HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-08/12/2026 Glenn Goldsmith,President `��OF S0 Town Hall Annex
Nicholas Krupski,Vice President hOV� Old 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski J l Southold, New York 11971
Liz Gillooly G Q Telephone(631) 765-1892
Joseph Finora • �O Fax(631) 765-6641
Couhm,��'
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD , CE VEn
Minutes SEP 7 2
Wednesday, August 12, 2026
SOuthOld TOw Clerk
5 : 30 PM
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Eric Sepenoski, Trustee
Liz Gillooly, Trustee
Joseph Finora, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Administrative Assistant
Lori Hulse, Board Counsel
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening, and welcome to our Wednesday,
August 12th, 2026 meeting. At this time I would like to call
the meeting to order and ask that you please stand for the
Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance is recited) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I ' ll start off the meeting by announcing the
people to the dais . To my left we have Trustee Krupski, Trustee
Sepenoski, Trustee Gillooly and Trustee Finora. To my right we
have the attorney to the Trustees, the Honorable Lori Hulse; we
have Administrative Assistant Elizabeth Cantrell; and with us
tonight is Court Stenographer Wayne Galante.
Agendas for tonight ' s meeting are out in the hallway and
also posted on the Town' s website.
We have one postponement tonight, in the agenda, on page
six, Number 8, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of LUCINDA
J. HERRICK REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 5, 280sq. ft . Two-story dwelling with a stormwater
drainage system for roof runoff; install an I/A OWTS system;
construct a 201x28 ' detached dry garage; install water and
electric service; construct approximately 200 ' of retaining
wall; construct a driveway; and to regrade and stabilize all
Board of Trustees 2 August 12, 2026
disturbed areas .
Located: Ocean View Avenue, Fishers Island. SCTM#
1000-9-11-7 . 16, is postponed. So that one will not be heard this
evening.
Under Town Code Chapter 275-8 (c) , files were officially
closed seven days ago. Submission of any paperwork after that
date may result in a delay of the processing of the application.
I . NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I ' ll make a motion to hold our
next Trustee field inspections on Wednesday, September 9th,
2026, at 8 : 00 AM.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
II . NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I ' ll make a motion to hold our next Trustee
meeting Wednesday, September 16th, 2026, at 5 : 30 PM, at the Town
Hall Main Meeting Hall .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
III . WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I ' ll make a motion to hold our next Work
Sessions Monday, September 14th, 2026 at 5 : OOPM at the Town Hall
Annex 2nd Floor Executive Board Room, and on Wednesday,
September 16th, 2026, at 5: OOPM in the Town Hall Main Meeting
Hall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve the Trustee
Minutes of the July 15th, 2026 meeting.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Trustees Monthly Report for July 2026, A
check for $19, 262 . 83 was forwarded to the Supervisor' s Office
Board of Trustees 3 August 12, 2026
for the General Fund.
VI . PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VI, Public Notices .
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk' s Bulletin Board for
review.
VII . STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VII, State Environmental
Quality Reviews : RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the
Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications
more fully described in Section XI Public Hearings Section of
the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, August 12th, 2026 are
classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and
Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA:
As written:
Michael Chisari SCTM# 1000-44-2-12
555 Soundview Realty, LLC SCTM# 1000-15-3-7
Candice & Mitchell Burd SCTM# 1000-15-3-8
Allison Tupper SCTM# 1000-87-3-41
Lucinda J. Herrick Revocable Trust SCTM# 1000-9-11-7 . 16
John F. Costello Trust SCTM# 1000-35-4-28 . 3
Peters Neck Association, Inc. SCTM# 1000-32-1-3
Douglas P. Robalino Living Trust & Diane E. Robalino Living
Trust SCTM# 1000-31-9-
21. 1
HC NOFO, LLC SCTM# 1000-86-5-14 . 4
William & Aida Hartung SCTM# 1000-117-5-15
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
VIII : RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral VIII,
Resolutions - Administrative Permits .
In order to simplify our meetings, the Board of Trustees
regularly groups together actions that are minor or similar in
nature.
Accordingly, I ' ll make a motion to approve as a group Items
2 and 3, as follows :
Number 2, Finnegan Law on behalf of LISA A. GRATTAN
requests an Administrative Permit to install a generator on a 24
sq. ft. Concrete pad on the east side of dwelling.
Board of Trustees 4 August 12, 2026
Located: 11860 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM#
1000-116-6-9
Number 3, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of
RUSSELL & JULIANNE KARSTEN requests an Administrative Permit for
a Ten-Year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut Common Reed
(Phragmites australis) to 12" in height by hand, as needed, and
wild rose ramble to 48" in height.
Located: 57908 Main Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-66-2-2 . 2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, Stromski Architecture on behalf of
JOSEPH & ELEANOR NARGENTINO QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST
requests an Administrative Permit to construct an 813 sq. ft.
Deck 8 ' above grade with steps to grade; remove existing front
masonry patio and replace with 65 sq. ft. Wood framed porch.
Located: 400 Jackson Landing, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-4-6
Trustee Goldsmith conducted a field inspection August 9th,
noting there were no adverse environmental impacts .
The LWRP found the project to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is this proposed action is on a nonconforming lot
with pre-existing residence that is less than 100 -feet from
wetland boundary of Mattituck creek.
Again, based on field inspections there was sufficient
distance and no adverse environmental impacts evident from the
construction of the deck, therefore I ' ll make a motion to
approve this application and bring it into consistency with the
LWRP.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral IX, Applications for
Extensions/Transfers/Administrative Permits . Again, in order to
simplify our meeting, I ' ll make a motion to approve as a group
Items 1 through 4, as follows :
Number 1, Finnegan Law on behalf of TROY & LINDA ROSASCO
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #5843 from Asgard North
Fork Properties, LLC to Troy and Linda Rosasco, as issued
December 17, 2003 and Amended December 20, 2004 .
Located: 820 Old Salt Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-144-5-15
Number 2, Finnegan Law on behalf of TROY & LINDA ROSASCO
requests a Transfer of Administrative Permit #8744A from Asgard
North Fork Properties, LLC to Troy and Linda Rosasco, as issued
March 16, 2016.
Board of Trustees 5 August 12, 2026
Located: 820 Old Salt Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-144-5-15
Number 3, En-Consultants on behalf of SEAN R. McCOYD
requests an Administrative Amendment to modify stormwater
leaching galley configuration the . east side of proposed dwelling
to allow for installation of a code-compliant 500-gallon
underground liquid propane tank.
Located: 3360 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM#
1000-87-3-66. 4
Number 4, THOMAS B. SHEARMAN III requests an Administrative
Amendment to Administrative Permit #9693A for the as-built ±15 '
x 4 ' second story balcony deck.
Located: 1721 Wilderness Road, Fishers Island. SCTM#
1000-12-2-14 . 1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL. AYES) .
X. MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Moorings/Stake & Pulley Systems, I ' ll
make a motion to approve Number 1, JEFFREY ROGERS requests a
Stake/Pulley System in Narrow River for a 13 ' outboard
motorboat, replacing Stake #11 . Access : Public one
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
XI . PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral XI, Public Hearings, at
this time I ' ll make a motion to. go off our regular meeting
agenda and enter into the public hearings .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
This is a public hearing in the matter of the following
applications for permits under Chapter 275 and Chapter 111 of
the Southold Town Code. I have an affidavit of publication from
the Suffolk Times . Pertinent correspondence may be read prior to
asking for comments from the public. Please keep your comments
organized and brief, five minutes or less if possible.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE FINORA: Trustee Finora is recused from Item #1 because
of knowledge of the project prior to my term beginning in
January.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Number 1, CONTINUED FROM 1/14/26 REVISED SITE
Board of Trustees 6 August 12, 2026
PLAN RECEIVED ON 1/6/2026 Stephen Kiely, Esq. On behalf of 1000
SOUNDBEACH DRIVE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit for the as-built addition of approximately 15
cubic yards of sand within a 2, 090sq. ft . Minimally sloped area
to level up the lawn with the grade being raised ±2 inches and
sod installed on top; as-built installation of two (2) untreated
wood tie planters with west planter being 50 ' long by 3 ' wide by
10" high and east planter being 32 ' long by 3 ' wide by 10" high
with an as-built fireplace on beach path side of each planter;
remove sod egress to beach and existing retaining walls along
path to beach, not to be replaced; the outer sides of the
existing path to beach to revegetate naturally while maintaining
a 4 ' wide access path; landward of the as-built planters
establish and perpetually maintain a ±9 ' wide (approximately
864sq. ft. ) Vegetated non-turf buffer area by removing sod and
planting salt meadow cordgrass (Spartina patens) , and/or other
ecologically appropriate native species .
Located: 1000 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-1-5 . 1
. The Trustees most recently performed an in-house review in
March prior to that and noted that the plans had not changed.
Prior to that, January 12th, the 2026, noted that the need to
move the wall landward and replant seaward. Need to add garage
to plans and application.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. KIELY: Good evening. Steven Kiely, for the applicant.
I also have with me tonight Daphne Vaughan from Surfside
Environmental Planning who will also be speaking shortly.
I 'm here tonight not to regurgitate what I said last time,
which admittedly may have been delivered in the most cordial
manner. My blood sugar was low as I did not have dinner, short
of a Snickers bar before the meeting.
The reason I was a little ill-tempered, other than being
hungry, was that I was caught off guard by the change in the
direction from the Board.
At the site visit conducted on September loth, 2025, we
agreed that if the applicant moved the planters landward from
where the DEC authorized them, and changed the plans
accordingly, you would approve the permit. I gave to Liz a copy
of the plan reflecting the then agreed-upon location.
But after my presentation, the agreed-upon proposal was
revoked and in essence the entire lawn was to be removed. So I
hope you would excuse my frustration.
I 'm not sure what happened between the 10th and the hearing
a week later, but I was genuinely confused.
That being said, I feel it ' s important for the record to
read the purpose of the Wetlands law, as the harms it was
adopted to prevent do not exist here.
Board of Trustees 7 August 12, 2026
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : That ' s not true.
MR. KIELY: I didn' t read it yet . Can I read it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Well just that statement is not true, but, yes,
continue.
MR. KIELY: What statement?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : That there ' s no harm to the wetlands here.
MR. KIELY: Well, can I read it first?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Absolutely.
MR. KIELY: Okay. Just to refresh everyone ' s recollection.
It is the intention of this chapter to ensure for the
citizens of the Town of Southold the protection, preservation,
property maintenance and use of its wetlands given due
consideration to reasonable economic and social development of
the Town. The wetlands shall be regulated in order to maintain
and contribute to the following resource area values and the
attributes and functions they possess . Protection of public and
private water supply, groundwater, flood control, erosion and
sedimentation control, storm water damage, water pollution
control, fishery, shellfish, including spawning sanctuaries,
wildlife habitat, agriculture, aquaculture, esthetics, public
access and recreation. I just read the pertinent part of the
purpose.
Assuming in arguendo that you have wetlands jurisdiction
here, which Daphne will address, along with CEHA, the permit we.
are requesting must be issued as two inches of fill placed in a
2, 090 square foot area, sod, and the installation of two
planters three-feet wide by ten-inches high, sounding same, will
not substantially -- it says in the code "substantially. " Which
means have great meaning or lasting effect -- have certain
adverse impacts .
I ' ll now run you through the standards you are to consider:
It will not adversely affect the wetlands of the Town as
the project is located 255 feet from the mean high water mark.
Nor cause damage from erosion. Again, 255 feet from the
mean high water mark. And in fact there has been significant
accretion in the beach.
Nor cause saltwater intrusion into the freshwater resources
of the Town. Actually, the opposite, by adding freshwater due to
watering.
Nor adversely affect marine life and aquatic wildlife or
vegetation or natural habitat. Again, due to it being located
255 feet from mean high water.
Nor increase the danger of flood and- storm tide damage,
again, due to the 255 feet.
Adversely affect navigation or the tidal flow. Nope. 255
feet.
Change the course of any channel. Nope, 255 feet .
Weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in
the vicinity. Nope again. The adjoining neighbors have
Board of Trustees 8 August 12, 2026
hardened structures in line with the planters, and, again, 255
feet.
Otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and welfare
of the people of the Town. Nope, again. And the structures have
been in existence for five years, and to date there has been no
complaint about any negative impact of the planters .
Adversely affect the esthetic value of the wetlands and
adjacent areas . Nope again. 255 feet .
And, again, if any of these harms existed, they would have
to be substantial and not just menial. And there are none.
All that being said, in the interim we hired a new
environmental consultant to review the project, and we would
like to present her findings, including a CEHA analysis to the
Board now. So I ' ll turn it over to Daphne.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Mr. Kiely, the last time we heard this was on
1/14/26. January.
MR. KIELY: I believe so.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : So seven months later you read us the Town
Code, the purpose is --
MR. KIELY: To remind you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Okay.
MR. KIELY: Yes . So that ' s why. And then we have our --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : And you hired a new environmental consultant
to --
MR. KIELY: You' ll hear her report. I thought this was a public
hearing where you' re going to hear from the public, okay?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : It is . We ' re asking --
MR. KIELY: So that ' s what I 'm trying to do. I took my ball and
came back. So, here we are.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : What did you take and come back?
MR. KIELY: Because he said the last time Mr. Kiely took his ball
and went home, when I left. So I just said I took my ball and
came back. So I 'm here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What ball?
MR. KIELY: He said. It ' s on the record, you can watch the
Minutes .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : At the site you' re talking about?
MR. KIELY: No, no, no, no. At the hearing, when I left abruptly.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Oh, let' s keep it relevant, right?
MR. KIELY: No, that ' s why I said I brought the ball back.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I 'm not sure what you' re referencing, but
that ' s --
MR. KIELY: I 'm not sure why he' s injecting at this point.
I 'm just trying to do a presentation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Well, I think --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I just wanted to note for the record that
it ' s been seven months since we heard about this property from
you.
MR. KIELY: Yes .
Board of Trustees 9 August 12,2026
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : And I was just wondering what new
information --
MR. KIELY: We ' re getting to it.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Oh. Thank you.
MR. KIELY: I was just setting it up and just refreshing
everyone ' s recollection.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone else that wishes to speak
regarding this' application?
MR. KIELY: Daphne, the environmental consultant.
MS . VAUGHAN: Good evening. My name is Daphne Vaughan, I 'm the
owner and principal of Surfside Environmental Planning.
Just to give you a short background, I have been in
business since January of 2011 . Prior to that I worked for
another private environmental consultant for about three years .
And prior to that I was a senior environmental analyst for the
Town of Southampton, working in the Environment Division, and
presenting to the Town' s Conservation Board. I 've flagged
thousands of wetlands over the past 25 years on both the public
and private side. So I 've been around the block. Just not here.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Welcome.
MS . VAUGHAN: So, nice to meet you.
So I was hired not that long ago to take a look at the
project that has taken place at 1000 Sound Beach .Drive in
Mattituck, and to analyze potential environmental impacts, and
also to look at the Town of Southold' s two code sections, 275
for wetlands and shorelines, and Chapter 111 for coastal
erosion.
So on July 9th I was able to get out to the property. I
took a number of photos, that ' s part of the submission that I
just handed to you. Um, and, what I did is I have kind of
analyzed the entire site from the developed portion up to the
mean high water mark. So I 've prepared this letter, that I 'm
going to try to be as brief as possible, to just give you my
findings .
