Amenia ZBA considers proposed building, hears concerns: Possible Smithfield Valley golfing range causes an uproar

AMENIA — A proposal to construct a significant building in Smithfield Valley drew 35 residents to a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) on Monday, May 20, to air concerns about the impact on their quality of life and disruption of the scenic attributes of the area.

An application has been made to the Planning Board by property owners Herb Allen and Monica de la Torre to build an accessory building 47 feet in height and approximately 15,000 square feet in area. The highly visible building would be located on a level and open parcel of land along Smithfield Valley Road, presently being crop-farmed by the Coon Brothers farm in Smithfield.

The Planning Board convened a public hearing on the application, but the hearing was interrupted by issues being referred to the ZBA by Friends of Smithfield Valley Conservation, an organization represented at the zoning meeting by resident Craig Cullen and attorney Allan Rappleyea. 

The public hearing is being held open so that it will resume when the zoning board completes its determinations on the issues. Once the zoning board’s process that will include a public hearing on the issues raised, is completed, and it has reached its decision on issues, then the Planning Board’s public hearing on the project as a whole will continue, according to ZBA Chair Terry Metcalfe.

One issue raised is whether Cullen has legal standing to raise an issue, as he is not an abutting property owner. Another resident who is an abutting property owner wants to join the action; that determination needs to be decided by the zoning board. 

Metcalfe indicated that the ZBA still needs to gather more information about the issue of standing, the size of the structure and its intended use.

Resident Sharon Kroeger asked about the balloon testing at the site where balloons are flown at the height of the proposed structure to determine whether the building would be visible to neighbors and others. She said that the balloons were flown on a windy day.

Residents argued that there is no reason for the applicants to need a farm barn at the site when they are not in the farming business. The purpose of the structure is of major concern to residents.

“There is no evidence that the owner farms the land,” neighboring resident Allen Staley told the zoning board, having agreed to join the action to bolster the legal standing issue. Cullen added that the structure would be visible from all points of his property. He said that he and his attorney will be able to prove standing. Other residents offered to join the action as needed.

Speaking on behalf of the owners, attorney Anthony Morando of Fishkill reiterated that his clients have an application before the Planning Board. 

“At this point we are a permitted use and we are following our process with the Planning Board,” he said. 

He said that the ZBA will determine whether the Cullen appeal can go forward, and commented that the balloon test is not relevant to the zoning board’s determination.

“It’s a barn,” Morando said. “We are fully on board with the town, but the venue should be the Planning Board.”

“The question is whether it is an accessory structure,” Rappleyea argued.

Morando added his opinion on the question of standing that people cannot join it later.

Rappleyea also reported that residents had not received proper notice about the application, many learning of it only when they saw the sign posted at the property.

Cullen told the zoning board that the balloon test was to have used six balloons, but only two were flown on a windy day and only for a short period of time.

About the issue of use, Morando explained that the barn is to be used for non-commercial recreation, that the owners would be “playing sports with their kids.” 

“It’s not a golf range,” Morando added.

“The zoning board is interested in use; the Planning Board is interested in appearance,” Metcalfe commented.

An environmental impact study has had some work, but no determination yet.

The ZBA will continue to gather information to discuss at its June 17 meeting when it will most likely schedule a public hearing.

Kent Hollow Mine

In another matter concerning the Kent Hollow Mine operations on Leedsville Road, the zoning board received written evidence submitted by attorney George Lithco, who is preparing a draft resolution about continuation of a non-conforming use.

A key date proved to be 1973, in that the non-conforming use would have had to have been in operation that year. In any event, he said, non-conforming uses cannot expand operations.

“Even if the activities were allowed by the town, were they proper?” he asked.

He told the zoning board that the town is not prevented from regulating mines, but it cannot stipulate how the mining is conducted or operated.

The nature and extent of the operation came under discussion. Lithco reported that 40,000 yards of material have been removed over 45 years.  ZBA member Leo Blackman asked for actual records. 

“There is sufficient proof that material was removed over the years since 2007,” Lithco said. “This non-conforming use has never been defined by evidence.”

The zoning board agreed to review the packet of information submitted by Lithco and consider the issue at its next meeting on Monday, June 17, or it might schedule a special meeting before then.