HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB-10/07/2025 PH 1
1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK
2 ------------------------------------------- X
3
TOWN BOARD
4 REGULAR MEETING
5 ------------------------------------------- X
6
7 Southold, New York
8 October 7 , 2025
4 : 30 P . M.
9
10
11
12
13
14 B E F O R E :
15
16 ALBERT KRUPSKI JR, SUPERVISOR
17 LOUISA P . EVANS, JUSTICE
18 JILL DOHERTY, COUNCILWOMAN
19 GREG DOROSKI , COUNCILMAN
20 BRIAN O . MEALY, COUNCILMAN
21 ANNE H . SMITH, COUNCILWOMAN
22
23
24
25
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 2
1 INDEX TO TESTIMONY
2
3 Public Hearing : Page
4
Chapter 275 Wetlands & Shoreline 3-62
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 3
1 PUBLIC HEARING
2 CHAPTER 275 : WETLANDS & SHORELINE
3 TOWN CLERK DENIS NONCARROW : This
4 Public Hearing considers an
5 introductory Local Law of 2025 to amend
6 Chapter 275 , Wetlands and Shoreline, by
7 one providing for additional modified
8 terms and definitions , including
9 as-built plans and impervious surface ,
10 innovative septic systems , open grate
11 decking, open grate decking, and
12 ordinary and unusual maintenance .
13 Number Two, modifying the trustee
14 application procedure by eliminating
15 the Conservation Advisory Council from
16 the application review procedure .
17 Number Three, altering required
18 setbacks for pool in trustee
19 jurisdiction . Four, clarifying
20 prohibited dock locations in town
21 waterways and updating references to
22 Harbor Master from Bay Constable .
23 Legal notices for this Public Hearing
24 are published no less than 10 days
25 prior to this Public Hearing in an
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 4
1 eligible legal town newspaper . The
2 Town Clerk ' s Office has received the
3 affidavit of service from that
4 newspaper indicating that the notice
5 was properly published . The Town Clerk
6 file also includes an Affidavit of
7 Posting of the public notice of the
8 Town Clerk ' s Bulletin Board at Town
9 Hall . Thank you .
10 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Thank
11 you . Are all the notifications in
12 order, Mr . DeChance ?
13 TOWN ATTORNEY PAUL DECHANCE :
14 They are, Mr . Supervisor .
15 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Thank
16 you . All right, then we ' ll open the
17 hearing . Chapter 275 , Wetlands and
18 Shorelines and Amendments . Would
19 anyone like to address those
20 amendments ?
21 KEVIN KLEIN : Good evening . My
22 name is Kevin Klein . My family owns
23 the property located at 2155 Laurel Way
24 in Mattituck . I ' m here tonight because
25 I have concerns regarding the proposed
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 5
1 changes to the Town Code Board -- that
2 the Board is considering .
3 Specifically, the proposed changes to
4 Chapter 275-11 , Construction and
5 Operational Standards , Section C, two
6 docks , B, dock locations and links ,
7 three, prohibited locations activities ,
8 A, no due docks utilized for
9 residential purposes . If you enact
10 these changes , you will be denying, we,
11 homeowners our basic riparian right to
12 work on our properties . I would like
13 clarification on why you believe this
14 drastic action is necessary . I assume
15 you ' re going to cite environmental
16 concerns . If that is your reasoning,
17 the confusion I have is whenever
18 someone wishes to erect a new dock on
19 their property, in addition to
20 submitting the request for a permit to
21 the Town Trustees , they also must
22 submit the request for a permit to the
23 New York State Department of
24 Environmental Conservation . Since
25 their charter is to conserve , improve ,
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 6
1 and protect New York ' s natural
2 resources and environment, I would
3 think that state body would have the
4 proper expertise to make those
5 determinations about any potential
6 environmental impacts . So if I am
7 correct, and if it is environmental
8 concerns are your rationale, I don ' t
9 understand why you feel this action is
10 required since there ' s already an
11 established mechanism in place with the
12 proper expertise to oversee any
13 potential environmental concerns .
14 Although it is concerning that so many
15 bodies of water are being included, I
16 am most concerned with why Laurel Lake
17 is included in that list . There are 16
18 homes on Laurel Lake, and to my
19 knowledge, there are no other privately
20 owned lots around the lake . Of those
21 16 homes , 12 of those homes currently
22 have fixed docks or large deck
23 structures over the water . Of the
24 remaining four homes without docks , one
25 has a floating platform, two are on
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 7
1 highly vegetated bluffs , so a dock is
2 not feasible . So by including Laurel
3 Lake in this amendment, my home will
4 likely be the only one impacted . My
5 family did take the proper avenue and
6 applied for a wetlands dock permit,
7 which complied with all current
8 construction and operational standards .
9 At our first meeting, the only concerns
10 raised by the Trustees were about the
11 design without any mention of
12 environmental issues . We then revised
13 our original dock design to comply with
14 all the Trustees ' stated concerns . At
15 the second meeting, one of the Trustees
16 commented to me, and I quote , "and to
17 be fair, it is evident you are trying
18 to be a good steward . I mean, your
19 backyard . We deal with a lot of
20 properties that are over-landscaped,
21 over-fertilized, over-treated, and it
22 is apparent that is not what you are
23 doing there . We appreciate seeing it .
24 It ' s mostly moss , right? " After we
25 submitted our revised plans , we were
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 8
1 denied due to what the trustees then
2 described as environmental and
3 navigational concerns . Even though the
4 New York State Department of
5 Environmental Conversation approved our
6 original unmodified dock permit, one
7 would think that the New York State
8 Department of Environmental
9 Conservation would have greater
10 expertise in this area and that if
11 there truly were any environmental
12 concerns , they would have been raised
13 by that governmental department . After
14 our denial , we were encouraged to file
15 an Article 78 appeal based upon those
16 facts , which we did on September 11 ,
17 2025 . And now here we are, less than
18 four weeks after filing our appeal at a
19 hearing for public comments to prohibit
20 any future docks on Lawn Lakes ,
21 including Laurel Lake . I respectfully
22 request the Board to reconsider and
23 remove these nine additional lakes from
24 this section of the proposed changes ,
25 preserving our riparian right to walk
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 9
1 out onto our properties and continue to
2 allow both the Trustees and the
3 Department of Environmental
4 Conservation the opportunity to
5 determine on a case-by-case basis ,
6 whether a dock permit should be granted
7 and not make a sweeping decision to
8 deny all docks on these bodies of
9 water . At a very minimum, I would
10 request you remove Laurel Lake from
11 this list and allow our Article 78 to
12 come to its natural legal conclusion .
13 Thank you for your time and listening .
14 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Thank
15 you . Would anyone else like to address
16 the Board?
