
this evening. Which is number two. Structures in FEMA flood zones
should be avoided, relocated or minimized to prevent loss . And I
think it ' s at this point in our dealings with this, it ' s really what
Glenn mentions, it ' s the septic, albeit a much improved system, less
nitrogen leaching than the old block systems that you referenced.
I think it ' s really in your court to say how you will address
those concerns, how you could position those retaining walls or that
septic system in such a way that you would satisfy those LWRP
comments .
I understand your house is not changing, it ' s going up, it ' s not
getting a second floor. I respect that. You have gone through great
lengths to soften, make permeable, the area around the house so that
those waters don' t rush off into the creek. I think the environmental
benefits you spoke of are real and should be applauded by your
neighbors and by the township in general. It ' s just that those
comments and concerns from the LWRP, which I think is dated August
llth, 2025, here on our.
So the question really is how would you avoid, relocate or
minimize structures in the FEMA flood zones to prevent loss.
MR. SMITH: So I didn' t receive a copy of that. I have the original
letter from the LWRP dated, I think the 22nd of April.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : And this is August llth.
MR. SMITH: Was that sent to me?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: That could have been a separate review done for the
ZBA by the LWRP. This is a specific review done for the Board of
Trustees .
MR. SMITH: I don' t think that was sent to me.
MS . HULSE: It ' s not required to. It ' s just to make part of the file.
It ' s accessible to you, though, if you would like to have a copy.
MR. SMITH: Sure.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : In some cases the Trustees and the ZBA, they share
sort of overlapping jurisdiction, but have separate sections of the
code to which they must answer, to which they must adhere.
Board of Trustees 49 August 13, 2025
So I understand that some of the structures and heights, and all
of those things, those .are not the Trustees purview, really. It ' s
just about minimizing really loss and safety of structures in the
tidal zone, and preventing pollution and erosion.
So we want to keep our review of this application really focused
on the LWRP comments . Again, just avoiding, relocating or
minimizing.
MS . HULSE: And the LWRP report was just handed to the applicant.
MR. SMITH: Again, I 'm seeing this for the first time and hearing this
for the first time. So what would be recommended as far as, I 'm
struggling as to, I know the system isn' t perfect. What we had
before is horrific. I 'm happy to do whatever it takes to get to that
point. I 'm relying on the expertise of an engineering firm, and Clear
River, and this is what they do. And they came out and looked at the
parcel and said this is the answer.
Suffolk County Health Department is onboard, from everything I
see. I 'm struggling -- I welcome some guidance on what I do.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : What is the height on the retaining walls; the fact
that is exposed from the ground level up.
MR. SMITH: So from grade level what you' ll see of the retaining wall?
So when you first come in and you make that left along the bulkhead,
it ' s one-and-a-half feet.
Then where there is a minor, little pivot to the bulkhead, it
goes down to 1 . 1 feet . And then across the lawn, I know this because
I spent some time looking at it today, it ' s like 0 . 7 . Seven inches .
So it ' s not very meaningful. It ' s a very, the system itself is meant
to be a shallow system that taking into account the groundwater may
be rising over time. So it ' s built for that . There is a pump
involved. So they call it a low-profile system.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I just think for us --
MR. SMITH: I mean you have to have a driveway, and the house, I just
don' t know, because I had the same question with them. What are the
options . There is no other options .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : We 've reviewed applications before where you walk
in the backyard and it ' s spongy, it ' s the wetland.
In this case it ' s not soft ground, but I understand the
constraints. And the Board has faced similar challenges in designs
before. Of course, you can't leave the car parked on the street. You
have to have a driveway. The Health Department, they have their regs .
And again, ours is how do we address those concerns to minimizing
relocation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : And just so you know, we have put them in driveways
before and we have seen them put behind houses, so.
MR. SMITH: And I asked both those questions . And they said -- again,
I 'm not the expert, I 'm the owner. And I wish they were here, they
couldn't make it. But they said neither was feasible, maybe because
it was all the utility lines . I don' t know.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We have had this discussion with other applicants
a number of times regarding IA systems and the feasibility, and most
of the time they can come back and make one work. Whether it is
Board of Trustees 50 August 13, 2025
relocating it, weather it ' s putting it in the driveway. But. they
always start off with we can't do it, this is the best we can do for
this property. They go back to the engineer, and somehow, someway,
they design a better system that will work.
So I think if someone goes back to the drawing board with this
one, there would be better options than five-feet off the bulkhead.
