HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-09/17/2025 Glenn Goldsmith,President F sours Town Hall Annex
A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ,`O� ��� 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski l l Southold,New York 11971
Liz Gillooly G Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth Peeples • a0 Fax(631) 765-6641
olyC4U�`I,�
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RE E
Minutes 0CT 1 6 2025
Wednesday, September 17, 2025
5:30 PM Southold Town Clary
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,
September 17th, 2025 Trustee meeting. At this time I would like
to call the meeting to order and ask that you please stand for
the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance is recited) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll start off 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 the attorney to the Trustees, the Hon. Lori Hulse, we have
Administrative Assistant Elizabeth Cantrell, and with us tonight
is Court Stenographer Wayne Galante.
Agendas for tonight's meeting are located out in the
hallway and also posted on the Town' s website.
We do have a number of postponements tonight. In the
agenda, on page six, under Wetland and Coastal, number 3, as
follows:
Number 3, 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
Board of Trustees 2 September 17, 2025
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.
Located: 2512 Brickyard Road, Fishers Island.
SCTM# 1000-7-4-3. 1.
On page 11, numbers 18 and 19, as follows:
Number 18, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of THE D. B. ROBINSON
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove
existing 100 linear foot long concrete bulkhead with steps to
beach, and construct a new 100 linear foot long vinyl bulkhead
with 5'x6' steps to beach in same location as existing; and to
establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer
along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 915 Mill Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-3-37
Number 19, 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 4.31L x 8"W section, a 1.51H x 22.11L 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 41x6' 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
Number 19, 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
Board of Trustees 3 September 17, 2025
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
On page 12, numbers 20 through 23, as follows:
Number 20, 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'x42' 4",-
±1, 058 .25sq. ft. ) With attached 7 .3'x48.21. (351.86sq.ft) deck on
south side of dwelling; install a 251x6' (±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 21, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of
MICHAEL J. & ALEXANDRIA PRISCO requests a Wetland Permit to
remove and dispose of the existing 61x44 ' catwalk; construct
in-place a new landward 4 ' wide staircase up to a 4 'x5' platform
elevated 4 .5' above grade leading to a. raised 41x50' ramp
leading down to a 4 'x30' catwalk; reuse existing 31x16' ramp and
6'x20' floating dock situated in an "L" configuration; remove
existing pilings and install two (2) new anchor pilings; and the
existing landward wood walkway to dock to be removed and
replaced with a mulch walkway.
Located: 905 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-139-1-17
Number 22, 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 41x16' floating dock to the
4'x42' floating dock with a 41x6' floating finger dock; and the
existing 81x21' floating boat lift to be relocated to south side
of 41x42' floating dock.
Board of Trustees 4 September 17, 2025
Located: 480 North Riley Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#
1000-122-3-34.1
Number 23, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION & PLANS
RECEIVED 7/2/25 L.K. McLean Associates on behalf of NORTH FORK
COUNTRY CLUB requests a Wetland Permit to remove dead, . diseased,_
or damaged trees within an approximately 18, 000sq.ft. Area with
all tree removals to be conducted in a selectively and minimally
invasive manner to avoid disturbing the surrounding habitat;
within an approximately 7;500sq.ft. Area of the wetland itself,
selectively remove invasive plant species using best management
practices, and for the trimming of phragmites down to spring
high water (el. 4.01) . Located: 26342 Main Road, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-109-4-8.3
On page 13, numbers 24 through 26,. as follows:
Number 24, L.K. McLean Associates on behalf of AWC
DOCKSIDE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for Marina improvements
consisting of the as-built 61x981 , 61x218 ' 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 instaZ1 new ±161 linear
feet of vinyl bulkhead varying ±15' to ±32 ' landward of existing
bulkhead location and ±1.8' higher than existing bulkhead;
install a 22.3' north vinyl return and a 14' south vinyl return;
construct a 26' long vinyl slotted breakwater off north end of
bulkhead; create nine (9) 151x35' slips by installing 10 new
mooring piles and 10 new guide piles; install a 4 'x40' gangway,
one (1) 8'x53' and one (1) 61x102' floating dock parallel to new
bulkhead and install five (5) 41x30' floating finger docks off
of 6' and 8' wide floating docks; spread dredge spoil and raise
grade in area landward of new and portion of existing bulkhead
approximately 4" higher (±140 cubic yards- over an area of
12,200sq.ft. ) ; in an area around existing concrete slab, spread
excess fill taken from area landward of bulkhead and raise grade
approximately 18" (±230 cubic yards over an area of
4, 140sq.ft. ) ; a proposed pump-out truck with 1,000ga1. Capacity
with potable water washout; and with the use of a turbidity
curtain during construction.
Located: 5505 West Mill Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-6-1
Number 25, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of HALLE
EATON requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing two-story
dwelling, existing shed and brick path; construct a proposed
two-story 3, 684sq.ft. Dwelling with an 81x52 ' covered front
porch; a 101x92' first floor rear deck with pergola and
Board of Trustees 5 September 17, 2025
15.51xl7 ' steps to grade; two 171x17' second-story rear decks; a
171x38 ' in-ground pool, pool enclosure fencing with gates, a
pool equipment sound deadening enclosure, and a pool drywell;
install an irregularly shaped 27'x68 ' wood deck around pool
-- ---- -- - - leading to a 4' wide boardwalk; abandon existing septic system___ _ _ -_ ____,__ ___
and install a new I/A sanitary system landward of dwelling;
install a permeable roundabout with stone steps at grade to main
and side entrances; relocate existing 6' high fencing and
install additional 6' high fencing; install A/C units and a
generator; install a stormwater drainage system; existing
irregular shaped ±40'x±40' two-story garage and koi pond to
remain; with the edge of first floor rear deck and edge of pool
foundation to be planted with native, non-fertilizer dependent
vegetation. ' Located: 1480 Old Wood Path, Southold. SCTM#
1000-87-1-21
Number 26, Karen Hoeg, Esq. On behalf of DOUGLAS P.
ROBALINO LIVING TRUST & DIANE E. ROBALINO LIVING TRUST requests
a Wetland Permit for the as-built 1, 628sq. ft. One-story dwelling
with attached 186sq.ft. East side deck with steps and 405sq.ft.
West side deck with steps; as-built 181sq. ft. PVC pergola;
as-built 345sq. ft. West side concrete patio; 526sq.ft. Of as
built concrete walkways; 827sq.ft. Of as-built step-stone walks;
as-built 598sq. ft. Masonry block walk; as-built 1, 600sq.ft.
Brick & asphalt driveway; existing previously permitted
1, 380sq. ft. Two-story garage; and 10' diameter by 8 ' deep
cesspool with shallow dome; remove the existing seaward masonry
wall and replace with two tiers of 30" high masonry walls with
36" between the walls and a drain system, to be planted with
native grasses; all debris, including tires and trash to be
removed from the bank face by hand and place native seed mix in
areas of exposed soil; establish and perpetually maintain a 30'
wide Non-Disturbance Buffer along the landward edge of wetlands,
and establish and perpetually maintain a 1, 978sq.ft. Vegetated
Non-Turf Buffer on the east side of dwelling wrapping around
seaward side of dwelling, and within the area of the retaining
walls; remove existing concrete pad seaward of dwelling and
install a ±4. 6' wide pervious gravel walk.
Located: 1695 Bay Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-9-21. 1
And on page 14, numbers 27 through 28, as follows:
Number 27, Joan Chambers on behalf of GEORGE DANGAS
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a raised 181x40' gunite
swimming pool attached to seaward side of existing seaward deck;
add 5' wide steps off north end of existing deck; install a new
20.4 'x6' deck at north end of pool, and a new 11.8'x21. 4' deck
at south end of pool; install two (2) new retaining walls (4'
and 1. 6' tall) under the south end of the deck to create a space
with pea gravel ground cover for the pool equipment and
accessible storage area; railings around raised decking and
locking gates installed for pool enclosure requirements; install
outdoor cooking facilities on existing seaward deck and new
Board of Trustees 6 September 17, 2025
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 28, AS PER REVISED SITE PLAN & WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED 12/23/2024 Twin Forks Permits on behalf of THE WILLIAM
E. GOYDAN -REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST, c/o WILLIAM E. GOYDAN,
TRUSTEE & THE KAREN B. GOYDAN REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST, c/o
KAREN B. GOYDAN, TRUSTEE requests a Wetland Permit to demolish
the existing two-story dwelling, detached garage and other
surfaces on the property; construct a new 3,287sq.ft. Footprint
(5, 802sq.ft. Gross floor area) two-story, single-family dwelling
with an 865sq.ft. Seaward covered patio, 167'sq.ft. Side covered
porch, and 149sq.ft. Front covered porch; construct a proposed
16'x36' swimming pool with 81x8 ' spa tub; a 1, 357sq.ft. Pool
patio surround with steps to ground, pool enclosure fencing,
pool equipment area, and a drywell for pool backwash; construct
a 752sq. ft. Two-story detached garage, gravel driveway and
parking areas; install an I/A septic system; remove 23 trees and
plant 25 trees on the property; and to establish and perpetually
maintain a 25 foot wide vegetated non-turf, no fertilization
buffer area along the landward side of the wetland vegetation.
Located: 1645 Marratooka Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-3-2. 1
All of those are postponed and will not be heard this
evening.
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 applications.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to hold our
next field inspection Tuesday, . October 7th, 2025, at 8:OOAM.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next Trustee
meeting Wednesday, October 15, 2025 at 5:30PM at the Town Hall
Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
III. WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next work
Board of Trustees 7 September 17, 2025
session Thursday, October 9th, 2025 at 5:OOPM at the Town Hall
Annex 2nd Floor Executive Board Room, and on Wednesday, October
15, 2025 at 5:OOPM in the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
_. . . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of
August 13th, 2025 Trustee meeting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral V, The Trustees monthly
report for August 2025. A check for $21, 969.19 was forwarded to
the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
VI. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman number VI, Public Notices. Public
Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for
review.
VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VII, RESOLVED that the
Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the
following applications more fully described in Section XI Public
Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday,
September 17, 2025 are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to
SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further
review under SEQRA. That is my motion. They are listed as
follows:
Andrew Grover- & Daniel Mazzarini SCTM# 1000-21-5-8
Alberto Edwardo Kaplan & Anne Carey SCTM# 1000-31-12-8
John Wirth & Lina Pilshchik SCTM# 1000-54-5-10
Christopher & Arianna Martell SCTM# 1000-117-5-46.3 &
1000-117-5-46.4
Richard & Jean Jung SCTM# 1000-70-4-4
Hobart Road, LLC SCTM# 1000-64-3-1
Tenforty Central, LLC SCTM# 1000-116-1-27
Tenforty Central, LLC SCTM# 1000-116-1-27
Win Wunn, LLC SCTM# 1000-86-6-11
Jorgo & Christina Cikolla SCTM# 1000-115-11-21
J. C. Neville Revocable Trust SCTM# !000-64-3-6
Board of Trustees 8 September 17, 2025
The D. B. Robinson Revocable Living Trust SCTM# 1000-135-3-37
k MDC Trust SCTM# 1000-68-1-8
Estate of Theodore A. Eiring SCTM# 1000-78-2-18 .4
DKJK Family Trust SCTM# 1000-115-12-13
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
VIII. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral VIII, Resolutions and
Administrative Permits. In order to simplify our meetings, the
Board of Trustees regularly groups together action's that are
minor or similar in nature. Accordingly, I make a motion to
approve as a group Items 5 through 7, as follows:
Number 5, LAUREN CALAHAN requests an Administrative Permit
for vegetation remediation within a 40'xl4 ' area along the
roadside using various wild flower plantings.
Located: Off Central Avenue, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-6-4-7.2
Number 6, JOHN & ROBERTA JAKLEVIC request an Administrative
Permit to abandon existing collapsing septic system and install
an ,I/A OWTS septic system.
Located: 900 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-5-21.2
Number 7, Turtleback Conservation Center on behalf of
MATTITUCK PARK DISTRICT requests an Administrative Permit to
remove vegetation in order to eliminate invasive plant species
and decrease the amount of American beach grass, Beach Pea, and
non-native species at Breakwater Beach, Mattituck; any viable
native species that are removed are to be transplanted in areas
such as the fore-dune (northwest) and leeward end (southeast)
areas along Bailie' s Beach, Mattituck; all work to be performed
using hand tools and hand pulling.
Located: 5155 Breakwater Road & 2205 Bailie Beach Road,
Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-2-19.1 & 1000-99-3-14
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE •GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number.,1, Douglas McGahan on behalf of
MADELINE C. DROEGE FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED MAY 29, 2013
requests an Administrative Permit for the as-built removal of
existing wood decking and installation of 1, 305 sq. ft. Composite
decking.
Located: 885 Pettys Drive, Orient. SCTM# 1000-14-2-24
Trustee Sepenoski conducted a field inspection September
15th, 2025, noting it's a straightforward replacement of
existing. Establish and maintain a ten-foot vegetated non-turf
buffer along the edge top of bluff.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
Board of Trustees 9 September 17, 2025
is the deck was originally built without a Trustee permit.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition of a ten-foot vegetated non-turf buffer at the top of
the bluff, subject to new plans, and by granting it a permit
will bring it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .-
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, 70 DEEP HOLE DRIVE LLC c/o ROGER
LEIFER requests a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut
Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to 12" in height by hand, as
needed.
Located: 70 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. 'SCTM# 1000-115-12-2
Trustee Goldsmith conducted a field inspection September,
14th, 2025. Notes that there was Baccharus being trimmed, so
this permit should be for trimming phragmites only.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that it is for trimming of phragmites only. Any other
vegetation is to be left alone.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, STEVE DONADIC requests a Ten (10)
Year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut Common Reed (Phragmites
australis) to 12" in height by hand, as needed.
Located: 1071 Bay Home Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-37
Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection September
5th, 2025. Notes read hand-trimming is straightforward. Great
care must be taken to protect Baccharus and any other shrubs.
Trimming limited to phragmites exclusively.
I will make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that the trimming be restricted to phragmites only.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, JOSEPH PATRICK VERMAELEN & KATHLEEN
POWERS-VERMAELEN request an Administrative, Permit to clear a 28 '
wide area; to expand existing .pathway and install a 240' x 10'
stone blend driveway; to conduct construction activity
consisting of installation of an I/A OWTS septic system, a 994
sq.ft. Two-story dwelling with a 288 sq.ft covered porch, and a
64 sq. ft. Deck with stairs.
Located: 2020 Bay Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-144-3-40.1
Trustee Goldsmith conducted a field inspection September
14th, 2025, noting the project its was straightforward, but
there is a, should be a non-disturbance buffer included.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
Board of Trustees 10 September 17, 2025
condition of a minimum of a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer
seaward of the driveway.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
-- - (ALL AYES) .
IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral IX, Applications for
extensions, transfers, administrative amendments. Again, in
order to simplify our meeting I'll make a motion to approve as a
group Items 1 through 11, as follows:
Number 1, ROGER SIEJKA requests a Final One (1) Year
Extension to Wetland Permit #10210, as issued September 14,
2022.
Located: 955 Blossom Bend, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-6-22
Number 2, ANN CASTAGNOLA requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit #7206 from Gail. Jadow & E.J. Investment Holdings, LLC to
Ann Castagnola, as issued November 18, 2009 and Amended on July
21, 2010.
Located: 3655 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-136-2-11
Number 3-, ANN CASTAGNOLA requests a Transfer of
Administrative Permit #9193A from Eric Jadow to Ann Castagnola,
as issued April 18, 2018 and Amended on March 18, 2021.
Located: 3655 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-136--2-11
Number 4, GEORGE & KATHLEEN BRUNN request a Transfer of '
Wetland Permit #6560 from Gregersen' s Keep, LLC, Richard &
Antoinette Beck-Witt, & Henry Quintin to Gregersen's Keep, LLC,
George & Kathleen Brunn, & Henry Quintin, as issued March 21,
2007.
Located: 1960 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-3-12. 10
Number 5, ANDREW & ANDREA WEISBACH request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit #8501 from Robert J. Musco to Andrew & Andrea
Weisbach, as issued on September 17, 2014, and Amended on
September 21, 2016. '
Located: 497 Ripplewater Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-76-1-15.3
Number 6, ANDREW & ANDREA WEISBACH request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit #6173 from Gail Rerisi to Andrew & Andrea
Weisbach, as issued July 20, 2005.
Located: 497 Ripplewater Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-76-1-15.3
Number 7, ANDREW & ANDREA WEISBACH request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit #5605 from Gail Rerisi to Andrew & Andrea
Weisbach, as issued August 23, 2002.
Located: 497 Ripplewater Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-76-1-15.3
Number 8, En-Consultants on behalf of LUCKYFRONT, LLC
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10801 to
install pool-enclosure fencing with gates along the landward
limit of the proposed 50' wide vegetated non-turf buffer and
along both side lot lines between the 50' and 100' top of bluff
Board of Trustees 11 September 17, 2025
setbacks.
Located: 38015 Route 25, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-2-15.8
Number 9, Finnegan Law on behalf of PHILIP & NANCY WEBER
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #4686 for
- - - the as-built reconstruction of a portion of existing bluff
stairway seaward of access ramp following installation of rock
revetment with ten (10) platforms totaling 199 sq.ft. Using ACQ
lumber, composite decking and fiberon railing.
Located: 160 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-5-7
Number 10, CARMEN BROOKS requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit #10505 for the as-built 20' long by
44" high fence and 8' long by 44" high fence.
Located: 1232 The Gloaming, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-9-16
Number 11, BARBARA LASKIN REVOCABLE TRUST c/o BARBARA
LASKIN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#10777 to construct a 6' x 11' addition to dwelling instead of
the previously approved 4 . 6' x 11' addition.
Located: 480 North Oakwood Road, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-127-8-8.5
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
X. MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral X, Moorings/Stake & Pulley
Systems.
Number 1, PETER IZZO requests a Mooring in Little Creek for
a 16' outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #65. Access: Public
Trustee Krupski did a field inspection, noting the proposed
location of this mooring has less than one foot of water depth.
As such it would cause adverse environmental impact. So I'll
make a motion to deny this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral XI, ' Public Hearings, at
this time I make a motion to go off our regular meeting agenda
and enter into public hearings.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter of the
following applications for permits under Chapter 275 and Chapter
111 of the Southold Town Code. I have an affidavit of
publication from the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may
be read prior to asking for comments from the public. Please
Board of Trustees 12 September 17, 2025
keep your comments organized and brief, five minutes or less if
possible.
Just to make a note before we start, for the record, that
we do not have an LWRP report for a lot of the applications. Our
--- - - - -- longtime LWRP coordinator retired. A new one was just appointed,- --- -- - --------
and the new LWRP coordinator has not had time to get all the
LWRP reports, and by code we cannot proceed without them. So if
we do not have an LWRP report we will still open the hearing,
take public testimony, but we will not be able to render a
decision on those applications this evening. Until next month.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under Wetlands and Coastal Erosion permits,
Number 1, REVISED SITE PLANS SUBMITTED 8/13/2025 Charles Cuddy,
Esq. On behalf of NICHOLAS ALIANO requests a Wetland Permit and
a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a proposed two-story
dwelling (±830sq. ft. Basement, ±830sq. ft. First floor,
±830sq.ft. Second floor) with a ±61sq, ft. Basement patio, a
±69sq. ft. Front covered patio, a ±44sq.ft. Master balcony, a
±24sq.ft. Bedroom #1 balcony, a ±61sq.ft. Great room balcony,
and a ±78.5sq.ft. Dinning deck; install an I/A OWTS sanitary
system; install water and electric services; install a stone
blend driveway; install gutters to leaders to drywells to
contain storm-water runoff; construct a 24 ' long retaining wall
with a 5' northerly return (2 ' maximum height) ; 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: 3745 & 3705 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-83-1-11 & 12
The Trustees most recently visited the site for an inhouse
inspection September 15th, 2025, and recommended a non-turf
buffer with native species, to include existing trees to remain,
replacement of any loss, pull leaching galleys and drywells
landward of house, and entirety of property to be non-turf
buffer, up to the non-disturbance line.