Okay, so basically, the developed portion of the property
takes in about 163 feet from Sound Beach Drive. It ' s
meticulously landscaped around the structures, meaning there are
ornamental plantings around the foundation. The majority of that
landward side of the property is taken in by a driveway for
off-street parking. There' s hedge rows on either side and about
12-foot side yards that are sod lawns with also foundation
plantings on both sides of the dwelling.
So as you reach the seaward side of the residence, you see
the work that was completed, to my understanding, back in
November of 2021, where there is a sod lawn that is irrigated,
um, with some other landscaping, landscape ties, a small beach
grass planted area, and then a planter with some barberry in it,
prior to the actual beach area.
Board of Trustees 10 August 12, 2026
So the seaward edge of the planter as discussed previously
is largely in keeping with the maintained and developed portions
of the two adjacent properties, to the east and the west. There
is the planter and then the fire pits that were done without a
permit, as well as the grading for the sod lawn.
So when you continue seaward from the planter, the property
is heavily vegetated with unremarkable topography, and there is
a full view of Long Island Sound from that area. The beach
access pathway is entirely comprised of sand. That path is
relatively flat, which makes it easy to get down to the open
beach area.
The naturally vegetated portion of the property is largely
comprised of beach grass, beach pea, Virginia creeper, Seaside
golden rod, and a little bit of bayberry in there, and some
yucca. Additionally, there ' s some non-native poison ivy, and a
bunch of rosa rugosa that is kind of clumping. You can see it
in the aerials, those darker portions mainly to the west.
So, the vegetated area then continues seaward along the
path for about 130 feet, until you reach a regular
sand/rock/shell beach that is customary to the northern shores
of both the north and south forks .
The property is consistently vegetated, as very evident in
that aerial, on both sides, to the east and the west, save for
the other access pathways .
So the sand portion extends all the way to the mean high
water mark for another 125 feet seaward of that end of the
vegetation. That sand and rock portion of the beach is not
really consistently flat, with some gently sloping topography
higher towards the mean high water mark, and spring high water
rack lines, and then it descends a little to a lower elevation
farther landward for a nominal distance before it marginally
ascends again to a more consistent, flatter beach, that is in
front of the vegetated portion.
Within the depth of the entire property, meaning from the
high water mark all the way to the developed portion, the
contour elevations never actually reach a ten-foot elevation.
This is noted on the last survey that was submitted to you, last
dated June 30th, 2025, that I have a copy of.
So as I had noted previously, I reviewed the Southold Town
Code with regard to Chapter 275, Wetlands and the Shoreline.
The code gives the Trustees jurisdiction over tidal and
freshwater wetlands, beaches, banks, dunes, flats, marshes,
swamps, wet meadows, bogs or vernal ponds .
So the code only notes minimum setbacks from either a
wetland boundary or bank or from the top of a bluff. The
majority of the items listed, determining the Trustees
jurisdiction, would fall under the overall classification of
wetlands . Meaning you have the beach shorelines, the flats,
. marshes, swamps, wet meadows, bogs and vernal ponds, and
Board of Trustees 11 August 12, 2026
typically the base of a bank, making the code redundant in this
respect.
However, a dune is not a wetland. And the code does not
specify setbacks from a dune. The code ' s definition of a "dune"
is very vague, stating it as just a ridge or hill of loose,
windblown or artificially placed earth, the principal component
of which is sand. So there is nothing in the definition that
states anything about elevations or slopes, or vegetation. It
just notes that it has to be comprised of sand.
So in the case of the subject property, the municipality
would typically grant a wetland permit from a delineated. wetland
boundary, either from a qualified candidate like myself, or from
a municipal entity' s inhouse consultant.
So in the case of this property, mean high water is the
only wetland boundary present on the property. There is no
vegetated species landward of mean high water that would fall
under obligate facultative wet or facultative wetland
determining factors, meaning that it can occur anywhere between
34% and 990 of the time.
So none of that exists on or adjacent to the property mean
high water is what we are looking at here as the wetland
boundary.
So as noted on the survey, the closest point of mean high
water is 255 feet away from the landward edge of the work that
was completed, which far exceeds the hundred-foot limit of
jurisdiction noted in the code.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So, if you are going to try to explain our
code to us and say that under Chapter 275, Section 3 (c) , you
noted the jurisdiction includes any freshwater wetland, tidal
wetland, beach, bank, bluff, dune, flat marsh, swamp or vernal
pool .
So do you think that was written into the code just for fun
or what?
MS . VAUGHAN: No, that ' s the next thing I was going to address,
is a beach.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Can I just inquire as to why this was not just
submitted ahead of time for our work session review instead of
reading the report into the public hearing where we try to limit
the time to five minutes or less?
MS . VAUGHAN: Well, as I said, I was recently hired, and I just
got all this together under the direction of Mr. Kiely and the
homeowner, so I apologize for handing it in right now at the
last minute, and appreciate your listening to me just for a few
more minutes .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : And just summarizing, if I can understand
what you' re arguing is that, or driving towards, is that this is
a jurisdictional matter.
MS . VAUGHAN: For wetlands, yes .
Board of Trustees 12 August 12, 2026
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Okay.
MS. VAUGHAN: Yes .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : All right .
MS . VAUGHAN: So, may I continue?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Please.
MS. VAUGHAN: Thank you. So in continuing 'to look at Chapter 275,
the definition of a beach, states that it is a zone of
unconsolidated earth that extends landward of the mean low water
mark to the seaward toe of a dune or a bluff, whichever is most
seaward. So it states where there is no dune or bluff landward
of a beach, the landward limit of the beach is 100-feet landward
from the place where there is a marked change in material or
physiographic form, or from the line of permanent vegetation,
whichever is most seaward.
In my mind this is not a dune. This would be considered an
upper beach, and the jurisdiction should be taken from that
hundred-foot mark landward of that change in the vegetation,
which when you look at the property, it' s 130 feet from the
seaward edge of the planter to the edge of the vegetation,
meaning that this would technically not fall under the
jurisdiction for a wetland permit under the definition of a
"beach" because it is beyond that hundred-foot mark.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Can I just interrupt so I don' t lose track.
So what are you classifying the area between what you are
considering a beach and the illegally-built planters?
MS. VAUGHAN: I 'm considering it basically all a beach. It ' s all
consistent in elevation, like I said, you never reach a ten-foot
contour here. By the definition of a "dune, " the area closer to
mean high water kind of falls more under your "dune" definition
as kind of a pile of sand than the vegetated portion. So that is
my take on it.
Okay, so the other thing that I noticed on the survey is
that there is a line of high water mark shown from a filed map
from the original subdivision of Capt. Kidd Estates that was
filed back in 1949, and that high water mark is located 134 feet
landward of the 2024 high water mark. It ' s kind of in the middle
of the vegetation.
So this property has undergone a significant amount of
accretion on the beach since the inception of that subdivision
back in 1949.
The homeowner provided me a number of photographs from back
in the ' 70s, which are in the packet that I submitted to you.
They are towards the back. And when you look at those photos
the high water mark there is far more in keeping with that 1949
subdivision.
I did do some measurements on historical aerials, I 'm not
going to bore you with all of the numbers, they are in my
narrative, but basically what ' s happened when you look at
historical aerials going back to the 1976 to 2023, is every year
Board of Trustees 13 August 12, 2026
it gets to be, the beach is larger and larger and larger. So
it ' s significantly accreted up to a point where it ' s almost 300
feet of beach larger than the past.
So, and I did all of this as part of the coastal erosion
review.
In my mind the reason that you have jurisdiction over this
is because of the location of the coastal erosion hazard line,
which is just landward of the work that was completed. So
because this work was done seaward of the coastal erosion hazard
line, it to me does fall within a coastal erosion jurisdiction.
However, in looking at that, Chapter 111 mimics the same
definition for "dune" and for "beach. " And so we are saying that
the property contains the beach from mean low water to that
hundred-foot landward of the change into the beach grass . So
it ' s still 30 feet seaward of the planter.
So within the coastal erosion section of the code it talks
about erosion hazard areas that need to be considered. So when
you look at those things, you have a structural hazard area and
then the natural protective feature areas .
So a "natural protective feature" is defined as a
near-shore area beach, bluff, primary dune, secondary dune,
wetland, marsh, or its vegetation.
As noted previously, the limit of the beach is located
seaward of the completed work by 30 feet . So this feature is
not really applicable, in my mind, to this work that is in
question.
Then the structural hazard area is by definition shore
lands located landward of the natural protective feature having
shorelines receding at a long-term average recession rate of one
foot or more per year.
There is no recession on this beach because it ' s been
accreting for the past 50-plus years . So really that doesn' t
apply either. However, if this Board still wanted to consider
this project for a permit, you would then look at 111-9 for the
standards of issuance under the Coastal Erosion code, and the
completed work is reasonable and necessary for the homeowner' s
continued use and enjoyment of the property, because it ' s
providing him --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think that we would disagree that it' s
necessary. To have an extension of your lawn is necessary for
the use of a property?
MS . VAUGHAN: Well, for the homeowner it ' s necessary, for him to
have continued use of his property.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Sorry, can you explain how?
MS . VAUGHAN: Yes . Well, I mean, it ' s subjective to each person,
isn' t it, whether or not something is necessary?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, because I think that you are coming in
with a lot of subjective views of definitions, and I find that
one to be a little bit outside of the realm of plausibility.
Board of Trustees 14 August 12, 2026
That it ' s necessary for the use of the house to have a larger
yard is a little farfetched.
MS . VAUGHAN: Well, it ' s necessary for him. So that is
basically --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Why is that?
MR. KIELY: Just like I 'm sure you guys have backyards where you
barbecue, play frisbee, play with the dog, soccer, stuff like
that .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I don' t know if this is an appropriate back and
forth, but can't you play frisbee on the beach, barbecue on the
patio?
MR. KIELY: Actually, frisbee wouldn' t be good on the beach,
because you want to be close to the house. If they are little
kids, you don' t want the little kids playing frisbee by
themselves .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I mean, you' re talking about beaches and
definitions, and in 275 it says "shorelands subject to seasonal
and frequent over-wash or inundation, are considered to be
beaches . "
MS. VAUGHAN: Right.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Doesn't this place get washed out in winter
storms? Have you ever seen that here? Have you been to that
site in the winter and noticed that happening?
MS. VAUGHAN: I had spoken to the owner and I spoke to one of the
neighbors with regard to what occurred during Hurricane Sandy,
which is obviously, as we all know, the worst storm that ' s
happened on Long Island in many, many years, and I was told that
the water during Hurricane Sandy got into the beginning part of
the vegetation. It never actually reached up to the structures .
Now, those photos that I added in my packet from the ' 70s
do show, and there was a hurricane back in, I think it was ' 77
that was pretty bad. ' 76? Thank you. That as you can see in
these historical photos, there was significant erosion.
Also in those older photos you see that there is a line of
boulders that is in front of the residence. The homeowner told
me that those boulders are still there to date. I mean,
obviously, it ' s not like somebody would have come in to remove
them. They are buried under all the sand that has accreted to
date.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : So if I 'm understanding correctly, you are
saying because the ecosystem in this area has been so successful
at capturing sand and revegetating, and the beach has accreted,
it ' s now permissible for a homeowner to extend their lawn area
and place structures in that ecosystem to accommodate recreation
and value to the home?
MS . VAUGHAN: So he did what he did because it was in keeping
with the neighboring properties . He has not done anything in
excess of what the neighbors have on their property.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : But according to his permit, he had. Like the
Board of Trustees 15 August 12, 2026
neighbors exist, we don' t know if they are legal or not . We
could be pointing to the neighboring property and that could not
have a permit, right?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And if we could use the aerial that we have
right here on the screen, and toggle between, Ms . Cantrell, if
you can toggle between 2020 and 2023, we can take a better look
at the change that was made.
So that ' s 2023 . And if you go back to 2020, it ' s quite
dramatic. It is a big grab of land here.
MS. VAUGHAN: So as I noted earlier, all of that dark material
that is part of what he removed to create this lawn, to be even
with his neighbors, was Rosa rugosa, which is not a native
plant .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : But it ' s a very effective plant at capturing
sand and stabilizing a very, really mobile eco-system.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : We also, to that point, we regularly work with
applicants who come in, and I know, you know, Cole Environmental
i*s on this project, who come in with revegetation plans and say,
hey, listen, we have all this poison ivy here, we have all this
Rosa rugosa, we would like to remove it and make it, you know,
return it to, I mean, although poison ivy is natural, or native
to Long -Island, . we would like to remove the poison ivy because
of the kids, or we would like to replant this with something
that is native, but maybe a little more attractive and a little
less itchy.
MS . VAUGHAN: Right .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : So that is something we regularly do. I think
the drastic approach is to say, well, let ' s just put lawn there.
And then also, you know, I did, because originally when
this came through it seemed pretty straightforward, we said move
it back a little, your client in the field said no problem. And
then it didn' t get moved back where we were looking, and then
after doing a deep dive, you know, we saw how much was actually
grabbed. And then looking at the neighboring properties, those
existed for well over 20 years here. So to compare the sins of
the past to the present, I think is a misstep. Whether we did
that or yourself did that.
Just out of curiosity, putting on your environmental
analyst shoes for a second, if someone said, well, okay, the
beach is 100 feet out from where my lawn is right now, does this
beach grass in between and some other native species, I 'm just
going to put lawn straight out to .the beach where there is no
vegetation, would you think that was an acceptable application?
MS. VAUGHAN: To go straight to the beach? No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Right. But why not?
MS. VAUGHAN: Because that would run into the defined beach area,
basically.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Right. I know, but I think what the argument
that is being made here is that, well, a little bit is okay. And
Board of Trustees 16 August 12, 2026
that ' s, the more I look at it, the less I 'm comfortable with
that statement . You know, we are talking is it a dune, is it an
upper beach. Regardless, it ' s an environmentally sensitive
area, it ' s a really critical area.
As a matter of fact, if you zoom out, which we don' t have
to do at this point, right across the road there is a bluff. So,
I mean, I think from your time at Southampton, you know as well
as I do, in theory there should not even be houses here. There
should be a natural dune, there should be a beach, there should
be a primary, secondary and then reach the bluff. That ' s what
should have happened here.
What this Board is really trying to do is say, okay, these
houses are here, they already have some improved lands, you
know, quote unquote improved, regarding sod and irrigation,
which is really has no place here. But we are trying to limit
that and not destroy any more. Because now we are a lot more
educated. And that ' s where this Board is coming from on this .
MS. VAUGHAN: Right. Understood. But as far as the standards of
the code are, whether or not the Board deems it necessary, it
is, in my mind, it ' s reasonable considering that it ' s in keeping
with the surrounding neighborhood and not just on either side,
but down the whole strip. It ' s not as though it ' s just these
three properties that have this amount of, what are we going to
call it, usable yard area that is not natural beach or wide open
sandy beach.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : So when do you deem a habitat worth protecting?
Is it a quantified number? Is it a feeling? That ' s what I 'm
struggling to see here.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Because obviously this is a natural protected
feature, right, as defined?
MS. VAUGHAN: Well, technically, no, because as defined as a
natural protected feature that includes the beach, and if the
beach ends 100 feet from the change in the vegetation, then it ' s
still 30 feet landward of this .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : So you classified this as an upper beach?
MS. VAUGHAN: Yes . As an extension of the beach.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Again, with the environmental analyst side of
you, I mean, I would think that a native vegetated upper beach,
even if we were going with that definition, which I don' t agree
with, but even if we were, I still think that ' s a place worth
protecting versus laying down sod, irrigation and lawn
treatments . You know.