MR. SMITH: That ' s something Suffolk County would have recommended
when they got, because I know they went back and forth, they wouldn' t
have recommended a better approach? I know they had discussions .
MS. HULSE: This Board can' t opine on that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So I know you mentioned that you went to the ZBA,
and all of the dimensions that we see here on this plan are related
to ZBA setbacks, so it ' s sort of the front yard setback, the location
off the property line.
What is the dimension of the proposed hot tub and the proposed
shower off of the bulkhead? Because that is something this Board is
interested in seeing. I believe there is a note about the five feet
of the proposed IA system, off the bulkhead, but those are the
dimensions that we would like to see, off of the wetland line or the
bulkhead line.
MR. SMITH: I 'm sorry, my mind was wondering there a bit . Say again.
The dimensions of the shower and the jacuzzi?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes . So you provided a lot of dimensions on here,
but those pertain to the ZBA requirements . And what this Board is
interested in understanding is the dimension of the house, the
proposed IA system, the proposed outdoor shower, the proposed hot
tub. Those dimensions from the wetland. Or in this case the
bulkhead.
But just so that we can understand those dimensions . That ' s
important for the review.
MR. SMITH: Are the dimension not included as far as on the plans
themselves . The Jacuzzi was like 8 . 5x7 . 5. The shower was I think 6x4,
as far as their dimensions.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Oh, excuse me. Those are the dimensions of the
actual piece itself. We are looking for the dimension from the
nearest corner of the hot tub to the bulkhead. So the distance to the
proposed hot tub, to the proposed outdoor shower, the proposed IA.
It would be nice to also have the house and the garage, just to have
an understanding of location on the property.
MR. SMITH: So all of those relative to the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That would be helpful because, you know, we are
talking about revisiting some of the designs here. So that would be
helpful to include as well. Thank you.
MR. SMITH: Okay, sure.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And I just wanted to note that I appreciate
everything that "you are saying, and I think that this proposal is
modest in the scale of some things that we see as a Board, given the
constraints of this property.
I also understand the neighbors coming and voicing their
concerns with the project as well .
Board of Trustees 51 August 13, 2025
I just wanted to note the reason why there is additional
scrutiny, even though it this was previously presented to the Board
of Trustees, is that it has become a demolition.
So when it becomes a demolition we have to look at it with new
eyes because this would be the moment for us to say perhaps you need
to pull the structure back. When people are investing that much
money and demolishing, even to you it doesn' t feel like a demolition,
it ' s technically a demolition, and that ' s when the Trustees have to
perform an additional review and look at -it as new construction.
So, that ' s just for your information on why this is viewed
differently than the application that you previously presented to,
which was for minor alterations to the existing structure.
And so with that said, I as one Trustee would say if there is
ability, even if it meant loss of structure in the rear yard, to pull
the structure landward from the bulkhead, it would be of
environmental benefit .
So I just want would ask that you look at that as a possibility.
MR. SMITH: Yes, I understand that. I mean, it ' s an existing
foundation, it ' s a pre-existing house, and it was the first house on
Jockey Creek, goes back 50 years . So, and I 'm not sure gaining two
feet in the house, what are you gaining. Right now the distance
between the house and the bulkhead is 13 feet. So if I 'm moving it
and getting 15, what am I gaining? I 'm already lifting it, meeting
FEMA, I 'm putting in an IA system. There is no crawl space. So I
understand, and I was thinking through this at well. And what are we
environmentally gaining when we are already gaining so much from
where we were originally. So I appreciate the comments, and we did
think about that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : And I just want to say, I understand that your
position is difficult here, and what you two are trying to achieve. I
recognize that . We ' re trying to work through this, too, because our
hands are tied, with the LWRP and the code, and our setbacks and our
parameters .
So, for me, because the house has been here so long, I
understand where you are coming from where, with that . I would just
like to see that septic pulled as far back as possible. And to
echo what Trustee Goldsmith said, in doing this for a decade, we've
heard so many times form so many engineers, you can' t move that, you
can' t move that, you can' t lower the wall. And in the end they always
figure out a way to do it ." But it always starts with those same
comments .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Smith, are you using the existing foundation
or --
MR. SMITH: It ' s existing. All we are doing is adding another block
or two. It seems to be structurally sound. As I said, I 'm only
lifting the house 16 inches . I would rather not lift the house, but
I 'm told I have to per FEMA, and I have to get to an eight-foot
finished floor. And to do that it ' s somewhere around only 16 inches .