17 JOHN BREDEMEYER : Good evening .
18 Welcome to the Town Board, Town Clerk,
19 Town Attorney . My name is John
20 Bredemeyer . 22 years a Trustee in the
21 Town . I worked in the Peconic Estuary
22 Program as a marine researcher for 25
23 years . I do not own any waterfront
24 property . I have no interest in any
25 waterfront operations at the current
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 10
1 time , but I consider myself an
2 interested and somewhat knowledgeable
3 citizen . Firstly, I ' d like to draw
4 your attention to the cover of the
5 Suffolk Times . It says , "Working
6 Waterfront Bill Officially Afloat, "
7 wherein the County now has decided they
8 don ' t want to have waterfront --
9 legitimate waterfront businesses revert
10 to residential . You know, strictly
11 residential use, and we lose all the
12 benefits of a thriving waterfront
13 community . I do have a prepared
14 statement, and I have an extra copy for
15 Stan or the press , dealing basically
16 with the dock issue in two segments .
17 The first one is questions I have about
18 a dock ban in fresh or brackish waters .
19 The proposed dock ban for the listed,
20 totally enclosed, and landlocked small
21 scale fresh and brackish waters entails
22 prohibiting dock activities in the
23 emergent near shore and adjacent areas
24 presently largely populated by
25 Phragmites australis , the common
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 11
1 Phragmites invasive . My question is ,
2 in such an environment by utilizing
3 non-toxic dock penetrations and open
4 grate decking for very small scaled
5 back docks designed for the purpose
6 intended, such as kayak or canoe use or
7 safe wheelchair enjoyment or the
8 ambulation of the elderly are the
9 cumulative -- and elderly -- for their
10 cumulative comfort, convenience ,
11 enjoyment, and orderliness and safety .
12 The question is whether the minimal
13 dock construction, as I outline here,
14 could possibly have any cumulative
15 environmental impacts . The non-toxic
16 standard has been in existence for
17 very, many, many years . If this
18 question has not been thoroughly
19 answered at this point, might not a
20 DEIS be in order? Some potential
21 benefits over a traditional access --
22 some benefits of having small-scale
23 non-toxic docks over a traditional
24 access path are less trampling, less
25 likely to have the area denuded of
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 12
1 vegetation, less exposure to ticks ,
2 safer kayaking, as well as , the fact is
3 historically we ' ve lost a lot of large
4 trees over our enclosed waterways . So
5 docks , a non-toxic dock, may in fact
6 provide shading and protection for
7 wildlife due to the extreme
8 ever-warming climate that we ' re
9 enduring . The next question deals
10 specifically, the next issue that I
11 have deals specifically with a ban on
12 docks on the open waters of Dam Pond
13 and Hashamomuck Pond . The late great
14 dock builder Larry Tuttle , upon my
15 election to the Southold Board of
16 Trustees in 1984 and presuming that I
17 might have been some kind of anti-dock
18 environmental wacko, provided me a copy
19 of a United States Supreme Court
20 decision firmly establishing one ' s
21 individual right to work out . It is my
22 position that any individual engaged in
23 lawfully permitted commerce from their
24 residential waterfront property and
25 possibly their lessee ' engaging in such
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 13
1 activities as commercial shellfishing,
2 aquaculture, professional wildlife
3 photography, guiding and captaining, et
4 cetera . Should not summarily have
5 their property rights to wharf out
6 extinguished by a Town with such a rich
7 maritime heritage . Again, for the
8 purposes intended, a small -- small
9 scale, non-toxic dock needed for one ' s
10 maritime commercial activity associated
11 with their residential property should
12 be supported by Southold Town .
13 Ironically, if you pass this and these
14 dock ban provisions , you in fact will
15 be going counter to the Suffolk County
16 policy of trying to increase and
17 protect our waterfront lifestyle .
18 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Thank
19 you . Would anyone else like to speak?
20 TAMMY LEFFLER : Good evening . I ' m
21 Tammy Leffler from Mattituck, New York,
22 and I just wanted to speak in support
23 of this . I was very relieved to read
24 about it in the New York Times --
25 sorry, the Suffolk Times , the other
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 14
1 Times . And I would just maintain that
2 Southold Town knows the needs and
3 concerns more intimately than in the
4 New York State DEC . And while, you
5 know, New York State DEC is certainly a
6 wonderful organization for the most
7 part, I think no one knows better than
8 Southolder ' s what Southold needs . So I
9 thank you for thinking of this , and I
10 hope that you will pass it and make it
11 the new code . I think it ' s just in the
12 nick of time because there ' s a lot
13 of -- I went to a Trustees meeting a
14 couple of weeks ago, and was somewhat
15 aghast at all of the things that are
16 being proposed to our dear North Fork .
17 So this will stop some of that . Thank
18 you .
19 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Thank
20 you .
21 GLENN PRESSLER : Good evening . My
22 name is Glenn Pressler . My wife and I
23 recently purchased a property on Great
24 Pond . I started fishing in Great Pond
25 approximately 45 years ago when my
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 15
1 family had moved out to Southold Town .
2 I know the lake very well . I know many
3 of the other lakes that are on that
4 list as well . I ' ve been fishing in
5 freshwater for all my life . I am not
6 sure what the reasoning is for this
7 moratorium or this ban on new docks on
8 Great Pond . We ' re one of the few
9 houses that currently do not have a
10 dock . There was a dock at this
11 property many years ago . It was on the
12 survey when we purchased the home .
13 Thought there were remnants that were
14 still there and that what we would do
15 would just be repair or replace what
16 had been existing . I ' m somewhat of an
17 environmentalist . The freshwater,
18 especially Great Pond, is something
19 that ' s very dear to me . And what
20 happens now is due to the current
21 drought condition, the water line from
22 where the normal water is approximately
23 25 feet, which means I now walk through
24 25 feet of wetland, vegetation that ' s
25 just sitting in the sand in order to
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 16
1 get into my kayak or my canoe . I have
2 to then walk into the water, walking
3 through more vegetation and life under
4 the water . If there was a dock that I
5 would be able to walk into that was
6 over the wetlands , none of this would
7 be happening . But I ' ve seen just --
8 and I ' m very conscious of it, and it
9 bothers me , that the deterioration just
10 over this season in my yard alone is a
11 concern of mine . I had -- also was
12 having a conversation with someone
13 today, and I ' m not sure if everyone is
14 aware of on Great Pond, there is a
15 public access , which I ' m not looking to
16 stop anybody from the public of coming
17 in and using the pond . But I think
18 there ' s even more concerns of having an
19 access like that than someone like me
20 as a homeowner that cherishes what I
21 have . Someone can come into that
22 public access on one day after fishing
23 in Marratooka . Anyone that knows
24 Marratooka, Marratooka, year after
25 year, has an algae bloom that is
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 17
1 significant . It ' s posted by the DEC
2 of, you know, make sure you ' re not
3 ingesting any of the water . It ' s not
4 current today at this moment . But if
5 someone were to put their kayak or
6 their canoe or their boat in that water
7 on one day and the next day take it to
8 Great Pond and put it in that water,
9 you ' re now cross-contaminating from one
10 body of water to another . You know, if
11 that ' s what this was about, I might
12 have more of an understanding . But I
13 think the concern of the amount of
14 vegetation that is going to -- or can
15 be destroyed by not allowing people to
16 have proper access to these bodies of
17 water, I think should be given a lot of
18 consideration . Appreciate your time .
19 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Thank
20 you . If only we could get the geese to
21 stop flying between the two water
22 bodies .