MS. VAUGHAN: I get it . I totally, yes . Yes, to an extent.
However, if this were let ' s say a freshwater wetland and that
was a pond, and we were 99 feet landward of a pond, and he then
put some vegetation, you know, 110 feet away, or 120 feet away,
you would still be clearing -- if this is a brand new house,
let ' s say -- you would still be 'clearing vegetation. I mean, we
all want to protect everything to the fullest extent possible.
Board of Trustees 17 August 12, 2026
However --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Not all of us, it sounds like.
MS. VAUGHAN: (Continuing) in developing a property there is
reasonable area for use and enjoyment by the homeowner that is
immediately surrounding the structures .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, let me just interrupt you for a second.
Because when I started as a Trustee, we had an Assistant Town
Attorney who represented the Trustees that said, and he might be
in this room tonight, every property is inherently unique.
So just because your neighbor has something does not mean
that you are entitled to the same thing. So just because the
neighbor has a pre-existing lawn that goes further seaward than
this person' s does not mean that they get a further seaward
extension of their lawn.
You also talked about being that it ' s in the coastal
erosion area, and mentioning the dune in there. So since we are
going over definitions tonight, for Chapter 111, a dune area:
Dunes prevent overtopping and store sand for coastal processes .
Dunes are of the greatest protective value during conditions of
storm-induced tide water. Because dunes often protect some of
the most biologically productive areas, as well as developed
coastal areas, their protective value is especially great. The
key to maintaining a stable dune system is the establishment and
maintenance of beach grass or other vegetation on the dunes, and
insurance of a supply of nourishment sand to the dunes .
MS. VAUGHAN: Yes .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, same coastal erosion, it is a dune area.
The dune has a lot of protective values, which falls under the
definition of Chapter 275, Chapter 111, the structure, whether
you want to call this an upper beach or dune, the code also says
land within 100 feet of the areas listed above.
It ' s not the seaward end. It ' s the landward end. So 100
feet. This 100% is within jurisdiction as well as this is not
just we are picking on this one homeowner. We have done
applications up and down this stretch of road.
And one other question. Do you have DEC for this?
MR. KIELY: Yes
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So DEC considered it jurisdictional.
MR. KIELY: DEC approved what we have on the ground right now.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But is DEC jurisdictional .
MR. KIELY: So what is in existence was approved by the DEC.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : That was not his question.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Can I piggyback off that?
Just to go back to something you said about well if this
was a new build there would be some disturbance.
So this Board is seeing development still, with the
changing demographic out here, of some of these lots that,
frankly, with an environmental background, should not be built
on. And it doesn' t necessarily speak to this application, but
Board of Trustees 18 August 12, 2026
I
because you are new and because you are in front of us, I sort
of just want to respond to that comment .
So if someone came to us with a piece of property that
likely, knowing what we know today, should not be built on, we
are going to do everything we can to work with that applicant to
mitigate those factors . There is not going to be sod on the
property. There is going to be all-natural buffer.
The idea is that you have a piece of property with the
smallest footprint possible that you can go there and enjoy
nature and, you know, if you want to play frisbee, the Town has
awesome parks . Mattituck Park District has amazing property.
So that ' s sort of the trade off that you get interacting with
mother nature there. And we work really hard for all those new
properties to try to mitigate where we can.
So that is where this Board is coming from.
MS. VAUGHAN: I understand.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : So.
MS. VAUGHAN: But just to finish, just back to those standards,
the rest of the standards are whether it will cause immeasurable
increase in erosion to the subject property or surrounding
properties .
As Steve said earlier, this has been in .place now for
almost five years, and there is no erosion that has occurred,
there has been no issue to either the adjacent properties, there
is no real impact from what was placed.
We also discussed the accretion of the beach, significantly
over the past 50 years, and it seem to be continually accreting.
So that is basically it . That ' s what I got . I thank you for
listening.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Thank you.
MR. KIELY: I would just like to submit for the record the aerial
of surrounding properties .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is that today' s aerial or a couple years ago
aerial?
MR. KIELY: It ' s an aerial aerial .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
MR. KIELY: One last thing I just want to put into the record,
your informal site meetings that you like to do with a quorum of
the Trustees present, where you deliberate on applications,
violates open meetings law. And I would like to submit an e-mail
from the Committee on Open Government that substantiates that.
As counsel would advise you, violating open meetings law
may in certain circumstances void actions taken by the Board,
see Ghost Ice (sic) versus Board 'of Ed of Greenberg, and require
mandatory training.
So I would like to submit an e-mail from the Committee on
Open Government.
MS . HULSE: Just to speak to that . The Board has in its code the
Board of Trustees 19 August 12, 2026
ability to go to the properties for pre-submission and for field
inspections . That is something that the code provides for.
They do take notes with respect to that, and the notes are made
part of the file.
MR. KIELY: I agree, but I sent an e-mail to the Committee on
Open Government with the situation that I was a part of and they
found that it violated Open Meetings Law. And it may have been
brought to your attention before, but was, nothing was done
about it. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just to comment on that, 275 (a) , pre-
submission conference, discussions in the field are purely
advisory and non-binding.
This meeting is intended to facilitate communication
between the applicant and the Board.
MR. KIELY: That ' s fine. You can ask questions, but you can't
deliberate. And you deliberate and you enter into horse trading
onsite with applicants, with owners .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application, or any additional comments from the
members of the Board?
(No response) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : So after long review of this project and
referencing multiple reports from different environmental
analysts, as well as the LWRP report, which finds this to be
inconsistent, and myself having trouble justifying how to make a
project that destroyed critical habitat, dunal habitat, and
arguably upper beach habitat, and with the Board just I think
seeking to restore what was existing just a few years ago, I
find that the proposed application directly conflicts with
Chapter 275-12 (a) , (b) , (d) , (e) and (j ) .
It is a shame that that this area was destroyed. I think
it ' s very fixable, and removing the nitrogen that ' s going in
from heavily-treated sod, and removing the irrigation that ' s
coming in using a precious limited resource, and then replanting
that native vegetation and protecting the species of this
critical environmental habitat in a real special location here
is the prudent response.
So hearing no additional comments, I make a motion to close
the hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I make a motion to deny both the Coastal
Erosion application and the Wetland application due to inability
to satisfy the LWRP, and for the reasons listed at the end of
the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. KIELY: Thank you, very much. Have a good night.
Board of Trustees 20 August 12, 2026
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Have a good night .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You as well.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Number 2, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
MICHAEL CHISARI requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit to remove the existing wood stairs with ramp to beach;
install 70 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead with two 10 ' long
returns that will connect to existing bulkheading; installation
of 3"x10" CCA timber face-sheeting armor members on face of
vinyl bulkhead spaced 3" between sheets for entire length of
bulkhead; remove, replace and realign the existing rip-rap armor
stone seaward of new bulkhead but with no further seaward
projection than existing; install 40 cubic yards of clean sand
fill within the area landward of the bulkhead and install an
8 ' x50 ' un-treated timber deck on top of fill; and to install
3 ' x10 ' aluminum seasonal steps to beach with two (2) 10"
diameter CCA piles at seaward end to secure aluminum steps in
place.
Located: 58315 Route 48, Greenport . SCTM# 1000-44-2-12
The Trustees visited the site on 8/5/26. Notes from that
read: No further seaward encroachment, seaward bulkhead would
not be permitted, consider options within existing footprint .
The LWRP found the project to be inconsistent with Policy
4 . 1, Policy 6, 6. 3, with specifics to the revetment. The parcel
is inconsistent with Police 4 . 1 (d) 5, there is already an
existing bulkhead and a rip rap revetment on the property.
Additionally, proposed CCA timber material does not comply
with Town Code Chapter 275-11 .
The proposed deck addition is inconsistent with Policy
6. 3 (a) , which states compliance with Chapter 275 because the
proposed structure brings the residence closer to the wetland
boundary and makes the house location even more nonconforming.
The proposed in-kind replacement of the original bulkhead
alone is consistent with Policy 6. 3 (a) and is compliant with
Town Code 275-11 (b) (1) (a) , which states only in-place
replacement of existing functional bulkheads as defined under
275-2 is permitted. In-kind replacement relates to position and
dimensions and does not necessarily require or allow the use of
the same materials .
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, .on behalf of the applicant.
Before you now, it was short notice, but I just handed over to
Elizabeth revised plans based on the comments that I saw
addressed during your field inspection notes .
Originally we had submitted plans that included an
eight-foot wide timber deck along the face of the subject
property. We had subsequently reduced the width of the deck off
the foundation of the house to be six-foot wide, which brings it
Board of Trustees 21 August 12, 2026
approximately 1. 4 feet back landward of the existing wood ramp
that exists there today.
So if. you didn' t get those revised plans, I brought five
copies . They are latest dated 8/12/2026, which is today. I did
those this morning, that ' s why.
So we pulled back the proposed deck further landward of the
existing wood ramp and the existing steps . The purpose of this
project, if you have been there, you've seen it . There is
erosion severely impacting this residence. There is erosion
underneath the residence. If you looked under the house, there
is washout and it slopes far back almost halfway under the
house.
So the intent here is to stabilize the house as it exists,
to put in a more stable bulkhead facility, fill the area under
the house and the bulkhead, and reinstall the existing rip rap
that exists currently in front of the home.
We did show on the proposed plans the 70 feet of bulkhead
including the returns, which is 50 feet, and then ten foot on
each side, which connects to the existing neighboring bulkheads,
removing the existing ramp and stairs as they exist now, putting
in removable aluminum seasonal stairs, which would be removed
seasonally during storm times and restabilizing the existing
residence.
Part of the reasons, one of the big problems and reasons
for this bulkhead being installed six feet away from the
existing house is to gain access for the equipment, to get the
bulkhead driven, so you can fill in between the house and the
bulkhead. It would be nearly impossible to get any closer to the
house to drive the sheathing and then fill in underneath.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Could they do that by lifting the house, or --
MR. PATANJO: There is no intentions on lifting the house. This
project is not to gain a deck. The whole project is really to
stabilize the house. You know, I think I submitted photos in the
package and during your site inspection perhaps looked under
house. The erosion goes 15 to 20 feet into the bottom of the
house. Major impact to the house residence.
TRUSTEE FINORA: How does the deadmen get underneath the house?
MR. PATANJO: It ' s going to be poured concrete dead men under the
house. It ' s going to be a poured concrete system. We are going
to do a concrete -- they intend. Not we. I don' t do anything.
It ' s poured concrete .deadman style with tie rods going through
that, and then it ' s going to get filled on top of it . Which they
often pour in-place concrete deadmen systems .
TRUSTEE FINORA: Yes . And you should give yourself some credit .
I 'm sure you' re capable.
And how do they propose getting all the fill underneath
there?
MR. PATANJO: You can pump it in. The concrete will get pumped.
TRUSTEE FINORA: No, the fill. I recall being at the site and
Board of Trustees 22 August 12, 2026
perhaps at the front face of the structure.
MR. PATANJO: Probably from the side, on the west side of the
home. There is no real easy way to do it . It ' s such a tight
quarters here. Probably, knowing him, he ' ll wheelbarrow it in
and installing it by hand.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : So you moved it back from eight feet to six
feet?
MR. PATANJO: Yes . Which is really the most practical, as close
as the house as I could get it to build it, which in turn moves
the rip rap back closer toward the home, which again is in line
with the neighboring bulkheads and rip rap.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Have you gone to DEC for this?
MR. PATANJO: I did go to DEC, they asked for some revisions,
which are included in this set, and they were minor in terms of,
there was no objections to the proposal in general . The comments
were minor such as, you know, they wanted to know what we are
doing with the rip rap, that there is no further seaward
projection of the rip rap, which we included in our notes on
here. They wanted to know if there was any vegetated wetlands,
which they wanted to see on the notes on here, they wanted to
know if there was any vegetated wetlands, which they see on the
notes here. There ' s no tidal wetlands within the property area.
And they wanted, they questioned the outline of the existing rip
rap and how it would be reshaped.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, just for clarity of the record. There
is no existing bulkhead on this property, correct .
MR. PATANJO: No.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay. I think that the LWRP stated replacement
of a bulkhead, but there is no --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Well, the LWRP coordinator is probably
referencing the fact that the house is sort of serving as a
bulkhead.' There is an argument there now, that there is a cement
bulkhead that the house is literally resting on top of.
MR. PATANJO: Barely. I would not call it a bulkhead. I would
call it a foundation myself.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Just looking at the aerial, what ' s up
on the screen now, is there any consideration to do stones only,
similar to the house to the west?
MR. PATANJO: Stone only? You've seen the storms over here. We
are trying to push this wave energy out as far as we can. If you
do stone only, those waves are going to smash the whole face of
this house and it ' s going to break the eve off of the house if
it comes in hard.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So then with that scenario in a storm event
with a neighbor who doesn' t have a bulkhead, wouldn' t the same
be true to your proposal, wouldn't the waves then be smashing
your new bulkhead and new house?
MR. PATANJO: By our proposal, we are pulling the stone itself
closer towards the residence, which will effectively break up
Board of Trustees 23 August 12, 2026
more wave energy by doing that . But at the same time without the
use, without the separation distance that, you know, the idea
here is to separate that wave, the breaking up wave -- the
broken-up waves, keep them as close, further away from the house
as we can, potentially. And the bulkhead is required, again, for
the purpose .of filling in underneath the home to maintain and
retain that soil.
This stone does move around, it does shift around. And if
we did stone only, over time, over that time period, that stone
can move, it can shift, and you are going to lose the fill under
the home through the stone. So it doesn' t provide a natural,
structural component to stabilize the residence and stop the
fill from leaving under the residence.
TRUSTEE FINORA: What about a, I see the merits to stabilizing
the foundation. I 'm having trouble understanding the need to
project six-feet forward with the bulkhead. For, you know,. a
structure that arguably doesn' t have a bulkhead now. The
projection forward seems in conflict with what this Board
typically agrees with.
MR. PATANJO: Well, you know, the proposed plans that were
submitted in front of you, in accordance with some of the
comments that were mentioned, every step was taken to modify the
plans to limit the amount of encroachment into the seaward side.
So we did pull it back as much as we could. You know, the whole
idea here is to maintain this home . It ' s going to get lost if we
don' t do anything. Something needs to be done. I think
everybody is in agreement with that .
TRUSTEE FINORA: I agree with you, and I appreciate the concept
of trying to keep the wave energy as far as possible. I 'm just
not convinced that that requires the wall to be ' so far forward.
Breaking up wave energy can be done with maintaining the current
position of the stone and having that be the first impact.
But to me this feels like a seaward projection of a wall
that gets the benefit of having a deck on it now, and I 'm having
trouble seeing the need for that forward projection.
What about, you know, have you considered alternative
retaining structure types, like sheet pile wall with batter
piles as opposed to tiebacks under the structure? Or something
else that could get that bulkhead closer to the structure?
MR. PATANJO: We did not consider that, but in terms of adding
additional rock, one of the things that we would have a problem
with is the DEC. They have very strict guidelines on the amount
of stone you are allowed to add in linear footage. Your maximum
I 've ever seen permitted is 2 . 5 tons per linear foot. There is
no way we can build this project with the existing stone in
place, and meet the requirements of the DEC' s 2 . 5 tons of stone,
because we are going to need to build up a lot of stone back
there. You' re going to need a lot of additional rock to be built
up while . keeping the existing in-place.
