► Kitchen

Kitchen

From Page A-l

property except for wood debris which is in two piles. “It is close to being in compliance,” he said.

Mr. Kitchen testified that he would be using the wood as fuel for his woodstove and would use other pieces for construction of an equipment shed. He acknowledged that the construction debris had been on his property since September, and had applied for a building permit for the shed over a year ago. Commonwealth’s Attorney Peter Luke questioned the usefulness of the wood after having been out in the weather since September. “I don’t intend on leaving it out too much longer because it will begin to deteriorate,” said Mr. Kitchen.

Mr. Luke remarked that he thought it was unusual that Mr. Kitchen would be building a shed on the property when he had filed for bankruptcy. Mr. Kitchen’s attorney, Jeffrey Parker, said that his client had filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which is for reorganization.

Mr. Kitchen admitted that he had brought construction debris from northern Virginia and had been paid by people to haul it away and he had charged a tipping fee. Mr. Luke wondered if Mr. Kitchen had made money by charging that tipping fee and then bringing the stuff to his own property.

There are also two truck cabs on the Kitchen property. Mr. Kitchen said, “Those are not yard ornaments; those are parts.”

Mr. Luke argued that state law mandates that people cannot have an open dump on their property, even if they plan to extract building materials from it. All along, Mr. Kitchen had been claiming that it was a salvage operation. “No matter how you slice it he has violated state law and county law over an extended period of time. The county gave him ample time to remedy it,” said Mr. Luke. He added, “He has a long way to go to show there was a bona fide salvage attempt here.”

Mr. Parker argued about the definition of trash, and said that in the two county ordinances the definition depends solely on the county administrator’s definition of trash. Another county administrator might see it differently, he said. He felt that the definition was too vague to support a criminal conviction.

Only some wood is left and his client has been removing the materials off the property, said Mr. Parker. He said he felt that there was no evidence that anything had entered the environment (water or air), and added that it is not an offense to have something that is not aesthetically pleasing.

Mr. Luke told the judge that if Mr. Kitchen wanted to move the stuff he would be willing to give him some time to get rid of it. Also, the county would be willing to take the wood into the landfill but the tipping fee would be $43 a ton. “We would like to see a heavy hammer held over his head and have him resolve this,” said Mr. Luke.

Messrs. McCarthy and Luke will visit the Kjtchen property on April 15 to see if he has cleaned up the dump. He will then return to court on May 6 and the judge will determine if he is to be sentenced.