The current foundation is there. It ' s structurally sound. It ' s
inspected.
Board of Trustees 52 August 13, 2025
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Did you receive ZBA approval yet?
MR. SMITH: Which approval?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: ZBA.
MR. SMITH: No, we were in front of them three or four months ago.
They tabled it to wait to hear from your group. So that ' s where we
stand.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So I think if they are waiting for us, I think we
put enough concerns and everything on the record at this point that
that could go back to the ZBA with all our concerns that we
expressed, and get a ruling from them, and then return to us with
that ruling.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: The only additional thing I would add is perhaps
the removal of some of the brick patios surrounding the house would
be appropriate for more vegetation. If you could limit the walkways
and add vegetation in, I think that would be a better option for us .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : So, Mr. Smith, I think, as Glenn said, you got a
pretty full record now of comments from the Trustees . I think they
are really -- and letters from the public, really focused on the
location of the IA system, and satisfying the LWRP comments . And I
appreciate, again the difficult position that you are in. And the
Board has certainly looked at this objectively, and trying to balance
that private and public interest.
MS. SMITH: I just want to make it clear, I 'm assuming you guys have
been there. But you know the house is built, right, so to move it, I
mean we are paying rent for all of the kitchen and the floor. I mean,
it was bare. We' re done. So we pay monthly rent for everything.
Because it ' s built. I want to make sure.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I appreciate the stress that might cause, but I
also hear the comments from the Board focusing on relocating the
house from that location.
MR. SMITH: So you are saying there is no consideration to having move
the house from the existing foundation?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : It ' s a possibility, but.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And the fact that the Building Department deemed
this a demolition is why you are back here.
MR. SMITH: No, I understand that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So when something is deemed a demolition, then we
need to bring it up to code, or as close to, you know, as we can
possibly get. Obviously you are constrained on this . We can no way
move you back 100 feet, because it doesn' t exist. So, we need to
minimize the impact of any project. So whether that ' s moving,
shrinking, relocating, things like that is what we need to do now
that, in essence we are starting with a blank slate, since it ' s a
demolition. So previously you were just raising the roof. It was
deemed a demolition. So we kind of start over, basically.
MR. SMITH: So I ' ll be honest. It ' s overwhelming, and I 'm a little bit
confused as to what my next steps are.
So the IA, I know we want to move back, right. Try to find a
better place. That seems to be the number one priority, Glenn. At
least the way you seemed quite concerned about the IA system. So is
Board of Trustees 53 August 13, 2025
that -- I 'm just trying to understand. We talked about so many
different things .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We have a number of concerns that we expressed on
the record. But for me, the fact that the ZBA tabled it to hear our
concerns, I think, again, we made our concerns very apparent here on
the record. So I think you go back to the ZBA with what we 've
outlined here. Address -- see what you can address with them, as
well as Suffolk County Health Department for that septic system.
What the ZBA does or doesn't do is not a purview of this Board.
So based on that, then we ' ll reopen it at a later date and see what
potential solutions you came up with to address those concerns that
we expressed tonight .
MR. SMITH: Is the process expedited in any way? I had to wait- four
months to get to the ZBA, I had to wait four months to see you, and
now I 'm going back to the ZBA, and I 'm going to come back to you. Is
the process any different?
MS. HULSE: Some of this was caused because you were building and
there was a stop order, and there was a whole process there that
created delay as well . So some of that was self-imposed.
MR. SMITH: I .understand that completely.
MS . HULSE: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : And once you get through ZBA you get right back on
our agenda. You are already on here, the hearings, so if we were to
table it, it would just be tabled, so you get right back on the
agenda.
MR. SMITH: Can I get a copy of the Minutes .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Are there any other comments from the members of
the public or members of the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to table this
application.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. SMITH: Thank you.
MS . HULSE: Just to clarify, Mr. Smith, the Board Minutes have to be
approved and then you can receive a copy once it ' s been approved by
the Board, which would be next month.
MR. SMITH: Oh, it ' s a month from now?
MS . HULSE: The approved Minutes will be next month.
MR. SMITH: Is there anything prior to that?
BOARD CLERK: No.