23 JOHN PITTMAN : Hi , my name is John
24 Pittman . I live on Ruch Lane, which
25 borders Hashamomuck Pond, and I ' d like
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 18
1 to piggyback on what we ' ve heard here
2 this evening . So I ' m mainly interested
3 in the Hashamomuck Pond dockage
4 emission . I ' ve lived on, we have owned
5 this property on Hashamomuck Pond for
6 105 years . Of course, I ' m not 105 .
7 But I remember years ago, there are a
8 lot of eelgrass and an abundance of
9 marine life . Hashamomuck Pond, by the
10 way, is not a pond . Pond, by
11 definition, is an enclosed body of
12 still water . Hashamomuck Pond, we
13 usually consider either a bay, estuary,
14 inlet, creek, because it ' s tidal . Our
15 family has always referred to
16 Hashamomuck Pond as the Little Bay and
17 Southold Bay being the Big Bay .
18 Anyway, Hashamomuck Pond is a mile long
19 from the east to the west . That means
20 the shoreline is at least two miles
21 long . But actually, if you include the
22 entire shoreline , not including Long
23 Creek, the entire shoreline, there are
24 three inlets in there . Plus you have
25 the east side and the west side . So it
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 19
1 actually approaches closer to three
2 miles , but I ' ll round it down to two
3 and a half miles . And that equals
4 13 , 200 feet . I ' ll come back to that
5 number in a second . There are
6 currently 61 homes on Hashamomuck Bay,
7 mostly on the north side . If each of
8 these properties had a 4 foot wide
9 dock, that would cover 244 feet of
10 shoreline . This is a linear
11 measurement . I ' m not talking about
12 area . That is 1 . 80 of the entire
13 shoreline in Hashamomuck Pond .
14 Currently, there are 11 docks , which if
15 you measured the 4 feet number, that
16 would be 0 . 003 of the shoreline coast .
17 But in reality, I don ' t think all 61
18 homes are going to want to dock . So
19 let ' s just say roughly half of them.
20 That would mean you ' d be covering the
21 shoreline by about 1% . Numerous
22 studies have shown that properly
23 constructed docks greatly minimize
24 negative effects of marine vegetation .
25 Studies done by Logan, Voss , Davis &
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 20
1 Ford show that a dock that is 1 . 5 times
2 the width of the deck high, off the
3 mean low water height, has little
4 detrimental effect on marsh shoreline .
5 In other words , if you had a 3 foot
6 wide dock, it should be at least 4 . 5
7 feet higher than the mean low water
8 height . And also, if possible, the
9 dock should face in a north-south
10 direction to allow the east and west
11 sun to come underneath and also the use
12 of greater docks coverage until
13 sunlight can get through . So if you
14 consider roughly to of the shoreline
15 being affected by docks , and you do it
16 with proper dock construction, the
17 overall negative effect of having a
18 dock on Hashamomuck Bay is very
19 minimal . Also, in the event of global
20 warming, which appears to be happening,
21 the water level has risen considerably
22 so that at high tide, I no longer have
23 a beach . So in order for me to get
24 into my boat, I ' d have to get wet
25 because I ' d had to walk through the
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 21
1 water . And as was just stated, walking
2 over the shoreline is not a good idea
3 because you crush the vegetation
4 underneath . Finally, as has been
5 brought up, this is a maritime
6 community, which is part of the allure
7 and economy of this area . Following
8 proper dock design, just like improving
9 septic systems , would be a reasonable
10 goal . I know my neighbors not only
11 enjoy the view, but sailing, paddle
12 boarding, swimming, power boating,
13 fishing, and so on, all of which having
14 a dock would be a great asset . Thank
15 you .
16 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Thank
17 you .
18 COUNCILMAN GREG DOROSKI : Thank
19 you .
20 DAN OAKLEY : I ' ve got a quick
21 question for clarity . I ' m Dan Oakley
22 and I live in Cuthchogue . In the
23 definition of ordinary and usual
24 maintenance, you refer to 250 of the
25 entire structure . What I ' d like to
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 22
1 understand is what the basis of that
2 percentage is . Is it dollar value ? Is
3 it area? Is it volume ? I ' d like to
4 have that sort of included in the
5 definition so that it doesn ' t become an
6 arbitrary evaluation on each given
7 situation .
8 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Thank
9 you .
10 PATRICIA MOORE : I ' m Patricia
11 Moore . I ' m here on behalf of myself as
12 a property owner on Hashamomuck, and
13 also dealing with these regulations on
14 a regular basis . My points , I ' m going
15 to go through quickly to some of the
16 proposed language, but my first and
17 foremost point is , I remember the 80 ' s
18 where the Trustee ' s jurisdiction was in
19 the water . Then it grew . And now it ' s
20 grown so much so that absolutely
21 anything within that is waterfront and
22 the property, the size of the property
23 seems to be irrelevant . We ' re going to
24 the Trustees for a permit and the
25 process has gotten very burdensome ,
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 23
1 very expensive, and time consuming . So
2 rather than narrowing the scope of
3 jurisdiction, we continually expand
4 that jurisdiction . This Town has
5 become the "Town of No" and the "Town
6 of Regulations . " And it ' s job
7 security, but I don ' t find it to be a
8 pleasant type of work because it feels
9 like rather than working with the Town
10 and making the Town better, it seems
11 that we ' re constantly coming at odds
12 with either regulations that are
13 policies or interpretations or now
14 reactive legislation, which, quite
15 frankly, the exclusion of docks in a
16 particular body of water is a complete
17 reaction to the litigation that was
18 filed . My strongest complaint is
19 regarding the prohibition of certain
20 water bodies . I was here objecting
21 probably five years ago regarding
22 including Hashamomuck Pond in the
23 prohibition . I remember when it was
24 first proposed, I didn ' t own a house on
25 Hashamomuck Pond, but I remember at the
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 24
1 hearing, it was presented as a
2 photograph of a pictorial . If
3 everybody built docks along Hashamomuck
4 Pond, how horrible that would be . And
5 the pictorial was long docks going out
6 into the pond . The reality is that
7 that ' s not the case . I think some very
8 good comments have been made that
9 properly designed docks and the
10 Trustees have been very aggressive in
11 making sure that docks and the DEC as
12 well on dock design, making sure it ' s
13 appropriately above a certain level ,
14 that it ' s the through flow material .