The LWRP coordinator originally found this to be
inconsistent. The parcel is comprised almost entirely of 200
slopes- The soil group has severe limitations for sanitary
systems and buildings. Originally the application was
Board of Trustees 13 September 17, 2025
incomplete. He noted the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line is not
labeled on the survey. This is critical information. I am in
receipt of new plans dated stamped received today, with that
line on there.. It is recommended that the following natural
protective features be re-assessed and mapped. Land presenting
with precipitous and steeply-sloped face adjoining beach,
calling out the bluff and also the bluff line. Concerns over
stormwater management plan. The drywells are too close to severe
slopes and could impact erosion from the subsurface water flow.
And I am in receipt of a letter from the neighbor, the
conclusion of which I'll read into the record:
The above reasons that are expanded scope of construction
one-story versus two-story impact. Obtain a Town building permit
for Southold to construct a one-story house with 42-foot setback
from the bluff overlooking Long Island Sound. The current
proposal seeks approval for. a two-story dwelling which would
introduce substantially greater visual and environmental impacts
to an already vulnerable area. Lack of feasibility study and
alternative analysis. Despite being officially as Duck Pond
Point Road address, the development is functionally accessed
from Glenn Court, placing it higher on the bluff and
intensifying potential environmental harms. A meaningful
evaluation of alternative building sites, including options with
reduced elevation and less invasive driveway access has not been
presented. Concerns over the steep grade and the runoff. Unique
environmental and esthetic characteristics of the bluff.
Conclusion: For all of the reasons above, expanded structural
impact, lack of viable alternative analysis, and the
irresponsible ecological value of the site, I respectfully urge
the Board to deny Mr. Aliano' s current application.
The Town's wetland code exists to safeguard precisely these
types of rareiand vulnerable settings. To permit development in
the absence of full environmental studies and alternatives
siting analysis would set a troubling precedent. A sense of this
exceptional esthetic beauty of the bluff is general and our
vista, which is similar, can be seen in these pictures below.
John Callas.
There is also a letter from a Charles Ward. I'm writing to
express my strong opposition to the proposed development at Duck
Pond Point Road. At the location lies a sensitive bluff. I have
been advised by professionals in the past that development would
be extremely dangerous on this property. Preserving the
integrity of the coastline is essential to the health of our
community and wildlife for the future generations.
For those reasons I respectively urge the Planning
Commission to reject this development.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. CUDDY: Yes. Charles Cuddy 445 Griffing Avenue, Riverhead,
New York.
Board of Trustees 14 September 17, 2025
The Board has been there, I think you asked us last time we
were there to modify it by moving the house somewhat to the
north and west, we did that. You asked us to reduce the size of
the house, we have done that, from 1, 810 square feet to 1, 660
square feet. We think that the house level, by the way, the
first floor is virtually at the same height as the street level.
So this is not going to be a high house. That was one of the
concerns the neighbors had. That neighbor is seldom there,
because met him when we were there last time. He come
occasionally.
We think that the house is in an appropriate place. We
think it's setback as far as it can from the bluff. We believe
that there is going to be no harm to the environment by having
the house exactly where it is. The foundation is there, we do
have to excavate for a foundation. So we respectfully request
that the Board approve this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. It should be noted that there is a
quite extensive record from an earlier hearing, in which the
Board expressed their displeasure with the application, noted
its proximity on essentially, what is essentially two bluffs, by
Town Code definition. We are in receipt of new plans, as I
stated earlier, stamped received in the office September 17th,
2025, which do show a reduction on the house, and pulling back
the retaining wall necessary to build under these conditions.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
(No response) .
Any additional comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, I know we have been hashing this one out
now for a while. Chapter 275 specifically spells out the
protected areas that we as Trustees are responsible for
protecting, including banks and bluffs.
The purpose of Chapter 275 is to minimize the impact of any
new development on those protected areas. Chapter 275
specifically says those areas shall be regulated in order to
maintain and contribute to the resource area values and the
attributes and functions they possess, including -- and I 'll
paraphrase here a little bit -- flood control, erosion and.
sedimentation control, storm damage prevention, wildlife
habitat, esthetics, public access and recreation.
It further goes on to say that these resource area values
shall be maintained and protected. Prevention of flood damage by
limiting development in flood hazard areas; prevention of damage
to structures and natural resources as a result of erosion;
protection and enhancement of existing vegetation cover in order
to maintain water quality and wildlife habitat; protection of
wildlife, waterfowl and plant habitat, and the maintenance of
existing populations and species diversity; prevention of loss
or degradation of critical wildlife and plant habitat;
prevention of new stormwater runoff discharge; and protection of
Board of Trustees 15 September 17, 2025
the coastal ecosystem.
So, in my opinion, we have not gone .far enough to minimize .
the impact or protect those areas. As we have stated numerous
times, this is a bluff on both sides, including the Duck Pond
Road side. It has steep slopes. The current iteration of the
construction still has construction going on anywhere- from an
elevation of 52 on the east side to an elevation of 64.
So in essence we are building on the bluff, that same bluff
we are tasked with protecting.
The, I know there is a proposal for a rock revetment to
address the erosion, however if you look at the site, the
erosion is still occurring at the top of the bluff, not
necessarily the toe of the bluff.
I was actually there today and there is quite healthy
vegetation at the toe of the bluff. There is no scarring or
erosion at the toe of the bluff. The erosion that is occurring
is at the top of the bluff.
We have talked about inaccuracies on the site plan where we
have the top of the bluff and the toe of the bluff in the same
location. And I know you had a coastal geologist, I'm not a
coastal geologist, but I do know the difference between the top
and the bottom, and that they can't be the same thing.
MR. CUDDY: I think we explained that environment.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yup. So, we' have the toe of the bluff and
the top of the bluff at the same spot on the site plan.
There was a previous ZBA denial that was upheld on appeal.
I don't know why, how, they approved it this time, but the ZBA
looks at things differently than the Trustees. This Board is
concerned with the environmental impact, specifically as it
relates to Chapter 275, ' in those protected areas..
Chapter 275-12, standards for issuance of a permit, states
the Trustees may adopt a resolution directing the issuance of a
permit to perform operations applied for, only if it determines
that such operations will not substantially, and then it has a
list of criteria.
I believe this violates a number of the criteria,
including: (A) , adversely affects the wetlands of the Town;
(B) , cause damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation; (D) ,
adversely affects fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine
organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation or natural habitat
thereof, (E) increase the danger of flood and storm tide damage;
(H) , weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in
the vicinity; (I) otherwise adversely affect the health, safety
and general welfare of the people of the Town, and; (J)
adversely affect the esthetic value of the wetlands and adjacent
areas.
The construction of this house will have a permanent and
adverse impact on the bluff, that same very natural protective
feature that we as Trustees are tasked with protecting.
The house is being built on the bluff. The excavation and
Board of Trustees 16 September 17, 2025
construction activity will negatively affect the bluff. It will
permanently alter the topography and vegetation of this steep
slop, which will increase the rate of erosion. The construction
is so close, as the LWRP pointed out, the drainage so close to
that slope will increase stormwater runoff. Having that
structure close on the bluff will also increase the risk of
flood and stormwater damage by removing excess vegetation that
will also lead to increased erosion. , It will adversely affect
the wildlife by removing the trees and habitat that they are
living in. And also --
MR. CUDDY: Mr. Goldsmith --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And also -- I'm not finished, sir.
MR. CUDDY: Excuse me.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It will also weaken the lateral support of
the property by increasing the load on the bluff. Again, the
constructions is taking place on the slope, on the bluff. And
also adversely affect the esthetic value of the area by removing
the native vegetation and destroying the same vista that has
remained undisturbed for generations.
So with that said --
MR. CUDDY: I take serious issue with your analysis, and I think
it's improper and it's wrong. And under the circumstances you
are indicating to us that you disapprove of this, I withdraw the
application. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I will state for the record, I am just one
out of five. So, just to let you know, that' s how I feel as a
member of the Board.
MR. CUDDY: You were making a. motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I was not making a motion, I was making a
comment. No motion has been -made to close the hearing, nor has a
motion been made to accept or' deny an application. It was an
opening comment in a public hearing that is still open for
comment.
MS. HULSE: So it' s your wish to formally withdraw this
application at this juncture?
MR. CUDDY: I think under the circumstances, yes.
MS. HULSE: All right, so the hearing is going to discontinue in
the middle of the hearing insofar as the applicant' s attorney
has decided to withdraw this both Wetland and Coastal Erosion
application from the agenda, and the Board is consenting to its
removal.
MR. CUDDY: Thank you.
MS. HULSE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 2, AS PER REVISED SITE PLANS AND
DESCRIPTION SUBMITTED 9/9/2025 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 10'x12' (max. ) Irregularly shaped
Board of Trustees 17 September 17, 2025
top deck to a 41x5' walkway to 41x14 ' stairs down to a 4 'x8 '
platform to 41x16' stairs down to a 4 'x4 ' platform to 4 'x23'
stairs down to a 4 'x4 ' platform to 4 'x6' stairs down to a 4'x4 '
platform to 41x15' stairs down to a 4'x4 ' bottom platform that
- - - -- - leads to a 6'x9' east bottom platform and a 4'x20' set- of- -
removable stairs to beach over revetment; 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 in .areas
that are denuded and require vegetation; install core/bio logs
horizontally along the fabric areas as needed and then
revegetate using native vegetation; on the upland lawn area
install three (3) 18"x18" catch basins connected to 8" diameter
piping that will capture storm water runoff along with a 118'
long French drain constructed along the top of the slope to
convey storm water runoff to a 10'x10' drywell centered on the
rear lawn.
Located:. 680 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-30-2-85
The Trustees reviewed the plans on the 15th of September,
2025, and notes read: Need review from Southold Town Engineer
to assess drainage infrastructure and sensitive Sound bluff
area.
The LWRP found a portion of this project to be inconsistent
with its policies. A common beach access stair exists for the
community maintained by a homeowner' s association.
There are letters in the file. One from Stella Lagudis in
support. This is the neighbor directly west of the adjacent
property. The project replaces stairs that once existed. The
rock revetment project was costly and time consuming, but
indicates their commitment in preserve the property and be good
stewards of the land. And, thirdly, the applicants have a very
difficult drainage problem to address, but are willing to go
through the trouble and expense to design a solution to help
preserve the bluff with infrastructure to address the drainage,
in essence.
Another letter from Cornelius Regruck, writes in support of
the application, for similar reasons. Those two letters have
been scanned into our files.
The Town Engineer took a cursory review look at this
project and submitted on September, today, the 17th, earlier
this morning, that the proposed plans and the described problem
erosion of the bluff 'near the stairs, it appears the proposed
full bluff French drain may lead to unnecessary and
counterproductive disturbance of the bluff area. I would be
happy to meet with the Trustees, the applicant, their design
professional or any other party at the site to discuss options.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak with regards to this
_ application?
MR. CARR: Ed Carr, Licensed Marine Engineer, Taplow Consulting.
The upper deck was reduced, which was a Trustee comment
from the last public hearing we had. We had also revised the
Board of Trustees 18 September 17, 2025
drainage to minimize the size of the catch basins, there were
three of them, and also to extend the French drain, which is
only about six inches wide, about a foot deep, along the top of
the bluff, top of the slope, to capture all the stormwater
- - - water runoff, to make sure nothing is running off.
The only negative thing I've heard is the, comments of the
Town Engineer. We would appreciate if tonight the Board would
entertain approving this subject to a condition that we meet
with the Town Engineer and ultimately get the Town Engineer to
approve our plan. He seems very willing to meet on the site and
offer a suggestion he feels would may be less intrusive but
accomplishes the same result. We would prefer that rather than
to have to meet him, create new plans and come back for a third
hearing, if you are open to that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: While I appreciate the desire to achieve an
approval this evening, I'm not sure that we can move forward
with an approval with such a wide-open question of whether or
not the Town Engineer would like it or not like it, would want
new plans and in what shape. I think, as one Trustee, I would
like to have those comments with our meeting with the Town
Engineer and your design professionals in advance of an approval
or disapproval. How do you feel?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I agree with that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I also agree with Trustee Sepenoski.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It doesn't matter then how I feel, with those
three.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: People want to know.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, my personal opinion, having. done a lot
of these, is that it' s slightly overbuilt and there is probably
a better way to complete this project. Although it' s designed
well, ,I just don't know if it's completely necessary.
I think a formal meeting and report from the Town Engineer
is prudent. That being said, I don't see an issue if somebody
wants to spend that kind of capital and complete that project,
whether it' s necessary or not in this situation, is less my
concern, however, based on your three comments, I 'm happy to
support you in that, so.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I don't see an adverse impact for waiting
another month to review this with the Town Engineer for the
homeowner. So I think in this case I would want to have that
meeting first.
MR. CARR: • We were hoping to start work on the stairs as soon as
possible, given the weather, which is liable to turn ugly soon.
The contractor John Reeve feels he could accomplish most of the
stairs in a three-week period. So if we were to get this permit
he could start in a week or so.
The reason I was offering the suggestion that you consider
issuing the permit subject to, is that certainly if you were
prepared tonight to move ahead with this drainage, if the Town
Engineer had given it the green light, anything the engineer is
Board of Trustees 19 September 17, 2025
coming back with is going to be less than what you are seeing in
front of you.
So if you are comfortable with what you are seeing in front
of you, which is three small catch basins that are only 18"x18",
and that's a foot-and-a-half by a foot-and-a-half, and we want
to try and reduce that, I don't know, to 12"x12", or move it
back another three feet landward or something. Whatever the
engineer comes back with is certainly, I would have to believe
you would all approve of it because it will be a much less
impactful design. That' s all.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So one thing we could potentially do is
strike the part about the drainage, if you want to move forward
with the stairs and modify the application --
MR. CARR: Yes, if we could at least do that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: (Continuing) and do the stairs only, and take
out the part about the drainage, meet with the Town Engineer and
come up with a plan for that. That would be subject of a
different application.
MR. CARR: Okay, that would be acceptable. I would love us to
start on the stairs. Thank you, for that accommodation.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is there anyone else wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Members of the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close the
Hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve this application,
the portion of which addresses the stairs, and striking from
this application the language that reads: On the upland lawn
area install three 18"xl8" catch basins connected to 8" diameter
piping that will capture storm water runoff along with a 118'
long French drain constructed along the top of the slope to
convey storm water runoff to a 101x10' drywell centered on the
rear lawn.
MS. HULSE: That's with the consent of the applicant, correct?
MR. CARR: Yes.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And the reduction in size of the stairs and
the erosion mitigation measures, described in the description
therefore bring it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Under Wetland Permits, number 1,
Board of Trustees 20 September 17, 2025
REVISED SITE PLAN SUBMITTED 9/15/2025 Taplow Consulting, Ltd. On
behalf of ANDREW GROVER & DANIEL MAZZARINI requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a new 161x32' in-ground pool with a one (1)
foot surround (512sq.ft. ) ; install pool enclosure fencing with
-- - gates, a pool drywell, and a pool equipment area; and to
establish and perpetually maintain a 30' wide vegetated non-turf
buffer area along the landward edge of the top of the bluff
using native vegetation, with a 4' wide access path to bluff
stairs.
Located: ,90 the Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-5-8
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the loth of
September, noting a non-disturbance buffer needs to be
established, a mix of native shrubs and deep-rooting plants
recommended; four-foot wide access path from fence through
non-disturbance buffer.
We did have a follow-up conversation where that language
was changed to a vegetated non-turf buffer.
We are in receipt of plans that depict the vegetated
non-turf buffer as discussed, and we also are in receipt of an
LWRP review that occurred on October 13th, 2021, for exactly the
same project, same dimensions on the pool, and that was found to
be consistent.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. CARR: Ed Carr, Taplow Consulting. I'm just asking that you
approve this. As you are probably aware, this is more of an
administerial issue where the applicant was granted a permit in
2021 for a pool and home renovations. The pool was done. The
applicant, the homeowner opted to not perform the house
renovations due to costs, and when "we tried to close the pool
permit out we were told we needed to have the Trustee permit
revised to have the house removed from it. So that' s what this
application really is.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application, or any questions or
comments from the Board members?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted with the stamped plans received September 15th, 2025.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 2, Studio a/b Architects on behalf of
ALBERTO EDUARDO KAPLAN & ANNE CAREY requests a Wetland Permit
for the existing 1, 154.87sq.ft. Two-story dwelling with a
Board of Trustees 21 September 17, 2025
79.06sq.ft. Front porch, 334.75sq.ft. Deck with a 4 'x6' south
platform and stairs to ground, and 664.10sq. ft. Detached
garage/shed; replace existing, and add new windows and patio
doors; re-side dwelling; reconstruct 79.06sq.ft. Front porch
with a canopy, a bench and stair relocation; reconstruct
in-place 334.75sq.ft. Seaward deck with 41x6' south platform and
stairs to ground; install a new staircase to ground off deck;
install one 'at grade paver area and steps down to one below
• grade paver area (198.4sq.ft. Total area) , with ±15 ' long and
±3' long retaining walls; under deck remove existing partially
in-ground 337.34sq.ft. Screened-in porch, 12' 1 14," long, and
27'10 ;-1" long retaining walls and reconstruct in-place; .and to
reconstruct existing 4'x4 ' outdoor shower.
Located: 1270 Trumans Path, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-12-8
The Trustees most recently visited the site on September
10th, 2025, and Trustee Sepenoski made the following notes:
Project needed Trustee review. Project nearly complete. Review
permit history. Healthy trees on seaward side. 15-foot non-turf
buffer landward of the top of bank. Non-disturbance seaward of
top of bluff.
There is no LWRP report for this application at this time.
Is there anyone else wishes to speak?
MR. ARIIZUMI: Hideaki Ariizumi, from Studio a/b Architects. I'm
just coming to answer any questions, if any. And one thing, is
not the project itself, but the process of this became a little
trouble because we were not ignoring but Building Department
approved it. So we didn't argue with the Building Department. I
just went to the construction. But at the first inspection with
the Building Department, no you have to go to the Trustees. So,
the problem is actually the construction is already ongoing. I
stopped it, and waiting for your decision.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, for sharing that information, and
for waiting for this review of the Trustees.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?
(No response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
Oh, hello.
MS. BERRY: Hi, I'm Glynis Berry, I'm Hideaki's partner, and the
owner is here as well, if you have any questions.
But basically if there are any requirements, you mentioned-
trees and buffer zones. So the owner is totally amenable to any
vegetated requirements that you want to make. And basically it
was reconstruction, rather than expansion. The main difference
was an added stair, and it actually covered a lot of a part that
was already built to go down to the basement.. And that part was
slightly expanded. And that is basically due to access both
convenience from coming, because the other side is blocked, and
also ease in going to the basement. So that is the main
difference.
The retaining wall was in bad condition, that is existing,
Board of Trustees 22 September 17, 2025
so that was rebuilt in the samellocation. And the drainage is
actually better because we put gravel on the outside of it, so
there will be less stormwater runoff from the deck.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. It sounds like you addressed some
of the concerns with the rebuild. And we do understand the
circumstances here.
' We would like to see a 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer on
the landward side of the bank.
MS. BERRY: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And then on the seaward side of the top of bank
to be non-disturbance. And so if you would be willing to submit
plans that would include that. And we would also like to remove
no more trees on the property. If anything does need to be
removed for any reason, you just need to come to the Trustees
office for that review. And that's a much more minor, you know,
it would just involve the Trustee letter.
MS. BERRY: Okay, so let me be clear. The 15-foot is --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Vegetated, non-turf buffer on the landward side
of the top of bank. And then on the seaward side of top of bank
will be non-disturbance. -And we just need that noted on the
plan.
MS. BERRY: Okay. And could it be contingent on, we'll get that
to you tomorrow. Could, you approve it contingent on that being
accepted?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So, this application is the first of the
evening that references the comments by Trustee Goldsmith in
that we, because this �was a new application for the Trustees
that we did not receive an LWRP report, so we our legally unable
to proceed with a determination on this application this
evening.
