When Daniel Banyai, owner of the controversial firearms training facility Slate Ridge, took the stand in a Rutland courthouse on Friday, he told the judge that he has not removed most of the unpermitted structures from his property, as court-ordered in March 2021.
And while he acknowledged having made “some mistakes,” he contended he was “fighting for (his) property rights.”
Thomas Durkin, a judge within the Environmental Division of the Vermont Superior Court, heard arguments during Friday’s hearing from the town of Pawlet and Banyai about whether Banyai should be held in contempt of court for failing to comply with that order, which was affirmed by the Vermont Supreme Court in January.
The case has been playing out in the court’s Environmental Division for nearly four years. Durkin did not deliver a decision from the bench at the Rutland District and Family Courthouse, but rather asked both attorneys to file new materials with the court in the coming weeks, after which the court would issue a decision.
The town is requesting that the court impose a fine of $200 per day from Dec. 17, 2020, “until Mr. Banyai can establish his compliance with this court’s order,” said Merrill Bent, the attorney for Pawlet.
Bent also asked Durkin to “advise Mr. Banyai that his failure to comply with the court’s directive may result in his imprisonment until he does so.”
Banyai bought his property in West Pawlet in 2013. In 2017, he opened a “gunfighting” training facility without acquiring necessary permits, setting neighbors on edge. Slate Ridge has long been the subject of local and national media attention.
Alleging that the activities and structures on his property violated town bylaws, the town issued Banyai a notice of violation in 2019.
On March 5, 2021, Durkin issued an order that required Banyai to close Slate Ridge and remove unpermitted structures on his property. Banyai appealed, but the state Supreme Court sided with the lower court.
After a site visit to Banyai’s land earlier this year, Bent and town officials concluded that Banyai still has 21 unpermitted structures on his 30-acre parcel in West Pawlet and one permitted garage with an apartment.
“How many structures have you removed from your property since this court’s order in March of 2021?” Bent asked Banyai on Friday.
“Zero,” Banyai responded.
Banyai later testified that he had removed one metal storage locker from his land. When Bent asked why, Banyai said he “traded it for something else.”
While the continued presence of the structures was not at issue during Friday’s hearing, attorneys for both sides disagreed about whether Banyai has made a good-faith effort to address the court’s order — and whether some structures must be removed at all.
Banyai’s attorney, Robert Kaplan of the Burlington-based firm Kaplan and Kaplan, argued that the original notice of violation did not make clear exactly which structures Banyai needed to remove.
“The town is now coming forward seeking sanctions, including imprisonment, for Mr. Banyai for not complying with the court’s order,” Kaplan said. “And I think precision really matters here, because Mr. Banyai, as a person, is entitled to know what it is that he is obligated to do.”
Near the end of the hearing, Durkin said if Banyai was unsure of the requirements, he could have asked town officials.
“What he should have done is contacted the town — ‘Hey, can I sit down and talk to you about what buildings you want me to remove?’” Durkin said. “Never done.”
Banyai said he has moved one unpermitted structure — a schoolhouse — onto a trailer that he purchased. He said he plans to deconstruct the school house or sell it.
In a document filed with the Environmental Court on Thursday evening, Kaplan argued that by placing the school building on the “towable, registered trailer,” Banyai was “removing it from the jurisdiction of the Town of Pawlet Zoning Unified Bylaws.”
Bent asked why Banyai has not already removed the structure.
“There’s a significant amount of money that went into building that,” he said. “Heart and soul. And to be compliant with the notice of violation, I made it mobile so that I could sell it, use it somewhere else, take it apart.”
Banyai has complied with several of the court’s other demands. He has paid the town more than $50,000 in fines, hired a surveyor to complete a site map of the structures on his land and allowed town officials to visit and assess his property.
Kaplan asked Banyai how he felt about complying with the court order.
“I’m fighting for my property rights,” Banyai said. “I’m fighting for my rights. I mean, I understand you know, I made some mistakes. But I’ve always been trying to comply above and beyond what the regulations are.”
Kaplan argued that many of the structures on the property are used for agricultural purposes, and therefore Banyai did not know he needed to remove them.
Using photographs, Kaplan ticked through a partial list of structures on the property: chicken coops, a barn Banyai said he uses to store hay and other agricultural items, and structures where Banyai said he keeps animals such as goats and sheep.
Meanwhile, Bent presented photographs of other structures, including gun ranges, that allegedly still exist on the property.
Both Durkin and Bent pushed back on Kaplan’s argument that the agricultural use of the structures would exempt them from the court order. Durkin said Banyai should have raised the argument in earlier hearings, before the court delivered its decision.
“I don’t want to go down this road,” Durkin told Kaplan. “We’ve already ruled on the non-applicability of his reference to agricultural structures and agricultural use of this property, given that that was never raised in these prior proceedings.”
Bent said Banyai has repeatedly attempted to block the town’s process.
“Mr. Banyai is telling this court today, with a straight face, that putting an unpermitted structure that this court has ordered him to remove on a trailer satisfies his obligations under this court’s order,” she said. “He’s telling the court with a straight face today that none of the other structures on the property are subject to a notice of violation that was issued in 2019. For the first time, we’re hearing this.”
She said the town has spent more than $49,000 in attorney’s fees on the case.
“I would also ask the court to consider all of what the town has had to go through just to get to where we are after this court has issued a merits decision that was affirmed by the Supreme Court,” Bent said. “The town has spent way too much time and money on this, and it shouldn’t be this hard.”