15 That air and light access it . And one
16 of the main concerns I had was when we
17 moved to our property, there had been a
18 dock on the property . The prior
19 owners , the elderly gentleman, when he
20 died, his wife didn ' t own a boat and
21 really couldn ' t afford to put one in
22 there . But the remnants of the dock
23 and the post are still there . I ' m not
24 getting any younger and it ' s quite ,
25 it ' s been difficult to get into a
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 25
1 little boat and -- it ' s grandkids , it ' s
2 for my grandkids . It ' s got a little
3 motor and it ' s 14 feet . That ' s the
4 extent of the type of motorboat that
5 you see . There ' s somebody up on -- up
6 further east on the pond that their son
7 is a world-class water skier, and this
8 is where they grow up . And so they
9 still have some water ski area that is
10 a practice area . So the pond is an
11 active waterway and honestly, it is
12 more damaging . And I saw the damage to
13 my property for access that has torn
14 away and destroyed the wetlands that we
15 would all prefer to maintain . So the
16 reactive prohibition, the list of
17 prohibitions , including Hashamomuck
18 Pond that should never have been
19 included in this . And I even
20 questioned how it ' s defined because
21 Hashamomuck Pond is now Hashamomuck
22 Creek and Pond . I ' m quite frankly
23 don ' t know where it begins and ends
24 because what is Hashamomuck Creek? Are
25 we talking about the creek that is off
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 26
1 of Hashamomuck or is it the pond which,
2 as Mr . Pittman pointed out, is a tidal
3 wetland that flushes daily and twice a
4 day . So it really should have been
5 removed as a prohibition . It ' s
6 certainly not increased . And the fact
7 that you ' re adding these prohibitions
8 without any study, without any
9 environmental review, without any
10 environmental or economic impact to the
11 homeowners and to the community, is
12 extremely frustrating that we ' re going
13 backwards in legislation .
14 Specifically, some of the issues that I
15 want to raise as far as the as-built
16 plans , it refers to providing certified
17 licensed surveyor plans . Well ,
18 oftentimes we have an architect or a
19 professional that can draw it, not the
20 surveyor . The surveyor might provide
21 existing conditions survey, which
22 doesn ' t need to be certified to the
23 property owner . If the person may have
24 bought the property a year or two ago
25 and it still has a survey that reflects
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 27
1 the existing conditions , and then the
2 proposed work is oftentimes drawn by
3 another design professional because the
4 licensed surveyors are so few and far
5 between . And they are so busy that to
6 get a surveyor to provide this type of
7 documentation is a problem. So that ' s
8 point one . Your ordinary and usual
9 maintenance issue . Again, the code was
10 changed to require every homeowner to
11 have the permit that had been issued in
12 the past be transferred into their name
13 to be a permitted structure that is in
14 the individual ' s name . But now what ' s
15 the point? If they can ' t maintain it,
16 which has been my argument to any
17 property owner that may buy a house or
18 has a permit, I say make sure it ' s in
19 your name so it enables you to maintain
20 it . Well , the 250, I think, is a good
21 point that was made as far as what ' s
22 250 of the square footage , 250 of the
23 value . I argue that 25% is such a low
24 number . I think 75 may be what is
25 anticipated where you have a complete
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 28
1 destruction, a storm destruction of the
2 structure that may require a new
3 application to go in . But the whole
4 point of getting a permit, a
5 permitted -- it ' s the worst grammar in
6 the world, but a permitted structure,
7 is the fact that you can maintain it .
8 Undoing what the whole code was changed
9 before for that purpose . Vegetated
10 non-turf buffers , we understand what
11 that is . Well , all of a sudden it ' s a
12 mix of native trees . Well , you give
13 the Trustees an inch, they ' ll take a
14 yard . Now they ' re going to make you
15 plant trees along your entire
16 waterfront as part of your vegetated
17 non-turf buffer . I think in the past
18 we tried to encourage the Trustees and
19 the homeowners to plant native
20 drought-tolerant proper vegetation, but
21 quite frankly, the trees block the
22 views . Isn ' t that what homeowners on
23 the water want to see? Certainly you
24 would want to see, you would want to
25 see your beautiful farmland behind you .
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 29
1 Same waterfront owners want to see the
2 beautiful views that they ' ve bought and
3 they ' ve preserved and they ' re
4 maintaining . The next issue is the
5 retaining walls . This has created
6 tremendous problems and it keeps
7 getting worse . The 2 foot retaining
8 wall limitation completely disregards
9 the health department regulations . In
10 some of the very low groundwater areas
11 where the groundwater is close to the
12 top to the grade , sanitary systems have
13 to be built above . And the whole goal
14 here is to eliminate old systems and
15 put in new innovative systems . If the
16 groundwater is low, they all will
17 require retaining walls . Well ,
18 depending on where the groundwater is ,
19 the retaining wall may by code, Health
20 Department regulations have to be 3-4
21 feet high because the sanitary system
22 cannot -- has a minimum separation of
23 the bottom of the sanitary system to
24 the groundwater . So this 2 foot rule ,
25 again, has been a frustrating process
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 30
1 to anybody who puts through
2 applications to the extent . I had one
3 today where we could work out the 2
4 foot retaining wall that was not on a
5 property line , but we worked it out
6 design-wise, no problem. But in other
7 cases where we have a waterfront area
8 with narrow lots , very small lots , with
9 sanitary systems that have to meet
10 Health Department standards , the 2 foot
11 retaining wall is an absolute
12 impossibility . And we ' ve had this
13 fight at the Trustees to the extent
14 where the Trustees don ' t want to give
15 in . We end up having to go to the
16 Health Department for a Health
17 Department variance . And then you take
18 a chance that the Health Department
19 will vary from the Health Department
20 regulations that are intended for
21 health and safety . And for a proper
22 sanitary design, we are at odds . So we
23 create this ping-pong effect between
24 our regulations , which you adopt
25 without any real -- I question whether
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 31
1 there ' s a true understanding of what is
2 being requested, in particular when
3 we ' re dealing with Health Department
4 issues . You know, the Health
5 Department preempts the Town when it
6 comes to sanitary design, but that
7 doesn ' t seem to matter when we ' re at
8 the trustees . Let ' s see . Those are my
9 comments regarding the code provisions .
10 I really hope we stop being so reactive
11 to individual cases . We may end up due
12 to litigation, so be it, with respect
13 to the individual applications that are
14 approved or denied . But changing the
15 code in reaction to litigation is the
16 worst type of code to draft . And I
17 would ask, please talk to the
18 professionals , do environmental
19 studies , look at environmental impact
20 statements and economic impact
21 statements with the choices that you
22 make . So I hope you will not approve
23 this as proposed . And, you know, step
24 by step, hopefully we can all work
25 together to protect the environment is
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 32
1 an overall goal of everyone that lives
2 in this community . Thank you .
3 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Thank
4 you, Pat .
5 LIZ GILLOOLY : Hi there, Liz
6 Gillooly . I ' m one of the Town
7 Trustees . Thank you all so much for
8 being here tonight and for considering
9 these code recommendations , which came
10 from the Trustees . I ' ve been super
11 proud of the fact that over the last
12 four years we have come to the Town
13 Board with our recommendations every
14 time we ' re looking at the 30 , 000 foot
15 view and noticing development trends
16 that are putting an increased burden on
17 our shared land . So a Trustee job is
18 to steward the land that we ' ve been
19 entrusted with . And these
20 recommendations all come from that
21 30 , 000 foot view . We have noticed
22 these development trends that are
23 degrading our shared resources and
24 affecting public access . And now some
25 of the comments here tonight are
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 33
1 referencing a new ban on docks that has
2 actually been in place since 2007 . So
3 I think that ' s worth noting that some
4 of these specifics are not referencing
5 the code changes that are being
6 proposed tonight . So that ' s the first
7 point . I ' ve also heard tonight that
8 it ' s been suggested that public access
9 is more harmful than private access to
10 our water bodies . I don ' t agree with
11 that, and I don ' t believe that ' s what
12 the trustees are here to steward . The
13 theory of this change is to preserve
14 small water bodies that are already
15 distressed from increased development
16 pressures . And many of the changes
17 that are before you tonight are really
18 about clarifying definitions that we
19 use in all of our Public Hearings . And
20 so most of the changes I haven ' t heard
21 comment on tonight are some of the
22 really important ones . Just adding in
23 vegetated non-turf buffer is some, it ' s
24 a term that we use at every single one
25 of our Public Hearings . So we felt
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 34
1 that a definition would be necessary .