MS. BERRY: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So I shared the comments with you in hopes that
with that submission we would be able to move forward, assuming
that all is still agreeable to the Board.
MS. BERRY: So what kind of time?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That would be for next month.
MS. BERRY: Next month?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes.
MS. BERRY: Is it possible for them to continue finishing the
deck, if that is not an issue?
MS. HULSE: Not without the Trustees permit.
MS. BERRY: With the decking.
MS. HULSE: No.
MS. BERRY: All right. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application for the
LWRP report.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
Board of Trustees 23 September 17, 2025
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, AS PER REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN AND
PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 9/15/25 Jozsef Solta Architects_on - ----- -
behalf of JOHN WIRTH & LINA PILSHCHIK requests a Wetland Permit
to demolish and remove the existing dwelling, deck and septic
system; construct a 2, 670sq.ft. Two-story dwelling with two
132sq.ft. Ground floor front porches, a 12" high by 14' long
retaining wall with two 26sq.ft. Platers under the dwelling
separating the parking area and brick patio; a 283sq.ft. Front
first floor deck, a 356sq.ft. Rear first floor deck, a 126
sq.ft. Second floor balcony, and multi-zone mini-split heat
pumps with condensers for a/c units; construct a 151x40' (4 '
deep) saltwater swimming pool with a 1,530sq.ft. Pool patio
including a 480sq.ft. Covered dining and bbq area; install 4'
high pool enclosure fencing, pool backwash containment system,
and pool equipment area inside storage area; install'an A/I OWTS
sanitary system; .install a Cultec drainage system for stormwater
management; re-grade areas around the new dwelling an pool
patio; install a gravel driveway with covered parking area;
install a solar-panel system in lieu of a generator; and to
plant native, salt-tolerant plantings such as American
beachgrass, northern bayberry, seaside goldenrod, tufted hair
grass, eastern red cedars, American holly and chastetree.
Located: 1230 North Sea Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-5-10
The Trustees conducted a field inspection September loth,
2025 . The notes read: The house should only be a maximum of
two stories high, with piles and breakaway walls; no turf
grasses on the property; maintain the dunal area; concerns about
the pool on this property, at minimum pull as far landward as
possible; configure IA system to not require fill; concerns
about depth to groundwater with construction and pool.
We do not have an LWRP report. Again we have a new LWRP
coordinator who has not had the time to get our LWRP reports to
us, so we will not be able to move forward with a determination.
Not the fault of this Board. Don't kill the messenger.
We do have a number, a couple of letters in the file for
this. One, ' I'll read it quick. We are the residents and owners
of 11185 Soundview Avenue, the property bordering 1230 North Sea
Drive on the southeast. We are here to express our concern about
the preservation of the wetlands and dunes that exist on our
properties. Since purchasing our home in 1986 we have witnessed
the significant degradation of important dunal areas and
groundwater, as well as the loss of critical wildlife and plant
habitat in our neighborhood, and we want to support the
maintenance of what is left.
There is a freshwater wetland at the northwest edge of our
property, which is approximately 15 feet from the property line.
This wetland supports a wide variety of amphibian, plant and
Board of Trustees 24 September 17, 2025
bird life. The sounds of peepers, gray tree frogs, crickets and
the endless variety of birds in all seasons serenade us day and
night. This natural resource must be protected. If it is
diminished, the quality of our collective lives will also be
diminished.
The property at 1230 North Sea Drive is a secondary dunal
area with mature native plant species and its active wildlife
habitat. In the past several years, swimming pools, turf
grasses and fences have been installed on similar neighboring
important dunal areas. This has caused significant habitat
fragmentation.
We have seen a marked increase in the number of deer on our
property. This has led in turn to the destruction of the
understory and health of the wooded areas, as well as dramatic
increase in the tick population. We are concerned about these
problems as well as the impact that further construction on the
dunes will have on the health of our groundwater, which in turn
affects our health. We ask that the new construction on this
property be designed to cause minimal disturbance to the
esthetics of this beautiful and crucial natural dune and
wetland.
This should be during both the construction period and also
include. covenants and restrictions to prevent degradation by
future owners.
We suggest the Trustees contact New York state DEC to
determine if this freshwater wetland is in fact a vernal pool.
This could affect the buffer zone area.
Submitted, respectfully, Sherri and Ted Thirlby.
We also have a letter in support of the project, from 1130
Property LLC.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. SOLTA: My name is Jozsef Solta, I am the architect of the
project and the agent for this.
First I would like to have this posting.
We basically got three recommendations from the Board. The
first recommendation was change the grass. We did change the
grass to a non-turf grass. The second recommendation was turn
the pool. We turned the pool. This resulted in 18-feet bigger
undisturbed backyard. And the third recommendation was to turn
the septic system. We discussed this with our engineer and he
believed that this is the most proper way to locate the septic
system. It will provide proper efficiency distribution and no
shadowing. So we kept septic system in the same way as it was
in the original, in the original plan.
Regarding these letters, the property is very narrow, long
property. The wetland is not in our property, but it is on our
neighbor' s property. Our activity is more than 200 feet from the
wetland. So we file the project in the DEC. The DEC said that
they have no jurisdiction on the project. One reason is that the
Board of Trustees 25 September 17, 2025
road is breaking the vegetation line from the sea side. The
wetland jurisdiction on freshwater wetland is 100 feet. This 100
feet is stated also in your back page. So we are very out of
jurisdiction.
- Regarding the landward, I don't see how our project will - -
affect the groundwater. Not at all. I don't see the reason there
is a vernal pool. So I just leave it to your judgment.
And this property is on the land side of the road, so it is
not as affected as any property next to the water.
I feel that this is a quite straightforward project. So I
still request your approval.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir. Do you happen to have a copy
of that DEC letter that says it' s non-jurisdictional?
MR. SOLTA: I give it to the Board. I will file the copy. It's
not a letter, it' s an e-mail what we got from the duty officer,
and if you wish we can request an official letter from the DEC.
But the duty officer described in the e-mail that he believed
there is no jurisdiction over this property.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay
Trustee GILLOOLY: Just to be clear, the letter that I saw in the
field referenced that they were instructing that you could apply
for a letter of non-jurisdiction but not that they had made a
determination about whether it was non-jurisdiction.
MR. SOLTA: We cannot lie, but if you read the e-mail it looks
like it is common sense. That application from the DEC is very
long process, so.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, we just have to make the record clear
that you do not currently have the letter.
MR. SOLTA: We apply, no problem.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: No, I think -- that's not what we are saying.
We just wanted to clarify the record, when you said you had the
letter of non-jurisdiction, it's different from, yes, an e-mail
that says you have permission- to apply for a letter of
non-jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: In regards to the septic system, as we
discussed, currently on the plans, looking like a three-story-
house that is further away from the road than the current house;
is that correct?
MR. SOLTA: Yes. I would like to clarify that this is not a
three-story building. It is a two-story building what is raised
above flood level, it's two point -- two-and-a-half feet
freeboard. The Southold Court says that the lowest floor in case
it is raised above the, if it is a raised floor because of the
FEMA requirement doesn't count as a floor.. So this is a
two-story building for us. It is 60-feet from the property line
because this is, that is the zoning requirement.
. The original front yard is 50 feet, but because our
property does not have the proper frontage, that zoning officer
directed us to, certain paragraph, that we have to 'have 60-foot
front yard and needs to go 15-foot side yard, we have to have 20
Board of Trustees 26 September 17, 2025
feet side yard. We provide all of them with the building into
the pyramid code. So we trying to work strictly with the
requirements to avoid any variances.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think also to clarify record, you mentioned
the_ distance from the wetlands is greater than 100 feet and that
is specifically referenced in our code. But I think it's
important to also say that this entire project is directly on a
secondary dune, which is a protected natural feature in Chapter
275, which is why we are conducting a review on this project.
So everything that you are doing is on top of a protected
natural feature.
MR. SOLTA: It is clarified that it is clear, but it is still
more than 100 feet from the wetland. So I am not questioning the
Board jurisdiction here. But it is more than 100 feet.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'm sorry, you said the ZBA pushed you back
to 60 feet; is that correct?
MR. SOLTA: Yes, it is the requirement to be minimum 60 feet. So
that' s. why even if you turn that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Did you go to a ZBA hearing on this?
MR. SOLTA: No, but I speak with the zoning officer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because from this Board's perspective,
obviously it is a less impact to this protected dunal area if
you could construct in around the same footprint as already
existing.
To put a new house seaward, closer to the freshwater
wetlands and further into the dune than the existing house, from
this Board' s perspective it is not minimizing the impact. If you
could do it in basically the existing footprint or some
semblance thereof, which would require less disturbance of that
natural dunal area, that would be preferable to this Board,
including potentially turning that septic, as we discussed in
the field, parallel to the road instead of perpendicular, that
way you can keep that house within, you know, the 50-feet, or
whatever that current distance is of the existing house.
MR. SOLTA: Yes, however zoning says 50 feet minimum. So we are .
behind the existing building. So --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 50 or 60?
MR. - SOLTA: 50. 50 is the minimum. But because this property is
narrower and smaller than the requirement in the zoning code, we
got, this is the information that we have to keep the 60 feet
front yard, 20 feet side-yard requirement.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And I believe those are the recommended
setbacks, so that you wouldn't have to go to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for a variance. I think the preference of this Board is
that you would seek the variance to minimize the environmental
impact.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Again, we discussed this in the field as
well, leaving this natural area natural, and minimizing the
impact. So again, anything outside of the footprint of your
Board of Trustees 27 September 17, 2025
proposed house, I think we would condition as a non-disturbance
buffer to protect that natural feature. But if we can push this
house closer to the road so that there's less -ground disturbance
and less fill brought in to construct this house, I think that
-would have less of an environmental impact than what we are
proposing currently.
MR. SOLTA: We don't understand this. With all due respect why
should we go for a variance? What is, why should we go for a
variance for is a 50/50 chance, a long process, and we don't
have to go for a variance. You have to -- what is the
difficulty? Why are we going for the variance? Do we have a
hardship here to go for the variance?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Looking at the aerial, the one with the red
dot is your current house, correct?
MR. SOLTA: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So the house directly to the west, and I'm
not Zoning Board, but if you have basically a line of houses in
the same location, I can't speak for them, but I think it would
not be a problem. But by moving that back towards the dune, back
closer to the freshwater wetland, impacting more of that
protected area, that dunal feature, is not what this Board
wants, it' s not what 275 states. You know, so kind of use what
you have and minimize the impact.
MR. SOLTA: Just to clarify. Just to clarify. The building --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sir, you can point that out but you just have
to go back to the microphone otherwise the stenographer can't
hear you for the record.
MR. SOLTA: So that's from our building, .not our neighbor, but
the next door neighbor has the 60 feet back. Setback. The same
setback. So we are not on the other side, on the east side, our
neighbor who is supporting the application is way, way, back.
Way, way back from the roadway. I don't want to argue with the
Board but I don't see it is fair to push us for the variance.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to comment?
MR. WIRTH: I'm John Wirth, the owner, and I just wanted to, make
known a couple of facts.
One is, there is no greater steward in ensuring that this
property adheres to the greatest environmental standards,
because I'm the one that is going to be living there and I just
want to explain just a few things.
the first is we complied with two of the three suggestions.
But there is a basis for the third one with regards to the
septic system, was that we spoke with our consultant, and we, he
and he explained that, and again, I'm not an engineer, that the
movement of water is out to the sea, and that by creating
troughs that were running parallel to the street, what it was
going to do was impact the function, quality and potential
backup. And if you want that in writing, we can provide that.
But I just didn't want to install a septic system that is not
going to function properly. And our engineer who specializes in
Board of Trustees 28 September 17, 2025
septic systems stated that they recommended the layout in a
particular way with regard to the flow of water out to the sea.
So there really is a significant impact by rotating it 90
degrees parallel to the North Sea Drive.
The second thing is in making these decisions, and we've
spent months contemplating how to have the least impact and the
greatest benefit to where we make alterations. And so the
setback is that we needed to put a septic system in the front.
It provided the greatest access to the system in maintenance.
And so it' s going to basically fall into the footprint of where
the house is.
Every time you shift or move the location of the house we
are contemplating different impacts. We are moving the residence
away from the Sound, which I would seem is a benefit, because in
other alterations along the street, it's been favorable to move
away from the sea, not move closer to the Sound.
The third fact is that although we had a letter of support
from our neighbor to the west, that is a sort of dilapidated
house that is basically going to be torn down in the near
future, and we would be more in compliance with the house that
is two doors down, as Jozsef mentioned, that has a 60-foot
setback.
The other thing I wanted to also mention is that we tried
to achieve the highest standards in making this environmentally
and IA septic-system friendly. And so in making the decision, I
also made a request to our neighbors, I don't personally know
the neighbors on Sound View, but I did speak to David who is to
the west, I spoke to Anastasia to the east, and I spoke to Mr.
Handler who is on the other side, on the seaside. And they all
voiced non-opposition to our proposals. And in the future we
should get in writing letters of support from my three of four
sided neighbors.
As far as the concerns for 1185 Soundview Avenue, most of
the letter is speculative. I don't see a change in the deer
population. I don't see an increase in deer tick problems. I
think that if you are going to make statements about the impact
of a project, you should have an authoritative source in support
of those statements rather than 'just heaving out speculative
ideas of what could or could not happen.
And I have the greatest respect for the dune area on the
back side of the building, as we'll have basically left
undisturbed except for the 40-feet of the building, is to
completely preserve that dune area. To me it's a vista that I
enjoy, and we also adjusted our pool and rotated it 90 degrees
so that we could retract even more from that.
But I think, again, in balance as to the ultimate location
of the building, I think the strategically-placed septic system
in the front of the building, to place it on the existing .
footprint, to have the troughs running in the proper orientation
as recommended by our septic specialist, and also to keep our
Board of Trustees 29 September 17, 2025
building, and when you went to the site visit, you saw that the
new building basically abuts against the rear side of the
existing building.
We didn't push the limit on this building. I think our
- - ----------------- ---- --- building is modest and it's in full compliance, what is- allowed __
for, you know, a building on this sized lot.
So I thank you for your consideration on these matters and
I appreciate you have as much interest .as I do in sort of
respecting the neighborhood and the environmental impact 'of
anything that we do.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir. A question I guess is more
for the architect. As far as fill, are you planning on bringing
in fill for this location? I think that was one of the concerns
we had when we were in the field. You were talking about pushing
the' house back and bringing more fill.
MR. SOLTA: Yes, if you keep the septic system as it is right
now, then we will locate septic system at the highest grade on
the property. The highest possible grade. So that requires a
minimum fill. A minimum fill.
We will bring fill, we will not probably bring fill in the
property because we excavating the pool, excavating the pile
heads and the grade beams and property, and I believe that
whatever they are excavating we will use it as a fill in the
area.
Keeping the septic system in the same place, on the western
side of the property, we can leave the eastern side of the front
yard intact. So we are not going to, basically, that will be a
situation that our driveway will go down from the property line.
I just would like to mention that from McCabe's Beach most of
the driveways are going up. Our driveway will go down. The
driveway will go down from the road.
So this is something that I wanted to mention, that the
septic system is located on the most suitable place on the
property. And I just would like to tell the Board that I don't
know how can I file a variance without a hardship. I don't have
a hardship. We have the land. We size the building to keep the
side yards. What would be the hardship? What is the hardship
what you would suggest for us?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, with the fill, do you happen to have a
fill calculation of how much fill you are talking about here?
And the location?
MR. SOLTA: We do have a compilation, it is, unfortunately we
calculated in cubic feet. We approximately we relax at 177, 177
cubic yard, and we will use that 177 cubic yard around the
building. The grade sloping down to the property lines-, we
talking about the lowest level is elevation four. We raise it
up elevation six, 20-feet side yard, going down, one to ten
slope. The DEC doesn't care about two feet. Two feet fill use.
So we in certain areas we have septic tanks, we have to have, we
have some kind fill there. But we, if it is necessary, of course
c
Board of Trustees 30 September 17, 2025
we will.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sir, can you just clarify for me, I'm sorry.
You said two feet extra fill, is that all around the whole
house? Is that what we are talking about?
--- ------ -- -- MR.- SOLTA: On the right-hand side -- on the left-hand side- where-
we have all the septic tanks.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So fill just in the area of the septic.
MR. SOLTA: Yes, yes, yes.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Will there be retaining walls?
MR. SOLTA: There is no retaining walls on the property. I mean,
that is a step down from the parking to the backyard, that is
one foot. The minimum. So we eliminated all of the retaining
wall. I certify. I certify to do SWPPPs �and I certify to
inspect SWPPPs so I kind of respect that, respect the
environment, okay?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, for clarifying the fill, and it's
nice to hear there won't be retaining walls on the property.
In kind of relationship to that fill question, what is the
current grade of the pool in its new location, pulled back
closer to the residence?
MR. SOLTA: Well, I mean closer to the wetland. We don't have
wetland.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Excuse me, before you go further. The reason
for my question is you have a test hole depth at 5. 1, is that
correct? So my concern here is the depth of the pool and the
depth to the groundwater, because that did come up earlier
in the discussion about concern with the groundwater.
MR. SOLTA: Yes. The groundwater is minus one. Groundwater is
minus one. The pool depth is six--and-a-half. So we have
seven-and-a-half feet above the groundwater.
So the pool, this is an exercise pool, four feet only,
one-foot construction. That is also together five. So we have
two-and-a-half feet above the groundwater level.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So basically a wall around the pool that is
that is two-and-a-half above grade.
MR. SOLTA: Above the groundwater. Above the water table.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Oh.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: But if the test hole is at 5.1 --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: In the highest part of the property.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, that was in the highest part of the
property, closer to the road. So at that point where the pool
location is, I believe it was around four-foot is that contour
line. I don't havethe drawing in front of me.
MR. SOLTA: The pool will be resubmitted by the pool designer and
the pool contractor. So anyway, that issue will be- detailed at
that point.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So that is something we would need to see
because in this area the depth to groundwater is a concern with
the proposed pool.
MR. SOLTA: Yes, I mean the depth of the groundwater will be
Board of Trustees 31 September 17, 2025
properly reviewed when we do the pool.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, if you can make sure to do that analysis,
and make sure that we understand that, that would be helpful.
The other thing I would like to address is, it's come up
earlier in this hearing the fact that this is a three-story .
house. And this is in fact a three-story house. That is not
something necessarily that this Board reviews, however that does
have an environmental impact in terms of the shading, in terms
of the actual building structure that is on this dunal area
which is, as we discussed earlier, a natural feature that does
need to be protected.
In this location, I know you mentioned the Board, well, the
Board' s wish is that the house be pulled as close to the street
as possible, to have less impact on the dunal area.
Now you did mention the fact that there, the Sound is right
across the street, and while that is not necessarily relevant
for the DEC review, it is something that is important, and in
order to modify this structure to not be a three-story house,
perhaps the use of piles and breakaway walls would be a much
better solution in terms of any stormwater issues, and therefore
it is not then a three-story house.
MR. SOLTA: There is breakaway walls.
MS. HULSE: Can you speak into the microphone, sir.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Can you please repeat that. I couldn't hear
YOU.
MR. SOLTA: Certainly. We will use breakaway walls. At this
point, at this point of the plan indicates that we use flood
gates. Those flood gates we give several homes at the south
shore after Sandy,. that was accepted. These are flood gates that
they let the water in and they let the water out. They flip both
ways. That is an accepted method. It is a waterproofing method,
for any reason, if any reason, breakaway wall is last thing we
will do breakaway walls.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, I just want to note for the record that
what is currently in the submission appears to be concrete
walls. So that' s why I brought up the comment.
MR. SOLTA: Yes, ' but the floodgates are indicated on the plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I think the Board is making it clear that
they want less structure, and, you know, you to keep using the
words why is there a hardship. I'm not sure you realize why you
are in front of this Board.
You are here because the whole property is a secondary
dune, which we are responsible for protecting. So I think in
general you are headed in the right direction, but it would be
more appropriate, and we can't vote on this tonight anyway,
because we don't have the LWRP report. So I think we are trying
to give you some helpful comments here, but, you know, in
general I think you are headed in the right direction. I think
just in terms of foundation we would rather see piles versus
closed foundation because it' s minimizing structure on said
Board of Trustees 32 September 17, 2025
dune.
