Concerns surface over Kent Hollow Mine appeal

AMENIA — Upon the recommendation of their attorney, George Lithco, members of the Amenia Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) hashed out comments and concerns they had regarding the draft resolution for the Kent Hollow Mine appeal with Kent Hollow representatives, leading to a thorough discussion between both parties on Monday, June 3.

Going back to February of 2017, Kent Hollow originally submitted a mining permit application to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) for the purpose of operating a sand and gravel mine on its property, located on County Route 2. 

However, the town of Amenia’s code enforcement officer determined that the site was in violation of two sections of the town’s zoning code and presented the mine with a notice of violation and an order to remedy in May of that same year. As the notice stated that Kent Hollow Mine had stopped its operations for longer than a year on one or more occasions since 2007, the mine was ordered to cease all operations and refrain from future mining operations.

Kent Hollow Mine responded to the notice of violation by arguing that soil mining is allowed on site and requires no permits or applications. Additionally, Kent Hollow representatives alleged that the mine has been operating on site under the DEC permit threshold since 1998.

On Monday evening, June 3, ZBA Acting Chairman Terry Metcalfe invited Chris Steiner of Kent Hollow and  his representative, Allan Rappleyea, an attorney from Corbally, Gartland and Rappleyea, LLP, to join the ZBA at their table. Recalling last month’s meeting, Lithco reminded the ZBA that he provided them with a draft resolution regarding the appeal already. 

Since then, he said he has received individual comments from ZBA members related to different typos and suggestions for the resolution. Using those comments, Lithco said he made a few revisions to the document. He explained the purpose of the meeting was to give the ZBA an opportunity to go over the resolution and examine the revisions. He encouraged ZBA members as well as Rappleyea and Steiner to use the opportunity to ask questions.

In response, Steiner shared his distress that the meeting started with reviewing a resolution he and Rappleyea hadn’t had a chance to review.

“It’s a little discouraging in front of the board here, looking at something we haven’t reviewed yet… I don’t know where we’re going to go,” Steiner said. “It’s been two years and it comes to this? I’m very offended.”

“I don’t think it’s a fruitful exercise to go through everything,” Rappleyea said.

Additionally, Rappleyea asked
whether the clarifications included in the draft resolution reflected Lithco’s or the ZBA’s understanding of the zoning regulations involved in the appeal. This opened up a heated dialogue among the ZBA, Rappleyea and Steiner, with ZBA members arguing they hadn’t had a chance to review the latest version either.

“I don’t agree with this at all, I think it’s wrong and I’ll leave it at that,” Rappleyea said.

ZBA member Michael Chamberlin asked both Lithco and the ZBA if they wanted to review the resolution — with a focus on how the latest version of the draft resolution had been sent to the ZBA the day before the meeting — thereby limiting the ZBA’s ability to thoroughly review it. He also wanted to focus on the substantial disagreements that Steiner and Rappleyea had with the resolution.

“If they have significant concerns about what it says, maybe it’s worth it to hear what those are,” Chamberlin said. “I would not consider it a personal waste of my time… but to say the whole thing is off isn’t helpful. We should take the time to go through the specific concerns if that’s what everyone wants.”

Rappleyea suggested submitting a counter resolution, though Chamberlin recommended that it would be more productive to articulate each disagreement.

“I think if you feel you’re getting this at the last minute and you need time to review this… why don’t we take the time to do that?” said ZBA member James Wright.

In addition to addressing the ambiguity of the mine’s timeline of activity, Rappleyea said the underlying use didn’t change over time. He asked if the board believed the extraction of materials from the site played a critical role in the appeal.

“I’m just really frustrated at this point because in the time that I’ve sat on this board as an alternate, I know people have asked for very specific clarifications…” said ZBA alternate Leo Blackman, “so to give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Steiner based on what we’ve read and the zoning code, it doesn’t seem to me that there has been continuous mining.”

Since the time that he first received documents on Kent Hollow Mine, Chamberlin said he’s noticed gaps of activity taking place on the site. 

“It seemed an error to me that the theory you were all operating [under] is you’d have to do a little activity during each calendar year,” Chamberlin said, stressing activity would have to be “continuous.”

Steiner commented that they never heard anything from the town of Amenia in terms of inconsistent mining activity taking place on site.

“Put yourself in our shoes,” Steiner said. “If we knew, if someone said, ‘Hey guys, you’re being inconsistent,’ we would have done something, but we didn’t hear anything.”

Rappleyea explained that the activity the Steiners were conducting extracting materials predated the town’s regulations for non-conforming uses. He added that the only activity taking place at Kent Hollow that could be considered sporadic was the trucking of materials off the site. Chamberlin countered that it was the extraction of materials that was sporadic.

If the ZBA wanted to look at a counter resolution, Rappleyea said, they would submit one. Chamberlin reiterated that they should focus on individual comments related to the resolution, adding that a counter resolution would be counterproductive. 

“The other thing that bothers me is it’s no longer economical to do what you’re doing,” said ZBA member Paula Pelosi, “and part of Zoning 101 is making money and that business of, if we take it away from you, is it going to do a lot of harm, but we don’t have any records of how much money you made.”

Considering the importance of each element in the resolution, ZBA alternate Tracy Salladay shared her belief that the ZBA has been struggling to examine the history of the site’s comprehensive needs, adding that she felt the resolution was a good reflection of the work that’s gone into the appeal.

“My understanding is that Allen’s not going to tear up the road map — he’s just going to comment on it,” Wright said.

The next ZBA meeting on Kent Hollow Mine has been scheduled for Monday, June 17, at 7 p.m. on the second floor of Amenia Town Hall.