(The stenographer notes this hearing is closed) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 11, Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf of
ANDREW L. TERRONO REVOCABLE TRUST - 2011 requests a Wetland Permit to
modify the existing permitted dock consisting of removing the
existing adjustable ramp and 61x16' floating dock; install handrails
onto landward 4 ' wide stairs to catwalk; extend the catwalk 16 '
seaward for a total of a 4 'x76 ' catwalk; install flow-through decking
Board of Trustees 54 August 13, 2025
on the entire catwalk; install a new 31x16' aluminum ramp to a new
6 'x20 ' floating dock situated in an "L" configuration and secured
with two (2) 10-inch diameter piles; install on the floating dock an
ADA grabrail and a 48"x84" seasonal ADA kayak launch with built-in
grabrail; and install a ladder off fixed catwalk.
Located: 387 Wood Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-6-29
The Trustees most recently visited the site on August 6th, 2025,
noting concerns of the proximity of headwaters to dock extension,
maintain "I" could allow for more access to water depth. Pier line
needs to be drawn correctly with immediately adjacent docks . No
additional floats off the proposed float.
The LWRP reviewed this project and it found to be inconsistent,
noting among other things that the proposed action is located within
New York State Department of State Significant Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Area, and New York State Critical Environmental Area, and
Peconic Estuary Critical Natural Resource area. The creek also has
shallow water depth.
He also notes that a net loss in public use of waterways is
expected as a result of the extension of the dock in or on public
waterways, and the extension of a private residential dock structure
in public trust lands and/or waters results in a net loss of public
use.
Is there anyone her wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, Sol Searcher Consulting, on behalf of the
applicant Terrono.
Before we start, somebody' s microphone is causing feedback out
here.
(An audio issue is being resolved, after which this proceeding
continues as follows) .
MR. BERGEN: First off, as you folks know we had a pre-submission
conference back in May, on May 6th, at this property, and based on
the information obtained from that pre-submission conference we then
went ahead and designed this structure. It was a slight amendment to
the structure, which we' ll talk about when it came up that the
Terrono needed an ADA approved kayak launch for this property.
To go back to the inconsistencies under the LWRP, we are
addressing the water depth here, in that we are extending this dock
out into sufficient water depth so that it meets water depth
standards of both the DEC and the Trustees. And that ' s why it has to
be in a "T" formation, so this stays within the pier line.
To extend it out in an "I" formation we' d have an end to get to
an end. To get to water we would definitely be extending most of
this "I" float out beyond the pier line. So that ' s why we are trying
to keep it where it is .
And as far as access for public use of the waterway, there ' s 700
feet across this waterway. And we' re going out four feet in total. So
I don't believe this is going to affect public access use of the
waterway.
Board of Trustees 55 August 13, 2025
This, again, are one of the things that was brought up, I
understand, was open grading on the catwalk. What we are proposing
is the whole catwalk to have open-grating on it.
Again, when we were out there in May, we showed the same pier
line to Trustee Peeples and Trustee Goldsmith, and based on that
information it was agreed that this would not exceed the pier line
because we were not going to go forward with an application if it was
any chance it would not exceed the pier line. And the stakes that are
there now are exactly where they were in May. So that has not
changed.
At this point what I would like to do is have Ken Quigley come
up to talk about the kayak float launch structure. Which, by the way,
on the plans it states a size that is 60 by I believe it says 86.
And it ' s - excuse me, 48x84 . 48x84 . And actually the float itself
that ' s part of this is 60 . So 48x60 . So I didn' t want you to think
the entire float was 48x84 .
So that reduces the additional square footage down significantly
for this float.
Ken, if you would like to address the Board.
MR. QUIGLEY: I 'm Ken Quigley, on behalf of the applicant. I 've spent
ten years of my architectural career as an ADA specialist for Bank
America. And what we 've learned from all this is that everybody is
getting older, everybody needs a little help.
The fact that I put the drawing together with an oversized kayak
launch was because there are extended handles on this that makes it
easier for the kayaker to pull themselves up and get off of the
vessel itself.
And I think in the photographs that I provided you can see those
handles extend out significantly past the base of the kayak launch
itself.
The kayak launch occupies about 15 square feet of solid
material, which is approximately one quarter the size of a 16-
whaler. So if every dock has the opportunity to have two boats on
it, this one spot is taken up at one-quarter the size of a small
vessel. -
So as far as inhibiting the ability of a boat that is not really
there at the moment, it ' s kind of non-existent. We proposed and
suggested to the client that the kayak dock itself be removed, it ' s
seasonal. So for only the three or four months of our season, before
the weather changes, it ' s gone.
