ZBA to review Dollar General

PINE PLAINS — Zachary Peters and Jeremy Spike, individuals with Primex Properties’ Dollar General development application, went before the Planning Board on Wednesday, Jan. 14.Peters, who made a presentation to the board last November, offered a summary of the project as it stands now.“It’s a proposed 9,100-square-foot retail building for a Dollar General. We’re proposing 32 parking spaces. The project’s going to connect to the existing water line along Route 82. We’re going to have an on-site sewage disposal system, which is essentially the purpose of the lot line adjustment with the neighboring parcel,” he said. The proposed site is at the corner of routes 82 and 83, south of Stewart’s. Peters added that the applicants have completed a long-form Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), which the board had requested at the November meeting.“We just wanted to get some further guidance on how to proceed with the project,” Peters said.Ray Jurkowski of Morris Associates, the town’s engineer, went over details and options for how to proceed.Jurkowski explained two approaches for the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process: coordinated or uncoordinated.“My understanding is the applicant actually has to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals [ZBA] as well for two variances,” the engineer said.As they exist, the project plans call for a building setback that extends beyond what’s stipulated by zoning code, and total building square-footage above the respective district’s 6,000-square foot minimum. “From a SEQRA standpoint, the project, based on its size and scope, does not exceed any of the thresholds as far as a Type 1 action, so it’d be considered an unlisted action,” Jurkowski added, prefacing the board’s two options.“The Planning Board can’t really come to a determination as far as the site plan review as a whole until the ZBA makes its decision because, quite honestly, without the ZBA’s determination of the variances, there may not be a project,” he said.Jurkowski said if the board refers the project to the ZBA, that agency would handle SEQRA on its end and come to a determination for the variances. “If they do grant those variances, it would then come back to the Planning Board, and the Planning Board would then do its SEQRA determination as well. So that would be considered an uncoordinated review,” he said. “The other option you have is doing a coordinated review where both boards work together and collectively hash out the SEQRA items and work towards a SEQRA determination.”Jurkowski also noted that if the variances aren’t granted, the applicant would have to redraw its plans in order to move forward and reapply.Planning Board member Sarah Jones, sitting in as chair for the absent John Forelle, asked Spike what the applicant’s preference for proceeding would be.“The applicant’s preference would be to do an uncoordinated review,” he said, “to go to the ZBA first, hash out the area variance, and, if it’s granted, come right back and then the Planning Board will handle it.”Jones said that would be her preference, too.Attorney to the Town Warren Replansky advised the board to make a motion to declare an unlisted action under SEQRA, determine that the Planning Board will conduct an uncoordinated review and refer the matter to the ZBA.The motion was made and passed unanimously.The board informed the applicant that it had time to apply for an appearance on the ZBA’s Feb. 24 agenda.