Board of Trustees 24 August 12, 2026
The intent here is to keep the existing in-place, put in
the wall, and then just reshape it a little bit after it ' s done.
We didn't intend on bringing in any additional stone. And that
was one of the comments that the DEC had, was to limit the
amount of stone. So to meet the DEC' s requirements --
TRUSTEE FINORA: I follow you. It ' s just hard for me to imagine
the weight per linear foot. I 'm certainly looking at the
neighbor' s house, I 'm seeing that it ' s a fairly well laid out
revetment there, with dense placement of stones, sizeable
stones, and if I could summarize my concerns, is simply the
seaward projection of six feet for that. bulkhead. I agree with
you on the other concepts here.
MR. PATANJO: So, don' t forget this house has, for purposes of
projection seaward, there ' s a two-foot overhang over the house.
And I think it ' s shown on the survey. You can actually see it.
It has a roof over, which is, I believe it ' s a two, 2 . 2 feet
overhang. So if we have to be beyond that otherwise those, that
wave energy can go right under and break under that eave and
it ' s going to get trapped under there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Although to your point though, you are breaking
up the waves well before with the revetment, right? I mean
that ' s --
MR. PATANJO: The intent .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Yes .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think another thing to 'note here, this is
one the trickiest areas in town, and we have just been dealing
with a project a little further to the west, that you are very
familiar with.
MR. PATANJO: That I am familiar with, yes .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes, but this house is already ahead of the
pier line, and, you know, these lots are very tight . It ' s a very
constrained property and limited amount of area for the
applicant to work in. So we understand those constraints .
However, if the only way to make a bulkhead is by projecting six
feet seaward, perhaps a bulkhead is not the right solution in
this location. Perhaps piles or, you know, the stone armoring
that you are talking about coming up against, perhaps a wall
built against the house is a more appropriate solution in this
location.
MR. PATANJO: The problem is driving the sheathing. That ' s the
problem. He needs this two-foot overhang and he needs a little
bit of room in there. That ' s the problem we are having and
that ' s why the projection is out six feet, to drive that
sheathing. And the sheathing is really the ultimate reason why
we are here is for that sheathing, for the purpose of
stabilizing the house and boxing it off, and then tying in the
tie rods to a footing underneath.
If the projection is a major issue, we can pull it back
another foot, but, you know, the dock builder pretty much said I
Board of Trustees 25 August 12, 2026
need four feet away from that overhang. That ' s why we set it at
six feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I have seen, the dock builders are some amazing
operators . I have seen them work magic before. So, that ' s a
group of people you want in the apocalypse.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Is there anyone else want to speak regarding
the application? Trustees?
(No response) .
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I make a motion to approve the application,
with the following conditions : The bulkhead not to exceed
further seaward than three feet from the existing foundation,
and deck not to extend seaward of the bulkhead, and the stone
revetment to be pulled back three feet to follow the bulkhead.
By reducing the seaward projection of the structure, by
acknowledging that the foundation under the house is actually
serving as a stopgap, thereby address the LWRP concerns about
bulkheads and revetments, bringing it into consistency.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL .AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 3, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of 555
SOUNDVIEW REALTY, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to construct a 100 linear foot long rock
revetment with two 5 ' to 7 ' long returns along toe of bluff with
a maximum of 150 tons of stone; provide 100 cubic yards of clean
sand fill; install 2"xl2" un-treated terracing boards placed at
6 ' on-center along bluff face and plant disturbed areas with
Cape American beach grass plugs 12" on-center; install a 3 ' tall
by 4 ' wide berm at top of bluff to be planted with native long
grasses; remove existing 3 . 5 'x10 ' steps to beach and install a
4 ' x6' platform with 4 ' xl2 ' stairs parallel to bluff face; and to
maintain and not disturb existing 3 . 5 'x8 . 5 ' steps and 9 'x8 '
timber deck with benches; and to relocate existing pool fence to
a minimum of 20 ' separation to top of bluff.
Located: 555 Sound View Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-3-7
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 5th of
August, noting to avoid hardscaping where possible; cement
structure beneath seating area to be removed; add buffer; no
grass seaward of gravel; the terracing may be unnecessary.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent. The inconsistencies include: That the proposed
action is on a waterfront parcel along the wetland boundary of
the Long Island Sound; the existing 9 'x8 ' deck and the rock set
in concrete underneath are located on the bluff face, a natural
Board of Trustees 26 August 12, 2026
protected feature; the structure is inconsistent with Policy
4 . 2, which calls for no development in natural protected feature
areas .
The proposed construction of 100-foot-long rock revetment
along the toe of bluff is consistent with their policy, and,
sorry, I 'm trying to find the relevant parts of the
inconsistency.
Okay, I think the majority of the inconsistency has to .do
with the structure underneath the stairs .
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff. Patanjo on behalf of the applicant.
This application is part of a neighboring application as
well, which is up next on the agenda at 655 .
Similar treatments on both properties to stabilize the
existing shoreline that is eroding. It ' s installation of this
proposed rip rap/toe armor/restabilization and refortification
of the bluff, with plantings and terraces, terrace boards .
There is no objection, as referenced on the comments, to
removing any existing concrete or stone under the existing upper
deck and stairs . Otherwise this is a typical shoreline
restoration/revegetation project .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, for your comments .
When we were in the field we saw that it was quite a steep
face to this bluff and had thought about, had wondered if you
had considered cutting back the top of the bluff to make a
better angle of repose and thereby not needing the terracing
that is suggested in this application.
MR. PATANJO: The terracing is mainly for time until it gets
stabilized by the vegetation. It is quite steep, it ' s nothing
greater than we have done in the past on similar projects . .
I don' t think that there is any major objection to pulling
it back slightly, but we don' t want to go back beyond the upper,
the top of bluff line. We want to maintain that in addition to
maintaining the existing buffer that is there.
There is an existing eight-foot wide non-turf buffer. If
that eight-foot wide non-turf buffer can be part of the
reshaping of the bluff we have no objections to it, as long as
the not buffer line, it ' s part and integral to that line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I 'm genuinely curious, is that a concern with
just loss of usable like backyard space?
MR. PATANJO: That would be my concern, yes .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I understand that. I just, it seems to me, in
thinking a little outside of the box, that there is an
opportunity here where this is extremely, it ' s a hard-cut edge
of this, you know, bluff/bank area. But it ' s not that high. So
I mean, with your professional experience, do you think .
it ' s -- and I 'm really just wondering -- do you think it ' s
possible if you cut this and create a new angle and then lock in
Board of Trustees 27 August 12, 2026
the base as proposed, and then planted this . I mean, could you
really like actually fix this spot by doing that?
MR. PATANJO: I would still use terrace boards . I would
absolutely use them regardless if we reshape it or not.
Absolutely.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : But in all honestly, what about the reshaping.
It seems like a rare opportunity, and I don' t even know that
this applies to the next one, because the next one is higher and
has different vegetation along the top.
This, because of its elevation and how steep it is, but
also has, like I 've said with elevation, how low it is, do you
think it ' s actually like, as opposed to -- you do a lot of
bandaiding here and try to push for 30 years .
Do you think by changing the angle here and doing it
properly and planting it, and even with the terracing, do you
think it gives a greater opportunity to make this like an even
longer-term fix?
MR. PATANJO: I don' t disagree with that . I think if we pulled
it back at the top. And there is already gravel here. We have
a large gravel portion that can be maintained. If we did
maintain that existing gravel area, I see no issues with pulling
back this eight feet to reshape the bluff at a lesser of an
angle. I think that ' s a good idea and good suggestion, which
would be part of a revised plan, while maintaining that gravel
area as the existing buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : So you don' t want to lose the gravel. So you
are saying you don' t want to go back any further than the
leading edge of the gravel .
MR. PATANJO: Yes
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Which does, to some extent, if you look at the
aerial, you have the gravel buffer and then there is that strip
of very nice green grass there, where, it ' s an odd place to -have
lawn. It ' s non-usable. So I think at minimum, shaving that off
would, I don' t know if that ' s enough to really achieve what I
would like to achieve, but it would probably help with your
angle.
MR. PATANJO: I don' t disagree. The gravel is there. The space
seaward of the gravel is not really usable area. You know, we
would do some terracing to stop any or all of the rainwater from
washing over land, and I ' d. probably modify it to, if the change
was to be made, modify it to install some sort of berm at the
top, to . stop any overland flow running down the bluff.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think regardless of whether you remove part
of the top of the bluff or not, we were looking to increase the
buffer area as part of this application.
So I see there is a fence proposed roughly 22 feet in some
areas and 25 feet in other areas. My thought is that everything
seaward of that fence, allowing for a minimum of 40 feet of yard
there, everything seaward could become part of a vegetated
Board of Trustees 28 August 12, 2026
buffer to also help reduce any rainfall runoff that could be
going down the face of that bluff.
MR. PATANJO: Right. So you are proposing to transfer or change
the existing gravel into a vegetated buffer. Remove the gravel .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: As part of our definition for vegetated
buffer, areas could continue to remain gravel, but other areas
would have to be fully vegetated. So that would be up to you to
decide based on our definition of vegetated non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : To follow that point, actually, and thank you,
for bringing that up. There was quite a bit of runoff coming
from the top too, which is contributing to this . Maybe even more
so in this spot.
So even if it was a plan that incorporated the gravel with
plantings, it would at least stop of the rest. And I know that
you can incorporate a berm as well . But the more you expand the
actual planted area, the more we are achieving the desired
result.
So I think the two can be incorporated in this situation.
And really lock in -- it seems to me like this is a really rare
opportunity to really fix something.
MR. PATANJO: And I think it would be a good fix with the mix and
reshaping it to have a more gradual slope on the bluff.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, is there anyone else here wishing to
speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Hearing no other comments, then I make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I' make a motion to approve this application
subject to the submission of new plans depicting a vegetated
buffer area seaward of the proposed fence, and the removal of
the concrete structure beneath the stairs . And with the removal
of that structure we are thereby bringing this into consistency
with the LWRP. We also ask that you consider adjusting the angle
of repose as part of this project, and include that on the
plans . That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE FINORA: Number 4, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of CANDICE &
MITCHELL BURR requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit to construct 100 linear feet of rock revetment along
eroded toe of bluff with a maximum 195 tons of stone; along the
bluff face provide 100 cubic yards of clean sand fill, untreated
timber 2"x12" terrace boards to be placed at 6 ' on-center and
plant area with Cape American beach grass plugs 12" on-center in
Board of Trustees 29 August 12, 2026
for limits of disturbed buff face; install proposed 3 ' tall by
4 ' wide berm along top of bluff and plant with native long
grasses; and install a proposed set of stairs to beach
consisting of a 41x4 ' top platform, 41x6 ' stairs, 4 ' x4 ' bottom
landing with 4 ' x6 ' aluminum retractable stairs to beach.
Located: 655 Sound View Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-3-8 .
The Trustees visited the property for a site inspection on
August 5th, noting more erosion visible on the face terracing
may be more appropriate here versus neighbor. Consider removing
top of bluff to find better angle of repose.
The LWRP found the project to be consistent .
Is there anyone here wishing to speak on behalf of the
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant .
Similar with the neighboring property that we just
discussed, we have no objection to modifying this bluff to
increase the angle of repose to match the neighboring angle of
repose. Same consideration would be made with maintaining the
terrace boards, installing a berm at the top of the bluff, and
reshaping it as needed.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Do we have a requested angle of repose?
MR. PATANJO: No.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Do you have a suggestion for that?
MR. PATANJO: It will have to be determined in the field. The
typical, like we said on the last one, we ' ll probably pull top
of bank, top of bluff distance back eight to ten feet, and
reshape it in that .
TRUSTEE FINORA: Yes . I just don' t recall what the next property
looks like, how that would blend.
MR. PATANJO: Oh, to the other side.
TRUSTEE FINORA: To the other side, yes .
MR. PATANJO: Obviously we ' ll blend it in as conscientiously as
possible.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Yes, we have to maintain some flexibility, then,
with that.
MR. PATANJO: Yes . And to maintain relationships as well .
TRUSTEE FINORA: Right. Okay, we also have the comment here of
the addition of a buffer, which is not noted on the current
plans, but we should be looking to match the adjacent property,
which is approximately 25 feet.
MR. PATANJO: 25 feet from the existing top of bluff. Okay.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Or would that be 25 feet from the modified
as-proposed top of bluff?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think the current is what you are talking
about. It ' s also worth noting that there is a bulkhead.
TRUSTEE FINORA: There ' s a hard structure, yes .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: On the other side. Yes .
TRUSTEE FINORA: 25 from the current top.
Are there any other comments from the Board?
Board of Trustees 30 August 12, 2026
(Negative response) .
Any other comments from the audience?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE FINORA: I make a motion to approve this application
subject to new plans depicting the addition of a 25-foot
vegetated non-turf buffer. And comments to match the angle of
repose with the adjacent property to the west .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
.(ALL AYES) .
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland Permits, Number 1, Jeffrey
Patanjo on behalf of ALLISON TUPPER requests a Wetland Permit to
remove existing concrete bulkhead and returns, and replace with
96 linear foot long vinyl bulkhead with two 8 liner foot long
vinyl returns in same location as existing; replace existing
steps to water with new 51x5 ' steps; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 10 ' wide vegetated non-turf buffer along
the landward edge of the new bulkhead.
Located: 3050 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-41
The Trustees conducted a field inspection August 6th, notes
remove collapsed concrete wall and block wall. Preserve or
replant grass seaward of wall. Steps to be a maximum of
four-feet wide.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant.
As you see, the existing concrete bluff wall has fallen
down, and to protect the property, is to replace it in the same
location, same elevations, in the same location as the existing.
We have no objection to modifying the width of the proposed
steps to four-foot wide.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And how about the removal of the old concrete
down there?
MR. PATANJO: Where is there an old --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It ' s seaward of the concrete bulkhead. There
is a whole like concrete walkway.
MR. PATANJO: Oh, we are going to add that to the plans, to
remove existing concrete seaward of the replacement bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. And replant.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
Board of Trustees 31 August 12, 2026
(No response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that any concrete seaward of the concrete
bulkhead be removed, and that area be replanted with new plans
showing, and also with reduction of the stairs to no wider than
four feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Number 2, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of WILLIAM
& AIDA HARTUNG requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
84 linear feet of existing deteriorated timber bulkhead with new
vinyl bulkhead in same location as existing; and to establish
and perpetually maintain a 10 ' wide vegetated non-turf buffer
along the landward edge of the new bulkhead.
Located: 1200 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-5-15 .
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Board most recently visited the property on the 6th of
August and noted that it was a straightforward application, with
the included non-turf vegetated buffer as proposed.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. And
straightforward remove/replace bulkhead, same location, and
install a vegetated non-turf buffer. If there are any questions,
I 'm happy to answer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to
speak regarding this application or any comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I make a motion to approve this application
with the stipulation of new plans calling out that the proposed
non-turf ten-foot wide buffer be vegetated with native species .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second, all in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. PATANJO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Number 3, Costello Marine Contracting Corp.
on behalf of JOHN F. COSTELLO TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to
remove existing ±8 ' diameter octagonal gazebo, existing davit
Board of Trustees 32 August 12, 2026
and two ladders, and 3 ' wide brick walkway; remove ±98 ' of
existing bulkhead and construct ±98 ' of new vinyl bulkhead
in-kind and in-place; reinstall existing davit and ladders;
construct 4 ' wide decking using a tropical hardwood along entire
front of bulkhead; place natural stone (approximately 14 cubic
yards) on remainder of property; and replace existing ±8 '
diameter octagonal gazebo in-place.