I think that ' s really the most -- the biggest part of the whole
thing is we all need help. We are all going to need help. When we
worked on the Bank America projects, as an example, 800 of all people
use 'the ramp. People migrate to opportunities to help themselves when
they don' t even need the help. And in this particular case the client
has a valid reason, I think he' s filed with the, filed his affidavit
that he' s got the disability. And in the end, if that ' s a major
problem for the Board, make it a C&R that when the permit is
transferred, the next applicant has to prove a disability or remove
the kayak launch.
Board of Trustees 56 August 13, 2025
It seems like a reasonable, easy solution for me, with all the
experience that I have, to make that suggestion.
And that ' s pretty much it at the moment on that particular part .
And I invite any questions.
MR. BERGEN: So I think we now addressed the inconsistencies under the
LWRP as well as the comments that were on your field inspection
notes. I 'm ready to answer any questions or concerns you might have .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I don' t know where that noise is coming from.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Mr. Bergen, you referenced the pre-sub, so I ' ll just
go back to that.
My recollection from the pre-sub was a little bit of a different
project. So this has, when you looked at that, I believe it was an
"I" at that time. No, it was an "L" .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I would just note that at this exact moment we
still are not seeing an accurate pier line to the adjacent docks . So
it may have been the feedback that was given was based on a pier line
that is not considering the immediately adjacent docks .
MR. BERGEN: If I could approach for a second. This is the plan that
came with the pre-submission. You can see it was a "T" dock in the
pre-submission, you can see the pier line is there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : It doesn't show a pier line to the adjacent dock.
MR. BERGEN: Yes, it does . If you want I ' ll go back to the microphone .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: While the pier line is addressing the docks to the
east, it ' s not addressing the dock to the west, which is right at the
headwaters of the creek and it ' s tucked in quite a bit.
MR. BERGEN: Well, when we were out there, we didn' t, I guess you are
talking about all the way, the dock that is all the way, the dock
that is all the way up inside that tributary, I ' ll call it?
.TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : The dock on the adjacent property, you mean?
MR. BERGEN: Sure. And that was -- we certainly looked at that during
the pre-submission. Again this was one of the concerns that we
wanted to make sure this pier line was accurate so that we would not
have a problem with the pier line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : To be fair I was not on that pre-submission.
MR. BERGEN: Yes, I would like to say it was Trustee Goldsmith and
Trustee Peeples . As I recall. The field inspection notes, that
actually has Trustee Sepenoski as being there also. But I don' t
remember.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I been at a lot of them.
MR. BERGEN: So, like I said, this is a copy of your pre-submission
form. And if, again, we look specifically at that dock over there.
And it was in agreement that this, what we had done here was
accurate.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I understand your reference in the pre-submission.
We are now looking at the application here in front of us, and what
is important to note while it could be argued one or the other about
the pier line and how that is drawn, there is, and I think it ' s
important just to have an awareness that there is a little bit of a
pinch point that does occur with the tributary, the headwater, the
Board of Trustees 57 August 13, 2025
creek, whatever we' re calling it, and just to be mindful of the
navigation in that area.
I think you have like seven-hundred foot or some sort of
reference point to the other side, which that is viable. However, I
think it ' s also important to acknowledge that dimension there that is
a much tighter location so that when someone is trying to navigate
into that tributary area, that there is a dimension there that we
need to maintain in order to have that navigable.
MR. BERGEN: And again, we are just going out four feet total with a
"T" . You also won' t have the environmental damage of prop wash that
you have with an "I" . Because, again the "I, " my understanding, and
"I" can' t go out farther than the pier line either, so your boat is
going to be, you know, you' ll have an issue with the depth and prop
wash. With a "T" you don' t have that issue. So this is
environmentally the best way to go.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just to quickly comment on that. Both the docks,
the adjacent docks, are an "I" configuration?
MR. BERGEN: Correct.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And my recollection, they are pretty large
vessels, and if the stern of the vessel, if the outboard is sticking
out seaward of the end of the float, you are accomplishing the same
thing. Those big boats can get in on an "I" configuration. So to
make the argument we need a "T" for this one.
And to backtrack a little bit, when we were out in the field, we
stood on the end of an "I" configuration. So the end of that current
"I" configuration was within the pier line. So when the existing
dock, the seaward terminus of that float was within the pier line. So
when made the comment in the field, that ' s what we were looking at .
Yes, this was within the pier line. Obviously we couldn' t swim out in
the water further and look at a "T" and make a determination based on
that. So just to clarify that.
