North East — The application submitted by Southern Realty and Development LLC (SRD) to the Planning Board to build a 36,000-square-foot supermarket (believed to be a Hannaford) off Route 44 is back on track.
Co-applicant Ken Thompson’s objections that he had “not been included in much of the planning or development,” and was thereby “not prepared to move forward with the shopping center project,” led the board to suspend the application on Nov. 14, 2012. Thompson’s authorization is needed for the supermarket to proceed with its site plan, which includes a shared driveway with the adjacent Thompson Plaza.
The matter was straightened out between Thompson and the developer in late December. As a result, SRD principal John Joseph was put back on the Planning Board’s agenda at its Jan. 23 business meeting, where the suspension was formally lifted.
EAF begins
At that meeting, the board began Part 3 of the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), an essential part of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process.
The discussion began when SRD engineer Rich Rennia told the board the state has signed off on the project’s stormwater plan.
In a letter from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Deputy Regional Permit Administrator John Petronella stated that his agency believes the plan will be satisfactory and should have no problems earning a permit.
“[The] DEC has determined the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is eligible for coverage under the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for stormwater discharges for construction activities,” Petronella wrote, adding the general permit will not be effective until all necessary DEC permits have been obtained.
Rennia said based on the DEC’s notification, “there’s really not much left to do.”
Public comments
Planning Board Chairman Dale Culver then opened the floor to public comments, setting a 10-minute limit to the session.
Elaine LaBella, director of land protection at the Housatonic Valley Association, a nonprofit watershed conservation organization, rose to speak. She reminded the board of its due diligence and how critical the environmental review is.
“If an action is determined to have potentially significant adverse environmental impacts, an Environmental Impact Statement [EIS] is required,” she advised. “According to SEQRA guidelines, only one determination of environmental impact requires a positive declaration. If more than one impact is found and the board does not make a positive determination under SEQRA, it may face a challenge under Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules.”
An Article 78 is a legal action used to appeal the decision of a New York state or local agency to the New York courts — in other words, it’s when a state or local agency gets sued.
After LaBella spoke no one else from the audience chose to, so the public comment session ended and the review process began. Culver suggested Rennia give a synopsis of where the application stands.
Delving in to the EAF
“We haven’t changed the plans, they’re the same as in the last few years, with some minor [adjustments],” Rennia said, adding he prepared a draft for the EAF, adding and deleting certain text for clarity.
Both the town and the applicant had their expert consultants on hand, including engineers, planners and attorneys, though not every expert was present for each side. Those who were there assisted the board as it worked through the EAF and tweaked the responses to best suit the needs of the applicant and the town.
Some of the points the EAF touched upon included the following:
• Focusing on the conversion from an open field to an impervious surface (for the parking lot and building site)
• How the site will be protected from surface water if it rises over the buffer in the case of a 100-year, 200-year or 500-year storm (additional curbing, berms, retaining walls and swales were discussed as options)
• Removing the conservation easements due to issues of enforcement, and perhaps pursuing deed restrictions
• Dealing with water supply, and addressing storm water, ground water and surface water
• Developing the site operations and maintenance classifications, to include an enforcement arm
• Having the applicant resubmit the maintenance agreement, and agree to keep records on site
• Dividing the section that addresses the impact on the town into multiple sections throughout the EAF
• Addressing the bog turtle buffer and the wetland buffer, the required 100-foot buffer versus the desired, but not required, 300-foot buffer
• The potential to deal with pollutants and treat the wastewater system and additional soils at the site
• The design of the store and architectural plans, though no details were discussed
• Noise and odor impacts; transportation impacts; impacts on growth and community character
Declaration of significance
The next step is to finalize Part 3 of the EAF, which calls for a final draft. Once that’s submitted the board will make a determination of significance, making either a positive or negative declaration. A “pos. dec.” is when the lead agency, in this case the Planning Board, determines the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment and subsequently a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) will need to be prepared. A “neg. dec.” indicates the proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact and a DEIS, therefore, will not need to be prepared.
Hearing and meeting dates
The public hearing, which is already open, also needs to be continued, and North East Planner Will Agresta suggested that be done in a month, when the revised draft EAF is made available for both the board and the public to view.
The next workshop meeting (no action can be taken at workshop meetings) of the Planning Board is on Wednesday, Feb. 6; the next business meeting is on Wednesday, Feb. 27. Culver said he wants to make sure the board’s attorney, Warren Replansky, can attend its next meeting to avoid any unnecessary blunders.
“I want to get [Replansky’s] input before we get to the night of the vote,” Culver said.
More public comments
The board then moved to lift the suspension it had previously placed on the application, at Joseph’s request. Following that a few more members of the audience spoke during a second public comment session. Sharon Kroeger, owner of Calsi’s General Store in Wassaic, was among them.
“You don’t need 36,000-square feet for the several thousand folks in North East and Millerton,” she said. “This request is for a regional megastore, which, if pursued, will wipe out the distinctive culture of a whole socio-economic region.”
Bob LaBonne, owner of LaBonne’s Market in Salisbury, Conn., seconded Kroeger’s statement.
“The extreme impact will not just be in Salisbury, but in neighboring towns ... in a 30-mile district,” he said, adding he will probably see a 20 percent drop in his business once the new Millerton supermarket opens its doors. “I know competition is good ... but typically most [other] stores don’t last.”
Millerton Mayor John Scutieri said he had not planned on speaking, but after hearing the first two comments felt the need to do so.
“It is our turn,” he said of the Millerton community. “All these other communities [have their own stores]. Yes, I agree, there will be some impact, but it will be really nice to have a great grocery store. We have suffered and we deserve it.”