Located: Wiggins Lane, Greenport, SCTM# 1000-35-4-28 . 3
The Trustees visited the site on 8/5/26. Notes from that
read: Native plantings, note buffer.
During work session discussion confirmed need to have
vegetation on landward side of decking and around the gazebo.
The LWRP found the project to be consistent .
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the
application?
(No response) .
Members of the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I make a motion to approve the application
with drawing depicting vegetation on the landward side of deck
and around the gazebo.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: CONTINUED FROM 3/20/24 AND 6/11/25 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
Board of Trustees 33 August 12,2026
the east side of dwelling wrapping around seaward side of
dwelling, and within the. area of the retaining walls; remove
existing concrete pad seaward of dwelling and install a ±4 ..6 '
wide pervious gravel walk.
Located: 1695 Bay Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-9-21 . 1
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 7th of
May, 2024, noting concrete path on seaward side cut back to home
and removed; drainage native plantings to hold soil; side yard
concrete to be removed; IA septic system needed; drywell located
landward of home; non-turf buffer wherever possible.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent. We have had several hearings on this matter, and
all of the Minutes from the previous hearings are a part of this
file, including the inconsistencies .
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. REICHERT: Good evening, everyone, my name is Martha
Reichert, I 'm from the lawfirm of Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley,
Dubin & Quartararo, 32 West 2nd Street, Riverhead, New York.
I 'm appearing on behalf of my partner Karen Hoeg.
And so my, understanding is that the Board now has revised
plans before it . An inspection was conducted last week. And I 'm
here to see if the Board has any questions, and if not, then to
respectfully request that the hearing be closed.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Most recently revised plans were
stamp received in our office on April llth, 2025; is that
correct?
MS. REICHERT: I believe you have the Marshal Paetzel plans,
prepared by Jonathan Paetzel from that?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Yes.
MS . REICHERT: Yes .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, I just want to reiterate some of the
concerns from the last hearing where we reviewed these plans,.
because from my review I don' t believe that they have all been
addressed.
We had asked to see additional removal of concrete and
impervious surface along the seaward and western side of the
properties in order to address the runoff issues that are
contributing to the instability of the bank.
Has that been addressed in any way?
MS. REICHERT: We are going off of these plans right now from
April of 2025?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: That ' s what you just told us, yes .
MS . REICHERT: Well, I 'm opening them up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : We've actually asked several times now for new
plans depicting the request of. the Board, which was agreed upon
several times by the applicant and representation. But we have
not received those plans yet, which is why we are here now.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We had also discussed pulling the smaller wood
Board of Trustees 34 August 12, 2026
deck back from the top of the bank, restoring and revegetating
the bank, and minimizing additional structural measures wherever
possible. So like those retaining walls that are being
proposed.
We had also required the removal of the tires and debris as
part of what we discussed, and the installation of an IA system.
So these are not new comments. These are all part of the opening
hearing. I just wanted to see if any of those comments had been
addressed between the last hearing in now.
MS. REICHERT: Sure. So hopefully you can all appreciate that I 'm
new to this application, but my understanding is with respect to
the tire cleanup, the owner, this predates his, those tires have
been there for a very long time. All of that cleanup would be
part of, you know, some sort of comprehensive wetland
remediation. The owner did grant the requested covenanted buffer
for the non-disturbance area pursuant to its 2018 approvals, and
the 2019 ' s, which have been in compliance, or a finding of
compliance with the prior approval that was issued toward the
end of 2019 by the Trustees .
I believe that from the application description that you
have before you, there are certain things that are being
proposed. But as far as I know, the plans that you have, the
most recent ones, are the ones from April of 2025 .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Correct . And I do want to correct the record.
It does state here that the removal of the tires has been
addressed. So that is the one point that is actually being
addressed with these plans, but the other outstanding issues
don' t seem to have been.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Quick question. You mentioned a remediation
plan. Did we get that? Because I don' t see anything beside
that April 11th plan.
MS . REICHERT: Well, I don' t think there was a requested
remediation plan.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I .think that in our previous public hearing we
had discussed natural ways of stabilizing the bank, including
putting in coir logs . Coir logs are typically planted. So all
of that would be part of a comprehensive planting plan that
should have been submitted for our consideration as part of
this . When we had previously spoken about --
MS. REICHERT: I believe you have a letter in the record from
Jonathan Paetzel, registered landscape architect, discussing why
a coir log system is not appropriate, because it cannot
physically serve as a retaining wall, because of the way coir
logs are used for, you know, various different plans, a good
section has to be exposed above, and so they are not suitable
for any sort of retaining purposes .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just that is what we use coir logs for, is for
retaining purposes on all of the projects where we use coir
logs . So I just, I would have to say that I disagree with that
Board of Trustees 35 August 12, 2026
interpretation from that landscape architect .
MS . REICHERT: Well perhaps Mr. Finora, who has an engineering
background, can add some --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Sorry, was that you questioning my authority
to say that, or --
MS . REICHERT: No, no, no, I 'm not questioning the authority.
It ' s just that you have a letter from someone who is a licensed
design professional saying that coir logs are not suitable for
replacement of a retaining wall, and you have an engineer who
sits on your Board who has that specific sort of expertise to
understand that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Well, and you are also talking to a Board that
has decades of experience using coir logs and other alternatives
to 30-inch concrete walls . So there is a large amount of
knowledge and precedence up here. And has worked with Mr.
Paetzel for a few years on a number of projects and has seen a
lot of alternatives to the proposal that we have seen here.
MS . REICHERT: All right, I still stand by the fact that Mr.
Paetzel submitted a letter into the record stating why the coir
log system would not be an appropriate system here.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Did Mr. Paetzel comment at all that the
erosion that is caused by the concrete and the impervious
surface at the top of the blank, which is adding to that
erosion, so we are putting more structure on a bank that is
caused by the upland structures?
MS . REICHERT: Mr. Paetzel ' s letter is directly addressing the
coir logs . But if you want some sort of, you know, we weren't
requested to put any sort of engineering report about what is
occurring at the top of the retaining wall .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : No, the request from last hearing which, if you
read the Minutes before tonight ' s hearing, was just saying that
this is an aggressive application for a bank restoration, and
that a lot of problem here, because you obviously don' t have
wave activities in this site, so a lot of the problem is caused
by the applicant having a large concrete structure along the
entire seaward side of the house, including under a wooden deck.
Which is not necessary. It ' s a remnant from a past concrete
patio that was built on top of. But the whole structure is
pitched towards this bank, which is just causing your erosion.
So what we 've talked about for years now with your client
is removal of the concrete along the top of the bank, which was
agreed to multiple times . And I guess I ' ll ask you why is it
that we keep having the same discussion and promises of plans
and removal of the concrete? Even if we just speak to the
concrete steps and walkways and patios, why haven' t we received
new plans on those, the removal of those items?
MS . REICHERT: I 'm not prepared to answer that question because I
just don' t have the information, right, I 've reviewed the file
that was presented to me, I looked at .the online file to make
Board of Trustees 36 August 12, 2026
sure I wasn't missing anything, and my, you know, paper file and
online file on WebLink, appeared to be the same. So if that is a
specific question that the Board has, I do have the applicant
here tonight, so why don' t I just take a moment to confer with
my client and I ' ll come back up.
(After a brief conference, this proceeding continues as
follows) .
MS. REICHERT: I am bringing the property owner Mr. Doug Robalino .
up to address some of those issues .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Just for clarification sake, did you read the
Minutes from the prior two hearings, prior to attending this
one?
MS . REICHERT: Yes .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Okay. So you are familiar with what was asked
and the conversations we had.
MS. REICHERT: Yeah, I mean, I 'm familiar with it, I 've read
them. However, I 'm here today and I can' t address everything
other than the fact that this is what is before the Board right
now and this is a continued public hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Why not?
MS . REICHERT: I 'm sorry, what?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Why not?
MS. REICHERT: Because I was not personally there. I read those
Minutes but I can' t say anything. I was not at any of the prior
meetings or discussions or work sessions .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : But don' t you work with, last meeting was Ms .
McGivern, and before that was Ms . Hoeg. Don' t you work with them
at the law firm, and isn' t that shared information that you
would -- I 'm just a little confused why we are starting over. I
guess that' s my issue.
MS . REICHERT: I don' t think we are starting over, but you' re
asking me to comment on something that I was not there for,
right, so I can' t say, oh, you asked me this, right, that ' s
someone else. I think we are getting far afield. I have Mr.
Robalino here, and he ' s here to answer your questions . So why
don' t you let him talk.
MR. ROBALINO: Let ' s talk about Jonathan Paetzel first. He felt
that the elevation at the back of the property was too high to
use the coir logs . That ' s why he did not want to go in that
direction. As far as taking out the old tires, which have been -
there 50-plus years, that would all be incorporated into
whatever we wind up agreeing to. I have no problem. I want to
get rid of them.
I agree to do everything you wanted. The only issue we have
an argument about is the AI system. Nothing else. I ' ll give you
everything else you want here tonight . That ' s the only problem
that we have.
MS . HULSE: You have not provided new plans reflecting that, sir.
MR. ROBALINO: If that ' s what you want, we ' ll have them here at
Board of Trustees 37 August 12, 2026
the next meeting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Well, we 've asked for that for years with three
different attorneys now. I 'm very confused how we wound up here
again, having the same conversation. Even if you disagree with
the IA, but we agree with everything else, it makes no sense to
me why we are over a year out on the last iteration of plans,
but they are not even corrected for what we requested and what
you agreed to.
So even removing the septic component from the
conversation, which we can address next, I don' t understand why
we are having the same conversation. I mean, I 've been dealing
with this property for I think a decade, for nine years at
least, with the same property.
MR. ROBALINO: It was a constant problem, then COVID came,
everything got stopped. You know, it ' s just gone on long, but
it has .
I sat there while waiting tonight, reading through the
Minutes, and there ' s just a lot of information in there that
makes me out as some sort of a monster. I went to a contractor,
a licensed guy, you've heard the story before, he took down too
many walls . In there, I believe Mr. Hooley (sic) says that I
kept working with stop work orders . I never did that, Miss .
John Jarski (sic) wouldn' t allow that. John Jarski, we were I
guess coming into January said finish the sheathing on it, get
it enclosed. Then stop. Which is exactly what we did.
He said to me your guy went too far. Okay, what did we do.
Give me new plans, consider it a new house, bring them back in,
we approve them, we get going. At a great deal of expense on my
part. I did it. They are happy. No problem. Approved. Just walk
across the hall and see the Trustees . I didn't even know who you
were. I go over here and all of this starts . And they really
should not have done that. It never should have gone that far.
No one told me that that would trigger the IA system.
How do we get out of it? If you want the set of plans
agreeing to everything you've -asked for tonight, I ' ll have by
your next meeting. I only have a problem with that system. I
have Suffolk County Health Department saying they will accept
what I have right now. '
I took away a bedroom. It was a four-bedroom house. I have
three. I did not add a bathroom. I did not add a kitchen. They
are willing to accept my septic the way it is .
If we can come to agreement on that, I will give you
everything you want here tonight . And some of it was previous,
50-years old, some of that cement . I ' ll take it out if you want
it out .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Well, it ' s not that I want it out. It ' s that ' s
what is causing a lot of your. erosion problems . And I still
don' t think, I mean, you addressed the history of the project,
which I guess is good for your attorney to learn, but I don' t
Board of Trustees 38 August 12, 2026
understand -- my question is we have been asking for this for
years, just include that as part of the project . And we still
don' t have plans for that. And we talked about it . in the field
and we've talked about it here, and you' re saying we' ll have it
by next meeting. And I mean, it ' s not that I want to see it
out, it ' s that I want to see your property not erode. And by
removing that, it solves the problem. So I 'm having a really
hard time trying to figure out how we are still right here.
MR. ROBALINO: Trustee Krupski, with all due respect, and I know
there is some erosion back there.
I bought it 35 years ago. It was exactly like that. But
that ' s okay. I 'm not going to argue with that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : So why do you need two cement walls then?
MR. ROBALINO: I 'm sorry?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Why do you need two cement 30-inch walls then,
if there is no erosion?
MR. ROBALINO: I have to tell you something, going back to the
beginning of the renovation project, we wanted to incorporate,
you know, the old retaining wall is falling down, but we ' ll do
the whole thing at once. The Building Department suggested that .
Said, well, you've got to put this, you've got to put walls up.
And then they said, all right, you' re doing the garage, the
house, you' re taking on too much at once. Do that and come back
for the retaining wall . That was their idea.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, Mr. Robalino, you've owned the house for
35 years?
MR. ROBALINO: At least.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And you said that you didn' t know you needed
a Trustee permit for anything.
MR. ROBALINO: I never did anything to the house. Never.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, Trustee Krupski and I have been on the
Board for eleven years now. We were at your property for a
permit for a wood deck, to replace your wood deck, in the past.
So obviously you are aware that you needed a Trustee permit to
replace the deck, but you didn' t need a Trustee permit to
replace a house?
MR. ROBALINO: All of this started in ' 18.. The permitting
process, in ' 18 . So it can' t be -- it ' s eight years, it ' s not
ten. It' s eight years . Then COVID and everything else came in.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But that permit that we were on for was for a
deck.
MR. ROBALINO: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And somehow we went from a permit for a deck
to an as-built house.
MR. ROBALINO: I told you how I got here. I 'm not against what
you do. I don' t want this to become the Hamptons . I like what
you do. But I didn' t build a McMansion. I took an old cottage,
renovated it. The guy went too far, and then he abandons me, and
here I am. And it doesn' t seem to be a way out of this . I 'm
Board of Trustees 39 August 12, 2026
trying.
If we can come to some sort of, it ' s only the septic. I ' ll
give you everything else you want. And we ' ll have the plans
drawn up by your next Board meeting.
MS. HULSE: Sir, do you have an application before the Building
Department now? Because you just mentioned something that seems
strange to me, because they don't deal with retaining walls . So
I 'm just curious, do you have a pending application in the
Building Department now?
MR. ROBALINO: I don' t think I have anything -- unless something
was from the original . I don' t know of anything recent . No, I
have nothing recent . Nothing at all.
MS . HULSE: Okay.
MR. ROBALINO: And I 'm reluctant to do, like, the suggestion
Karen had said to me, why don' t you take the tires out. I go,
well, that old nasty retaining wall will fall . It can' t be done
in piecemeal . We have to agree on -- I 'm reluctant to spend a
little bit of money and then find that you still won't approve
it . If we agree to everything but that system, I ' ll do
everything you want. I don't care anymore. I 'm looking for a way
out .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think this Board can appreciate the
frustration that you have, and that you have gone through a lot,
that you have been to different departments and everything, and.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I don' t appreciate that at all.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, I was going to get to our frustration,
and I think that, from when I come in and look at this, I can
see the 2010 imagery -- Liz, if you want to pull that up -- it
is a cottage on the water. And the application that came before
the Trustees was very minor in nature. And so the Trustees made
an approval for an application that .had to do with decks .
To then come back and see, if you now want .to pull up the
most recent, we are seeing a completely rebuilt, much larger
house.