And the other issue that we have is, kayak launch, boat lift,
basically synonymous, and the code prohibits residential boat lifts,
however, as you know, certain floating docks can configure with a jet
ski ramp, something like that. So there is a possibility of
incorporating a float that has a launch type of aspect within that
120 square feet, as opposed to a separate boat lift that is
prohibited by Town Code.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : And one other, I do not believe this application
included any sort of memorializing of the vegetated area. Because
there is, when you pass along that gravel path there is a kind of a,
that vegetated area. And looking back with the permit history, I
don' t believe I saw anything there. If I am incorrect, please let me
know. But that is something we would like to have, you know, to
ensure that that remains .
MR. BERGEN: I 'm trying to understand. You mean you want the
vegetation noted on the plan also?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Exactly. With some sort of dimensions associated
with it, so that is to be maintained because I did not see that in
any sort of history.
Board of Trustees 58 August 13, 2025
MR. BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : So, and I would also just add that when you factor
in a pier line, if it ' s a "T" structure attached to the boat coming
off the "T" . So again, I apologize for not being at the pre-sub, I
had a family issue and I had to leave slightly early that day.
But, so that ' s abutting the "T" so then you can' t factor that in
with the "I" . And I still don' t understand how we are ignoring the
adjacent dock. Again, this is my first visit to the site, so I 'm just
struggling to comprehend the logic there, but.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding the application?
MR. TERRONO: So one, we are looking at to the left, ,there ' s two of
them. One on both sides of the headwater. Neither one of those are
docks . They are just catwalks . That water is less than 12-inche's
deep. You can' t get anything other than a kayak in there.
So any navigable issues, even the house that we see in the upper
left does not have a dock because of water issues .
The next house north would be the first house that has a dock that ' s
in this corner. So when I did the drawing that explained by way of
Google earth, transversing the line across, that extra four-feet is
no different than what Glenn is suggesting the boat adjacent to the
right, having his 28-foot boat, sticking out way past the end of his
dock.
At least with an L-configuration the maximum distance that is
obstructing is never going to be more than eight feet from the edge
of the dock, because it ' s just a small boat in the area.
So you are really in the same zone when you are looking at the
way boats work with the particular dock, as well as turning that one
sideways, it can' t go any further out. There is no ability, even if
you got some kind of giant boat in there, you are working with
three-feet ofwater. It ' s not going to happen. And in the case, to
address the issue Glenn mentioned about boat lifts, et cetera,
personally, I don' t agree. I know that the Board hasn' t, maybe
address, in the four years I 've been working for Dave, how many ADA,
true ADA requests have been made of this Board. And as I brought up,
make it a C&R. I mean, these are people who absolutely need
assistance. Whether you are trying to get -- you know; getting into
the boats, relatively easy. Getting out of the boat, if you have a
kayak, you have no handrails, new ability. It ' s tough.
MS. HULSE: It ' s not permitted by code though, so this Board can't
approve that.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And the installation of handrails on a floating
dock is not prohibited.
MR. QUIGLEY: That doesn' t help you get out of the boat . That only
helps you get off the boat.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : No, I think what Trustee Goldsmith is speaking to
earlier, and again, I 've seen some creative plans come out of your
office before, is modifying your 6x20 float to incorporate something
Board of Trustees 59 August 13, 2025
that would be ADA compliant. Or at least relatively to. It should be
no different than having a little floating structure and lift.
I don' t think we are just talking about rails . I think we are
talking about something a little outside of the box. Which is also,
to be fair, what you are applying for, something out of the box.
MR. QUIGLEY: Part of the restriction in that area is looking at
kayaks themselves . And I 'm not opposing your thought, and I 'm more
than willing to design something more creative. But in a 20-foot long
floater, you bring in a modest 12-foot kayak. Now you have to get
the center of that kayak to the point to which someone can step off.
So let ' s just say center of that kayak is six feet from the edge,
right . About half way. So the boat comes in maybe even four feet,
you can get away with it. The nose of that boat is already out close
to eight to ten feet . Almost half the entire floater. So then you
have to worry about stability of the floater itself being only
six-feet wide.
Almost all of them are designed with continuous flotation
devices built underneath them. Now you have to come up with strips of
little pieces and expect that to be able to stabilize for someone
who' s got a disability.
If you were giving me the opportunity to go with an eight-foot
wide floater as part of a variance, then maybe we can make something
work. But when the kayak itself requires 30 inches minimum, three
feet of entry area coming into the, onto the floater itself, what am
I left with? 18 inches on both sides .
,TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Again, I can' t design it for you, but there is more
than one way to skin a kayak.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Mr. Bergen, can you just speak to the necessity for
extending the, dock four feet?
MR. BERGEN: So that it ' s, the floater is in two-and-a-half feet of
water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Which you need because you are triggering by redoing
the dock.
MR. BERGEN: Yes .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Because currently you have a permit for this dock,
which is technically non-compliant, but it is permitted, functional
and legal.
MR. BERGEN: Yes, it ' s permitted by the Trustees and the DEC.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think one of the issues here is you've drawn a
pier line with two docks to the right, and you are sort of maximizing
at that pier line. Which I don' t think I agree with the pier line
being drawn in that way.
So to me a better project would be to re-do the float that you
have here and in-place and not extend the dock further out. Because
this is a popular kayaking destination, and I think that any further
encroachment on the public- waterway is something that this Board has
to take seriously as well .
MR. BERGEN: Any other questions that you have for us?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Not at this time. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application.
Board of Trustees 60 August 13, 2025
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Is there any design in mind for the pea stone
gravel pathway that was to remain as it is?
MR. BERGEN: We were planning on leaving the pathway to the dock, you
are talking about . We were planning on leaving that just the way it
is .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI.: And the cutout, carve out location for the kayak
racks, dock storage, that ' s located in the same place?
MR. BERGEN: Yes, nothing was planned to be changed for that.
The only other comment that I have then, first off, I would then
request this be tabled so that we can have further discussion
ourselves about it. But prior to tabling it, we are just asking for a
reasonable accommodation to meet ADA. And I know it was already
talked about what is in the code and what is not in the code. But I
don' t know that there is anything in the code -- when I say the code,
Chapter 275, if there is anything specific in there about what is a
reasonable accommodation for ADA. So that ' s what we are asking for
here.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Understood. I would just like to see another
option, and I think that incorporating Trustee Peeples ' notes about
the vegetated area leading up to the dock would be a benefit to the
overall plan.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Bergen, I have another question. So we are
looking for an ADA compliant kayak launch.
MR. BERGEN: Yes .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because the person mass obviously some issues?
MR. BERGEN: Yes, documentation was provided to the Town of Southold,
the Town of Southold accepted that documentation, and provided him
with a handicap parking sticker based on the documentation.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So my question, kind of concern, is how do they
navigate the pea gravel of 100-plus feet, to go up the dock, out the
dock, to get an ADA compliant kayak launch?
MR. QUIGLEY: I ' ll answer it. The applicant has significant leg and
ankle problems that prevent him from bending. Walking is not the
problem. We play golf. I know the gentleman, he' s sitting right here.
It' s getting up and down. When you can't bend your knee past 90
degrees, everything is difficult. Getting in and out of a car is
difficult . This is what the basis is for having this ADA sticker, is
for. It ' s, you know, many, many people have disabilities that are not
obvious .
I researched whether we should change the three steps up on the
beginning of the catwalk to a ramp, and that became difficult for
another reason. So we put handrails on that, on the drawing, to make
sure you are stable getting up to a flat, walking surface.
The same thing goes when you are walking down the gangway. You
have handrails on both sides : It ' s, sometimes the whole point of this
project is because the current float was so unstable, two people
couldn't stand on it simultaneously. And maybe you experienced that
when you visited, that the whole thing was shaking.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We tried to put all five of us on it.
MR. QUIGLEY: Oh, I would like to right now.
Board of Trustees 61 August 13, 2025
(Participants laughing) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And we 've seen, you know, fixed platforms,
obviously more stable by design, than a float, and lowered down. It
doesn't necessarily need to be steps, but if you had a ramp up to get
to a fixed catwalk, ramp down to get a lower section, where it ' s
easier to get on and off a kayak, because it ' s lower to the water. Or
potentially even angled into the water.
MR. QUIGLEY: In your view would a fixed dock permit a floater next to
it? A kayak float next to it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Not necessarily. I think you have to, well, again,
if you have a fixed catwalk and then your floater incorporates
something that functions, sure. Again, all within the parameters of
the code, if we get creative, we would be happy to make that work.
I think what we have been seeing a lot is because of the depth
constraints and everything shallowing up in an exceedingly alarming
manner, people are exceptionally happy with these fixed structures.
If that ' s something that would work, with the lower area, and a
cutout in the middle with handrails . Again, complying with our code,
that we would be happy to work with you on something like that.
