After numerous revisions, public testimony and deepening divisions within the New Suffolk community, the Southold Town Trustees on Tuesday night closed a public hearing and denied a wetland permit for a proposed waterfront home on First St., ruling the project failed to meet the town’s environmental standards.
The decision followed a nearly hour-long hearing in which supporters and opponents again clashed over property rights, environmental protection and the future of development along one of the North Fork’s most vulnerable shorelines. More than a hundred letters about the application had been submitted to the trustees ahead of Tuesday’s hearing.
At issue was an application filed on behalf of longtime New Suffolk property owner Philip Loria, seeking permission to build a two-story home with a footprint of 925 square foot on a pile foundation, along with a low-nitrogen septic system, driveway and a large-scale native planting plan on the roughly 7,000-square-foot waterfront parcel (see image above).
Despite multiple revisions, including reductions in the home’s footprint, height and overall scale, trustees said the proposal remained fundamentally out of compliance with Town Code Chapter 275, which governs wetlands protection.
“This property is connected to Cutchogue Harbor, which is part of a sensitive estuary system,” Trustee President Glenn Goldsmith said. “I cannot affirmatively determine that these impacts will not occur.”
During public comments at the hearing, supporters of Philip Loria argued that, after decades of ownership and multiple rounds of regulatory review, he should be allowed to build a modest home on land he has long paid taxes on — a basic exercise of property rights.
Opponents countered that the lot’s location within a fragile coastal estuary and flood zone makes any new residential development inherently risky, warning that approving the project would further degrade water quality and set a dangerous precedent along an increasingly fragile shoreline.
A proposal repeatedly revised
Loria’s attorney, Karen Hoag, emphasized that the application had been significantly scaled back in response to earlier concerns.
The house footprint had been reduced to 925 square feet, with a second floor of 783 square feet, and the overall height lowered to just under 29 feet. The latest design also included a vegetated buffer covering about 65% of the property and a “state-of-the-art” septic system designed to reduce nitrogen discharge, Hoag told the trustees.
“The gross floor area is compliant with zoning … [and] lot coverage is proposed at 13% and is below what is permissible by zoning,” she said.
Environmental consultant Chris Cole described the planting plan as a significant ecological improvement over the existing conditions, which he said consisted largely of turf and invasive grasses.
Still, trustees said, those changes don’t sufficiently mitigate the core issue: the site itself.
The proposed house would sit roughly 35 feet from the wetland, and the septic system about 55 feet away, both far short of the 100-foot setbacks required under town code.
“That level of proximity requires us to be confident that there will be no adverse impact, and I am not,” Trustee Liz Gillooly said.
Environmental concerns drive decision
The board’s concerns were in line with those raised in a formal objection from the Group for the East End, which urged denial of the project.
The organization warned the lot sits within designated “critical environmental areas” tied to the Peconic Bay and Cutchogue Harbor wetlands, habitats recognized for their ecological importance and vulnerability.
The group also pointed to the property’s location in a FEMA flood zone, arguing that building a residence there would expose both the structure and its septic system to storm surge and rising groundwater.
“It’s not a question of if, but when the subject application’s system will become inundated or fail,” the letter states.
Trustees echoed those concerns, citing risks to water quality, shellfish habitat and long-term coastal resilience.
“The project presents a substantial risk of increased runoff, turbidity, shading and nitrogen loading,” Goldsmith said.
Divided community
Public comment at Tuesday’s hearing surfaced both sides of the debate.
Opponents argued the project would harm the bay, worsen flooding risks and set a precedent for development on similarly constrained waterfront lots. Others pointed to the history of storm damage along First Street.
“My biggest concern … is that during these storms, that the new septic system could be compromised by the salt water,” said Orchard St. resident Patricia Pennant.
Some residents contended that the lot’s size and location made it inherently unsuitable for new residential development.
“This lot does not fit the bill,” Linda Auriemma said. “It’s only 70 feet deep … it fails to meet what’s required.”
But supporters of Loria urged the trustees to consider his long ownership of the property and his efforts to comply with regulatory requirements.
“He’s tried everything. He’s doing everything you guys are saying,” said resident Alan Dinizio. “He has a legal right as a citizen to put a house on his property.”
Barbara Solo argued that denying the application would unfairly deprive Loria of the use of his land.
“It’s his property … [if] people have a problem, they should have bought it, or the town should have taken it over to make a park out of it or something. You can’t deprive someone of a financial investment over the last 50 years, a chance to put down a house.”
Resident Mike Franke said that Loria had gone through multiple layers of review, including the zoning board and Suffolk County health authorities.
“He just wants to develop his land. He’s a property owner. He has rights.”
Trustees: code must guide decision
In the end, trustees said their decision was guided not by public sentiment but by the requirements of town code.
“Who [is] living in this house is irrelevant,” Goldsmith said. “What this board concerns ourselves with is with the town code, specifically chapter 275. So we reviewed this file, listened to the public testimony. We’ve seen the letters. We’ve been to the site numerous times. This is a parcel that is directly along the Peconic estuary, which is part of the federally designated Peconic Estuary Program, an area of national significant … due to its sensitive ecosystems.”
Gillooly said the project failed to meet the code’s mandate to protect water quality, habitat and flood resilience, particularly on a parcel so close to tidal waters and within a sensitive estuary system.
“With this development proposed on a very small parcel, I believe those resource values are being diminished rather than protected.”
She also noted that continued approvals of similar projects could contribute to cumulative environmental degradation.
“We are seeing continued pressure along these shorelines,” Gillooly said. “The code directs us to consider and minimize the impact of new development, and in my view, approving a three plus bedroom project like this on a lot that’s so constrained contributes incrementally to the degradation of the system.”
No path forward — for now
In a final exchange, Hoag asked whether the board would consider entertaining further revisions to the project. Trustees indicated that was unlikely.
“I don’t think delaying this any longer would change the outcome,” Goldsmith said, noting the board had already reviewed multiple iterations of the proposal.
Gillooly said that any meaningful redesign would require a significantly different proposal, which would require a new public review process.
“This is not to state that no residence should ever be permitted on this property,” she said. “But what we’ve seen presented … would need to be … substantially changed.”
After public input, the trustees voted to close the hearing and deny the application.
While trustees noted that their decision does not preclude all future development on the property, it seems to reflect a tightening posture toward waterfront construction in Southold, particularly in environmentally sensitive and flood-prone areas.
The Group for the East End, in its letter, had explicitly called on the board to “set a new standard” by rejecting projects that fail to meet modern environmental and planning goals. Tuesday night’s decision suggests the trustees are prepared to do so.