MS. REICHERT: It ' s not larger. It was built upon the existing,
foundation.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It is obviously a larger house --
MS . REICHERT: It has a deck that was added to it.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: (Continuing) 100% larger house --
MS . REICHERT: (Continuing) it has a deck that was added to -
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Please don' t interrupt the Board.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: The house is larger by square footage, and we
are also seeing the addition of a large garage and we are seeing
the addition of a large driveway. And so for any applicant that
would come before this Board, with a proposal to do this kind of
work, there are people here who are expediters for this type of
work all the time, an IA system is a standard part of that, and
it has been for a very long time with this Board.
It would be unjust for this Board to allow you to proceed
Board of Trustees 40 August 12, 2026
without an IA system for the reason that you did. it and now you
want permission for it. It is not right, it is not something
that we would be able -- it would not be fair to the remainder
of Southold town for us to do something like that.
We cannot reward somebody who comes in, doesn' t get a
permit for a complete demolition/rebuild of a house, rebuilds
the house without an IA septic system and then says I don' t want
to put one in now because I 'm already done with my project . That
is not fair to the residents of Southold town.
MS. REICHERT: I think that perhaps Trustee Gillooly is missing
some of the timeline here, which is that in 2019, Mr. Robalino
went before the ZBA because of the very fact that this went from
being a renovation to becoming a demolition and reconstruction
of the home in the existing footprint, and the ZBA' s findings,
because I know
Ms . Gillooly said that the house is bigger, found that it is
substantially the same project that was approved, that the
as-built residence complied to the 2018 plans when it was a
renovation, and moreover they made a finding of fact also that
this was built on the existing foundation, it was not expanded,
and they also, in looking favorably upon approving the
application, held that Mr. Robalino had in fact reduced density
and went from four bedrooms to three.
Those are all findings of fact in the ZBA decision from
2019.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Mr. Robalino, is it your position that the
house that was rebuilt is no larger in square footage?
MR. ROBALINO: Absolutely. And we can --
TRU.STEE GILLOOLY: In square footage.
MR. ROBALINO: And we can go back to the Building Department,
take the original renovation plans . It ' s the same exact house.
Not one extra square foot.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, so then let ' s get into the accessory
structure then. We have a new concrete patio that is on the west
side of the property that we have requested to be removed. All
of these things are additions . And it doesn' t matter if it is
the same size house or a larger house, although I thought it
was, and you corrected me, I was wrong, I apologize. Even if
it ' s exactly the same .size house, for a full demolition and a
rebuild, an IA system is required.
MS . REICHERT: However, when this occurred, was prior to the
enactment of the requirement that new construction required an
IA system
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Not by this Board.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Not by this Board. By Suffolk County. This
Board enacted and required IA systems prior to the
implementation of Suffolk County.
MS. REICHERT: Actually this Board didn' t . It ' s in the building
chapter --
Board of Trustees 41 August 12, 2026
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, ma' am, we had major renovations --
MS. REICHERT: In 2017, I understand, I read the local law. But
that is --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes . Here is the question. When you applied
to the ZBA in 2018 did you apply to the Trustees at the same
time?
MS . REICHERT: In 2018 there was a corresponding Trustee permit
that was issued, and in fact that permit was signed off by Mr.
Domino on July of 2019, as being substantially in compliance
with all of the approved plans .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: For a demolition of a house.
MS . REICHERT: It was for a renovation at that point . And even --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That did not reach the level of a demolition.
MS. REICHERT: I understand that. But remember, in 2019, in
March, they went before the ZBA to legalize the renovation that
turned into a demo, and new build, and in July of 2019, the
Trustees signed off that everything was in compliance with the
plans. And that is under the Trustee permit that was issued in
2018, there is a C of C, it ' s the first page when you open it up
on WebLink, dated July 22nd, 2019, signed by Michael Domino.
MS . HULSE: And what was that approval for, specifically?
MS . REICHERT: That was the 2018 permit that included the deck
and the renovation.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Deck and renovation, but not a new house, new
garage, new septic.
MS . REICHERT: Sure, but that had already gone to the ZBA for
legalization of the as-built, and the Trustees could have at
that point not issued their Certificate of Compliance, but they
did in 2019. And those are all exhibits that are within your
file on this permit application.
MR. ROBALINO: It wasn' t the same garage on the opposite side of
the property, which I 'm sure the older pictures will show that
came down because it couldn' t be saved. It' s a bigger garage
that went up. And I was not allowed to put it on the other side.
They wanted it over there. That ' s why it went there. And that
was a separate permitting process . That was separate from the
house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : So it seems like you got reacquainted with the
file, which I think is great. Very quickly.
So, I understand how we got here, to some degree. I don' t
understand why more steps have not been taken to remedy it at
this point in time. And that ' s why, and I still never got a
straight answer on why the plans haven' t been updated. But I
guess for now we ' ll move on from that.
But the difficult -- taking out all . the drama and the back
and forth and the stamped letters, what happened is you had a
contractor that got out of control, it became a demo, and then
it forces this Board to look at it through a different lens .
I don' t want to be here. You seem like a very nice
Board of Trustees 42 August 12, 2026
gentleman, but I don' t want to continue to see you for years on
end talking about this project . You don' t want to be here. But
this is what happens when we don't monitor -- and we see this,
unfortunately, all the time. Oh, the contractor got out of
control. But it puts this Board in a really tough spot where we
are now trying to remedy a situation where we don' t want to be,
and we are conforming to our code and precedent, which has been
going on for a very long time, and we are a very consistent
Board.
So we are trying to mitigate what ' s been done here and
conform to the code, and what you are asking for just simply
does not . And it ' s not something that I want . It ' s just that is
just the reality of the situation.
MS. REICHERT: Sure. I do want to bring back a couple more
relevant facts here, because my client is not an attorney, but
earlier counsel had asked if there were any open building
permits . Yes . The original building permit for the house is
still an open building permit because he' s gone back and gotten
ZBA legalization, the Trustees signed off in July of 2019 --
MS. HULSE: You are saying "signed off" but that ' s not a
legal -- it ' s a fiction. That ' s a legal fiction. What you are
calling a sign-off is not a permit.
MS. REICHERT: (Inaudible) it was signed off by Trustee Domino.
MS . HULSE: It ' s not a sign-off. That ' s meaningless for us . And
you know that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : That ' s for the deck.
MS . REICHERT: No, I don't, because that is literally the last
piece of paper that was filed in that permit . But what I 'm
talking about is there is an open building permit from 2018
which is, you know, in my mind, is the controlling date under
the code of when this application was reviewed, permitted. It ' s
since been legalized in 2019.
And so while this Board is here and there were tremendous
amount of changes, with respect to implementation of new laws,
both at the local town and county levels regarding IA systems,
Suffolk County has again told Mr. Robalino that they are not
requiring it.
I also think that if you measure the distance of where
these things are from the wetlands boundary, I don' t have a
scale ruler with me today, but I think we might even be beyond
the Board' s jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : No, that ' s not how this works .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Top of bank, you are talking about a house
that is at or over the top of the bank with structure.
MS . REICHERT: There is nothing in the code that says -- in fact
there are --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You keep -- excuse me, ma' am. You keep
mentioning this signed-off permit from the Trustees from 2019.
Board of Trustees 43 August 12, 2026
Can you produce that 2019 permit for this new house that we
supposedly signed off on?
MS. REICHERT: No, I 'm just saying that --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : She ' s referencing the deck. That ' s all it was .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: She ' s also referencing the new house that we
allegedly signed off on.
MS. REICHERT: I 'm referencing the fact that it was issued in
July ,of 2019, and it mentions, again --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The deck.
MS. REICHERT: The renovation. No, it ' s not just the deck. It was
also the renovation. And the whole point is that this is
substantially the same project that was approved by the Trustees
and by the ZBA, for a renovation, which unfortunately because of
the rot and everything else, became, required new walls, right,
but it is still substantially the exact same project .
(Ms . Reichert and Trustee Gillooly speaking simultaneously) .
MS. REICHERT: And what you see in July of 2019 is a sign-off
that says "as per plans, " and the floor plans were in that file.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So those "as per plans, " that was for what we
are looking at right now, a brand new house with all these
concrete structures, the decks, the garage, the new septic
system. That ' s what was signed off on in 2019? That ' s what
you' re saying, for the record?
MS . REICHERT: It was substantially renovated, right, it was a
renovation of the house. And again, the house is not bigger --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That ' s not what I 'm asking. You said that we
signed off on what is proposed, what is here right now. So we
signed off on what is here. There is a 2019 Trustee permit for
everything that is here, including a brand new house, brand new,
patios, brand new garage, brand new septic.
MS. REICHERT: I wish your permits could be that specific so. that
I could say yes, but I can' t. They are very sort of loosely
worded.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So the answer is no.
MS . REICHERT: No, I 'm not saying the answer is no. It ' s I can't
say because, again, the permits are not quite as specific as
they are now.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY:. I think they are very specific.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You previously said we signed off on this .
'MS . REICHERT: It ' s in the permit file.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But then you just said we didn' t sign off on
you don' t know that the permit is for what ' s here.
MS. REICHERT: It just says that it substantially complies with
the plans .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And the plans that you' re referencing are for
what ' s here, a brand new house, brand new concrete, brand new
garage, brand new septic system. All the stuff we ' re talking
about.
MS. REICHERT: It is for a home that is substantially still, even
Board of Trustees 44 August 12, 2026
though it is a new home as opposed to a renovation, and again,
that is what the ZBA held.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Are we the ZBA?
MS . REICHERT: No, but they are an adjudicatory body that has
made findings of facts that I think are relevant because you
both are administering the same code within the same town.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We are not administering the same code.
MS. HULSE: We don' t administer the .same code. That is not
accurate. And you've spoken very --
MS . REICHERT: The town code, as a whole.
MS . HULSE: You just said we administer the same code. We don' t.
The point is that you are not answering the question directly
because the answer is no.
The answer is that that 2019 permit was not reflecting
that, what you are asking for today. And we are going to go
around and around, but that' s the fact of the matter. You
couldn' t answer the question directly, and I appreciate your
lawyering skills, but you didn' t. answer it because it ' s not in
fact true.
So, here we are today. Let ' s move on from this . I know you
are making the argument why you don' t think an IA is appropriate
here. Meanwhile the Board has been working with your client,
which the client has acknowledged, was supposed to, as per the
conversation, submit new plans .
So I guess let ' s go back to Trustee Krupski ' s original
question. If there was that agreement and understanding, why
were those plans not submitted so that that decision could be
potentially made tonight on the plans? Why?
MR. ROBALINO: Because we can' t come to an agreement on this
septic system. I do everything else and then you still turn
around and say no, you didn' t do this . If we can come to that
agreement, everything else can be solved. That ' s the only thing
holding everything up.
I don' t want to spend any more money if I 'm not going to
wind up with my permits and CO' s . I mean, I ' ve gone through hell
with this thing. And I just want to say again, if we go back to
those original plans of the house and maybe it will show you
that I 'm not lying. Had the guy left two more walls up, it
would be the exact same house, we would not have all of this .
Nothing was changed. Just' too many walls came down. The exact
same square footage. Nothing changed. And you have that. You can
see that across the hall. They have those plans . I 'm not lying
to you. And you can verify that .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just full circle, to go back to where we
started, you want us to close this hearing and move forward,
based on the plans that were submitted in April of 2025?
MS. REICHERT: I would like to close the hearing. The purpose of
a public hearing is so that you can gather all the information
necessary to render a decision. If there is an agreement
Board of Trustees 45 August 12, 2026
amongst the Board and the property owner with respect to what
can be shown on the amended plans that you want to see in terms
of removal of the concrete pad, the implementation of instead of
concrete, either pervious pavers or pervious gravel surfaces --
MR. ROBALINO: Whatever they want.
MS. REICHERT: Right. I think the only thing that the applicant -
is unwilling to do is to do an IA system upgrade when the Health
Department is not requiring it. It would require substantial
tearing up of the driveway, and other things . So if there is an
agreement that the Board is satisfied with increasing
permeability, changing the surface underneath the deck, et
cetera, then I don' t see why your decision can not be based on
submission of plans that reflect those conditions .
MS . HULSE: So that ' s not how it works, and I know that you know
that. We don' t negotiate off the table and then come up with
some sort of a stipulation.
You submit a description with plans and they either vote it
up or down. If you are requesting to table to provide new plans
or to have further, you know, letters, memos, whatever has been
submitted for these -many years, then that is your request.
There is going to be, if this is closed, that is the end of
the public hearing and they' ll render a decision on that . It
won' t continue for a negotiation, as I know that you know.
So, what is it your wish to do tonight: Do you wish to
keep it open or do you wish to close the hearing and they are
going to make their decision based on the description and the
file that they are in receipt of tonight. Right now.
MS . REICHERT: Mr. Robalino has asked you to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Can I just say one thing, and I know we talked
about this for a long time, and somehow we just kind of got to
the discussion of why we haven' t gotten new plans to removing
the impervious structure, but, I mean, Marion Lake is such a
sensitive waterbody. I mean, do you understand the benefits of
the IA system and why the Board has been doing this for I 'm not
even sure how long we have been requesting these for. But it
certainly predates the county, who took a long time to get
onboard with their own systems .
But we are trying to accomplish something positive here,
and the pushback is odd to me, especially given the fact there ' s
grants available for these, and that this could have been
installed years ago.
MS. REICHERT: There are not grants available for this property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : There ' s none on second homes?
MR. ROBALINO: Primary homes. And it would have to go under all
that, in front of the garage, the driveway. It ' s a $6, 000 plus
thing. That alone. I 'm looking at 60 or 70 to do the back-work
on the wall and everything you want . It ' s just out of control .
That ' s the problem. That ' s why.
I 'm not fighting it for any other reason. I believe in it.
Board of Trustees 46 August 12, 2026
I 'm far from the water. It ' s a weekend home. I have even had
the Building Department open the cover and look in it . It ' s
empty. '
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : No, we opened it and looked, with you. And you
certainly are not -- there ' s very few houses in town that are
closer to the water. You are certainly not far from the water.
MR. ROBALINO: Meaning it ' s in the front of the house, not the
back. If it was in the back, I would agree.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Certainly.
MR. ROBALINO: But I think more good could come from me doing
all the other things you want over this one issue.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, Mr. Robalino, is that the same septic
system from the old house prior to --
MR. ROBALINO: No. The story gets even crazier.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So you paid to replace the septic system, you
just didn' t replace it with the right one.
MS. REICHERT: Let me. There are papers within the Building
Department files and also other permit approval files in 2017
that was an emergency replacement because it was one of the old
dome systems, it collapsed, that was permitted, it was early in
2017 . I saw them reviewing the file today, letters from
the -- correct . It' s a brand new 10 by --
(The stenographer notes Mr. Robalino is speaking simultaneously
in the background) .
MS. HULSE: We can only have one person speaking at a time
because the stenographer. can't take two people talking. I mean,
he is going to miss it. He ' s not going to get it. So please just
speak one at a time.
MS . REICHERT: It was a brand new 10x8 ring that was installed in
2018, which is also why, again, given the timeline and the
timing it did not require any sort of IA upgrade.
Again, the Health Department is satisfied because it is a
precast, new ring, that was installed at that time.
MR. ROBALINO: One second. I had open-heart surgery, may I sit
down, my legs are starting to hurt.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes, you may.
MR. ROBALINO: Thank you.
MS. HULSE: Do you have anything from the Health Department that
you can show this Board?