2 To Ms . Moore ' s comments on that, you
3 know, we do specify in that definition
4 that it ' s site specific . So not
5 requiring trees in every case, but it
6 is subject to a site-specific review,
7 which I think is a smart change and
8 really is just clarifying for everybody
9 who reads the code how the Trustees
10 typically react to different
11 applications so that we can make it a
12 little more clear and make the process
13 more user-friendly . And that ' s all my
14 comments for right now . Thank you .
15 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Thank
16 you .
17 CAROL BROWN : Hi , my name is Carol
18 Brown . I ' m the chair of the
19 Conservation Advisory Council , and I am
20 reading you the letter that we, or the
21 memo that we sent in reference to the
22 Trustees ' draft updates to Town Code
23 Section 275 . The effort to further
24 protect our Town and its waterfronts
25 and wetlands by the Trustees is
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 35
1 exceptional . We greatly appreciate the
2 close look, the clear definitions , and
3 the attempt to move the Town forward
4 with intentional environmental
5 considerations . Adding definitions
6 that are in current use is important in
7 educating homeowners and business
8 people, builders , contractors , lawyers ,
9 and realtors . We recognize there are
10 environmental changes happening, and to
11 see it reflected in code is very
12 beneficial in moving these concepts
13 into the vernacular of the above
14 entities . It should be -- everybody
15 should understand what ' s really going
16 on environmentally . I ' ll have some
17 comments at the end . Defining not only
18 the what, but the why in the IA
19 systems , open grade decking, and
20 vegetated non-turf buffers is another
21 step in educating the public regarding
22 best practices for these situations .
23 Of those definitions , reducing the
24 percentage of actions on wetland
25 permitted structures from 75% to 250
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 36
1 will hopefully mitigate the amount of
2 structural work taking place on or near
3 our wetlands . I consider that people
4 could knock down or build an additional
5 75% to their properties , which
6 especially on the waterfront probably
7 can ' t sustain it very well without a
8 lot of mitigation . Next one is
9 including and defining innovative
10 alternative on-site wastewater
11 treatment systems . This will get the
12 system into the minds of builders ,
13 contractors , and homeowners . Well
14 done . We have several comments on
15 particular changes . Pool setbacks . We
16 strongly agree that the current setback
17 of 50 feet by bulkheads , wetlands , et
18 cetera, is not sufficient to protect
19 home and property over the next 10 to
20 25 years based on the NOAA and New York
21 State DEC sea level rise projections .
22 Pushing it to 60 feet as in the draft
23 is a stopgap that will not be
24 sustainable over this time period . We
25 therefore suggest a minimum of 75 feet
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 37
1 with a preference for the same 100 feet
2 set back for pools as for lands on
3 bluffs . Cleaning up the code . We also
4 understand that the mission of the
5 Conservation Advisory Council has
6 evolved and there ' s so much work to do
7 with the Town regarding conservation
8 issues . It means that the CAC will not
9 regularly review wetland and coastal
10 erosion hazard area site plans . But we
11 would still like to be kept in the loop
12 and receive a copy of these
13 applications for our review so that we
14 could keep abreast of wetland
15 applications and trends . We still have
16 a member attend all the Trustee Public
17 Hearings on a regular basis . So that ' s
18 what that ' s the statement from the CAC .
19 Carol Brown would like to add, Tammy,
20 thank you so much . The Town knows "the
21 town" , it knows what it needs . I have
22 a lot of interaction with the DEC and a
23 lot of very terrific people, but they
24 don ' t live on our Town, the Canary in
25 the Mind . With the projected sea level
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 38
1 rise , not from here , but from the Fed ' s
2 and from the State, heavier storms , et
3 cetera . We have over 220 miles of
4 coastline, especially on the south side
5 of town . Protecting this and the work
6 of the Trustees is vital . Thank you .
7 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Thank
8 you, Carol . Bob?
9 BOB DELUCA : Good evening, Mr .
10 Supervisor, Members of the Town Board .
11 My name is Bob DeLuca . I ' m a resident
12 of East Marion and president of Group
13 for the East End . We are at 54895 Main
14 Road, Southold . And as some of you
15 know, I ' ve been a land use practitioner
16 for over just about 40 years . And
17 during that time , I ' ve seen a number of
18 different things happen . And this
19 discussion that ' s happening right here
20 happened on the South Fork about 25
21 years ago . And it goes -- I ' m a little
22 bit like the ghost of Christmas Past .
23 And I just want to say that while we
24 support these regulatory changes , I
25 want to confront the issue that this
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 39
1 Board and every other Board that I ' ve
2 worked with in the five towns out here
3 has confronted, which is at some point,
4 the pressure, the consistency, the
5 inability of the local government to
6 manage 8 million different things going
7 on puts you right here . And people are
8 feeling like, you know, they ' re just
9 abused . This isn ' t working for them.
10 But the bottom line is the resources
11 are already hammered . The resources
12 have been beaten on . And the resources
13 that people care about that bring them
14 here are in part degraded because of
15 all the different things that we do
16 around them. So it ' s a very difficult
17 place . And I would just like to thank
18 the Trustees for the work that they ' ve
19 done , as well as , the Town Board on the
20 Comprehensive Plan that brings us here .
21 First and foremost, I don ' t see that
22 these recommendations came out of thin
23 air . It was a decade of discussion, a
24 Comprehensive Plan adopted by this
25 board . That Comprehensive Plan, and
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 40
1 you can look them all up, there ' s about
2 a dozen different places where its
3 priority is protecting tidal and
4 freshwater habitats , seeking
5 cooperation with regulatory agencies to
6 reduce nitrogen and phosphorus ,
7 avoiding or minimizing non-point
8 pollution of waters , promoting
9 sustainable uses of marine habitats ,
10 and most notably, the specific
11 recommendation for a buffers definition
12 in Chapter 275 , which is proposed in
13 these amendments . So we ' ve had this
14 discussion . We continue to have the
15 discussion . I , as a guy who used to
16 work at the County Health Department
17 and looked at applications and the
18 things that come in from towns , I ' m
19 sympathetic to the struggle . But at
20 some point, we have to do something
21 differently or we ' re going to end up
22 exactly where we ' re headed . And that ' s
23 trouble . So let me just say this , with
24 respect to some of the comments that
25 people have made . DEC is not always
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 41
1 available . Even if they were
2 available, they have a different
3 standard . What they consider a major
4 project and a minor project, trying to
5 get somebody out in the field to come
6 look at something . Their perspective
7 is a statewide perspective on the
8 resource that happens to be here in
9 Southold Town . What I could tell the
10 Southold Trustees ' perspective is from
11 Southold Town, what ' s going on right
12 here , from people who live here who go
13 out and can see those sites . And
14 that ' s really important because DEC
15 does not have enough people and they
16 don ' t have enough resources , and they
17 haven ' t had them for a long time . So
18 that ' s a real problem. I think what
19 happened on the south side was that as
20 more and more docks start
21 proliferating, you know, some
22 communities like North Haven did like a
23 dock study to figure out exactly what
24 it was and why they were doing it . And
25 to some extent, you know, the Town may
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 42
1 want to just make sure that it can
2 justify what it ' s doing because it ' s
3 going to get sued by people who aren ' t
4 happy with the outcome . And there ' s
5 going to be more of those lawsuits .