We are trying to keep the grade as natural as possible.
Now, we understand for the septic, you might have to, you have
to add some material, but it should be limited to where the
septic is.
Looking at your first iteration of the plans, versus your
second, you have four feet circling around the, elevation
circling around the pool on your first set of plans and the
second set is at six. So that shows us, based on the plans you
submitted, you are going up two feet surrounding most of the
house and the pool on the one side.
We are looking to keep the property, and as your client
said and expressed interest, as natural as possible. So we want
to keep this on a natural grade.
. So typically something like this, we want to see an
inground swimming pool off natural grade. If that means a
one-foot height off of natural, so be it, especially if it's an
exercise pool at four feet, it's likely possible with that mass.
So we would not want to see two feet brought in wrapping around
the house.
I think you are headed in the right direction here, I just
think you have to understand where we are coming from, and
listen to the comments. And then to that point also, the plans
you gave us don't, you know, it' s a landscape plan, so while I,
again, I think you are moving in a great direction, we are going
to need to see an official plan with measurements and, you know,
callouts, and dimensions on everything, for next month.
MR. SOLTA: Understood.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: In addition, the landscaping plans that you
have submitted are a great change in the right direction away
from the turf grass lawn and toward natural species that have a
higher survivability rate and draw less resources than your
typical lawn would. And that is a net environmental benefit.
And we thank you for making those changes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application? Any other questions? Yes, sir?
MR. WIRTH: After the discussion about the septic system and the
orientation, is there any way that you can comment as to what
your general gut feeling is after --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So I think we've made it abundantly clear
that we are more concerned potentially with the amount of fill
being brought in than technically the location of the septic. We
don't want this whole property being regraded. If you do have to
move it back for setback, as long as you are leaving the
property and the elevations and the vegetation and existing
agreed grade, to 'the lowest extent practicable, if you do need
to bring in a little fill for the septic, but the rest of it,
the pool, the house, that is not what we are looking for.
MR. WIRTH: Okay, so just an understanding, the orientation of
the septic system is not the issue, it's the fill.
i
Board of Trustees 33 September 17, 2025
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I can appreciate your explanation of that. That
was of a clear explanation that you gave us.
MR. WIRTH: Okay, I just wanted to see that we don't keep
stumbling going forward on this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Right. Again, part of that concern was it was
septic was being moving that direction, but also now going two
feet of fill going all the way back, in the guise of septic
system. So if you keep the septic system and limiting the amount
of fill where that location is, is less problematic.
MR. WIRTH: And just for clarification, just in the presentation,
are you open to the current footprint location of the proposal
or are you adamant that the house has to be placed on top of the
existing footprint?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we can't make a determination on that. But
I heard your explanation of why the septic was where it was, and
that makes sense to me, logically.
MR. WIRTH: Again, we just don't want to repeat our stumble here,
and if we have a rational basis for location, you know, and ,
obviously respect the, and I understand the feelings about the
pool and running a wall around that completely.
I thank you for your time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, Mr. Wirth, and I do have one comment
in regards to that. I echo the sentiments that your explanation
of the IA system location did make a 'lot of sense. I would say
that since there is this opportunity to go back and look at the
project, we often find that when asked to the engineer, they are
able to minimize the sanitary system, in some respects. So
perhaps it is reducing it, even if it does stay in the same
location. Perhaps the house has the opportunity to pull, you
know, towards the road, which the Board has also expressed.
So I think this is a good opportunity for yourselves to
look at the project again, and appreciate your respect for the
dunal area and all of that, and that's kind of how we are
viewing this project.
So this is an opportunity if you could address those, or,
you know, just kind of study a little further.
MR. WIRTH: As I said, when you presented your original
suggestion, a communication and discussion was held with the
septic person and they explained the rationale. But we will go
back with them and explain your concerns again to see if there
is anything we can do to sort of mitigate and reduce the
impacts.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. And there are many different types
of septic systems, so they may be able to look at a different
type of system that may reduce the overall size.
MR. WIRTH: Again, I don't know if you want to get into the weeds
with this. I did have discussions about the types of septic
Board of Trustees 34 September 17, 2025
systems and then ultimately bidding it out to the local septic
people that do the installation. So we went through the Fuji's
and the other systems. And, again, I'm not versed in this and
I'm just relying on the experts who are telling us both in a
--- -- -- - quality/functional level, but also in a maintenance and some _
people I've talked to in cesspools about getting parts, which is
becoming a very important consideration, and supply chain is
that some of the septic systems you can't get replacement parts.
So, again, we are trying to balance all these things.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir. Hearing no further comments,
I'll make a motion to table this application for receipt of an
LWRP report.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 4, AS PER REVISED PLANS SUBMITTED
9/15/2025 Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf of CHRISTOPHER &
ARIANNA MARTELL requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
existing ±234 ' long wood bulkhead and 36' long jetty with new
bulkhead and jetty in-place using vinyl sheathing with 12"
diameter pilings placed 6' on-center, 8"x8" walers, vertical
deadmen with horizontal lay-logs or helix screws for backing
system with a fiberglass grated cap along the entire length;
perform reclamation dredging along the bulkhead to a maximum
depth of 4 ' to no more than 10' seaward of bulkhead; temporarily
remove existing permitted ramp and floating docks and replace
in-place; 95sq. ft. Of existing cantilevered platform with steps
that lead, to the dock and two flower planters to be removed and
reconstructed in-place; install a 48"x50' untreated on-grade
pervious wood walkway along the northern section of bulkhead;
and to install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf
buffer area along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 1640 First Street & 945 Orchard Street, New Suffolk.
SCTM# 1000-117-5-46.3 & 1000-117-5-46. 4
We additionally do not have an LWRP report at this time for
this application.
The Trustees most recently visited the property on the loth
of September, noted that it was a straightforward bulkhead
replacement, questioned the length of the boardwalk along the
portion, should likely end at beach grass, and what is planned
for fill along the beach area along that boardwalk.
Since our inspection, we have received new plans stamped
received September 15th, 2025, with the boardwalk shortened to
50 feet total.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, Sol Searcher Consulting, on behalf of
the applicants, the Martell's.
A couple of things. First off last month this Board
Board of Trustees 35 September 17, 2025
transferred the permit for the dock and the ramp, so that helped
us to go move forward with this application now so that we can
do the whole project at once.
I read the field inspection notes and so for that reason we
- - - --have shortened the walkway in half to 50 feet, so it will end
before the sea grass vegetation line.
We have a letter of support from Mr. Tuttle who is the
current owner of the adjoining underwater land. The Martell's
are in contract to buy that land. The closing is happening this
month. So within the next couple weeks they will also own the
underwater land there. But we did get the letter of support from
the Tuttle' s.
Lastly, to address the LWRP challenge, is we already have
the consistency determination from New York Department of State
that was sent to the Town of Southold, a copy to the Town of
Southold, on August 19th, that this project meets the State
Department's general consistency criteria. So this .is an option
for the Board, the state has already given a concurrence
determination. I think it could be within this Board's
authority to then issue a local determination, as you folks do.
The LWRP makes recommendations to you folks, and you folks make
a determination ultimately of consistency or inconsistency.
So with that I'm here to answer any questions you might
have regarding this application.
MS. HULSE: I'm not sure about that last part with the LWRP. But
what the code requires is Board to do is to. Allow the LWRP
coordinator a full 30 days to make the review. That is in the
code, that' s our obligation. So because they are under the 30
days we are not allowed to go forward with any of these
applications in making a decision, and unfortunately the
coordinator was not able to get a good chunk of them done. She
is brand new, newly appointed, so unfortunately we are in the
position that we are in.
That being said, at the next public meeting, you would
think that with the reports coming back, it's just a matter of
simply reviewing the LWRP, finding it to be consistent and then
moving on.
So I don't think it will be, it won't be a delayed hearing,
but it will be delayed until next month. And that is because
this Board is obligated to do so as part of the code.
MR. BERGEN: Yes. Again, I just wanted to throw the option out,
since this is kind of unique that do have the Department of
State already doing consistency to finally get consistent to
their standards. That's all
MS. HULSE: We are still- stuck with Chapter 268, the way it's
written. We appreciate the idea.
MR. BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At this point I don't have any comments. I
mean, you read the notes from the field inspection, made the
appropriate changes. It seems like a pretty straightforward
Board of Trustees 36 September 17, 2025
replacement to me.
So is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding
this application, or any comments from the Members of the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table for submission of the
LWRP report.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 5, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AND PLANS RECEIVED 8/26/25 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 41x76' catwalk; install
flow-through decking 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 a ladder off fixed catwalk; and relocate existing water
and electric connections to end of new catwalk section.
Located: 387 Wood Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 10QO-86-6-29
The. Trustees reviewed the new submission in our field
notes. We conducted an inhouse review.
And the LWRP coordinator found this project back in August
to be inconsistent. The proposed action is located within a New
York State Department of State Significant Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Area, New York State Critical Environmental Area and a
Peconic Estuary Critical Natural Resource Area.
The creek has shallow water depth.
Secondly, the question was asked what is the need to extend
the dock into an ecologically-sensitive public water body. I
welcome comments from the public.
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, with Sol Searcher Consulting, on behalf
of the applicant Mr. Terrono.
That LWRP review was read into the record last month also.
Thank you, for that.
There was an extensive conversation at this hearing last
month about a couple 'of issues. One was the kayak launch, and we
have for this project right now, removed the kayak launch from
this project. That was done.
There was a request to add vegetation, I believe it was
Trustee Peeples that asked, maybe it was Trustee Gillooly, that
asked for the vegetation to be added to the site plan. As you
see, we have added the wetland vegetation to the site plan.
As was noted last month, but I'll repeat again, the catwalk
is being switched all to open grading, so that will have a
positive ecological effect on this area.
In the new plans that were submitted you will note that we,
there was a lot of conversation about the pier line last time.
Board of Trustees 37 September 17, 2025
And there was the conversation, I thought, included the fact
that we did not include a dock that is way up inside the
entrance to what is a small tributary there in our pier line.
So as you can see, we did a dotted line there to show how that
really, if that was the concern last-month, it really is just,
from all perspectives, doesn't make sense. It just doesn't make
sense.
We used the three docks, our docks plus two joining docks,
neighboring docks, for establishing the pier line, and so I
wanted to see if putting that line on there, now the alternative
pier line, which is physically impossible to do because you are
going across land area there, if that would address the pier
line concern from last month.
So that' s my question to the Board.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right, I think the Board at its work
session discussed that very question. And correct me if I'm
wrong, members of the Board, but I think where you all weighed
in is that we don't want to get in the practice of continually
extending docks further seaward to gain water depth for floats.
Which leaves you with a choice. Either go with the float in its
current configuration remains as so, or there is a move to a
fixed pier situation with a rotation of that dock into an "L. "
I understand it was an accessibility issue that you were
wrestling with last time, so in the spirit of accessibility I
think a rotation to a fixed, in an L-configuration, and perhaps
lowering the elevation of the dock for easier on and off access.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And you are saying no further seaward.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: No further seaward than its current location.
That's right.
This is in a difficult position, however it' s on the corner
where access navigability is a concern with people trying to get
down that little tributary on the side, and kayaks, and other
vessels.
MR. BERGEN: I appreciate the Board's advice. I remain slightly
confused in that as we talked about last month, it was a pre-
submission meeting out there in May, three Board members were
there, a pre-submission plan and the staking all matched what we
had submitted.. There was no objection at the pre-submission
meetingf' So we spent a lot of time and money in designing this
to date. So I am confused by that. And I think that is something
the Board has. to take into consideration with the pre-submission
conferences.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Well, in the interim months since this
application has been submitted, the Board had an opportunity to
convene during its work sessions and to have extensive public
conversation on the record to review and consider. And so while
a pre-submission with three Trustees may have led you in one
direction, subsequent conversations gave you ample time to
consider our thoughts, around the.pier line, around fixed
options. And really, in the spirit of the pier line, it's to not
Board of Trustees 38 September 17, 2025
continue marching docks seaward into public lands.
MR. BERGEN: But we are staying behind the pier line still.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's not accurate. That's not correct.
MR. BERGEN: Could I have the opportunity to finish my statement.
- - - The four-foot extension is included on here, and it was
demonstrated not to be behind the pier line at the presubmission
conference, which three Trustees were there, did not disagree
with it at all. And so nothing has changed from that. So the
four-foot extension I'm saying does not exceed the pier line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: First of all, you drew the correct pier dashed,
and then you drew an incorrect pier line in solid, that I
certainly would not accept as appropriate. And then you are
speaking to the record now twice saying it doesn't extend the
pier line. It does. It extends well past it. You are in a
sensitive area, you are up against a tributary, you are in the
headwaters of a portion of the creek. On top of that, by
spinning this dock, and you know this, you have to account for
the vessel in the pier line. So even if we accepted your solid
pier line, which is not a factual pier line, you are eight to
ten feet past that.
MR. BERGEN: Well, what I would then ask is for this to be tabled
for me to go back to the client and take your suggestion of the
possibility of a fixed "L".
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Very well. Anyone else wishing to speak
regarding the application, members of the Board.
(No response) .
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to table the
application at the applicant' s request.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 6, En-Consultants on behalf of RICHARD &
JEAN JWG requests a Wetland Permit to remove the most seaward
4'x11' portion of existing 41x45' fixed timber catwalk, and
install in its place a 31x14' hinged ramp and 6'x20'
shore-parallel ("T" configuration) floating dock secured by two
(2) 10" diameter pilings; remove and replace in-place, as
needed, remaining 41x34 ' portion of existing fixed timber
catwalk and 3'x5' steps to ground using open-grate decking on
the catwalk; and to connect water and -electricity to the
catwalk.
Located: 3675 Wells Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-4
The Trustees most recently visited site on the 10th of
September, noting the application was straightforward. And to
check the buffer.
Subsequently we did check the buffer and found it to be
consistent with previous permit and what is on the plans.
Unfortunately we do not have an LWRP review for this
Board of Trustees 39 September 17, 2025
application so we will not be able to fully move forward with
this one tonight.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR.- HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
Jung's. I do understand the situation with the ,LWRP. Otherwise
as you described it, it is, we believe to be a straightforward
application. It complies with the pier line. It complies with
the maximum allowable distance across the creek.
If the Board doesn't have any other questions or require . .
any other information, we would just go along with the idea that
this will be adjourned until next month, until after you've
received the LWRP recommendation, or 30 days have expired
without it.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, Robert. Is there anyone else here
wishing to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response)' .
Or any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response)
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application for the
LWRP review next month.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All it favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 7, En-Consultants on behalf of HOBART
ROAD, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 161x32 '
in-ground swimming pool and a 506sq. ft. Grade-level masonry pool
patio; install 4 ' high pool enclosure fencing, a pool equipment
area, and to connect to an existing drywell for pool backwash;
and to perpetually maintain the existing covenanted 30-foot-wide
non-disturbance, non-fertilization buffer along the landward
edge of the wetland' s boundary.
Located: 1750 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-1
The Trustees most recently visited the site on September
loth, 2025. Trustee Gillooly made the following notes: Add
trees to non-disturbance buffer.
As with others, we are not in receipt of the LWRP review
£or this application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicant.
Again, I do understand you don't have the LWRP report.
We do believe the application to be straightforward. It is
for an inground swimming pool and a surrounding grade-level
patio.
With respect to wetlands, the pool is proposed 76 feet from
the wetland boundary, where the code requires 50 feet. So we are
exceeding that setback requirement by 26 feet.
Board of Trustees 40 September 17, 2025
It is in a compliant rear-yard location. It is 25 feet
from the northerly side lot line where 15 feet is required. So
we are exceeding the zoning setback requirement by ten feet.
And there is also a private covenant on the property which
requires the swimming pool to be located at least 100 feet from
the southerly property line. Or any new accessory structure, and
the pool and patio both comply with that requirement.
As you mentioned, the Board had asked for a revision to the
site plan indicating the planting of native hardwood trees to
the 30-foot non-disturbance, non-fertilization buffer, which as
we discussed had been subject to a prior violation with respect
to clearing which has been recently addressed with New York
State DEC.
I just handed up to Elizabeth three copies of an updated
site plan dated September 16th, 2025, which has a note added,
note number three now state three hardwood trees to be planted
within the 30-foot non-disturbance buffer.
With that if you have any questions or require any other
information, aside from the LWRP deficiency, I'm happy to
respond.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, Mr. Herrmann. Would you just draw my
attention to where that note has been added. Because I do have
the plans stamped received September 17th, 2025, _here in front
of me.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, on the right-hand side there is a
certification and then below that it says "notes" first line, go
down to number three.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. I thought it might be on the plan itself.
MR. HERRMANN: It is.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I meant on the actual, like a notation here.
But it' s a note on the side. Okay. Thank you.
MR. HERRMANN: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?
MR. SIEMANS: Hi. I'm Andy Siemans, I live at 1580 Hobart Road,
which is the property to the north of Lot One. And that's the
one that is on the survey, marked NOS. The Ritch family.
I don't oppose the construction of the swimming pool
providing there are certain conditions that be met.
The first is concerning the site of the pool equipment,
because if you refer to the survey that Mr. Corwin did, along
the border of my property right now already we have a large
generator and there are two large air-conditioning units. You
know, which basically, this is a big house. And they go on and
off all day. That' s two zones, two motors on a warm weather. And
the noise from that is so loud that we can't keep our bedroom
windows open as it is now.
To add pool equipment along that line of the fence will
just create a much larger dim that is going to keep us from
being able to use our yard appropriately.
So we are hoping there can be a relocation of the pool
Board of Trustees 41 September 17, 2025
equipment, maybe to the other side of the pool or somewhere
else.
The other thing is, and I don't know if you guys are aware
of this. There are covenants on the land. I have here a
dec-laration of covenants that's dated November 4th, . 2011, and I_. ..
have copies for all you guys. But they are signed by both Mr.
and Mrs. Battaglia. Arid on the third page, paragraph H clearly
states as to Lot One, all right, prior to issuance of the C of
0, the following landscaping will be .planted in perpetuity. The
first item under it pertains to the buffer to Hobart Road.
But the second items reads: Along the northern boundary of
. Lot One, a row of six to seven-foot tall white pines, seven to
eight inches on the center will be planted to achieve winter
screening.
Right now there is about a 30 foot gap of no trees there
which were actually just removed at the beginning of this
season. I have absolutely no, you know, don't know why, but I
would greatly appreciate the restoration of that immediately.
Now, in addition to the above, and for the consideration of
the Trustees, I want to draw your attention to a very poor,
grainy photograph of a sign that was put on that property two
years ago. And it was there through the spring/summer of 2023.
The sign depicted in the photograph that I have here, proclaims
luxury custom home, swimming pool, tennis court. All right?
The sign is very well recalled by all the residents of the
neighborhood. It was the topic of a lot of conversation.
Now, as mentioned before, right, I've lived on the other
side of that lot for, well, since 2008 . 17 years. All right,
since before Mr. and Mrs. Battaglia bought that property.
Since the purchase of that property, I've seen extensive
work done, in the wetlands, much of which, you know, I assume has
not been unapproved, rather, has not been approved or permitted.
I mean, there was the removal of tree, dropping and removal,
re-dropping of large boulders at the water's edge, backfilling
with earth, dumping and spreading of mulch by heavy machinery.
And it continued on a year-round basis for over a decade.
In fact there has been so much mulch dumped on that lot
down by the wetlands that parts of the stockade fence which goes
right to the end of that barrier, the property on that side of
the fence is two-feet higher than on my side of the fence.
All right, when I bought my property, what is now Lot One,
was owned by Douglas Creighton. That was level. I mean, you
know, the height of the property was the same on both sides of
the fence.
So I ask you, I mean based on everything I've just said,
all right, and particularly given that sign that shows the
intent for further development on the land after this pool,
number one, have you read these covenants? I mean are you
familiar "with them.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So this Board has to stay within 100 feet of
Board of Trustees 42 September 17, 2025
the wetlands. So our jurisdiction is within 100 feet. I believe
those covenants are outside of the Trustee jurisdiction.
