Proposed supermarket’s environmental review continues

NORTH EAST — The application for a new, 36,000-square foot as-of-yet-unnamed (though most believe it to be a Hannaford) supermarket on Route 44, not far from the Connecticut border, has been on the town Planning Board’s agenda for more than a year. The Planning Board continued to focus on Southern Realty Development LLC’s (SRD) proposed supermarket application at its meeting on Wednesday, Feb. 22. That’s when the board met with its planner, Will Agresta, applicant John Joseph, his engineer Rich Rennia and other members of his team, to go through part two of the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). The EAF is a requisite piece of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process, which SRD is moving through. Once part three of the EAF is completed the board will make either a positive or negative declaration. That finding will determine whether a long or short form SEQRA will be required; a long form could take months to years, a short form a fraction of that time. Last week’s EAF review was done while SRD’s site plan and lot line adjustment remained open. Review of the form took much less time than the public comment portion of the meeting (for full coverage of public comments turn to this week’s article on the front page). The EAF is designed to ask various environmental questions with three basic responses: 1) small to moderate impact; 2) potential to large impact; 3) can impact be mitigated by project change? (Check yes or no.)Getting startedThe first question was: “Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?” The response was checked “Yes.”Agresta noted that a large impact doesn’t necessarily mean a significant one.He then led the board through a checklist: Impact on water? Yes. May affect waterline from village to site; may affect surface and groundwater adjacent to wetlands (and potential bog turtle habitat); may affect groundwater quality or quantity; may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities.“Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff?” The answer, “Yes.”“Will proposed action affect air quality?” “No.”“Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?” “Yes.”In the impact on plants and animals section, it also asked about the “application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes, related to maintenance of site landscaping with impact on species and adjacent wetlands, as well as suitable protected species habitat.” The box for potential to large impact was checked.Again, in that same section, there was a query regarding the “potential impacts to suitable habitat and utilization of said habitat by the following protected species: bog turtle and sedge wren, as well as New England cottontail (candidate for listing) and bald eagle (de-listed but protected as a migratory species).” It was checked to have a potentially large impact.“Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?” The response was, “yes.”What’s the impact?It was also affirmed that there will be an impact on both agricultural land resources and aesthetic resources.The EAF found there will be no impact on historic and archaeological resources, open space and recreation or on any critical environmental areas.It was found there will be an impact on transportation.“Obviously traffic will change,” Agresta said, adding it will only be “a little bit.”The box for “no” was checked off when asked if there will be an impact on energy or fuel supply. The box for “yes” was checked for impacts on noise and odor. It specified that they will be “short-term impacts” due to construction. There were no foreseen impacts on public health.There are, however, impacts expected on the growth and character of the community. A small to moderate impact is expected in the following areas: changes in the density of land use; demands for additional community services (schools, police, fire, etc.); and the creation of employment. “We’re trying to use as many local people as possible,” Joseph said. “We’re using local engineers, surveyors and even though sometimes we can’t, we’re going to try to pull from the local labor pool.”A potentially large impact is expected due to a “large new commercial building and parking lot within the Boulevard zoning district replacing open field and woodlands view from Route 44.”It was also agreed that there is likely to be “a public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts.”Third part of EAFAs the board wrapped up part two of the EAF, Attorney to the Town Warren Replansky said while the process was not proceeding traditionally, it made good sense in this instance. Chairman Dale Culver noted that “Everything that is being marked as having an impact is going to be mitigated.”The board also set a date of Wednesday, March 28, at 7:30 p.m., to begin reviewing part three of the EAF.Sharon Kroeger, who lives in the Amenia hamlet of Leedsville, spoke after the review to the board. She said the EAF is especially interesting, and called it a “case study” in planning.“At least eight towns are affected whose main streets will be affected,” she said. “It will be really important you don’t cut corners and really important you have a positive declaration.”She was asked to name those eight communities. She did: Salisbury, Sharon, Kent, Canaan, Cornwall — all in Connecticut — and Amenia, Pine Plains and Stanford, in New York.“Every one has a food market of some kind, and their main streets cluster around these food stores,” Kroeger said. “Smart planning criteria is important, and I think you’re undermining that.”Culver said, after others had spoken, that he and his board members were doing their due diligence.“I’m getting a little tired that at every opportunity people have to twist our words. It’s getting a little old,” he said. “This is a job we volunteer to do for the good of our town. We don’t write the laws — we just follow them.”