6 And sometimes the tendency is to just
7 give up . I would encourage you not to
8 give up, but to make sure that you
9 substantiate your record and your
10 position, so that you can put your
11 strongest foot forward . I think in
12 these specific amendments that are
13 before you, what ' s going to help here
14 is that there ' s going to be an
15 understanding from the outset as to
16 what the conditions are . Now,
17 something else I learned as a land use
18 practitioner is that surveys don ' t
19 always represent what ' s actually going
20 on the ground . If you don ' t have 100
21 people to be out there looking at every
22 survey, you can get halfway through an
23 application until some person who lives
24 next door comes out and says , oh, no,
25 there ' s a building over there, or
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 43
1 there ' s a patio over here . So I think
2 it ' s important to get a good survey to
3 get it early . And I think that
4 probably expedites review . Impervious
5 surfaces have to be identified, even if
6 they ' re not technically impervious . A
7 bunch of ground up aggregate that
8 basically becomes impervious has the
9 same effect with respect to pollution .
10 We should know where it is .
11 Recognizing and providing for the new
12 Septic technology that ' s coming in is
13 important, should be recognized in 275 ,
14 and everybody should know it ' s there .
15 And I think paying closer attention to
16 long-term compliance is important . I
17 think it may be where the gentleman
18 previously talked about what is 250 of
19 what, I think that ' s take a look at
20 that . Are we talking dollars ? Are we
21 talking, you know, physical structure ?
22 I would agree with that . And the
23 vegetated non-turf buffers , the
24 legislation before you enshrines the
25 benefits of those buffers as well . So
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 44
1 we ' re not just saying, okay, let ' s put
2 some language in there . It tells you
3 why they ' re important . That helps land
4 use practitioners . It helps owners . I
5 think obviously there ' s an education
6 process that can always go on there .
7 Other communities have specific native
8 and native compatible lists that people
9 can use . We would certainly help in
10 any way that we can to help people
11 understand that . But all of those
12 amendments are important . They ' re
13 reflective in what the comprehensive
14 plan wanted to do . And they
15 demonstrate to you that the trustees
16 for all of their efforts are reaching
17 out saying, we got to do better than we
18 have been, or we ' re going to end up
19 where we don ' t want to be . So there
20 may be some work to be done with
21 respect to if you want to go and look
22 at specific language that you can
23 develop where , you know, to sustain
24 your point of view on dockage in
25 certain places . I don ' t disagree with
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 45
1 that . I don ' t disagree with Ms .
2 Moore ' s position about reviewing some
3 of that . But the bottom line is right
4 now, get the buffer language in, get
5 the language in that helps permits be
6 reviewed more practically with more
7 clarity, that homeowners can understand
8 why they ' re being asked to do what
9 they ' re doing . And all of that is in
10 these amendments . So, you know, we
11 support them in all of those ways , but
12 I also just can ' t tell you enough . The
13 sooner you get going on this , the
14 better it ' s going to be because they
15 have suffered mightily on the South
16 Fork where I started my career . And a
17 lot of it ' s because there ' s always a
18 reason to not do anything . And so I
19 urge you forward . I urge you,
20 obviously, to respect the comments that
21 you ' ve heard and the expertise that
22 you ' ve heard . But let ' s get that Comp
23 Plan moving . It ' s been like 15 years ,
24 and the longer we wait, the harder this
25 is going to be . Thank you very much .
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 46
1 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Thank
2 you .
3 ERIC SEPENOSKI : Good evening,
4 Board, members of the public . I ' m Eric
5 Sepenoski , Southold Town Trustee . I
6 come to you directly from field
7 inspections . We spent our whole day
8 out in the wetlands and shorelines of
9 Southold Town . We did meet Pat Moore ,
10 Esquire out for that, and we did find
11 an amicable agreement . Just for the
12 record, I would like to know if anyone
13 objects to the change of Bay Constable
14 to Harbormaster, or if that too ruffles
15 feathers ? When I was a child, we had
16 what we ' re called Jodges Beach on
17 Hallock ' s Bay . It was a piece of
18 property my family had from way back
19 when, when Polish farmers had enough
20 money to get together to buy some land .
21 And at a certain point, the New York
22 state took that by eminent domain . And
23 thank God they did, because now we have
24 a water body that is one of the most
25 beautiful and pristine water bodies in
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 47
1 our township . There ' s only a few docks
2 on it close to the harbor . The rest of
3 it is something you can kayak, boat,
4 hike , swim, and count your blessings
5 that you live here and are able to
6 access these waters and Southold . Dam
7 Pond . My grandmother on her way to
8 Sep ' s Farm in East Marion would pass by
9 that every day and she said to me at
10 the farm stand every morning, " I get to
11 drive on the most beautiful stretch of
12 road to work . I have the best commute
13 in the whole world . It ' s the most
14 beautiful thing . " And that ' s the kind
15 of spirit that I come to you this
16 evening with because these water bodies
17 that we ' re talking about, not just
18 Hallock ' s Bay, not just Dam Pond, but
19 Marion Lake, Laurel Lake . Some of the
20 most beautiful freshwater wetlands that
21 we have in this town, and they ' re under
22 incredible pressure from development .
23 As Mr . DeLuca has pointed out, the
24 money is coming from the South Fork to
25 the North Fork and has for some time .
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 48
1 And we regularly engage with
2 applicants , follow our code, Chapter
3 275 , 111 , and 96 , and administer that
4 code fairly and efficiently . And I ask
5 you to think about weighing the right
6 to a dock versus the public good that
7 all Southolder ' s should be able to
8 enjoy when they navigate the shorelines
9 or ride past these water bodies and see
10 them in their undiminished state .
11 Thank you .
12 COUNCILMAN BRIAN MEALY : Thank
13 you, Eric .
14 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Thank
15 you . Would anyone else like to address
16 the Board of this hearing?
17 SUSAN PITTMAN : My name is Susan
18 Pittman . I just have one question . On
19 the ordinary and usual maintenance , my
20 understanding is that that is -- you
21 already have a structure there and you
22 were previously allowed to repair 750
23 of it . It ' s now suggested to be 250 .
24 I was just wondering, could we
25 compromise and make it 500? It just
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 49
1 seems that the 25% is kind of austere .
2 And if you did have a structure that
3 needed to have repair, it then becomes
4 maybe done in several years instead of
5 getting it finished in one year . Thank
6 you .