But everyone who does lower platforms, and again, this is not
speaking to the kayak launch aspect. Everyone who has done lower
platforms with us is extremely happy with the end product. They all
fight us because everyone wants a float. And once they have it, they
are like this is ten times better, for safety especially. And then
we are getting the environmental benefit of no shading on the bottom.
But, so I think there' s a couple of options of fixed to
something. Again, if you are thinking floating dock 6x20, your new
square floats with a lowered section on one side, I think you need to
again think outside the box, whether that ' s turned and there is a
section, or whether it ' s all fixed to something that is just made for
a kayak launch, if that ' s what we are talking about here, there ' s
options . But we are bound with what we' re bound with for now. And
we could probably change the code in the future for this, and I 'm
open to that discussion, but you' re trying to do this right now, you
don' t want to plan for code changes in the next few years, so let ' s
try to work within the constraints of the code..
MR. QUIGLEY: Well, the applicant is 70-years old.
MS. HULSE: Can I just interject and ask, why are you labeling this
ADA compliant? What about this particular structure that you are
proposing makes it ADA compliant?
MR. QUIGLEY: It ' s not that the structure is ADA complaint it ' s that
the float, the kayak launch itself ADA compliant.
MS. HULSE: Based on what?
MR. QUIGLEY: Based on the growth of activities in the handicap
community.
MS . HULSE: No, no. What specifically makes that structure that you
are proposing ADA compliant?
MR. QUIGLEY: Handrails .
MS. HULSE: Okay, that ' s not what ADA compliance means . So you are
using that as part of your description, I believe in an effort to get
Board of Trustees 62 August 13, 2025
what you want because you know that the code prohibits it. I 'm not
unsympathetic to someone who needs assistance or something a little
by the different than the norm, but using the term ADA compliant,
doesn't make it ADA compliant. And I don' t think this structure you
are proposing is in fact something that is defined as ADA compliant
kayak launch.
MR. QUIGLEY: I disagree.
MS . HULSE: Provide the authority. Show me. Because it doesn' t exist.
MR. TERRONO: I 'm Andrew Terrono, the owner of the property. I think
we are getting, we have a bunch of things going on here. One is the
dock and one is the kayak launch, right. So we did the pier line. The
property to the left dock is falling apart. It ' s really in the
tributary, not on the creek. So there is really no one that even
comes up in there. And it, as I said before, it ' s like six -- 18
inches deep. I mean, there is a kayak is, you know, a foot wide. Talk
about kayaks not being able to maneuver, look at the distance. I
walk all around town, I could jump across some of these creeks with
their docks . There is this 30, 40 feet across there. And 700 feet
across the other way. I just don' t understand. We 'are trying to get
it out' of the mud, so it ' s not sitting in the mud. We just found
out, I didn't know it was in the mud. We just found out because the
water level must be dropping, although it ' s supposed to be
increasing. But, you know, we are trying to do what is right, put it
up so it' s not sitting .in the mud. And we are not able to do that.
There are two real issues: The dock and the kayak. You can
discuss, we can take the kayak launch off of it and discuss it at
some other time, but we don' t understand why we can' t get the floater
out, and if you want us to put a fixed dock all the way out way out
to the pier line, is that that what you want us to do?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I mean, that is one way to satisfy our code
requirements, which your agent is very well aware of. We are not
making this up as we go along, sir, with all due respect. And your
agent, of all people, knows that. We are bound by upholding the code,
Chapter 275 .
MR. TERRONO: We have a pier line drawn. You' re talking about the
left side, you see where it is, it' s like in the base of a triangle.
Where are you going to draw a pier line for that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Again, with all due respect, and I really didn't
want to have to go there, but if we are not counting that, then the
pier line is averaged between that dock and zero. And I don't think
you want that pier line either.
I would talk with fixed then, and I would talk with working with
what you have. And I think the Board is, I mean we could have easily
closed the hearing and moved on tonight . I think this, based on what
was applied for in our code, to be very frank with you. So I think
the Board is displaying a willingness to try to work with you as the
applicant.
MR. TERRONO: Well, we do appreciate that, and we did go through the
pre-application process., and that ' s why we did that, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Sure.
Board of Trustees 63 August 13, 2025
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Any other questions or comments?
MR. BERGEN: At this point I would ask this be tabled.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Hearing none, I make a motion to table this
application at the applicant ' s request.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Respectfully submitted by,
JL 4"
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees