ALLEGANY — Zoning officials will reserve judgement on variances for a new gravel pit until next month.

The town of Allegany Zoning Board of Appeals tabled a decision Tuesday on four area variances for a proposed gravel pit on South Nine Mile Road after more than 50 people attended the third public hearing on the requests. The meeting was rescheduled from Monday to Tuesday to access the town senior center due to the expected crowd.

“If we hear about eagles, snakes or whatever — we’re going to

The owner of a site on South Nine Mile Road is seeking area variances for a gravel pit.

Bob Clark/Olean Times Herald

shut you down,” board Chairman John Jones said as the public hearing time began, indicating the focus should be on setback variances the ZBA has jurisdiction over and that town law allows gravel mining in the area.

Henry Zomerfeld, an attorney with law firm Hodgson Russ representing property owner Donald Benson, said the plans have been amended twice since initially coming to the board in March

“We’ve taken into account feedback from the board and the public,” he said.

Town law requires a 500-foot setback from inhabited dwellings and a 100-foot setback from property lines. The law allows for the permit to move forward without a variance if the applicant has written permission from any affected property owners. However, the plan as amended calls for operating just 25 feet from the property line adjacent to the state rest area along Interstate 86, as well as between 337 feet to 400 feet away from three homes without permission of the property owners.

Benson is seeking four variances — one for each of the homes, as well as one for the side adjoining the rest area. The DEC permit process requires only a 25-foot setback from neighboring properties.

Barb Questa speaks against variances for a gravel pit near her home on Tuesday during a town of Allegany Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.

Bob Clark/Olean Times Herald

Zomerfeld noted there are several other gravel pits in the area, including one a short drive down South Nine Mile Road.

The DEC’s website reports three operating sites within a mile of the proposed site — including one operated by Benson. In addition, four reclaimed former sand and gravel mines are also within a mile of the site.

Barb Questa, a resident whose home borders the site, said that the mine would cause “negative and dire impact to health and the environment by mining so close to homes,” and that the zoning board must turn down the variances over concerns of diesel fumes, noise pollution and silica dust released into the air by mining. “The health, safety and wellness will be forever and irrevocably harmed.”

Dave Giardini of Giardini Construction noted that three generations of his family have conducted gravel and sand mining operations in the town, currently operating a site on Lower Birch Run Road about a mile from the proposed new mine and another adjacent to Gargoyle Park.

“In three generations, we’ve left a lot of ground,” he said, honoring setback requirements. “I am 100 feet off St. Bonaventure (University). I’m 100 feet off your beloved bike trail.

“In three generations, we left a lot of ground — don’t think I won’t apply to go get that ground,” he told the zoning board if members grant Benson’s variances.

Henry Zomerfeld (right), an attorney representing applicant Donald Benson before the town of Allegany Zoning Board of Appeals, describes area variances sought for a gravel pit on South Nine Mile Road during a public hearing Tuesday.t know you’re being watched.”

Bob Clark/Olean Times Herald

Emily Bailey — an affected neighbor who started a Change.org petition in May which had received 492 signatures as of Tuesday evening — asked the zoning board who she and other residents could go to at the town level in order to get lower property assessments if the variances were granted.

“Five hundred feet is set for a reason — we don’t need it,” she said.

Zomerfeld argued that “generalized public opposition cannot be considered, should not be considered, and if it is considered, it is subject to annulment.”

“If the town were truly concerned … they wouldn’t allow it,” he added.

Zomerfeld also argued that there was no legal precedent being set, a sentiment shared by Town Attorney Peter Sorgi.

“You would have to have an almost identical situation,” he said, noting that every such request is different. “You just have to follow the legal standards.”

He also noted that all four variances being sought by Benson need to be evaluated separately — and the board could choose to approve all, some or none of them.

Under state law, zoning boards must take five factors into account, including whether a variance will be a detriment or create an undesirable change, whether there are other feasible ways the applicant can receive the benefit being sought, how substantial the variance is, the effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood and whether the difficulty was self-created.

Unlike use variances — which require the zoning board to side with the applicant on all the required factors for those applications — area variances only require the board to take the factors into account before ruling. The board may also decide on a lesser variance or determine there are alternatives that do not require a variance at all.

The board adjourned until 5 p.m. July 22 at the town senior center.