Southampton conservation board delays Adios Holdings bulkhead permit amid dispute over unauthorized dock

The Southampton Town Conservation Board on May 27, 2026 voted to adjourn action on an Adios Holdings LLC bulkhead replacement to July 8 after a protracted dispute over whether an adjacent dock falls within the board’s wetland permitting jurisdiction.

Marty Shea, the town’s chief environmental analyst, told the board his advisory report (Feb. 18, 2026) supports issuing a wetland permit for the bulkhead replacement but recommended against signing the permit until the unauthorized dock construction was addressed. “I am recommending against issuing a wetland permit for the bulkhead replacement till the matter of the unauthorized dock construction is satisfactorily resolved,” Shea said, arguing the dock appears attached to the bulkhead and therefore should be legalized or removed before replacement work proceeds.

The applicant’s counsel disputed that characterization. James N. Hume, speaking for the applicant, said the dock is in state waters and outside the town’s regulatory reach. “The Peconic Bay is not in the town of Southampton. Therefore, you lack the ability to reach any conclusion or any attempt to regulate the dock,” Hume said, adding the survey submitted with the application shows a gap between the dock and the bulkhead. Aaron Tercionian, another counsel for the applicant, said the dock was intentionally constructed with a gap and that the applicant will verify that position on site.

The exchange highlighted two parallel tracks. The applicant told the board it would pursue an administrative permit for bluff restoration and submit a revised revegetation plan so the landowner might obtain a certificate of wetlands compliance and a building division certificate of occupancy. Counsel said they would replace roughly nine to 12 trees removed from the bluff; the applicant argued that level of replacement would restore pre‑existing conditions. “We will be more than happy to replace those 9 to 12 trees,” a lawyer for the applicant said.

Board members and staff pushed back on jurisdictional claims. Shea noted photographs taken in February showing the dock attached to the bulkhead, and stressed the town recently adopted a local law limiting private docks in Little Peconic Bay; his advisory report says legalization of the dock likely requires wetland permit review and possibly an environmental impact statement. The report also flagged potential harm to underwater habitat and increased erosion from constructed docks.

The applicant said it has litigation pending in justice court over stop‑work orders and anticipates motion scheduling and a possible ruling in early August. If that court action favors the town, the board would have clearer grounds; if it favors the applicant, the legal landscape could change. The board agreed that the court schedule and the applicant’s investigation into an administrative restoration permit made a short adjournment appropriate.

Rather than deny the bulkhead permit outright, the board voted to adjourn the hearing to July 8, 2026 to allow the applicant to pursue administrative steps and provide a revised restoration plan and additional documentation. The board recorded the adjournment by voice vote.

Next steps: the applicant will investigate filing a separate administrative wetland permit for bluff restoration and submit revised revegetation plans; the board will revisit the bulkhead/modification request on July 8, 2026. The pending justice‑court proceedings over the dock remain unresolved and were discussed as an influencing factor, not as a substitute for the board’s decision.