SOUTHAMPTON/MONTGOMERY — Residents along Montgomery Road in Southampton — which becomes Southampton Road upon entering Montgomery — chose their homes for the quiet, rural feel of the community.

This is why so many homeowners along this road near the Southampton-Montgomery town line have put up signs in their yard featuring a bright red hand calling on the town of Montgomery to stop the approval process for a proposed gravel pit at a neighboring property.

The property was purchased by KBIP, LLC from Scarfo Construction Co. for $375,000 in June, according to property deed records. Because the property is zoned residential, KBIP came to the Montgomery Zoning Board of Appeals to request a special commercial permit to operate a gravel pit there. Scarfo previously had a special commercial permit for the property that had expired.

But after much protest from abutters and other community members following an initial hearing on Sept. 24, KBIP last week withdrew its application for this special permit.

Community concerns

Alex Gray, a resident of Montgomery Road in Southampton, said he didn’t know about the gravel pit plan until two other residents of the street, Lisa Fedora and Cheryl Arnold, knocked on his door one day to spread the news. What he heard sparked worry — his quiet street could become the site of dozens of trips by loud, heavy work vehicles.

“Those trucks are going go right down our road,” Arnold said. “Our road doesn’t have the infrastructure for these heavy trucks.”

She and Fedora, who frequently walk and run on the winding road, were not only concerned by the dangers posed by the trucks to pedestrians and bicyclists, but also the potential damage to the road itself, which is small, curvy and home to several small bridges that have already deteriorated with age and wear.

Fedora and Arnold were disheartened that the potential for a gravel pit on their road was not made more public, and sought to rally their neighbors against the project. They collected signatures from 32 Southampton residents protesting the plan, and brought those signatures to the Southampton Select Board in mid-October.

Residents contested that the gravel pit would impact Southampton residents even more than their Montgomery counterparts because of the location of the proposed gravel pit property on the border of the two towns. Arnold said that the trucks would likely be traveling up and down the Southampton portion of the road to access the Montgomery site.

“We’ve felt at a loss because we don’t actually live in the town,” Arnold said, referring to Montgomery. “There isn’t much we can do.”

Residents were also concerned about the environmental implications of having a gravel pit operating so close to their community.

“They have to wash the gravel, so where’s that water gonna come from? Where’s it gonna go? What’s that gonna do to our water table, when most of us are on wells?” implored Fedora.

“We don’t want the downstream effects of the smashing gravel, the silica in the air,” added Arnold, explaining that the processing of gravel has the potential to release crystalline silica, a human carcinogen, into the air. The pair also worried about the implications for the nearby reservoir in Holyoke, the many vernal pools in the area and the damage that could be caused by increased runoff from the site.

Jeanne Kiendzior, a Montgomery resident who advocated against the proposed gravel pit, is relieved that KBIP is rescinding its commercial permit application. Still, she worries that the company will come back with a new application.

“I don’t want my kids to have to deal with this in 20 years,” said Kiendzior.

In addition to the impact on roads and traffic, she said a gravel pit will likely decrease property values in the area, and could cause drywall cracking at nearby properties from stone blasting.

“Our Southampton counterparts have no say in this, it’s not their town, but they’re going to be affected by this just as much as us if not more,” said Kiendzior.

Application withdrawn

 

Many Montgomery residents expressed concerns about the gravel pit at an initial hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeals on Sept. 24. Members of the board opted to continue the hearing, feeling that they did not have enough information to make a decision.

After hearing the community’s resistance at the initial hearing and the weeks that followed, KBIP sent an email to the ZBA asking to withdraw their application for a special commercial permit, saying they would likely examine other possibilities for the property.

The property owners listed on the permit application under KBIP are Michael, David, Jeffery and Timothy Kent, whom community members refer to as the Kent brothers. 

The ZBA voted unanimously to accept the withdrawal without prejudice, meaning that KBIP could resubmit an application for the permit when they desire. Some community members attending the meeting worried that this would lead to KBIP resubmitting an application during the holiday season, when the community would not be paying as much attention to Town Hall affairs, allowing the permit to slip through without much resistance.

Several attendees made the case for an acceptance of the withdrawal with prejudice, which would prevent KPIB from resubmitting their application for two years, but the board’s vote was final.

During this meeting, Kiendzior also presented the board with a petition against the gravel pit signed by 96 community members.

One ZBA member, Peter Wilcox, suggested that the concerned community members who signed the petition rally together to get the town to adopt an earth removal bylaw, which Montgomery does not currently have. The bylaw would prevent any future gravel pit activities in the town like those previously proposed by KPIB.

Kiendzior and other attendees argued that an acceptance of the withdrawal with prejudice would have given them more time to lobby for the adoption of such a bylaw.

Alexa Lewis can be reached at alewis@gazettenet.com.