7 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Thank
8 you . I don ' t see anyone on Zoom who
9 would like to make a comment . Is there
10 anyone else here who would like to
11 comment?
12 (No Response) .
13 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : I ' d
14 like to thank everyone for coming
15 tonight . You know, it ' s kind of a
16 flashback for me to see John
17 Bredemeyer, who I served with as a
18 Trustee 40 years ago . Is it 40 years ,
19 John? And Pat Moore, I ' ve never heard
20 you speak an objection before . But I
21 just want to thank everyone for coming .
22 You know, the Trustees -- you know, we
23 talked a little bit about the DEC
24 tonight . The DEC is a good partner in
25 environmental protection, but they ' re
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 50
1 not local . And the Trustees have held
2 the line . And the reason I mentioned
3 John Bredemeyer is because somebody
4 mentioned Hashamomuck Pond . And it was
5 a long time ago that John really said,
6 we got to focus on water quality . And
7 we started to do stormwater in town .
8 And we ' ve got a strong record of
9 stormwater remediation in town . As a
10 result, you can swim there and you can
11 shellfish there . And it ' s because the
12 County 30 plus years ago did some major
13 projects on Long Creek on the County
14 Road . The Town did a few on the on
15 wherever there was Town stormwater
16 inputs there . And then it continued
17 that throughout the whole town .
18 Mattituck Creek, we opened up more
19 shellfishing land as a result in
20 Hashamomuck . We opened up quite a bit
21 in Mattituck Creek . And there are
22 other creeks that were reopened to
23 shellfishing because of the Town ' s
24 efforts in stormwater remediation . So
25 you can ' t take that for granted . If
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 51
1 you look at Suffolk County Health
2 Department closes many beaches to
3 shellfishing and bathing all Summer
4 long in the rest of Suffolk County
5 because the hard work hasn ' t been done
6 for decades to spend that money and to
7 be dedicated to improve water quality .
8 So there ' s a lot good that has happened
9 here . There is a lot of pressure on
10 the waterfront . There was back in the
11 mid 80 ' s , remember the Wall Street
12 money that came out here? It ' s sort of
13 the same thing that ' s going on today .
14 And it is terribly complicated . But
15 there ' s a lot of people here who lived
16 here for a long time and appreciate it .
17 There ' s a lot of people who just moved
18 in recently that appreciate it just as
19 much . So I would like to -- there ' s a
20 lot of comments that came in . We have
21 a few mail in, or e-mail comments also .
22 I would like to recess this hearing to
23 make sure that we take a close look at
24 all the comments and all the
25 suggestions for changes to 275 . Not
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 52
1 against having a Public Hearing and
2 voting on it, but I think this is
3 something that because we have so many
4 comments , we should look at them.
5 COUNCILMAN GREG DOROSKI :
6 Absolutely . And I think it really
7 speaks to the complexity of what we ' re
8 looking at here . You know, we have
9 private rights and the public good .
10 You know, a gentleman mentioned
11 riparian rights . We also, as residents
12 of the community, have rights to these
13 waterways that go all the way back to
14 the colonial charter, which establishes
15 our Board of Trustees . And I think,
16 you know, them as a Board making
17 recommendations , looking at the facts
18 on the ground that they ' re seeing with
19 the applications that they ' re
20 contending with, we need to take that
21 very seriously . We also need to take
22 very seriously the concerns of the
23 property owners that are here,
24 expressing their individual concerns .
25 And like many of the issues that we
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 53
1 contend with, it really is about
2 finding that balance between the public
3 good and the private good . And, you
4 know, I feel confident that these
5 amendments before us move in that
6 direction . I think there have been
7 some recommendations , for instance , to
8 clarify what exactly 25% means is very
9 well taken . I think the comments about
10 the docks and providing adequate
11 justification, either in the code or
12 somehow to put us in a stronger
13 position is useful and relevant here .
14 But at least speaking for myself, I am
15 committed to seeing this through and
16 hope we can do so as we weigh all of
17 these comments and really try to find
18 this delicate balance, which has
19 brought us to where we are today, where
20 we do have these amazing natural
21 resources that we all share together .
22 COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY : Yeah, I
23 think we definitely have to take a
24 closer look . I ' ve reserved my comments
25 so far in our discussions . I spent 18
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 54
1 years in the Trustee Office, 12 as a
2 Clerk and 6 as a Board member . And
3 these issues that we ' ve talked tonight
4 are not new . We ' ve talked -- we ' ve had
5 the same issues . We ' ve made changes
6 over the years . And, you know, all the
7 comments that Greg said about riparian
8 rights and it ' s that balance , that
9 delicate balance of, you know, we all
10 care about our environment, but we all
11 want to be able to utilize the
12 properties as well . And I remember
13 when this flow through decking came
14 out, I was excited because I say, oh, a
15 chance that people can actually utilize
16 their properties , go over the marsh
17 without destroying the marsh . And we
18 did some areas where we said, you know,
19 a canoe dock only . You know, you can ' t
20 have the float and the walkway, just
21 the fixed portion . So we ' ve made
22 changes along the way . So I ' d like to
23 take a look at a lot of these changes
24 again and keep moving forward with it .
25 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Go
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 55
1 right ahead, Anne?
2 COUNCILWOMAN ANNE SMITH : I was
3 going to ask how long do you want to
4 keep it open for and what other
5 discussions do we want to have?
6 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Well ,
7 I think just timeline-wise --
8 TOWN ATTORNEY PAUL DECHANCE : I
9 would ask that the Board to consider a
10 motion to hold the matter open until
11 November 6th for written comment in
12 addition to what the Board heard this
13 evening .
14 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : And I
15 want to thank the Trustees for coming .
16 It is a -- you ' re on the front lines .
17 I was there for 20 years and it ' s a --
18 it ' s a difficult job . So thank you for
19 your service to the Town .
20 COUNCILMAN GREG DOROSKI : So
21 written comment only?
22 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Well ,
23 I get comments verbally also . So if
24 you insist on only written, that ' s
25 fine . But no, any comments .
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 56
1 COUNCILMAN GREG DOROSKI : Is it
2 also worthwhile though to request the
3 Trustees come into Work Session to
4 discuss any of these at this point?
5 COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY : I think
6 maybe we should consider going back to
7 Code . Paul , can we do that?
8 TOWN ATTORNEY PAUL DECHANCE : We
9 have an open Public Hearing . I would
10 request that the Trustees clarify that
11 one definition concerning their
12 percentages , whether it be value of the
13 dock, value of the work to be
14 conducted . Looks like we ' re going to
15 have that now . But that would be some
16 of the written comment I would expect .
17 I would not -- because we have an open
18 record, the Board eventually needs to
19 close it, but everything that ' s part of
20 the record has to be in this process
21 and not in a Work Session .
22 LIZ GILLOOLY : Sure . I mean, I
23 think that one thing the Board of
24 Trustees would request is that you
25 separate out any of these concerning
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 57
1 parts of the proposed updates and make
2 those a separate issue rather than
3 holding up definitions , which don ' t
4 seem to have any impact . You know, the
5 community is not worried about those
6 definitions . I think the sooner we get
7 those in our code, the better . When it
8 comes to the 25 versus 75 , it ' s already
9 in the code as 250 . We ' re asking --
10 sorry, it ' s already in the code as 750 .