MS . REICHERT: This I believe was submitted in the May, 2026
submission, is an NOI asking for, the only thing the Health
Department needs now is an updated wetlands permit.
MR. ROBALINO: And I 'm looking. I think I have something.
MS . REICHERT: And that was an attachment and correspondence that
was sent.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I just want to make clear one thing, that
while you have verbally said that you are willing to make some
of the changes that we have requested, if you request for us to
close this hearing, we are going to have to vote on the plans
Board of Trustees 47 August 12, 2026
that are before us that do not incorporate any of the requested
changes .
So if that is your wish, for us to vote on this application
as it is, including all of the concrete structures and things
that we have talked about tonight, we ' ll have to vote on this
application as it is .
MR. ROBALINO: Understood.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is that truly your wish?
MR. ROBALINO: I only said that because we are going round and
round on this IA system. If we can come to an agreement, after
all you've heard tonight, I agree to everything else.
MS. HULSE: Can you submit anything from the Health Department?
Do you have anything with you tonight? Because the file doesn't
have --
MS. REICHERT: Yes, it was submitted to the Trustees --
MS. HULSE: Can you just submit it, just bring it up and submit
it to us, please.
MS . . REICHERT: (Continuing) May 7th, 2026. It is Exhibit B and
it is an NOI from the Health Department, dated March 13th, 2026,
in which the Health Department writes that in order to further
process the application for approval to construct, it appears
that the Town' s letter of non-jurisdiction for the wetlands
expired in 2020, and please submit an updated letter.
I can only imagine that is because all prior Trustee
correspondence measures the wetlands boundary from the wetlands
line.
However, so that is all the Department of Health is waiting
for is an updated wetlands permit.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So they are waiting for our permit . So they
have not -- they are waiting for our permit that you do not
have; is that correct?
MS . REICHERT: Well, it says actually that they are waiting for
the Town' s letter of non-jurisdiction for the wetlands that
expired in 2020 . So they want either an updated letter or
whatever it is this Board decides to issue.
However, correct, the DEC has issued a letter of
non-jurisdiction that is good until I think 2030 or 2031.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY.: Okay, so as long as we are clear, you are
asking for us to close this hearing.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
(No response) .
Any further comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, I ' ll just say, you know, we have Chapter
275-12 that we go by. The as-built impervious surfaces and
development at the top of the bank have created the very type of
erosion and runoff concerns that 275 is intended to prevent.
The Town' s regulations specifically require drainage
measures to retain runoff from impervious surfaces, and require
Board of Trustees 48 August 12, 2026
erosion control for construction at site work within Trustee
jurisdiction. The as-built structures are adversely affecting
the wetlands of the Town, specifically Marion Lake. We are
seeing damage from erosion. It is adversely affecting aquatic
wildlife and vegetation or the natural habitat thereof, with the
increased runoff and erosion from the structures, and also the
applicant has failed to provide the waste water treatment
solution necessary to protect this sensitive freshwater
resource. So, that ' s all I 've got to say.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. I ' ll add one last comment before I
close the hearing.
Based on our site inspections, review of plans, and the
record developed over multiple hearings, the Board is unable to
look 'at this without seeing an issue with Chapter 275-12 (a) ,
(b) , (d) , (e) , (h) and (j ) of the Town Code.
This is an environmentally sensitive waterfront property
with documented erosion and bank instability.
The Board has identified substantial impervious surfaces
and development immediately adjacent to the bank that
contributes to runoff and limits the opportunity for natural
stabilization. We have repeatedly requested measures to reduce
impervious coverage, restore and revegetate the bank, increase
vegetated areas, pull structures back from the bank where
practicable, and employ less invasive stabilization measures .
Those recommendations were intended to reduce erosion and
runoff, protect the wetland and its habitat, preserve the
stability of the bank and surrounding lands, and restore . the
natural character and resiliency of this shoreline.
The plans before us do not adequately address those
concerns.
. So with that, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make motion to deny this application because
I find that the proposed operations will substantially adversely
affect the wetlands and its habitat, cause erosion or siltation,
increase vulnerability to flood or storm tide damage, undermine
lateral support of adjacent properties, and adversely affect the
esthetic value of the wetland and adjacent area.
For those reasons I move to deny.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE FINORA: Number 5, Cole Environmental Services on behalf
of PETERS NECK ASSOCIATION, INC. Requests a Wetland Permit to
raise an approximately 4, 472 square foot area of private road
(447 linear feet) , construction to begin at STA: 0+43 . 89 and end
at STA: 4+91 . 10; existing pavement to be pulverized in-place;
Board of Trustees 49 August 12, 2026
proposed road to have 3" crown at CL EL 4 . 86 with a max slope of
1 : 3 on either side; slopes to be filled with clean bank-run;
road to consist of 11--�" wearing course, 21,�" binder course, 4"
compacted sub-base with 3N4" stone blend or crushed concrete, and
6" stabilized soil base; approximately 55 cubic yards of
asphalt, 76 cubic yards of compacted sub-base, 192 cubic yards
of stabilized soil base and road fill, 192 cubic yards of
stabilized soil base and road fill, and 51 cubic yards of
transitional fill to be added; road fill to be loamy sand
compacted to 95%; proposed addition of swales with CL EL 2 . 00 on
either side of private road; swales to accommodate an
approximate 4" storm event.
Located: Peters Neck Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-32-1-3
The Trustees visited the site, conducted a field inspection
on August 5th, 2026, noting that they have reviewed the site
condition. No additional comments with regard to the plans, and
for further note to review the symmetry of the swales at the
upcoming work session.
The LWRP noted that the project is inconsistent due to the
lack of a storm water management plan.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak on behalf of the
application?
MR. COLE: Yes, Chris Cole, Cole Environmental, agent for the
applicant. Hopefully this should be a straightforward
application.
The proposal before the Board is to improve and raise an
existing paved road that has been in existence for decades at
the site. It ' s approximately 447 linear feet of private road
serving the Latham properties . The purpose of the project is to
provide safer and more reliable access to the, call it an
island. But maybe it ' s a peninsula with the bridge. Provide
access to the properties that are separated by that bridge on
the screen there.
The elevation was chosen to be slightly higher than where
the flood, the storm water was for Hurricane Sandy, and
previously before then the perfect storm in the ' 90s .
The homeowner has lived there for decades and has kept
track of the height.
So we are proposing to raise it roughly a foot-and-a-half
in some areas . Some areas it ' s only six inches . We are
connecting the elevation between the bridge that is currently on
the screen and the high spot on the road.
We recognize that the road is obviously close to the
wetlands, close to the marsh, and we are seeking to just raise
the road, make it even, and any stormwater would be evenly
distributed. . Right now it goes up and down, creating areas that
receive more storm water than others .
The homeowner is actually looking at the swales and was
wondering if we could propose something a little less, that
Board of Trustees 50 August 12, 2026
would cause less disturbance to the areas, maybe a sunken area
with vegetation on the sides . And I 'm basically here to answer
any questions that the Board may have on the project.
TRUSTEE FINORA: Thank you. Are there any other comments from the
audience?
(No response) .
Any comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE FINORA: I make a motion to approve this application.
The field inspection and Trustees onsite noted that the site
conditions do not warrant any additional investigation or
necessitate the need of a stormwater management control plan,
therefore bringing this application into consistency with the
LWRP. And I would make a motion to approve this application as
the plans indicate on July 21st, 2026, stamped received July
21st, 2026.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. COLE: Thank you.
CASE: Next Number 6, CONTINUED FROM 7/15/26 AS PER REVISED PLANS
AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 7/29/26 Cole Environmental
Services on behalf of PAMELA VALENTINE requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a proposed 42 . 6 ' x 17 ' (793 S. F. ) two-story
dwelling on piles, a 42 . 6 ' x 10 ' (425 S. F. ) rear first-story
wood deck with stairs, a 373 S. F. irregular rear second-story
deck, a 20 . 5 ' x 7 ' (145 S. F. ). front wood deck with a +/- 20 S . F.
outdoor shower; an. T/A sanitary system to be installed to the
west of the dwelling; existing firepit to remain; install a well
to establish water supply line; install two drywells; install a
500 gallon buried propane tank; construct an 80" x 12 ' timber
bridge (bridge to be 12 ' in overall width with 1014" in width
interior of guards) , over approximately 473 S. F. of wetlands
consisting of five (5) 16' bents supported by a wooden pile
substructure with a structural wooden deck; all bridge elements
to be constructed of exterior-grade structural timber with no
disturbance to occur below the bridge; install an approximately
35 ' x 12 ' driveway extending from the dwelling to the bridge
approach with a 15 ' x 20 ' turnaround area, to be constructed of
pervious material consisting of medium-compaction RCA or a
pervious masonry/stone product; two (2) approximately 20 ' x 12 '
bridge approach areas, grade dependent, to be constructed of
medium-compaction pervious RCA; install an approximately 140 ' x
12 ' private road accessway within the existing 30 ' right-of-way
Board of Trustees 51 August 12, 2026
extending from the terminus of the bridge to Birdseye Road with
existing vegetation within the accessway to be cleared and the
roadbed leveled to match existing grade; accessway to be
constructed of medium-compaction pervious RCA; silt fencing to
be established and maintained during construction; all disturbed
areas to be replanted with native, non-fertilizer dependent
vegetation; all groundsel bushes (Baccharis halimifolia) within
proposed areas of disturbance are to be transplanted elsewhere
on the property.
Located: 1675 Birds Eye Road, Orient . SCTM# 1000-17-2-1 . 4
The Trustees most recently conducted an inspection August
6th, 2026. Reviewed updated plans at work session, same
concerns shared about proximity to wetlands and site access as
July field visit .
The LWRP found this inconsistent, for the same reasons
stated last meeting.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. COLE: Yes, Chris Cole, Cole Environmental .
We appreciate the effort the Board had made to get this on
the hearing tonight. Unfortunately, after the Trustees office
closed, one of our consultants who was involved in the project
was unable to meet it, so we are requesting to table until
September.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Are there any other questions, comments from the Trustees?
(No response) .
Hearing none, based on the applicant ' s request I make a
motion to table this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. COLE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We ' ll take a five-minute recess .
(After a five-minute recess, this proceeding continues as
follows) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We ' re back on the record.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Number 7, AMP Architecture on behalf of HC
NOFO, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to convert the existing
30 ' x50 ' (1, 500sq. ft . ) , second floor of an agricultural barn ihto
a single-family dwelling; and to install an I/A OWTS sanitary
system to dwelling.
Located: 2705 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-5-14 . 4
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent for the
following reasons :
Board of Trustees 52 August 12, 2026
Policy 5, 5 . 1 (A) , 2 (B) , 3; Policy 6, 6. 1 (A) , (B) ; 6. 3,
protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands, provide
adequate buffers to wetlands and adjacent or nearby uses and
activities in order to ensure protection of the wetlands
character, quality, values and functions . (E) , maintain buffers
to ensure the adverse effects of adjacent or nearby development
are avoided. Maintain buffers to achieve a high filtration
efficiency of surface runoff. Avoid permanent or unnecessary
disturbance to buffer areas .
The existing barn is not conforming to Town Code because
it' s less than 100 feet from Richmond creek and its bank.
Converting this barn to a dwelling and adding their requisite
septic system would exacerbate an already non-conforming
situation and contribute to increased pollution to the creek, a
designated significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat.
This is inconsistent with Policy 5 and Policy 6 of the LWRP
because it does not protect the water quality nor the ecological
quality of the Town of Southold, specifically the location of
the proposed septic system is so close to the wetlands, is
inconsistent with Policy 5 . 1 (A) 2, which states : the nitrogen
discharge should be limited to restore water quality. The
proposed creates an indirect discharge that would increase the
nitrogen content in the nearby creek and potentially lead to
water quality impairment.
The proposed action is also inconsistent with Policy
6. 1 (A) 2 that calls for the avoidance of adverse changes to the
Peconic Bay ecosystem that occur over an extended period time
from nearby activities .
Discharge of nitrogen pollution from the proposed septic
system being located so close to the creek would cause the
degradation of the ecological components of Richmond creek, a
part of the Peconic Bay ecosystem.
Note that an IA onsite water treatment system, while better
than traditional septic systems, does not continue to cause
nitrogen pollution over time. In addition, locating a home so
close to the creek will have other adverse effects, including
pollution from lawn maintenance, chemicals and potential
additional clearing of vegetation along the creek.
Further, the proposed action is inconsistent with Police
6. 3 (A) which states that actions must comply with the Southold
Town Board of Trustees laws and regulations . Pursuant to Town
Code Chapter 275-2 a "bank" is defined as a land incline
adjoining a body of water, wetland and/or beach.
The Trustees have identified a bank adjacent to the creek
near this location. The Board of Trustees jurisdiction starts at
the top of the bank. The plans submitted do not accurately
reflect the Trustees jurisdiction, however it is clear that the
proposed dwelling does not comply with Chapter 275 .
The proposed action is also inconsistent with Policy 6. 3 (D)
Board of Trustees 53 August 12, 2026
which calls for protecting tidal wetlands, providing adequate
buffers between wetlands and nearby uses .
The new dwelling in its location is so close to wetlands it
does not allow for adequate buffers to ensure protection of
wetlands character, qualities, values and functions .
Let it be noted that the pre-existing barn on the proposed
property was constructed years ago for agricultural purposes .
The barn is used as storage and had no bathroom or septic
system, minimizing its effect on the nearby wetlands .
The close proximity of the dwelling and its septic system
to the wetland is preventable because there is plenty of space
to locate the dwelling and septic system elsewhere on the 13 . 2
acre parcel. Converting the barn to a dwelling in the proposed
location where there are alternative locations so far from the
wetland sets a poor precedent for similar properties .
The parcel has the ability to subdivide in the future.
Pursuant to Southold Town Code Chapter 240, Article 11 cluster
development, a future subdivision here would be required to
cluster development and preserve 600 of the area for open space.
The Town Code requires that open space be contiguous and
protect the most sensitive features of the property. In this
case the most sensitive features of this property are wetlands-
and the wooded buffer protecting the creek.
Converting the pre-existing barn to a residential dwelling
would circumvent this requirement by allowing a dwelling much
closer to the wetland than any residential lots would be
allowed. This would cause fragmentation of the ecological
community around this section of the creek and destroy the
existing corridor. This is inconsistent with Policy 6. 1 (B) 3
which states : fragmentation of ecological communities must be
avoided to maintain borders to facilitate the free exchange of
biological resources among ecological communities .
The proposed action has been reviewed through Chapter 268,
Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town of Southold code, and
the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program policy standards .
The Board visited the site on the 6th of August, and the
comments are as follows : distance to wetlands not suitable for
conversion to residential use.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PORTILLO: Good evening, Board. Anthony Portillo, AMP
Architecture.
So I think it ' s important, well, in regards to the top of
the bank, and what we have taken from our surveyor was the tidal
wetland delineated line, which the building, the current
building is 79. 3 feet from, and by design we designed, we put
the IA system behind the building, or let ' s call it landward of
the building. And the idea of excavating further away from
wetlands, the building does not, is not changing, nor are we
Board of Trustees 54 August 12, 2026
doing any work outside of the building.
Um, I would note there also is another home there that has
a septic system that is probably the same distance as where we
are proposing ours . Or we can propose it further away from the
house if the Board deems that necessary.