MR. SIEMANS: Are you sure? All right, because there may be
some things here that might pertain to you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I'm happy to review it.
MR. SIEMANS: So let me give these to you. (Handing) .
And then, number two, I mean, based on what I and a lot of
the neighbors have seen, I mean, we have videos of bulldozers ,
down there at the water' s edge and everything else.
Have you verified the extent to which any un-permitted work
was completed within the jurisdiction?
MS. HULSE: That's not really the subject of this hearing, sir.
That would be something you would want to address with law
enforcement. Code enforcement.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I interject, sir. Just as you are going
through this.
At any point during the time of any of this action taking
place, did you call in to the Bay Constable or Trustee office?
MR. SIEMANS: Oh, yeah.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do know we have some history down there, but
you've called several times?
MR. SIEMANS: Oh yeah. . I mean, police, Bay Constable. I mean,
there have been, I mean, probably if you did a FOIA request,
going back 15 years, you'd find a lot of stuff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. SIEMANS: So, I mean, if these things cause more
consideration, I mean, again, we are not adverse to the swimming
pool, but it seems to me a permit cannot really be granted if
things are out of compliance. So, I mean, I would urge you to
consider, you know, just maybe kind of tabling this until those
issues are resolved.
. The other thing .is given the intent to perhaps build a
tennis court, or do even more, is it possible to actually
increase those setbacks? Because, honestly, we like to kind of
see an end to all the construction that' s been going on over the
past few years.
So that' s kind of it. But I thank you, for your time and I
thank you for� your consideration. And any other questions or
documentation, or anything you need, I would be happy to supply.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, so much, for bringing this to our
attention.
In regard to that last question about further development,
any further development that would be located within 100 feet of
Trustee jurisdiction will come before this Board's review again.
So just so that you are aware of that.
So it would be anything within that 100-feet would require
further review. And I do think your notes about the pool
equipment are well received and perhaps Mr. Herrmann could speak
to that. Often we do require screening of landscaping material
Board of Trustees 43 September 17, 2025
around the pool equipment to help with that sound reverberation,
or fencing, something along those lines. And it may be a
possible relocation. `
MR. SIEMANS: Yes. I think relocation would ,be much more
satisfactorily, because, I mean, in light of those air
conditioners and a generator, I just don't think screening is
going to hack it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Well, thank you, gain, and we did request-the
addition of the trees in that non-disturbance buffer because we
were aware of the fact that many trees had been removed on this
property. And perhaps other things as well. But we'll have to
address that.
MR. SIEMANS: I mean that photograph right up there, is from
considerably before the construction of that house. Most of
those trees down past the buffer area are gone.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much.
MR. SIEMANS: Thank you, again.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I would also like to speak to the suggestion
of the increased buffer: I think given the increased use on
this property, we may wish to consider an additional ten-foot
vegetated non-turf buffer, in addition to the 30-foot
non-disturbance buffer that exists there, if other Board members
are open to that suggestion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Anyone else?
MR. HERRMANN: So, just, obviously I can't respond to speculation
about future applications or allegations about violations that
occurred in the past, but I'm happy to respond to the comment
that was pertinent to this application, which is the pool
equipment.
The pool equipment is shown to the side of the house, and
it is not shown along the property line. It is shown setback at
least 25 feet from the property line, which is the same setback
as the swimming pool. It is located closer to the water and
closer to the pool than the generator and the AC units that were
noted.
But the pool equipment was specifically located outside
this Board' s jurisdiction, just because whenever we can get sort
of any structures outside 100-foot setback, we try to do that.
So the pool equipment is more than 100-feet from the
wetlands and it's at least 25 feet from the side lot line. I'm
not sure where else to offer to place it. I can certainly relay
the request to the owners. But I can't make any promise with
respect to the wetlands permit because it' s not -- it's
specifically proposed outside the 100-foot setback.
But again, also specifically proposed at least 25 feet from
the side lot line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is tied to the project, obviously.
MR. HERRMANN: Oh, I know. But, I mean, I can't, I don't know
how to work in its specific location to the permit. Like I don't
have an alternative place to say they can put it here. Like we
Board of Trustees 44 September 17, 2025
designed it to be setback compliant. So other than to say we
would be happy to entertain a request and have it screened or
whatever, I just, I don't have an alternative location that I
can tell you right now well we can put it here and that will
make things better.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That's fine, Mr. Herrmann. I think additional
study would be appreciated, and at the Minimum to have screening
that would be appropriate for sound deafening.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, and I mean, we are sort of forced to have
another month anyway. So we can go back and look at that
between now and October 15th. And if we can figure that out we
can give you a revised plan that shows that, or adds notes for
vegetated screening or sound attenuation or whatever.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That sounds great. I also think that looking
into the option of a vegetated, non-turf buffer, ten, fifteen
feet, something along those lines I think is appropriate, based
on Trustee Gillooly's suggestion there. And you mentioned three
trees, and I think we can probably add a few more in there, with
a three-inch caliper, please, of native hardwoods.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak, or any other
questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just speaking to the pool equipment
conversation, because this Board regularly requires screening,
and I'm not sure what other departments do with mechanicals, and
likely they should, but we have seen in extreme situations- where
it's a physical barrier of screening and then a planting, so you
sort of have a double buffer, which helps quite a bit.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay, we'll definitely look at it and see if we
can add something like that to the plan.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
MR. HERRMANN: It is something the ZBA commonly requires for
pools that require variances. So it's not an unusual request.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else here who
wishes to speak?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table for the LWRP report.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 8, En-Consultants on behalf of
TENFORTY CENTRAL LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove
approximately 150sq.ft. Of as-phalt (at end of Sound Beach
Drive) , from applicant' s property; remove and relocate metal
Town signage pole from applicant's property; remove/eliminate
cleared beach access path extending across applicant's property
from Sound Beach Drive by revegetating approximately 770sq. ft.
Of cleared pathway with native vegetation, including Baccharis
halimifolia, Myrica pensylvanica, and Ammophila breviligulata,
Board of Trustees 45 September 17, 2025
to be sourced from nursery stock and plant material transplanted
from new/relocated Town beach path (to be established on Town
lands by Town of Southold) ; and install temporary (12 months
max. ) Snow fencing along northeasterly ,property line to protect
newly established plantings.
Located: 1940 Central Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-1-27
The Trustees conducted a field inspection 9/10/25. Notes
need to get Town's permission to create a .new path first.
We do have a couple of letters in the file here, one is
from a Veronica Walsh, concern about the loss of the beach
access point. And then we have a similar letter from Elysa
Fondillar talking about the loss of the beach access point
as well as the loss of the asphalt for parking.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicant.
Unfortunately, there is one element probably someone seeing
these plans would have missed is the recent revision to the plan
that the Trustees had asked for, which is to make sure that the
location of the of the newly relocated Town beach path was added
to the plan. As a careful reading of the application and plan
would have indicated that the existing path was to be
revegetated, and a new, cleared path, established on the Town
property where it belongs, but that was not graphically
depicted.
So that was one of the requests that the -Board had, which
would also provide the applicant with the advantage of being
able to follow what was originally Trustee Krupski's suggestion
that the existing vegetation on the Town property, with respect
to it being native, non-invasive, non-noxious plants that can be
reused, he actively physically transplanted to the applicant' s
property. And that has been part of the application based on the
Trustees advice since we started.
So what we did do is what you now have before you is a
revised site plan that does add a graphic depiction of the
proposed relocated beach path on the Town property. And just
for the public to provide some context to this, there was a
previous boundary line agreement between the Town of Southold
and the prior owner, specifically to allow this section of
asphalt to be removed from the applicant's property.
So I believe this was something that was actually already
partially completed, and the rest of the work is in included
here. It' s indicated and in the notes on the site plan, we do
make reference to that boundary line agreement with the Town,
noting the liber and page.
So that's just an issue of removing the asphalt that is
currently encroaching on the applicant's property. And for the
context of the proposal in the first place, is because the beach
path is positioned all the way sort of on the southwest end of
Board of Trustees 46 September 17, 2025
the guardrail, the beach path currently exists almost entirely
over the applicant' s property, which of course raises concerns
for trespass liability, et cetera. Something that up until now
has not been an issue because nobody's lived here.
So the idea here again is to re-vegetate what is also
basically an oversized path that is located on the applicant's
property, and established a new path kind of centered on the
Town lands. And we understand the issue with the LWRP, we
understand that we have to get some sort of written stipulation
from the Town Board or the Town Attorney's office. But we want
to do at least by tonight get you the plan we had talked about,
that does now clearly, graphically depict the complete picture
of what is being proposed.
And I also want to thank the Board for its cooperation in
trying to help this along and get this to a place that is kind
of gets everybody in a good place.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So speaking of Town Attorneys, Mr. Herrmann,
I have a couple of legalese to go over with you.
Will the applicant agree to establish a new, four-foot wide
access. path to the beach from the Town road end at its own cost
and expense?
'MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: As a condition to that action, will the
applicant agree to utilize best efforts to transplant all native
vegetation removed to create the new right-of-way to the old
right-of-way, and utilize best-efforts to keep the transplanted
,vegetation alive?
� MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Applicant must agree that the Trustees or the
designee will decide where the new access path will be located
in the road end, and will mark out the location of the new beach
access.
Applicant to agree to enter into a written agreement with
the Town to allow for the work 'to be conducted at the road end,
with standard indemnification/insurance provisions, to be
mutually agreed upon.
Applicant to agree to complete the beach access path to the
satisfaction of the Trustees, concurrently with the
re-establishment of the old path within 60-90 days.
MR. HERRMANN: I'm sure that's fine, but I can verify that on
October 15th.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And also that ,the new beach access path must
be completed before a C of C or equivalent can be issued.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, is there anyone else who wishes to
speak here regarding this application?
MS. BARTH: Hi, I'm Judy Barth. And to revegetate that area,
that, to take the old vegetation and place it in the, I mean, to
re-generate the path, that's all poison ivy there. So they won't
be able to utilize the plantings that are established there to
Board of Trustees 47 September 17, 2025
move into the old path to create the new path. It's poison ivy,
up until probably the first 30 feet, then it goes to beach
grass.
So that in turn would have to be either with some DEC
plantings or new grasses that would have to be put there in -.
order to re-generate that old path.
MR. HERRMANN: Can I respond to that, Nick?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, please, Mr. Herrmann.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. And that's completely understood. So, again,
I'm sorry you didn't have the, sorry, to the Board to the
speaker.
We did indicate, it's not accurate to say it' s all poison
ivy, but it is accurate to say there is an area of poison ivy
there. So we did make clear on this revised plan, just for the
record, ,that the note now reads: Proposed relocated four-foot
wide cleared path to town beach, native, non-invasive,
non-noxious vegetation. So that excludes the poison ivy to be
removed and relocated/transplanted, to approximately 770 square
foot of existing path on applicants property to be revegetated.
And 'as was indicated on the original- application, the
proposed vegetation for the replanting of the existing path,
would include both the transplanted material and stock as
needed.
So we are all aware that there is some vegetated
limitations in terms of what can be moved, but basically some of
that poison ivy will just be removed permanently because it will
be a new path, and the material that is viable and native that
can be moved, will be moved and done in accordance with the
stipulations that Trustee Goldsmith just read.
And, Glenn, the only thing I would ask you, can you please,
either you or have the Town Attorney's office just forward me
that e-mail, or whatever you have, and that way I can just show
it to the client, and we can affirm --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, we'll get it from the Town Attorney's
office.
MR. HERRMANN: That would be great. Yes. And provided they are
agreeable to all that, which I understand to be the case, do
you, I know we are going to get into a situation, and Lori may
comment on this. Ideally we would love to have those
stipulations agreed to and then have something signed and in
writing by October 15th so we are not in a situation where we
are asking you to approve subject to.
Do you think that' s, is, in we can quickly get back to you
and say this is definitely all agreeable, is there any reason we
couldn't have that written permission in place for the next
meeting?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think you can have it in place for the next
meeting. And I also think that timing is of the essence to do
the re-vegetation, because timing is of the essence to do the
re-vegetation. Because if we are in October and we have to go
Board of Trustees 48 September 17, 2025
into November the survivability of that transfer is not that
great.
MR. HERRMANN: Ends up getting bumped to the Spring. Okay, good.
Thank you, again.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to
comment? Yes, sir?
MR. BARTH: My name is Barry Barth. My wife and I, Judy, own
the property at 2040 Central Drive, which is to the west of the
subject property.
Concerning the beach access, there is a guardrail that is
existing now. That guardrail is compromised very often and
allows ATV vehicles to go up and down the beach. We've called
the police a number of times and by the time the police officer
arrives, the ATV is out of sight or they can't stop them. And
in the event they do stop them., it's usually an underaged child,
they give them a warning, and everybody goes about their
business until the next time they take off.
So I was hoping that the applicant could either replace the
guardrail or harden the access so that there is .room for people
to go in and out but restrict ATV access.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. So I believe it's actually going to fall
on the Town to do something with that guardrail, and cut it to
allow for that new four-foot wide access path. So that will be
included in this project.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hopefully this project will actually help that
situation because the Trustees are aware of that as well.
MR. BARTH: We have problems with beach fires and all kinds of
things that go on down there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. And I think Mr. Herrmann can
address this as well, I believe there are some additional
planting that will be on the applicant's property just to the
west of that guardrail as well.
MR. HERRMANN: Correct. And the idea of that, I kind .of joked
with the applicant that that' s where they could move the poison
ivy.
Yes, the idea there is for everyone benefit to add some
shrubs at the end of that guardrail. So that would be stocked,
that would be brought in. It would be' Bayberry, Baccharis, stuff
that will actually, you know, physically deter people or
vehicles from trying to go around the guardrail.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Definitely keep that in mind.
MR. HERRMANN: And Glenn, I guess that the speaker and what you
just said in response made me think of that. That there should
maybe be something in those written stipulations that makes
clear that the physical manipulation of the guardrail would not
be within this applicant' s purview but that would obviously be
something that the Town would have to do.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, I'll talk to 'the attorneys about that
one, but I'm sure.
Board of Trustees 49 September 17, 2025
Yes, sir?
MR. CLEARY: My name is John Cleary, I live in the area, and I
came down because I had previous experience with the water line
west of the jetty. I have a couple of forms, you are welcome to
them. One is from the Army Corps of Engineers saying there
never was a mean high tide mark established on that beach, which
is required, even for that.
I have a second form and that affects the wetlands and
beaches done by the State of New York Department of State,
signed by Gov. Pataki as part of the federally protected
wetlands act. It' s all under federal regulations. Here's a
description.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
MR. CLEARY: I have another form, it's the State of California
State Planning Commission. It's a Supreme Court decision that
says all lands formed by a jetty remain the property of the
United States. So they have to approve that that land was there
without the effect of the jetty. (Handing) .
It's an old map, I think the date is 1899, it shows there
is no extension of that property before the jetty was made.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sir, I'm sorry, can you speak to the
relevance of all this, maps from 1890s, what's the concern?
MR. CLEARY: Well, in 1903, the jetty was finished. Before the .
jetty was built, according to a survey by, I met a guy from the
Coastal Geologic survey down there. And all those drive and
breakwater drive, there is a marker, a coastal marker, that
marker ends up with a marker in Connecticut, which establishes
the interstate boundary between Connecticut and Long Island.
So you're going to have to move the coastal boundary a
little closer, then you'll have to ,deal with Connecticut state
losing land. Simple as that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'm confused. Because I thought we were just
talking about creating a four-foot: access path to the beach.
MR. CLEARY: I 'll show you, it's actually a ten-foot access
path.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Four foot. By Town Code you are only allowed
a four-foot access path. So they are looking to re-vegetate
their existing access path that was the pubic, and now the Town
is going to be building, or they'll be building for the Town a
four-foot access path 'so that the public can still access coming
from the Sound Beach Drive.
MR. CLEARY: I'll show you. Here is the subdivision map, requires
a ten-foot path on Cen.tral 'Drive.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sir, this looks; like a file from 1949.
MR. CLEARY: Yes, from the subdivision.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And I'm not seeing where there is. a ten-foot
path. Central Drive is down here.
And, sir, you'll have to go back to the microphone to be
heard.
MR. CLEARY: I'll find it.
Board of Trustees 50 September 17, 2025
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, sir, what is the exact concern?
MR. CLEARY: Well, when the subdivision was first formed there
was an access path that allowed all the people that lived upland
of the beach, right, to get to the beach. So they established a
ten-foot path right-of-way for everyone up there. So that 'goes
all the way down to the water.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So that's what we are trying to maintain,
sir. We are trying to keep that four-foot --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sir, are you talking --
MR. CLEARY: Those people can't own that property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you talking from Central all the way down
to the end of Sound Beach Drive corner?
MR. CLEARY: All the way down to the water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On here it looks like, to me, it looks like a
ten-foot right-of-way from Central Drive and end's at Sound Beach
Road where the Town road is, and then you are on Town access.
MR. CLEARY: I agree. Now, if you go down, happen to go down that
area, look at that house at the end of the houses on the beach,
and they had to build a 12-foot retaining wall to protect their
property from the water.
So even before all this, that path went right down to the
water. In those days.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. So is that path existing right now? Or
is it just, I mean --
MR. CLEARY: It' s never been used, it's not developed. It's still
there. So if those people are going to -do something with that
property, they should be asked to maintain that right-of-way.
And it's ten feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So my read on this, just speaking directly to
this hearing, which is not as much adjacent to the property, but
more so just speaking to the beach access, is that this path
ends before their beach access begins.
MR. CLEARY: Where their property ends, wherever the tide line
was before the jetty. That' s what the federal law says.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Well, the good news is because we don't
have the LWRP report this month that we have to review this
additionally anyway.
MR. CLEARY: As long as you have the information.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So thank you for the submission of that, and
we'll certainly have legal look into it.
MR. CLEARY: Can you do me a favor and copy it and send me a
copy?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This? Do we want to just take a picture of this
of that so we don't take ownership of that?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I'm looking at the tax map lines here, and,
sir, thank you, so much for coming. I think sometimes the
history of our place is the most important thing. And thank you
so much for sharing your knowledge of how this all dates back.
On the current tax map it doesn't appear that right-of-way
was maintained. So we'll have to look into it. But we do
Board of Trustees 51 September 17, 2025
appreciate --
MR. CLEARY: It cost me ten bucks from the Town for that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: We'll make sure you get that back.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We do appreciate that. I saw in the
subdivision for the neighborhood I live in, there was supposed
to be a playground that was never built. I was very disturbed to
see that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, here you go, Mr. Cleary, we took a photo
of this, so you can have the original back.
MR. CLEARY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
MR. SHASHKIN: My name is Chris Shashkin. So I live nearby and we
are longtime residents. My father purchased our house 1961 and
I'm very familiar with the beach. We used that access path for
almost 60 years. And Mr. Cleary is correct about all of the
created sand that is built up along the beach due to the
breakwater jetty which impedes the sand flowing from breakwater
to Bailie Beach, as -you are very well aware.
So when I was a little kid and the park district was sand
mining there, there was no beach. And when there was a full moon
and high tide, literally there was like a row of beach chairs
almost at the guardrail because there was no beach. So the fence
situation has changed greatly since then. So that's just some
more local history.
So I noticed that the owner want to put temporary snow
fencing to protect any new plant installation, which is great,
but once the snow fencing comes down, I would still be concerned
about access by ATV vehicles because, I mean, if it' s just beach
grass, they are just going to plow right over it. So maybe
something a wooden' rail fence along the parking lot, perimeter,
to meet the guardrail, just so that their property is not
damaged. And removing the asphalt, by the way, is a great thing.
So. Less asphalt is always better.
I also wanted to point out that some of the beach grass
that is there may not all be native, just because it' s growing
there doesn't mean it's native. So, for instance, there is an
application before the Trustees, for moving beach grass from
Breakwater Beach to Bailie Beach, and they are going to inspect
to be sure that they are only taking native grass and anything
else would be destroyed.
. So, in addition to the poison ivy, which by the way is
native, there could be other grasses there that are not native.
But I don't know who makes that determination, the Trustees, et
cetera.
And then finally I do understand from Jennifer Murray that
the shore birds have moved west from Breakwater, so that is a
potential nesting site, which would be on, potentially on their
property. I mean obvious we have no control where the birds
decide to next, but I just wanted to point that out as well.
Board of Trustees 52 September 17, 2025
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who
wishes to speak to this application?
MR. CLEARY: I have one more thing I would like to say on that.
With that survey marker from the Coastal Geologic survey, if you
ever care to go by there, on Naugles, right, when I saw it, it -- -
just so happened I saw, I was out for a walk many years ago, and
the Coastal Geologic survey guy was making sure that hadn't
moved in the last 130 years. It didn't. It's a 30-foot rod down
underneath it. But if you go across Breakwater, looking over
there, you can see where the old waterfront was, and everyone
just dumps their bushes and everything in there. But it's still
depressed about 12 feet. So all that land that's forward of that
was formed by the jetty. Just a little history.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else wishing
to comment to this application?
(No response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board? .
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application for
receipt of an LWRP report.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Number 9, En-Consultants on behalf of TENFORTY CENTRAL, LLC
requests a Wetland Permit to clear (including nine trees to be
replaced 1 to 1) , and re-grade area of property between the
50-foot and 100-foot top of bluff setbacks using approximately
227 cubic ylards of earthen fill material sourced from proposed
on-site construction located more than 100' from the top of
bluff, to create a more level rear yard by raising (max. 4ft.,)
Or lowering' (max. 2ft. ) Existing grade elevations; construct at
least. 100ft. From bluff a two-story, 2,304sq.ft. Single-family
dwelling with a second-floor balcony, swimming pool with raised
patio and outdoor kitchen area, and associated stoop and steps;
install an I/A sanitary system; and to establish and perpetually
maintain a 50-foot-wide non-disturbance buffer along the
landward edge of the top crest of the bluff, and a 25-foot-wide
non-turf buffer area between the 50-foot and 75-foot setbacks.
Located: 1940 Central Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-1-27
The Trustees recently visited the property on the 9th of
September, noted that a four-foot path should be added to the
plans through what is the non-disturbance buffer.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. Sean Madigan, the project architect, is also here.
Sean, were these, there' s. two sheets. I don't know if I
gave you the right stuff or not. I didn't realize they were
separate.
Board of Trustees . 53 September 17, 2025
All right, so, Nick you should have two revised sheets.
Toll and a T010. Do you have both of those? It's like the
standard site plan view and then there is the blowup. This is
the T011. Do you have this?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Next time just bring ,bigger plans.
Yes, I have it here.
MR. HERRMANN: As long as you have a 10 and 11.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Next time bring Tyler.
(Participants laughing) .
MR. HERRMANN: He could have probably added some more local
history.
So anyway, the long and the short of the project is this is
the proposed development of this vacant lot. The Board
originally saw this drawing on a pre-submission site inspection.
All of the new development is setback at least 100 feet from the
top of the bluff. The house itself is set well behind the
100-foot setback and outside the Trustees jurisdiction.
The house will be set well behind the pier line. In fact
the entire project, the accessories included, will be set back ;
well behind the pier line. There is a 50-foot non-disturbance
buffer to be maintained adjacent to the top of the bluff.
The Board had asked if we could include an additional 25
foot non-turf buffer landward of the non-disturbance buffer,
which was included. There is an IA sanitary system proposed at
the very front of the property which has a Suffolk County
Department of Health Services permit. The project has been
determined to be outside the jurisdiction of the NYS DEC. And
with respect to the one Board comment noted is we have added,
and what is on the revised plans that I just submitted to you is
a location of proposed four-foot wide cleared access path to be
cleared and maintained through the non-disturbance buffer. We
don't show it through the non-turf buffer because it's not
necessary.
With that, if the Board -- oh, I'm sorry. Right. The other
significant element is the area of fill, and the sort of
bowl-shaped area, which was the primary source of conversation
with the Trustees and that was why we did provide this T011
sheet, which graphically shows in color the limits of the fill,
and also the area that is to be lowered. And there is a maximum
increase of four feet in that fill area.
So if you have any questions I'm happy to answer them, or
anything Sean can respond to, he would be happy to.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here who would like to
speak regarding this application?
MR. BARTH: Yes. I'm Barry Barth. This is my wife Judith Barth.
We own the property to the west, 2040 Central Drive.
We have a few questions. We see on the plans that there's
nine trees that are proposed to be removed. And that they are
going to be replaced. As we looked at the property, there's
many, many more large, 12 to 18-inch diameter trees that I'm
Board of Trustees 54 September 17, 2025
afraid are going to be taken down. We are concerned that the
property is going to be clearcut, which seems to happen. People
ask for forgiveness, pay the fine, and we are left with a
clear-cut piece of property. _ So we are concerned about that.
There was reference made to the depressions in the ground,
and those appear to be kettle holes, and you've indicated they
are going to be filled to a maximum of four feet.
Who is responsible for making sure they don't exceed four
feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This Board is.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: This Board would review. They would not
receive a certificate of compliance without --
MR. BARTH: Well, those holes- that are, I guess if you walk the
property, went into the property, I mean those holes are very
deep. I mean, four feet, you know, as I look at it, doesn't seem
to make too much of a difference.
We are also concerned about the grade on the east side of
our property. We don't want the grade brought up to our level.
We like that it does slope down. And we do have some existing
trees that are on the eastern side of our property that we would
like to have maintained so we have a buffer between the two
pieces of property.
There was a term on the plans called "leveling out the
topography. " I don't know what that means. Maybe that could be
explained to us. And that kettle hole is unique insomuch as, that
it's a kind of a wetland condition. I don't know if there is
any standing water in there. But it is a home to a great many of ,
the deer, especially in the wintertime.
We have a preponderance of wild turkeys, we have Eastern
Box Turtle that has taken up residence in this kettle hole. And ,
it was our hope that maybe the building could be moved further
back, because there seems to be two kettle holes. There's one
kind of mid-range in the property and also another one that is
closer to the bluff line.
The other thing is that we have another home to the east of
us, to the west of us, that is undergoing construction now, and
it' s six days a week from seven o'clock in the morning until
five o'clock in the afternoon. Everybody has a nail gun. The
guys are all talking, and it makes it very difficult for
residence to enjoy the peaceful quietness that we enjoy out
here.
So I was hoping that maybe there could be some kind of
restriction or agreement that they would only work on these
things from Monday to Friday, from say eight o'clock in the
morning to five o'clock in the afternoon, out of respect for us
as neighbors.
Is there anything else you want to say?
MS. BARTH: Back to the amount. of trees that are being removed. I
believe that probably the nine trees that were, that are to be
moved, there are some that have no significance as to why they
1
Board of Trustees 55 September 17, 2025
would be removing them from their property. There's three that
are along the western side of the property, that border our
property, that is by no means in their line of vision of where
they are going to build.
And also, they say that there is the nine trees that they
are going to remove, but they are going to replace them with
seven. So it' s hard to take a 12-inch diameter tree and replace
nine of them, as according to their calculations, with a
three-inch caliper tree and have it be like in kind. And my
guess it would be then on the perimeter of the property, or the
front of the property. So it would not be in this
non-disturbance area. And I'm not clear about the
non-disturbance area, what they are saying, so if you are
looking at the site line as the, you know, closest to the house,
where there is the 25-foot mark' and then the 50-foot mark, both
of those areas are disturbed. And they are also filled. So does
that mean that these will be totally cut down in order to fill
them?
And, yes, they are going to be planted with native plants,
which are not called that on the plan at all. So I think those
things need to be addressed as to how can you have an area that
is sensitive and not to be disturbed, and yet they are putting
. in a walkway, but the rest of it has to be disturbed and if they
are going to be filling it; is that correct?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. And just to clarify for you, ma'am, the
50-foot non-disturbance area is not going to be touched
whatsoever.
MS. BARTH: The first 50 feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The first 50 feet. With the exception of the
four-foot walkway, which we allow so people can utilize their
property. Similar to, I don't know if neighboring you have a
walkway down to the beach. It's a similar idea.
MS. BARTH: Ours was pre-existing. That was built in the 1960s.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. So the idea is that you can utilize --
MS. BARTH: (Interrupting) that these areas are sensitive. So my
point is between, so I understand that first 50 feet except for
that four-foot wide walkway that takes you out to the cliff, I
understand that. But now as we move back onto the property, you
have the 50-foot and 25-foot line. And both of those are
disturbed. And it's our assumption that the first 100 feet are
not supposed to be disturbed, not 50 feet. So they're asking for
forgiveness for the 25 feet and then the 50 feet in order to put
in that pathway with the little staircase. But that' s also to
be filled. So that means that that gets clearcut; is that
correct?
In order to fill that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The filled portion would be cut to fill. But
that' s not the entirety of that area. It's a low --
MS. BARTH: (Interrupting) no, it's not the entirety, but it is
25 to 50; is that correct?
Board of Trustees 56 September 17, 2025
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's between the 50 'foot and the 25 foot line.
MS. BARTH: Okay, so that is also one of my points. So that will
be, that will be cleared. So the hundred feet mark then doesn't
become a 100 feet mark. It becomes 50- feet. So the first 50 feet
will be left undisturbed, correct?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I think we are talking about two different
things here. The 100-foot line is the Trustees jurisdiction. So
to come before this Board; if you are doing any work within a
hundred feet of the feature that we are taking jurisdiction
over, 'in this case it's the top of a bluff, it just means you
have to come before this Board. It doesn't mean you can take no
action within there.
So for us 50 feet of a non-disturbance buffer is a pretty
sizable buffer on a virgin lot.
MS. BARTH: Well, when we did anything we had to leave 100 feet.
So that' s what we complied with. So I guess, I feel there is a
reason for 100 feet buffer. So why would you have 100 feet
buffer and then, I don't understand why it has to be clear cut.
I understand that maybe if they wanted to trim it down or to be
able to get a clearer view. I understand, you know, that part.
The clearcut, I think is, I've watched a lot and lot again, that
clear right to the water, and I understand that that is not what
they are doing, and I'm thankful for that. However that is kind
of what our, the protection is.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Herrmann, just a quick question. The X's
on this plan that you just submitted, are those the trees
that are to be removed?
MR. HERRMANN: Correct. So there' s five or six issues or
questions that have been raised. I'm happy to respond to all of
them quickly.
So first with question to the tree replacement. Yes, of
course there will be more than nine trees removed from this
property. What we always do in front of this Board is we
identify the trees that are within this Board' s jurisdiction,
and there is nothing in your .code that requires the replacement
of trees to be removed. That is a more recent Trustees policy,
in requesting conditions or permits, which the applicant is
cooperating with.
So what we've identified are the trees that are within this
Board' s jurisdiction,, but only between the 50 foot and 100 foot
the bluff setbacks that are to be removed.
So with reference to these nine trees, there are nine trees
located between the 50-foot bluff setback and the 100-foot bluff
setback, which will be removed and replaced within this Board's
jurisdiction. There will be clearing of course outside the
Board' s jurisdiction, but that has nothing to do with this
permit.
With respect to the buffer and the setback, the wetlands
code, as the Board knows, does not require a 100-foot
non-disturbance buffer. It requires a 100-foot structural
Board of Trustees 57 September 17, 2025
setback from the top of the bluff, which is the same as is
required by the Zoning Board. Within that hundred feet, if there
is to be any clearing at all, we have to appear before you and
get permission for that clearing.
In this case we have proposed what is the Board' s standard,
as Nick just said, for a virgin lot on a bluff-front property,
which is 50-foot non-disturbance buffer.
In this case the Board has asked for more than that.
Typically you would have clearing and establishment of
landscaping, potential lawn, et cetera, landward of that line.
In this case the Board asked for another 25-foot non-turf
buffer between the 50 and 75-foot bluff setbacks. And that is
now included in the plan for that reason.
I do want to make it clear that in fact the depression is
not in fact a kettle hole wetland. It just isn't. It's upland.
That's a fact. The area that we have proposed to fill is because
it is a bit of a bowl, but we have, to the speaker's concerns,
specifically designed the topography not to raise, not to fill
that whole bowl up to their elevation. In other words, if you
look at the topography on the site plan, and you looked at the
blow up, you'll see that that slope, that downward slope from
the property to the west, to the proposed leveled area, will
remain a down slope. So we are not, we purposely did not
propose to raise all the way up to the level of the property to
the west which the speaker owns.
To answer the question of what leveling the grade means, on
the east side, the opposite side of the property, because that
grade level is so much higher, there is an area that we are
going to actually lower. So on .the west side it' s coming up, on
the east side it's going down, so that you get at least a more
level grade.
But as we discussed in great detail with the Board at the
site, the finished resulting ,grade will still be lower in
elevation than both the properties to the west and to the east.
I think that responds to the questions that were raised but
if this Board has --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just one more. question. From reading this
plan correctly, on the west side toward the neighbors expressed
a concern, I see two trees --
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: To be removed --
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But then I also see three in that same area
that will be replaced, plus four, I don't know what the smaller
ones are, so it does look like the additional vegetation planted
on the west side.
MR. HERRMANN: Sean, can you speak to that? I'm not sure --
you're talking about --
MR. MADIGAN: I'm Sean Madigan, of Madigan Architects. Is it the
Board' s request that we locate all trees that are being removed
Board of Trustees 58 September 17, 2025
within this 100-foot zone, from the 50 to 100, they need to be
relocated in the exact same spot as they are, or --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No, sir. No, sir.
MR. MADIGAN: So we have a total of nine, what was it, nine trees
are being removed and nine trees are being replanted, which are
clearly shown on the plans --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, so I'm just trying to --
MR. MADIGAN: But not in the same exact. location.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, I'm just trying to address some of the
neighbor's concern, saying removing trees, which looking at
this, there's two that I see on the west .side by their property,
with the red "X" that are to be removed. But then I also see at
the same location, three new trees, but four, I don't know the
smaller ones.
MR. MADIGAN: Yes, the larger, just to clarify the key, the
larger tree icons in gray are proposed new trees. The red X's
are trees to be removed. And blue X' s are trees that are to
remain within that zone.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
MR. HERRMANN: And what Glen may have also been asking about --
MR. MADIGAN: Those are other plantings, they're not trees.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. There are some, within the area that you
had requested as the non-turf buffer, there are plantings
proposed within that area.
MR. MADIGAN: And to the other point, we have not identified what
plants will be placed, but that they will be native plants.
There is a note that states they are native plants within that
area.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, thank you.
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, Sean.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to
speak regarding this application?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I just would love to speak generally about the
concept that there is a lot of clear cutting across Town, and it
is a problem. The Town is hopefully going to produce a useful
tree code, but that is not relevant to our review, but it is an
important thing that should happen, and I do thank you for being
good stewards .and keeping your trees intact on your property.
We always encourage people to keep as many trees on their
property as possible.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Hearing no other comments, .I make a
motion to table this application for submission of an LWRP
report.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I move for a five-minute recess.
(After a brief recess, this proceeding continues as follows) .
Board of Trustees 59 September 17, 2025
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 10, REVISED SITE PLAN SUBMITTED
9/12/2025 En-Consultants on behalf of WIN WUNN, LLC requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber catwalk with water
and electricity, consisting of a 4'x76' fixed timber catwalk
using open-grate decking, a 31x14' ramp, and a 6'x20' floating
dock situated in an "I". configuration and secured by two (2) 10"
diameter dolphin piles, with two (2) 10" diameter dolphin
tie-off piles located approximately 20 feet east of floating
dock.
Located: 1055 Wood Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-6-11
Our September loth field inspection report reads
straightforward. I'm not ,in receipt of an LWRP, much to
En-Consultant's chagrin.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicant. It is what we believe to be a straightforward
dock application that will sit well within the pier line along
the shore.
The Board did ask that we amend the plans to note the
15-foot width of the existing vegetated non-turf buffer, and as
the agenda notes, we did update the plans to include that
dimension and submitted those to the office.
If the Board has any questions or if there are any
neighbors who are going to appear, I'll cede the floor.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is there anyone else wishing to speak to this
application? Members of the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to table this
application until submission of the LWRP report.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 11, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JORGO
& CHRISTINA CIKOLLA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
121x39' swimming pool with a maximum exposed wall height of 4 '
on seaward face and an infinity style edge along the east and
south sides; install a proposed 2' high by 73' long landscape
retaining wall and plantings along the seaward face of pool and
deck which will have 3' tall plantings to screen the pool and
deck; install a 15'x3l' deck with associated 41x9' steps down to
ground; construct a 61x39' deck between the proposed pool and
the dwelling; install a drywell for pool backwash, pool
equipment area, and pool enclosure fencing with gates; remove
existing asphalt driveway and replace with permeable gravel
in-place; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide
non-disturbance buffer area along the landward edge of the top
of the bank with a 4' wide access path to dock.
Located: 380 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-21
Board of Trustees 60 September 17, 2025 .
We have not received an LWRP review on this application,
I'm just saying that upfront, so we will not be able to move
forward with it.
The Trustees did visit this site on the loth of September
. -and- made the following comments: Pool too close to the
wetlands, less than 50-feet; proposed pool wall is too high;
existing vegetation has been removed; drainage pipe from house
flowing into wetlands.
I also have photos in the file noting significant
vegetation was cleared from this property, and an e-mail about
violations that are still unresolved.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. It's come
to my attention as well that there was a potential violation
issued due to some clearing, unbeknownst to the landowner it was
needed a permit for.
The clearing was done for removal of some poison ivy that
his wife actually had a two-week hospitalization due to.
In an effort to resolve any of the violations due to that,
we are offering the entire rear yard of the property to be
offered up as a non-turf buffer in consideration for the
approval of the submitted drawings with the proposed deck,
proposed pool and proposed retaining walls.
So we would allow that entire 46-foot wide and 58-foot wide
area landward, I'm sorry, seaward of all of the proposed
features you see on the pian to be a non-disturbance non-turf
buffer.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, for that suggestion. Can you speak
a little bit to the grading that is going to happen for this
installation of the pool. I do see the cross-section that shows
the finished grade next to the pool that is landward of the
pool. And so our, is there a proposal for regrading of the
entire bark yard here or, how is that going to work?
MR. PATANJO: No, the entire rear yard is going to be maintained
as existing, and it will be maintained as a non-turf,
non-disturbance. It's similar to other applications that I had
with a retaining wall. It's no higher than four-foot in height
and it will have landscaping in front of it and behind it that
will shield the wall from any views from the water side. And it
will be more of a, how do you say, as far as, how do I explain
this. An infinity-style pool. The pool wall will come, then
you'll have a landscape wall in front of it with plantings, and
then you'll have the retaining wall and then landscapes in front
of that. So at no point will you see the retaining wall. It is
going to be landscaping on both sides of it.
So there is no grading seaward of this proposed landscape
retaining wall as you see on the plans.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So, but then there is another retaining wall
that is two feet high, so there will be some additional fill
Board of Trustees 61 September 17, 2025
between the pool and that retaining wall; is that correct?
MR. PATANJO: Between -- yes, that will be a landscaped wall.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So are you able to speak to the fact that the
pool is not currently shown at 50 feet or greater from the
-wet-land?
MR. PATANJO: Well, the proposed pool is 48 feet from the
wetland. We show 46 to the retaining wall. But again, even
though it doesn't need a 50-foot wide setback, we propose to
make the whole entire rear yard a non-turf and non-disturbance
buffer.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I see. So it is a 12-foot wide pool being
proposed at 48 feet away from the wetland.
MR. PATANJO: Correct.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: For about a ten-foot wide pool at 50 feet.
MR. PATANJO: It gets a little too close to the house foundation,
and that was the pool designer had indicated this is the closest
they could get to the house.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I'm saying reduce the overall width of the
pool by two feet, to bring you to 50 feet, which is a hardline
this Board has taken on pools.
MR. PATANJO: I think if 50-foot wide is what you are asking away
from, we could mitigate that and we could provide 50-foot away.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay. That was just one first question.
The next problem is the two-foot high retaining wall, is
something that we would be able to accept, but the additional
four-foot wall is not something that we would typically approve
of.
MR. PATANJO: I've done other applications in front of this Board
for four-foot as long as they were landscaped and they were not
visible from the waterside. So if it would be a three-foot wall
is acceptable, we would do a three-foot lower and a three-foot
upper and landscape them so they are not visible from the
waterside.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: One of the things I dislike about this
process that is unfolding right now is there seems to be like a
negotiation happening. A give and take.
This pool isn't at 50 feet from our wetland line. The
backyard is clearcut. You don't seem to have any poison ivy on
your body, but somebody clearcut that property. The wall is too
high. It' s overbuilt, in my opinion. Trying to shoehorn a pool
into a property like that, doesn't seem right, and it certainly
is not up to code.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: To Trustee Sepenoski's point, I think it is
worth noting that there was significant trees that were removed
from this property, so it was not just a question of poison ivy.
It was many trees removed from the backyard. I was not on the
last field inspection, so if any other Trustee wants to comment
on that, feel free. But I have seen photographs.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think you did a good job covering it.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: The Trustees typically do not approve of any
Board of Trustees 62 September 17, 2025
retaining walls higher than two feet or of any pools closer than
50 feet from the wetlands.
Would you like to revise your plans to make a different
proposal going forward?
MR.-- PATANJO: Yes, I would like to table to the October hearings
for the purpose to modify the plans and to accept LWRP comments.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anybody else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
MS. LOEFFLER: Hello, everyone. Thank you. My name is Tammy
Loeffler, 535 Lupton' s Point Road. Thank you, guys, very much.
After being here since 5: 15, I have such respect for your work,
and thank you for the time and consideration you guys are giving
to each of these things.
I just want to say that I really fail to understand how a
pool could be built here without affecting the wetlands. The
yard is tiny. My parents built the house 54 years, I've been on
that street my entire life. That does not accommodate a pool.
I don't understand why people move here and then want to
make it a different way than it was when they found it. If you
want to build a pool, buy a piece of land that is big enough to
accommodate it that is not right next to the creek.
The creek bed is just feet away. I'm concerned not only
about the physical impact of the pool upon the wetlands, but the
less tangible effects of light and noise pollution, because
there will certainly be lights back there with the deck and
noise and outdoor music. We've already had that on Lupton's
Point.
They are currently violating the Town of Southold Dark Sky
code, Chapter 172. They built a house with lights that violate
this code and the house is already more like what you would find
in Queens than on the North Fork, or anywhere else on Lupton's
Point.
Trash from the building site was found in the creek during
the renovation of their home, and there is already new
construction on Lupton's Point which has significantly changed
the quiet rural character of this private road. Construction
trucks and noise up and down the private road will ruin it,
which the residents will have to pay for the repaving of. It is
a one-lane road.
So, again, construction causes problems for everyone on the
road. And you all received a letter from me this week talking
about the lights behind us. So I just think we need to keep in
mind what the North Fork is, and this isn't it. We don't need
it. If they don't like it they should have moved somewhere else
which would accommodate this.
It doesn't help that during the break this gentleman and
this woman behind me and the man that was speaking before were
all making fun of local residents on taking up so much time in
the things they were asking. How dare we want to keep the rural
character that we've come to love in the North Fork. But that
Board of Trustees 63 September 17, 2025 .
is what I heard while I was sitting there during the five-minute
break. So that really doesn't give me any more willingness to be
accommodating to the wishes of their wealthy clients.
So I think that' s all I have to say, except thank you, very
much. And, like I said, I've been here, I was born and raised,
went to Mattituck, graduated in ' 92, moved back last year after
being overseas and am kind of aghast at all the rapid change and
the Hamptonization of my home town, and I just beg you guys to
stop it. So, thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: What's more is that there is drainage coming
from the house piped right into the backyard rather than
directed into drywells. Some of which you can see in the
photograph there. That needs to be addressed, too.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Which I believe was a condition of a previous
permit that they just got when they redid the roof, gutters to
leaders to drywells.
MS. LOEFFLER: It' s not the first time they didn't have permits
and apologized after.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE. GILLOOLY: Are there any other questions or comments?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application for LWRP
and for submission of new revised plans that address the
concerns that have been raised tonight.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 12, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of the
J.C. NEVILLE REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove
and replace existing timber bulkhead with 75' long new vinyl
bulkhead in. same location as existing; and to install a 10' long
bulkhead return at both ends; and to establish and perpetually
maintain a 10' wide non-.turf buffer along the landward edge of
the bulkhead.
Located: 2380 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-6
The Trustees most recently visited this site on September
loth, 2025. Trustee Gillooly noted review return locations and
where they join with neighbors. Soften returns.
There is no LWRP report that has been submitted for this
application. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant.
One change to this application we just found out is due to
all of the stuff in the backyard of this property, we can't do a
typical navy-style walls submitted on the plans. We have to go
batter piles to support the wall. I'll make the revised amended
plans, but batter piles would be a typical pile for a navy. wall
vertical, and then batter pile facing outward at say a 30-degree
angle down to support it. Just because of the economics involved
with this parcel and the, property owner.
Board of Trustees 64 September 17, 2025
Helical piles would be an option but it doubles the cost of
construction for the wall, so we would like to go with a batter
pile configuration for the piles.
I don't quite understand softening the returns on this, so
if some further comment can be had on that, I would like to
discuss that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Absolutely. SO we just visited the neighboring
property on the south of this applicant, and so we are familiar
with that shoreline restoration that is happening there.
So two things. If we are looking at the northern side of
the property, let's start there first, with the other neighbor,
if you look, it actually is' visible in the photos that you
submitted, there is actually already a return back to meet with
the- neighbor's rock wall. And on your drawing you have that they
are adjoining. So it says meets existing bulkhead. So that needs
a modification, since it sounds like you are already going to
modify the plans. I would suggest just another site visit to
take a look at the conditions there.
So that' s the first thing.
If you wanted to, I don't know if you have these photos in
front of you, but if you would like to step up to the dais, I
could show you.
MR. PATANJO: I have them right here.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. So that's on the north side. On the
southerly side there is,- it does adjoin. And I believe in that
case you have a return pictured.
MR. PATANJO: Yes. The only problem is that section of bulkhead
is off of this property. So in general we always maintain all
of the work that is proposed for a submission within this
property, the subject property. So I can't show anything beyond
the property line.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: No, I understand that. I mean you actually have
on the northerly property, but I.'m just saying perhaps when you
are looking at your resubmission that you just take another site
visit to see the conditions, and know that there was recently a
permit issued for the property to the south.
MR. PATANJO: All right, I'll look at that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So that would address the questions about
softening the returns. And if there does need to be a return for
your project, we just ask that it is softened so that it would
not cause any damage on the neighboring properties.
MR. PATANJO: Understood.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak,
or any other questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application for the
LWRP report.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 65 September 17, 2025
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 13, REVISED SITE PLANS SUBMITTED
9/10/2025 Cole Environmental Services on behalf of DAVID VENER &
ELLEN WEINSTEIN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 41x161'
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 in-house review on
September 10th, 2025 of review of the plans. We do have
submission of a DEC permit. We do have an LWRP report. The LWRP
found this 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 regarding this
application?
MR. RUMMEL: Kate Rummel, Cole Environmental, on behalf of the
client.
Yes, we've made multiple modifications as requested by the
Board. Most recently we've extended the buffer to reach the top
of the bluff, and extend to the northern property line. And as
requested that we supplied the DEC permit for the plans that are
before you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any other 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) .
I make a motion to approve this application as submitted, and
noting that the neighboring dock encroaches onto this property,
which is why this configuration was proposed, and there is no
other option for these people to have a dock. So that will
bring it into consistency with the LWRP report.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustee Goldsmith, aye. Trustee Sepenoski, aye. Trustee
Gillooly, aye. Trustee Peeples, aye. Trustee Krupski, nay) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number, 14, Cole Environmental Consulting on
behalf of MDC TRUST requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
880sq. ft. One-story dwelling; construct a 24.3'x23.2'
(560sq.ft. ) Landward addition with a 24.51x23.21x8.3' basement
with 4. 6'x22. 8' basement egress stairs with a 7.4 ' long
retaining wall, and 3' wide window wells; install new windows
and sliding doors on existing dwelling; existing seaward
Board of Trustees 66 September 17, 2025
24 .51xl4 ' concrete patio and existing irregularly shaped ±45. 6'
long retaining wall on seaward side of dwelling to be removed
and replaced with a structural retaining wall unit staked with
interlocking key and grooves (total wall to be 6. 6' with
-- 1' 8-1/4" exposed) , fill in area between dwelling and new
retainingwall, and replace in-place an irregular shaped
24 .5'xl4 ' permeable paver patio with railings and wood steps on
either side; install an on-grade (8. 41x34.2' , 11.8' at widest
point) install an 11. 6'x34' permeable patio on west side of
dwelling with a stepping stone path to replace existing concrete
patio; the existing 7 .21x6' concrete stoop with steps and
existing 6.4'x6. 6' outhouse to remain with no work proposed on
the outhouse; ±200sq. ft. Of concrete walkway on east side of
dwelling to be removed; existing 8.1'xll.3' screened porch to be
removed and install an enclosed 8.1'x11.3' sleeping porch with a
12 .5 'x16. 6' covered stone patio with steps to ground; existing
10. 4 'x32 .3' detached garage to remain along with existing
concrete stoop and steps; install a new buried propane tank;
install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff;
install a new 5.21x3.2' a/c condenser on slab; install a
generator; and install buried electric; ±180 cubic yards to be
excavated for new basement all excavated material to be regraded
on site; existing chain link and wood fences to be removed; any
tree removal will be replaced one-to-one using native hardwood
species; and area to be planted with native, non-fertilizer
dependent vegetation.
Located: 2515 Soundview Avenue, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-68-1-8
The Trustees visited the property on September loth, 2025.
The notes are as follows. Pull back house, concerns about house
located on bluff.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. RUMMEL: Kate Rummel, Cole Environmental I also have the
architect Kate Samuels here as well.
We are proposing a landward addition to the existing house.
In addition to that we are also proposing a number of
improvements to the property. As the Board may remember, I don't
know if you saw, went onsite because of, I think you made a very
quick exit but there is a concrete patio basically at the crest
of the bluff. So that is being removed and replaced with a
permeable paver patio, which was at the request of Zoning.
We are also removing a lot of the concrete structures,
concrete walkways, that existed near the bluff. There are
drywells that are being installed, additional permeable pavers,
permeable paver patios, gutters and leaders will hook up to the
drywells. And the proposed addition is in a place where the
property naturally slopes, so there will be minimal excavation
required for the proposed basement.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, so is there anyone else here that wishes
to speak regarding this application?
Board of Trustees 67 September 17, 2025
(No response) .
So just some of my notes, after we wiped all the ticks off
there, and we actually spent a lot of time at the property. It
was on our way out that we realized we were fully covered.
- Obviously we don't have an LWRP for this, so it has to go
to next --
MS. RUMMEL: So they did one for Zoning but they'll have to do a
separate one for Trustees?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have .that one in front of me, that's
correct.
I would like to see landscape plans to show the trees to
remain, trees to be removed for this.
MS. RUMMEL: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And if there' s any replacement, obviously, as
you can see from the overhead, this is an extremely wooded area.
All the houses are surrounded by trees. I• would certainly like
to see it stay that way.
MS. RUMMEL: Yes, as would the client, yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The one thing I myself struggle with is that
seaward-side patio. I know that Zoning had an with it being a
deck. I would think it would be a lot more appropriate as a
deck. I don't understand the logic there.
So, I don't want to speak for the whole Board but I think
that's going to be a tough one. Because the house existing
right now, and there are some that I think would like to see it
pulled back. I myself looking at the topography, am likely
leaning towards leaving it and minimizing disturbance to the
area, however that patio is tough. So I'm just putting it out
there for the record.
MS. RUMMEL: We did propose a deck, but the Board obviously
objected and requested the permeable paver.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't understand that. Especially when you
need a retaining wall for a patio, it's massively more
structure. So, I mean that is something we can maybe talk about.
But, and then the last thing since we do have to wait a
month, is just that the Board would like to see IA septic
regardless.
MS. RUMMEL: The existing system was installed within the past
like four years, I believe. And it does handle the number of
bedrooms.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: If it's not a full demolition it's towing the
line as close as possible. I mean, some might consider this a
full demolition and so I think at this point, with a major
reconstruction of this magnitude, we would like to see an IA
system.
MS. RUMMEL: Understood.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I guess to 'go back to the patio, maybe
there is a way to get creative with the size or scope. I'm not
sure. It's a tricky spot. And knowing you were already denied by
l
Board of Trustees 68 September 17, 2025
the ZBA on the deck.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yeah, I mean, I agree with Trustee Krupski, I
mean, from our perspective a deck has less environmental impact
than a retaining wall and whether it' s permeable or
non-permeable patio, walking out on that, you can see the
concrete is packed because the slope is going down. So I don't
think we want to put more load on something that is already
under stress. So if there is a way to relocate or come up with
something as opposed to going seaward of that house, I think
that is something we would need to entertain.
MS. RUMMEL: Would just a reduction of the patio or are you
looking to --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It didn't seem like you had much room to
reduce it. That's the problem.
MS. RUMMEL:, It is a tight area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A landing?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I echo the comments about the patio as well,
and feel that it doesn't, understand that this is not
necessarily a demo., though it is a full reconstruction, and
perhaps that no longer has a place in that location.
So it seems like there is still, if their view is the
purpose of it, or enjoying the outside, seems like that can be
done from some other portions of the house, the property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Hearing no one, I make a motion to table this application
for the submission of an LWRP report.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 15, AS PER REVISED SURVEY RECEIVED
9/11/2025 & WRITTEN PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 6/27/25
Patricia Moore, Esq. On behalf of THOMAS RATTLER requests a
Wetland Permit to clear vegetation within 100' of the pond's
edge of wetlands with no change in the existing topography;
remove invasive vegetation within the Non-Disturbance Buffer
area and revegetate with native vegetation; establish and
perpetually maintain a Non-Disturbance Buffer area along the
landward edge of the freshwater wetlands with the width of the
buffer to run along the natural topography for a varying width
of 10' on the south side to 40' on the north side (scallop
shape) ; and that the pond will not be used for irrigation
purposes.
Located: 67925 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-3-19.19
We discussed this at our work session on 9/10/25. Label
non-disturbance buffer and vegetated non-turf. We've got new
plans, stamped September llth, received September llth, 2025.
Is there anyone here to speak regarding this application.
MS. MOORE: Yes. Just very briefly. As you know, this is a farm
Board of, Trustees 69 September 17, 2025
covenanted to be a farm. Can't be developed other than the
reserve area, the building area, and so my client is a farmer
and trying to start his farm, his perennial farm here on this
property.
The only issue that he, unfortunately had to go to a
funeral, otherwise they would be here. But the only thing that
they ask was to not prohibit use of the pond for irrigation.
But he would come in for an application before requesting
irrigation. So rather than precluding it, saying if we are
going to use the pond for irrigation, it would require a permit.
And he was fine with that. We just don't want to see a
preclusion of it. Future Boards might say, oh, because you
prohibit I can't come back as a farmer and ask for irrigation
from that pond.
So that was the only issue that was a problem. We will
attempt, I mean, it took this long to get this survey. Minto-has
been very difficult to work with. So we are going to get a, the
non-disturbance, non-turf identified on the plans. I think you
guys, at the work session I was listening, and the ten-foot
non-disturbance with the balance of it to be non-turf, no
problem. We had no problem with that. That was it. That was the
only real issue.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is there anyone else wishing to speak.
Andy, in the audience.
MR. HUZSEK: My name is Andy Huzsek, 535 McCann Lane, Greenport.
My property borders their property.
Okay, the first concern is it's all well and good that you
have a survey, but you have to have the surveyors come and mark
out there area before you do anything. Like when you make a
road, you have you to lay out the road before you do it. Okay?
That' s what it is. And I'm reading this here, cause I'm in the
back and I see everything. I'm probably about the only person
that lives in that whole area full time.
My concern is here about the ten feet away from the pond,
all right, it' s a very sensitive area there. Most of the land
funnels, I would say 95% of the whole property funnels down to
the pond. And the worst spot is this area here, from the south,
southeast, southwest. It funnels .right down to the pond.
Everything. Okay?
And then I think the area around it should be more than ten
feet. And why would you be taking natural habitat away, and
putting, supposedly,- natural habitat back? Leave it alone for
the animals and stuff. And everything. There is a lot of stuff
that, like you would, we don't save what's left, we ain't going
to have anything anymore there in Southold Town.
This whole area is supposed to be a preserve, but you have
to get actual survey markers before you do anything. I mean, I
done stuff like this before, so I know what I'm talking about.
Anyone can draw a little map and do something in an office,
okay. And the land from my property down to the pond, it's
Board of Trustees 70 September 17, 2025
about anywhere between eye level, 25 to 35 feet. The pond is
lower than my property. So everything does funnel down. You me
coming from Homestead, you can see the whole thing of everything
there. I live on the, on that corner piece there by Sutton and
McCann. What else do I have to say. I don't want to keep- -you -- -. ---- -- --- -
guys much longer.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We appreciate your comments.
MR. HUZSEK: So, it' s about 95% of the whole property goes down
to that, I would say, and the other 75% is just a funnel that
runs right down there.
So I would like to see, number one, the hundred feet and
surveyed, so when the guy, he' s cutting deeper and deeper every
day into the pond. The pond is like about one spot, that low
spot, is about 20 feet away are from the pond there now. And
ground water rises falls with rain and not rain. So I don't know
you want to do this, but ,are you going to anticipate the
highest, you know where the pond could be highest and then out
the hundred feet or just the median or whatever. It should be
stated how you're going to do it. I've seen ground water go-up
five, ten feet in different times, different spots and different
rainy seasons. Everywhere.
What else is there. And that's about it. And it says, I
looked at the plans I got that first time. It was a little
drawing. But now it seems like the building envelope is
distorted and there's stuff planted on the building envelope.
And now they want to put a barn further back, which has nothing
to do with what we are talking about today. So I'm a little
confused with everything. But my concern is about getting,
before doing anymore work, whatever your Board decides to do,
put the surveyor markers in. So you know where your boundaries
are from where you are supposed to be, from the edge of the
pond.
Once we lose all that stuff, there' s stuff in there, you
wouldn't believe is in there. And since they started mowing it
down, I lost a lot of wildlife, like frogs, and turtles and
snakes, they used to come by my house, they vanished. The frogs
stopped croaking and everything. There's all kinds of birds.
There' s herons that go in there'. There's ducks. I even saw an
eagle last year there. Hawks. So you don't want to put no
chicken coops there. ,
I don't know if there is anything else I want to say. It's
getting late. But that' s, about it. I mainly want to see the
boundaries and the concern about the worst spot where water is
going to come in, they want ten feet. That's unacceptable. And
they shouldn't take away the vegetation. And they said they are
going to put something else back. Which we got natural
vegetation there. We got milkweed, we got Russian olives.
There' s everything back there. Butterfly bushes. All that stuff
is back there. Wild grapes, everything is growing back there.
Once you lose that, the habitat is going to be gone and there we
Board of Trustees 71 September 17, 2025
go. Nassau County. Just like that lady said before, she said the
same thing. I wish I talked to her and said I agree with you.
Thank you, for your help.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, so much.
-- -TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you just answer a quick question? Are -you
on well water or on Town?
MR. HUZSEK: I'm on Town. It's all Town there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yeah, I'm just curious if where the water table
was in relation. I was just curious where it was.
All right, thank you.
MR. HUZSEK: Like I said, my water tables, one time we had, we
used a sand line, we get to a certain pot, next thing you know
we have a terrible rains for days and days, that water table
came up, we had to regrade the whole thing and make it higher.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. Thank you.
MR. HUZSEK: Take care now.
MS. MOORE: So you can see this survey was done by a
professional. We did have to create stakes. We are going to
stake it before it' s cleared otherwise how would we follow this
line. So the surveyor has to go out there to do actual staking
that has not already been done. Because we've had, my client' s
been on this property with the surveyor at least two or three
times.
So he, you had early on a revegetation plan that is
environmentally appropriate and professionally prepared, so, you
know, you have a lot of paperwork supporting this application,
and my client truly just wants to start his farm. And it' s been,
and this is precisely what the Planning Board required us to do.
So we have been following every step of the process and
cooperating, and we are really kind of at the end, that we need
the permit.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, Ms. Moore, I would just like to make one
comment because, as you've said, we've taken a lot of steps to
protect this pond. However, I don't think pumping the pond would
then save said pond. -
We've taken all these steps to preserve and protect it, and
then to allow irrigation to drain it sounds counterintuitive to
me.
MS. MOORE: Well, that may be in fact the case because, but it
would have to be addressed by a separate application. This is
groundwater, which it was originally an irrigation pond. That's
how it started. It' was cows and it was an irrigation pond. So if
we were to drill wells for- irrigation, we are taking the same
groundwater, so it' s --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have a test hole to show that? Because I
don't know if that's true of your elevation there. What you
might have is perched water on a clay lens. And you might just,
it might be an existing kettle hole.
MS. MOORE: I'm taking it, I'm sorry, we don' t' know, because
we're taking it from- Cornell. It was their opinion. So I'm
r
Board of Trustees 72 September 17, 2025
just reciting what was their opinion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. - That likely might not be a spring-fed
pond, so.
MS. MOORE: Well, yes. Well, again it would seem to me that would
-be -an appropriate discussion if it is suitable. Because it may
not be suitable and that would be part of an application. I just
don't want to see a prohibition when we don't have enough
information and in fact as a farm they are going to have
irrigation. So it might be a viable alternative that could be
discussed at a future date, so.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: To Mr. Huzsek's question, points about the
vegetation. You know one thing that's, it' s not a myth, it's a
little misconception, but more of a challenge in terms of the
habitat quality. So right now when we walk the property down
there, and there is a lot of vegetation. A lot of it is
invasive. And this is called out in the, some of the language
here in the permit, so the Russian olives, the mugwort, privet,
English ivy, black locust, Miscanthus and Tree of Heaven, these
are invasive species that in many cases don't provide any
pollinator benefits. They do provide cover but I think the plan
here that we reviewed has plants that are native, and many of
them freshwater species, sweet pepper bush, Highbush Blueberry,
Arrowwood Viburnum, you know, Tupelo's, Button Bush, Cat Tails,
Bull Rush. There is a lot of positive food sources, vegetation ,
that is going to cover, provide habitat, pollinator species.
I think if this project is done how it' s proposed here it
will be a benefit to that freshwater eco-system, and it should
be maintained as such for the life of the, should run with the
land.
The topography, there is a pretty significant buffer,
non-disturbance around the edges but then also a total of 50
feet of buffer on that northern edge, which is --
MS. MOORE: It's a mostly wooded area.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: It's a mostly wooded area and I think it's a
good way to establish that habitat and lock that habitat in.
At that point we'll have limits of clearing, I think
nothing beyond that once that is established.
So we also have an LWRP that' s in here, which allows us to
move on this this evening, and it' s consistent with the intent
of limiting fertilization runoff from the farm into that water
body, which I think is something that your client has spoken to
in the past about the peonies and the other things that he's
proposing to plant in that area that will require minimal
fertilization and glyphosates and so on.
Is there anyone else wishing to speak regarding this
application?
(No response) .
Members of the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close the
Board of Trustees 73 September 17, 2025
hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application
with a stipulation that a Trustee inspect the site so that it's
staked out, to verify that the setbacks from the fresh water
body are in fact measured and correct prior the activities
within that area. And new plans depicting calling out the
non-disturbance buffer and the vegetated non-turf buffer, and
the limits of ground clearing, vegetation clearing, submitted to
our office, and approval of the current verbiage in the
description provided on tonight's agenda, which includes a
prohibition on irrigation in this pond, for the benefit of the
species that inhabit it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 16, Patricia Moore, Esq. On behalf of
ESTATE OF THEODORE A. EIRING requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 1, 840sq.ft. (Footprint) two-story dwelling with
320sq.ft. Attached garage, a 224 front covered porch, a
536sq.ft. Seaward deck; and a 450sq.ft. Second-story balcony;
install an I/A sanitary-system; install a stormwater drainage
system; install a 14'x35' gravel driveway; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 40' wide non-disturbance buffer area
along the landward edge of the tidal wetlands, a 10' wide
non-turf buffer area along the landward edge of the 40' wide
non-disturbance buffer area, and a 4' wide access path to water
through the. non-turf and non-disturbance buffer areas.
Located: 4077 Main ,Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-18.4
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 10th of
September, noting review further at work session, review pier
line needed and dimensions from wetland to closest corner of
house.
We have conducted that review in the work session. Also,
the majority of the Board agreed to move forward with an LWRP
decision that was given to this Board on July 8th of 2021,
finding the project to be consistent, with the recommendation
that a non-disturbance buffer is memorialized in any decision.
I am in receipt of a letter from a neighbor who has
opposition to the project. They site Trustee code noting that
the minimum setback for residence is 100 feet. They note that
the corner of the residence is barely over 50 feet from the
wetland boundary. The marsh grass in the wetland is in fact
tidal. Marsh birds such as Great Blue herons, White herons,
swans and what she believes to be a Buffalo duck frequent these
tidal wetlands. She attached some beautiful photos, and her
name is Lisa Gillette (sic) . And is there anyone here wishing to
speak regarding this application?
Board of Trustees 74 September 17, 2025
MS. MOORE: Yes. Good evening, Pat Moore on behalf of the Eiring
estate. Theodore Eiring estate.
I would just put on the record what the Board already
knows, which this application, we, started years ago now, through
this process. We started with the Zoning Board, the Zoning Board
reviewed this application, allowed us to push the house as close
to the road as was feasible, which was 35 feet. We got Health
Department approval for the IA sanitary system. We got DEC
approval. They took a long time. Again, certainly because the
proximity to the wetlands, but part of the consideration was the
non-disturbance, quite a large non-disturbance area. And the
Trustees approved this application and I resubmitted the same
drawings. The Trustees, in addition to the non-disturbance,
added the ten-foot non-turf buffer as well, the last time.
So this property has been reviewed now by six agencies,
sorry, four agencies, and technically the Trustees permits have
now been extended for additional time, but the contract, in this
case we have a construction that might exceed timeframe, so we
wanted to make sure the application was current. The estate,
the beneficiary of the estate is not going to build, so she is
selling the property, and under the contract we want to be sure
we had a current permit that could withstand the timeframe for
construction.
So the application was resubmitted to you as a full
application, and construction drawings are done, everything is
done. We have provided as much protection from the wetland
throughout this process as is feasible, given the configuration
of the property.
To address, I think at the work session, you realized a
pier line would be impossible in this case because the parcel is
one-half the size of the adjacent parcel to the west. And the
adjacent parcel has their home right on Main Bayview Road. This
i is an internal circular road, the way the subdivision was
created, and Peter Jack's house is a house over to the east. And
those two are really the only two houses in this U-shaped
development. And then you start getting into the homes further
to the east.
So Peter Jack' s house, I .think when you compared it, this
house is actually closer to the road because Peter's property
has a bite, an additional, his property line actually goes in
and closer to the water. And his building area is very similar
to ours, however the positioning is further toward the creek.
I think those were the only issues. I remember from the
work session that there was a discussion about putting a split
rail fence at the non-disturbance line. I personally don't like
them. I think -- but if that' s something that the Board wants
to impose. We already have covenants. They were filed a long
time ago under the original permit. So we are pretty much, there
is not much more you can do to this property at this point. So
I'll answer any questions you might have.
Board of Trustees 75 September 17, 2025
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, Pat. And I'll just preface my
comments by saying that I am only one Trustee on the Board and I
may have different opinions from my colleagues.
Although this parcel had a prior approval, that permit has
expired, and we are required to review this as a new application -
under Chapter 275. The proposed dwelling is large and wide, and
it has extensive decks and balconies. The primary structure is
located about 60 to 65 feet from the tidal wetlands.
The scale of development, in my opinion, fails to minimize
the impacts and projects closer to the wetlands than is
appropriate under Chapter 275-11. In addition, the construction
excavation and drainage associated with this footprint posed
risks to runoff and weakening of lateral support, which is in
contrary to 275-12 (b) and (h) , because this project has not been
reduced in size or configuration to avoid undo adverse impacts
on the wetland buffer, I personally would not be able to support
this application as proposed. I understand a prior Board did
approve the application, however I was not a part of the Board
at that time and I would have had the same comments that I have
now
MS. MOORE: I would remind, and I think you know this, that it
was reviewed under 275. There has been no change to the code,
and while respectfully, you know, that's fine. There has. been an
enormous amount of expense in this project, and to, and I would
hope that the Board would grant the approval that has now, that
was previously approved, and reviewed under all the same
regulations. And reviewed by the DEC. So with similar
regulations.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Ms. Moore is there any difference
between this current application before us and the previously
approved Trustee application?
MS. MOORE: The only thing, so the original included a four- foot
path. And it was not showing on the drawing. So I had the
surveyor draw. the four-foot path. But I don't have an original,
I have a copy of it. The only difference between the two plans,
that' s it. It was showing a four-foot path, even though I think
the code says that everybody on the water is entitled to a
four-foot path. I included it because for some reason the survey
didn't show it initially. So, that's it. Otherwise it's the
identical.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You know, one other thing that we've gotten
into the habit of doing is, I don't know how many trees are
proposed to be removed during this construction. However some
tree replacement for any canopy that is lost, I think that would
be a beneficial for the environment.
I know we are talking --
MS. MOORE: It's going to be difficult here because you have the
sanitary system pretty much occupying the entire front yard. So
their might be a little ability to put some trees on the side.
Board of Trustees 76 September 17, 2025
But there is not much room here. It' s three quarters of the
property is being left with the tree line, you know, the trees
that are there. So, you can see the property. I don't know -- is
that our property. There it is, I'm sorry. I was not far enough
south.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Can't see it through all the trees
MS. SMITH: Yeah, that's it. That's right. Well, but you can see
it's very heavily wooded in the back. And that's going to be
undisturbed, so.
MR. SCHRIEFER: I'm the neighbor, Francis Schriefer. There's a
couple of concerns. A lot of trees are going to-be gone.because
the house takes up about one-third of the trees. that are there.
There is a lot of Meadowlark out there, that, you know, you
can't do nothing there. But one of the things, they want to set
the house closer to my property line. 35 feet. I thought it was
50. Maybe I'm wrong.
And then the other thing is that my well is like 85 feet
from the proposed sewage. You know, cesspools. And I thought it
was supposed to be 150 feet. So, and I don't know how the Board
of Health got approved without that. I just have some, I don't
know.
I don't know how they got all these approvals.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Based on the plan I'm reviewing right now it
looks like your well is 100 feet away from. And, yes, the
setback from the road here is 35 feet. And I understand your
concern. But thank you for your comments.
MR. SCHRIEFER: Are they allowed to move the house closer to my
property line? I thought it was a 50-foot easement.
MS. MOORE: So we had to get a Zoning Board variance in order to
move it to 35.
MR. SCHRIEFER: A variance without me being there? Or notified?
MS. MOORE: So a public hearing occurred, it -was posted, it was
noticed. And we went through the process. This happened five
years or so ago.
MR. SCHRIEFER: I got a certified letter for this. How come I
didn't get one for that?
MS. MOORE: You would have.
MR. SCHRIEFER: I would have gotten it? Why didn't I.
MS. HULSE: We can't address that right now. This has nothing to
do with this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I'm sorry that happened to you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And, sir, this has been going on, as she
mentioned, it was probably five years ago. It was a ZBA hearing.
It's not something that happened recently.
MR. SCHRIEFER: Five years ago is when they got -- when they did
-the setback?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 'Yes, sir. So we are talking five years ago.
And that was under a different board. That was under the ZBA.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would recommend contacting them, because they
should have receipts of you being noticed.
Board of Trustees 77 September 17, 2025.
MR. SCHRIEFER: I owned the property then but I lived in Colorado
at the time. So I was not given the letter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They should have records of what was sent out
to neighboring properties: So it might be worth looking into.
- -MR.- SCHRIEFER: All right. Thank you.
MS. MOORE: Keep in mind there is public water here and we have
to connect one of our neighbors to public water. I think
somebody on the east side, so.
MS. SPATES: Hi, my name -is Gigi Spates (sic) and I'm partner to
Peter Jacks who has the property next door. And because I'm
over at his house a lot of the time, I have seen and my
background is the marine sciences, and I used to run the Quogue
Wildlife Refuge. So I pay a lot of attention to the wetlands,
and I have seen a channel, several, actually two channels, but
particularly one that has come in on the meadowlands of that
property. It' s not on Peter's property, but it's next to it. And
the channel allows the tides to come in farther and farther. A
natural channel. And I'm not talking about a manmade channel.
And I think in these three to five years since the attempt to
build there, nature is talking. And we have rising sea levels to
a degree there has been a prediction that there will be greater
rains in our area. That is what we are looking at, probably,
with global climate change is heavier downpours, more of them.
What is going to happen is that creek is going to be flooded
more and more. And coming back to Peter Jack's property, it's
true, his property, the house sits closer to the wetlands as the
crow flies, than this property would be. However, there is a big
difference in the incline. Peter's property goes uphill. And
it's a- lot steeper. So his house. is, and he's kept all the
trees. Unlike many of the people on that creek. The trees are
all there.. So I hope you all will pay attention. I'm sorry to
the people who have the property, and maybe they are not going
to get the money they would like to get, but that' s the breaks.
We've got to do something about conserving, conservation of .our
wetlands and nature and the environment. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: Did you want a print of the survey that has the
four-foot path? I don't know if I'm --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I don't think we have that in our file.
MS. MOORE: You don't. (Handing) . I highlighted it.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application or any further questions or comments
from the Board?
(No response) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Hearing none, I make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 78 September 17, 2025
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition of a split-rail fence at the non-disturbance
buffer, and with the planting of five native hardwoods following
the construction of the house.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. Roll call vote., Trustee Peeples? - - -
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Trustee Gillooly?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Nay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Trustee Sepenoski?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Trustee Krupski?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Goldsmith. Aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Motion passes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 17, Patricia Moore, Esq. On behalf of
DKJK FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built 110
foot long by 2-foot-high landscape wall and two 61x10' landscape
boxes along the south property line; plant Juniper, Little
Bunny, Rockspray Cotoneaster and .additional plants along the
south property line; remove the fire pit; as-built addition of
20 cubic yards of fill; add a top dressing over the fill and
seed a 5, 500sq.ft. Lawn area; as-built installation of
railroad-tie steps along 4' wide path to dock, and as-built
installation of a 16'x24 ' bluestone patio on sand.
Located: 880 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-12-13
The Trustees most recently visited the site on September
loth, 2025. Trustee Goldsmith noted limit wall height to be two
foot or less. Wall should be pulled landward of property line
and planted between wall and neighbor.
We are not in receipt of an LWRP report for this
application. We are -in receipt of a letter from the Subertka's
(sic) in support of the application. They say we support our
neighbor's project who are very nice neighbors. So that' s a very
nice note. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak.
MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore. So I did relay your comments to
the client when I returned from the field inspection. If the
Board wants us, I guess LWRP is going to delay us, although I
just need a clarification on the LWRP. They are supposed to get
the application when we file, which would have been, these
applications are being filed three months before the hearing. So
there should be adequate time to get LWRP. Then the 30 days, you
are right, the 30, you have, the LWRP is entitled to 30 days.
But they should be getting these applications upon filing, and
therefore you will always have the LWRP report in time for these
hearings. And --
MS. HULSE: They did get them when it was received.
MS., MOORE: So then they passed 30 days.
MS. HULSE: No, they have a ten day -- upon receipt, they have
ten days to get them over there. Upon receipt of the
Board of Trustees 79 September 17, 2025
application, the office has ten days to forward it to the LWRP.
MS. MOORE: Right. But our applications are being filed, I have
June. This application was filed in June.
MS. HULSE: That's not true. If that' s true we can act on it.
- - MS.- MOORE: I mean, do I have it right. Because I have a check
from June. I don't want to misstate. '
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I have cash receipt of the check is not dated
June.
MS. MOORE: When do you guys cash the checks?
(Board members perusing files) .
MS. MOORE: All of these, So I didn't want to make it an issue
because it' s not my fight, but --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's when it's processed by the Board and sent
down. We have a bit of a backlog now that we are working
through.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We are working on addressing it in numerous
ways and hopefully this is the one and only. And after this
you'll be free to go.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: As you know, Liz in our office does a lot of
work to make sure that the applications are complete, and so in
that process they are not forwarded until the application is
checked to make sure that it is complete.
MS. MOORE: I know Liz works very hard. But I think they've had
this one long enough.
But going back to this discussion, my client is certainly
prepared to move -- I explained the area of the jurisdiction,
which I think based on other applications on this property was
from the back of the garage, or what the garage, the portion of
the garage that extends to the 9.8 feet. Are you looking at
plans, or no?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I'm not, because it's 100 feet should be the
jurisdiction.
MS. MOORE: No, no, I understand that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. So I'm now looking at the plans. What is
your comment?
MS. MOORE: I'm saying that the jurisdiction of the Board from
previous applications extended to the back of the garage. So
I'm looking primarily at,the area of the retaining wall that
should be within your jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Oh, excuse me. So when you say the back of the
garage are you talking about the landward side of the garage or
the seaward side of the garage?
MS. MOORE: Seaward side of the garage.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, I think when we did a quick kind of
measure, as close as we could with the scale provided, we said
around the heat pump. So almost around the kind of middle-ish
of the garage.
MS. MOORE: Okay. I think it's the back, you could think it' s the
middle but it's close. It's in that area. Anyway.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: From the seaward third.
Board of Trustees 80 September 17, 2025
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Well, no matter what there should be an
accurate measurement taken onsite, and then the work can be
commenced.
MS: MOORE: Okay. Anyway, the area, the important area for the -
owner is in particular the front of the property. And up through
the garage area, that's the area that had the worst drainage
issue. And that' s why it was addressed.
The area from closer to the back of the property, was more
esthetics than control of the drainage. And that could be
controlled with a stepping back of the retaining wall, if that
is acceptable.
He is willing to move the retaining wall back away from the
property line. The purpose of the retaining wall here — not
purpose. The design of the retaining wall were planter beds at
the top. So if they were to move the retaining wall away from
the property line, they still would want to plant in that area,
but it would also allow planting to go on the property line.
So, we didn't know what your typical distance is for
retaining walls off the property.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Sure. I'm happy to provide that, since we are
not necessarily conditioning this evening. We wanted to see the
wall moved three feet off the property line.
MS. MOORE: The front is very important to stay as it is.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And we have no authority there, obviously
they'll do what they need to do in those areas. But this is up
to the 100-foot line, we would like to see it moved three feet
onto the applicant's property, and then to plant native
vegetation on the neighbor's side of that property. And would
like to limit that height to two feet overall.
MS. MOORE: The height of the retaining wall.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: The height of the retaining wall. Yes, please.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak?
MS. MOORE: I wanted to get your impression so I know what I'm
drawing, so. _
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Absolutely. So the fact that you are going to
come back, at least you have everything that the Board --
MS. MOORE: I'm trying, yes. I would ask, if it is at all
possible to keep to the back of the garage intact and then work
from that point seaward, just because that's just --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Pat, I will reiterate, it needs to be up to the
100-foot line, please.
MS. MOORE: All right, well, I'll figure out where that line is.
Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Well, it should be wheeled out then to have an
accurate representation
MS. MOORE: I'm not going to do it. I'll have somebody do it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Of course. Yes. Is there anyone else who
wishes to speak or any other questions or comments from the
Board?
Board of Trustees 81 September 17, 2025
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application for LWRP
receipt.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(All ayes) .
ResJectfully submitted by,
e
Glenn Golcfsmith, President
Board of Trustees