11 We ' re just asking to change it to 25 .
12 So if it wasn ' t clear at 75 , it ' s still
13 not clear . But I think it ' s a change
14 that is necessary to limit the amount
15 of structure that is changed . And this
16 is per calendar year, so it actually
17 encourages people to continuously do
18 maintenance on their structures within
19 Trustee jurisdiction . So I think it is
20 a good change . And if the clarity
21 wasn ' t there before , it ' s -- you know,
22 that ' s something that you guys can work
23 on a little bit later . But I think
24 making the change sooner is probably
25 beneficial overall .
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 58
1 COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY : Yeah, and
2 that ' s a big shift . So I think that
3 deserves a little more conversation .
4 LIZ GILLOOLY : Absolutely .
5 Welcome to do that . I just wanted to
6 clarify that . We aren ' t the ones who
7 came up with the idea of putting in a
8 percentage without clarity on whether
9 it ' s the value of the structure or the
10 percentage .
11 COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY : No, no, I
12 understand .
13 LIZ GILLOOLY : That ' s how the code
14 was written . So I ' m just responding to
15 that .
16 COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY : Thanks for
17 that .
18 UNKNOWN SPEAKER : I just have a
19 concern about the November 6th date .
20 We have an election on November 4th .
21 Is it not possible to vote on this
22 beforehand?
23 COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY : I don ' t
24 think we would be voting on it on the
25 6th . We ' re just going to bring it back
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 59
1 and maybe close the hearing on the 6th .
2 We ' re leaving the hearing open until
3 the 6th . That doesn ' t mean we ' re going
4 to vote on that night .
5 UNKNOWN SPEAKER : -- voting on it
6 before the election --
7 COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY : It ' s the
8 5th . It ' s the next meeting . It ' s
9 Wednesday, November 5th . It ' s our next
10 Town Board meeting .
11 UNKNOWN SPEAKER : No, no, I guess
12 my question is , if it wasn ' t for that,
13 would you be voting on it before the
14 election?
15 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : It ' s
16 not about that . We got a lot of
17 comments that are very important .
18 UNKNOWN SPEAKER : Yeah, okay .
19 COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY : This is our
20 normal process with a Public Hearing .
21 We don ' t always vote on a hearing the
22 night that we close it .
23 UNKNOWN SPEAKER : That is what I
24 was asking --
25 COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY : And we ' re
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 60
1 not closing the hearing . We ' re leaving
2 the hearing open until our next Town
3 Board meeting, which is Wednesday,
4 November 5th . And we ' ll most likely
5 close the hearing at that juncture , but
6 it doesn ' t mean we ' ll be ready to vote
7 on it at that juncture . We could still
8 deliberate and vote on it at another .
9 UNKNOWN SPEAKER : Okay, thank you .
10 TOWN ATTORNEY PAUL DECHANCE : So
11 just to clarify, this matter will not
12 be on the Board ' s calendar on October
13 21st . It will be next on the Board ' s
14 calendar as an open and -- as an open
15 hearing on November 5th . And at that
16 point, all the written comments , all
17 the comments will be received and the
18 Board can choose to close the matter
19 then . And if it closes it, it may
20 decide it or it may decide it at a
21 future date .
22 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Yes .
23 Jerry?
24 I approach the board .
25 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Oh,
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 61
1 yeah, please . Please give it to the
2 Clerk and he can distribute it to us .
3 COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY : So did we
4 have a resolution to recess the Public
5 Hearing until --
6 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Not
7 yet . I just want to make sure there ' s
8 done with the comments .
9 TOWN ATTORNEY PAUL DECHANCE : So
10 at the conclusion of the comments , the
11 motion is to hold open until November
12 5th, not to recess .
13 COUNCILMAN GREG DOROSKI : For
14 written comment only .
15 TOWN ATTORNEY PAUL DECHANCE : For
16 written comment .
17 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Well ,
18 unless you see Al , then you could talk
19 to him.
20 COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY : I ' ll second
21 that .
22 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Wait,
23 who made the motion?
24 COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY : Greg just
25 did .
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 62
1 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Okay .
2 Just to be clear .
3 All in favor?
4 COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY : Aye .
5 COUNCILMAN GREG DOROSKI : Aye .
6 COUNCILMAN BRIAN MEALY : Aye .
7 COUNCILWOMAN ANNE SMITH : Aye .
8 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Aye .
9 COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY : I ' ll make a
10 motion --
11 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Wait,
12 wait . Let ' s see now . Is there
13 anything anyone would like to say to
14 the Board on any subject at all ?
15 (No Response) .
16 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Seeing
17 none , seeing none on Zoom .
18 COUNCILMAN GREG DOROSKI : Make a
19 motion we adjourn . Strike that .
20 COUNCILMAN BRIAN MEALY : We ' re
21 getting into the good habit of
22 announcing good news . Anne and I had
23 started doing that when she joined the
24 Board . And I ' m proud to announce that
25 the Antibias Task Force is having their
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 63
1 Helen Wright Award Ceremony on
2 Thursday, October 9 , 2025 , 7 : 00 p . m. to
3 8 : 30 at the Mattituck High School
4 Library, 115-125 Main Road . Everybody
5 knows where the high school is . We ' re
6 honoring Rafael Maurais . He ' s a
7 neighborhood liaison for the Mattituck
8 Cuthchogue Union Pre-School District .
9 And it ' s just proud as a former awardee
10 of the Helen Wright Prince with Anne,
11 who was a former awardee, it just is a
12 nice ceremony . So many things tear us
13 apart and separate us . It ' s a nice
14 unifying ceremony . There ' s punch and
15 cookies . It ' s really celebrating our
16 community and strong community members .
17 If you can come, it ' s a nice
18 opportunity and a nice ceremony to be
19 together with our community . Thank
20 you .
21 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : All
22 right . Now I have a motion to adjourn .
23 Is there a second?
24 COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY : Second .
25 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : All in
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 64
1 favor?
2 COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY : Aye .
3 COUNCILMAN GREG DOROSKI : Aye .
4 COUNCILMAN BRIAN MEALY : Aye .
5 COUNCILWOMAN ANNE SMITH : Aye .
6 SUPERVISOR AL KRUPSKI JR . : Aye .
7
8 (Whereupon, the meeting was
9 adjourned . )
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 65
1 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
2
3 I , Jessica DiLallo, a Notary
4 Public for and within the State of New
5 York, do hereby certify :
6 THAT, the within transcript is a
7 true record of said Board Meeting .
8 I further certify that I am not
9 related either by blood or marriage to
10 any of the parties to this action; and
11 that I am in no way interested in the
12 outcome of this matter .
13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have
14 hereunto set my hand this day,
15 October 7 , 2025 .
16
17
17 --b- -------
18 (Jessica DiLallo)
19
20
21
22
23
24
25