We are at about a 16-foot elevation. Water was encountered
at 12 feet . So our system is designed for that reason. And
again, moving it further away from the structure, which it seems
to me like we are somewhat in line with the other septic system
that is neighboring this property.
In regard to subdividing, I mean, the lot can be
subdivided. They have not sold their rights, but I 'm not sure if
that ' s the intent of the owner at this time. I don' t know if
that should determine the decision. But the structure was CO' d,
and I ' ll get the date of that . Sorry. (Perusing) . The structure
was CO' d in 2023 as a barn. I think the owner just has the
intent of changing that top floor for living space and the
bottom floor will remain for storage.
Currently there are drywells, and all the leaders are going
to those drywells, so that would remain to catch any rainwater.
If there are any further questions, I can answer those.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : So, thank you. I appreciate where you are
coming from on this, and I appreciate that you made an effort to
locate the septic system on the other side of the structure.
I do think this particular application might have benefited
from a pre-submission, because _ frankly, what was originally
applied for here was a storage barn. It did not come before our
office.
There was an inspection at the time that noted it was just
a storage barn for a bona fide agricultural operation, which I
would argue and dispute that there was not an agriculture
operation there at the time, and it likely didn' t qualify. And
if it had come before a public hearing, I certainly would have
pushed this structure away from the wetland.
And unfortunately, while your lines to the wetland are
close, our jurisdiction is really taken from the bank, and with
the sort of rising tides we are seeing in the area, that wetland
line is slowly creeping up, and it ' s going to be at that bank
very soon. You know, it ' s regularly there ' s perched water in
that area.
So while the old barn was there, which I was there when
that barn was there, and it was non-functional, we would have
pushed that away.
And it should also be noted that the adjacent house that
you did mention is over 100 feet from the wetland line.
MR. PORTILLO: Again, I don' t have a defined top of bank, so if
we can find the top of bank, I don' t know if that ' s the case, if
that ' s the line we are going to depict.
Yes, it is maybe 100 feet from the line that we are using,
Board of Trustees 55 August 12, 2026
and we are 80 feet from that line. So if we were to define "top
of bank, " and I can then distance that neighboring home --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I think you are about 60 feet from the top of
bank, from a rough measurement . I wouldn' t put that on the
survey.
MR. PORTILLO: And they are probably 100 feet .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : It ' s a little bit closer than we would want to
be for a living structure, and everything that comes with it.
Because it starts with septic, but I mean, you know what comes
with a living structure and the impact it ' s going to have on a
wetland.
A storage barn is far more limited in impact and
application, which is part of why there is an allowance for it
within the code, whereas there is not for a house. And that ' s
for a reason.
So this is why I 'm sure you are not doing this, but it ' s
sort of like a workaround here to get a structure closer to the
creek.
MR. PORTILLO: I was not the original architect of the structure.
I don' t know if that was his intent. I mean, I will tell you the
discussion with the owner was to put a home on the land and made
this into an accessory structure for that primary. But I think
just due to the fact that there is a cost there for that, he
just figures, well, I can turn that, since the structure is
there.
I actually, to be honest, was, we were a little surprised
that we had to come to the Board because we thought it would be,
you know, like if it was an existing home, he was doing interior
work. Obviously due to the change of use, it sort of slipped by
us, we missed that on our end, that the change of use would
require us to come to the Board. So, you know, that was -- but,
either way, I guess it ' s just about the fact of what the Board
thinks .
I mean, I personally think that, I hear what you are
saying, but I think there could be restrictions on the approval
that they can' t improve the lot or do anything to the lot. And,
you know, if we are talking about wastewater or septic, I think
if we are in line with that neighboring home, you know, I don't
think we ' re adding -- plus, I guarantee that neighboring home
doesn' t have an IA system, so, you know, based on the build of
it, so I think we are probably in more compliance or more
environmentally friendly to that space.
Again, I mean, there is no construction happening on this
building, just to be clear. But I mean, I don' t think there is
any objection to buffers or restrictions on what we can do on
the property in regards to patios or other things like that, you
know, obviously approvals would have to be granted. I don' t
think the owner would have any objections to those things .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Within the code, as you are very familiar with
Board of Trustees 56 August 12, 2026
because you are here a lot, I think you know that for brand new
construction, which this would have been considered, even though
there was a barn there before, the setback is 100 feet. And we
often deal in that gray area where there is no further room on
the property to place, to site a home. And so we are often stuck
in that gray area. And' on this property it just strikes us that
there is so much room, to have gone back further, if this was
before the Board as a new development. So I think that ' s where
the troubles are coming up.
And very often we try to push it even beyond that 100 feet
because we know the owner will eventually want a deck, they' ll
eventually want a pool, they' ll eventually want this and that.
So as far back as possible is where we try to end up, because
even if we sit here and come up with all of the covenants and
restrictions, you know, four or five homeowners in the future
won' t really understand why they can' t have a deck, they can' t
have a pool, all their neighbors have decks and pools . And so
that' s where we are in this hard place here, where this was an
agricultural exception, and now it ' s turning into a house. So.
it ' s a little bit of a tricky one. One that I have not seen
before.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure. I mean one thing I would say is, if the
owner decided to put his primary residence here and then wanted
to put an accessory apartment above the accessory building, it
would not be a change of use at that time because the building
would be accessory to the primary. So we would only have to go
to zoning for approval. I 'm just throwing that out there.
Because we -could build a home outside of Trustees
jurisdiction, with a septic tank, and then we could plug into
that septic tank and put an accessory apartment above that .
Which was what I originally said to the owner, because I said
that, you know, we are trying to change an agricultural barn
into a home, and it didn't make a lot of sense to me.
But I said, down the road, if he did have a primary
building, that would end up being an accessory to the primary.
So then at that point it wouldn' t really be a change of
use, it would be allowed because it ' s an accessory building.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I would disagree with that. I mean, if you are
hooking it into septic and making any other modifications, I
think you would have to come to this Board.
MR. PORTILLO: But that septic tank would be outside the
jurisdiction and it would be basically just digging up line to
the tank. I mean, I 'm just saying it wouldn't be a change of use
is what I 'm saying, at that time.
This is a change of use because it ' s turning into a primary
residence. It just wouldn' t be a change of use is what I 'm
saying.
MS . HULSE: Not necessarily.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I don' t necessarily agree with that, and
Board of Trustees 57 August 12, 2026
frankly if this had come before us, I would have stipulated no
bathroom in this at all given its location. And I guess it ' s
just a little disappointing and, you know, it was built, there
was historically a barn there and the property was ag. It ' s
just the town has a whole history, obviously, and I don' t need
to go through this --
MR. PORTILLO: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : (Continuing) but agriculture, fishing, farming,
and then so it was allowed to remain in that location as a barn.
What was built kind of already isn' t a barn, frankly. But it
still could be utilized as a functional barn. It' s kind of a
shame in that it' s not going to be, I guess .
MR. PORTILLO: I mean, you know, again, the intent of the owner,
I don' t really want to get into because I 'm not 100% sure. I
know he does have the right to, if he wanted to subdivide the
lot, whether it ' s 60% or 80/20, I don' t, I mean it depends on
how he approaches the planning part.
Um, I mean, again, probably in hindsight, not realizing we
would be at the Board for� this change of use, it was a surprise
for both of us . Obviously you guys probably know the owner, I 'm
sure he ' s been here a few times, but .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Well, I don' t know if I do.
MR. PORTILLO: Well, he' s done a few projects I think in the
wetlands, but anyway, so, but we just actually, we really, we
submitted to Buildings and they actually said we have to come to
the Trustees for a change of use. So it was a little bit of a,
you know, gotcha or catch. We made a small mistake there for
that reason.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Yeah.
MR. PORTILLO: (Continuing) . So we thought we were just able to
basically put that in because we were not changing the building.
MS . HULSE: Where are you with Planning?
MR. PORTILLO: I think there' s -- I don' t think there is a
Planning application for this yet submitted. We've given him
ideas on like subdivisions but we have not submitted anything
for a subdivision. I 'm not sure what his plan is . He might leave
it, I mean, like I said, I don' t know if he wants to make this
his primary residence; not this building, but I don' t know
exactly what his plan is, and I don' t want to go down that road,
but he does have development rights . They are not sold on this
property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I recommend potatoes, but --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because he can' t say pumpkins .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : That ' s why. I won' t say pumpkins . Right .
(Participants laughing) .
MR. PORTILLO: I mean, I appreciate your comments, I mean, I
don' t have, my client is not here, um, so I 'm not sure if I
. should table this, but I don't know if there is really much you
can do. It sounds like this is the design, like I said, any
Board of Trustees 58 August 12, 2026
other things that if the Board would, I 'm sure you would agree
to any restrictions or covenants . I appreciate saying that
other owners, but obviously when the owner buys the house, those
covenants and restrictions are in their deed, so buying this
lot, whether it ' s the whole lot or a subdivided lot, they have
to stick to those covenants and restrictions. So, you know, I
. don' t think that is something that we should, I mean I don' t
think that should make the call because, again, they are buying
the lot, they should know their covenants and restrictions, in
my opinion.
And, like I said, if you guys wanted to move the IA system
further away, I don' t have any issues there. Don' t touch, you
know, basically leave it undeveloped lands, I think that is
acceptable. You know.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: But the remainder of the parcel to remain
undeveloped? I mean, that wouldn' t --
MR. PORTILLO: I 'm sorry, I just mean, like, any development
around that land, like if adding a patio or anything like that,
like a restriction like that, that the Board would have to
approve it. It would not be something that could be done, you
know. Because he' s not, we' re not proposing to change that drive
or anything like that. We are just leaving it and essentially
building the inside out, you know, finish the inside and putting
the septic system in. So we were not planning .on doing much work
on the outside of that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone else here to speak regarding
this application?
MS . PONTINO: Deb Pontino, I own the property that borders the
property in question.
My father, his LLC purchased the property behind my house
from my family a few years back. There was a barn there. It was
a very large barn. It used to be a horse stable. It used to be
a charter track back in that field back in the 1800s or so.
My paternal grandfather bought the property in the early
1900s, and built the house that I 've currently been
rehabilitating for the last 18 years, and will be for the rest
of my life, probably.
I was, when the permit went up, the hearing went up for the
build, to rebuild the barn, I didn' t attend the hearings, I
didn' t look at the plans . And I deeply regret that . I would have
noted that the plans to build the new barn had the barn 25 feet,
just 25 feet from the back of my property line. It ' s much closer
than the previous structure was. And I don' t know how that was
allowed to happen.
And I was also surprised that -they were allowed to rebuild
the structure so close to the wetlands, and in a flood zone.
I mentioned this to the person who was excavating the
property, Richard Principi. I said, you' re rebuilding in a flood
zone? And the next thing I know, truckloads of CCA were being
Board of Trustees 59 August 12, 2026
delivered and dumped all along from Indian Neck Lane all along
that quote unquote gravel driveway to where the building is now.
He elevated the existing property a good 20, 22 inches
above where it was before. If you look, if you walk along that
driveway, and I have pictures I found, but it, on either side of
the driveway, north and south of that driveway is a steep
decline.
So that has disrupted the natural flow of water. My house
is on a slight hill, and that water would flow down that hill
and make its way on down to the lowest elevation, which was the
wetland. And now with that elevated driveway, especially the
southwest and southeast corner of my property flood. I have
standing water on my property because of that.
. So, I 'm very concerned about any additional work being done
on that property, considering what I 've already had to deal
with, with what has already been done, and I 'm kind of surprised
that there was, all the CCA was allowed to be dropped right on
the, bordering the wetlands . And it went right up to my property
line.
I actually got out a pick ax and a shovel because it pushed
up against my fence. It was causing so much flooding, especially
in the southeast corner, that I dug it out . My fence is a
two-foot setback from the property line. I dug all that out by
hand to alleviate the flooding on my property.
So, and the other thing that concerned me when I looked at
the file for this hearing, was the proposed layout of the quote
unquote one-family dwelling. And I don' t know if you've had a
chance to review that, but there are four bedrooms, each one
sharing, two of the bedrooms, one at the east end of the house,
one at the west end of the house, they are sharing, each sharing
a very small bathroom. And there is like a common living area
in between those two, in between the four bedrooms .
I looked at it and it reminded me of my college dorm, the
suite I had at my college dorm. And I showed this to a friend of
mine who is an architect. She ' s living, and she ' s a work-at-home
mom now, but she looked at it, her eyebrows raised, and she said
I 've drawn up plans like this for housing staff. This is not a
family home. And that was my impression as well . And I don't
know if this is what these trial rendition of what they intend
to do with this property. But I don' t know what their intention
is . But this is not a family dwelling as it stands now. So
that ' s another concern that I have.
The fact it ' s only 25 feet from my property line, I don' t
know what their intentional use is for this property, let alone
the environmental impact, which you've enumerated is extensive.
It ' s just going to further erode the quality of my life to have
something like that back there.
I never -- wasn' t concerned about a barn being built .
There ' s always been a barn back there. This is my childhood
Board of Trustees 60 August 12, 2026
home. But the intended use for this property now is very
concerning to me.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
MR. PORTILLO: So just for the record, we are in Zone X, the
building is not in a flood zone. We are outside of the flood
zone, the building itself. We are not required any variances to
make this into a residence. So we are within our zoning
setbacks, our bulk restrictions . And regarding the design, I
think how the home is being used, or how it ' s designed, I don' t
think -is relevant . Our system would handle four bedrooms, so we
would, we have a proper septic to handle that amount of
occupancy.
So, I just go back to saying that if the Board was to
approve this, with restrictions, I think we are willing to do
that, or large buffers for sedimentation purposes, you know, we
would be willing to do that. No irrigation, whatever, no
sodding, whatever the Board thinks is necessary.
But I do think, I mean, in my opinion, we are not creating
any more building surface or creating a way that we are going to
have eroding surfaces, and we can push the septic further away
from the wetlands . So that I think we, like I said, the ground
water was encountered at 12 feet. We are starting at 16. So I
mean, we could go up to 18 . The topo does raise, and we can be
more in line with the neighboring home.
Those are my suggestions if the Board thinks that ' s
possible. I don' t think tabling this makes any sense. I think
you guys are going to give your opinion. I appreciate .it . Thank
you, very much.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to
speak on this, or any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I would just say, you know, this would be a
very clear-cut, if we were proposing a new house where this is
located, with all the environmental concerns and the proximity
to the wetlands, this would be a very easy answer. And I don't
think the fact that we are trying to convert a barn to a house
changes those concerns that I have.
Obviously, you know, you've got 13 . 2 acres, there is plenty
of room to locate a house on this property that is not right up
against the very sensitive wetland. So that ' s all I have to say.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Agreed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I guess I would just say the proposed
application directly conflicts with Chapter 275-12 (A) , (B) , (D) ,
(E) , (F) and (I) . The former proposed application was applied
for as a low intensity agricultural building having far less
impact than a habitable structure. Increasing the intensity of
use at this location in such close proximity to a sensitive
Board of Trustees 61 August 12, 2026
habitat, tributary and fragile headwater of a creek system would
be wholly detrimental to the ecosystem of Richmond Creek.
The location already under duress from yearly harmful algal
blooms and expanding this critical habitat to hundreds of . native
species .
In short, this is an agriculture barn 60 feet from the
setback line.
I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : For the reasons listed throughout the hearing,
and noting the lack of consistency with the LWRP coordinator, I
make motion to deny this application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you, Board. Good night .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Respectfully submitted by,
JL
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees