[P]ITTSFORD — Residents raised concerns about the aesthetic and traffic effects of a proposed Dollar General store Tuesday as officials began hearing evidence on the developer’s application.
The District 1 Environmental Commission is considering only five of Act 250’s 10 criteria as it prepares to make what is known as a partial finding on the 9,100-square-foot store. The limited scope of the review was at the request of the applicant, Pittsford BTS Retail and Frank von Turkovich, who owns the land.
Before a permit can be issued under Vermont’s land use law, the board must review all 10 criteria.
There are two Dollar General stores within 10 miles of Pittsford, both on Main Street in Rutland. According to a July story in Seven Days, Vermont has 31 Dollar General stores — far more than it had just a few years ago and an unusually large number for a state its size. Vermont also has 14 Family Dollar stores and eight Dollar Trees.
Laurie Pelkey, who runs a disaster recovery business with her husband, questioned whether Pittsford was the right place for another such store. Pelkey said a handful of businesses in town already sell the same kinds of goods available at Dollar General.
“What if the store fails?” Pelkey asked.
The well-attended hearing addressed whether the proposed store and parking lot would comply with Act 250 provisions dealing with wetlands, traffic, primary agricultural soils, public investments and settlement patterns. The 2.7-acre parcel at the corner of Plains Road and Route 7 is in a residential neighborhood on the northern edge of town.
Residents at the hearing, some of whom have property next to the proposed site, raised concerns about the store’s impact on real estate values, traffic patterns on what many perceive to be a dangerous stretch of Route 7, and the overall aesthetics of the village.
“I’m not anti-business for this piece of property,” said Deborah Reynolds, whose land abuts the site. “But it should be appropriate.”
Kim Keith, a proprietor of Winning Image Graphics on the other side of Route 7, said she’s also pro-business “but very much opposed to a Dollar General.”
“I feel it’s such a poorly planned location,” Keith said.
Keith’s husband and his brother have operated Winning Image Graphics for 20 years in Pittsford and for 10 years in its current location; if Dollar General is built it will be visible from their storefront window. Winning Image Graphics has printed and distributed lawn signs that say, “We Don’t Want Your Dollar General.”
Abigail Dery, project engineer with Trudell Consulting, told the commission that the Agency of Natural Resources had already issued a wetland permit for the project that requires the construction of a split rail fence to delineate where the protected habitat begins.
According to the ANR’s permit, the 1.27-acre wetland includes native trees and shrubs including green ash, willows, dogwood and speckled alder. “This area shall be allowed to succeed naturally over time,” the ANR ruled.
Dery also presented a traffic impact study based on data collected by the Vermont Agency of Transportation and carried out for the developer. According to the study, the area on either side of the intersection is not considered a high-crash zone, and an analysis of peak hour traffic between 4 and 5 p.m. found the proposed store would not have an “undue adverse impact on the area.”
Dery said the Transportation Agency concurred with the study’s results.
According to the traffic provision in Act 250, criteria 5A and 5B, the district commission will not grant a permit if the development is deemed to cause “unreasonable congestion or unsafe conditions.” In the case of transportation measures, the burden of proof is on the opponent, not the applicant.
Asked what the commission’s definition of unreasonable conditions was, Chairman John Liccardi replied, “We don’t have a definition. It’s up to the experts — in this case the traffic study or in case one of the opponents wishes to bring an expert on board they will define it and tell us why.”
Jennifer Cyr Tinsman, a physician’s assistant at Rutland Regional Medical Center who lives in Pittsford, said the interpretation of what is reasonably safe was subjective.
“What one person considers unreasonably dangerous because it’s their child that’s crossing Route 7 is different than what a commissioner sitting and looking at AOT information and other traffic studies would consider unreasonably dangerous,” she said.
Paul Lathrop, who lives near the proposed site, pointed out that the school bus stops at the intersection of Plains Road and Route 7 every day dropping off about a dozen kids. A second bus arrives around 4:30 p.m. with kids who play after-school sports.
“I’ve lived here my whole life,” Lathrop said. “I see it. Some kid’s going to get killed one day. I believe it.”
Dery said the engineering firm had submitted documents to the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets and that the property is not classified as primary agricultural soil.
On the final matter of settlement patterns, which falls under the relatively new Act 250 provision known as 9L, Dery argued that because the store would be in the village of Pittsford’s zoning district, it complies with the criterion. Provision 9L seeks to limit sprawl by encouraging development within existing settlements and imposing efficiency guidelines on any construction outside those designated areas.
District Commission member Amanda Beraldi questioned Dery and developer Matt Casey about the frequency of large truck deliveries to the proposed store and the impact it would have on traffic flow. Casey said Dollar General typically delivers its retail merchandise in an 18-wheel tractor-trailer once a week. Other deliveries are made in smaller vehicles as needed, he said.
A long-delayed upgrade to Route 7 in Pittsford has contributed to the degradation of the town’s sidewalks. In August, Transportation Secretary Chris Cole met with local representatives to discuss ways the town could improve its sidewalks before the upgrade is completed. That project is not scheduled until 2028. The stretch of Route 7 on either side of Plains Road does not have a sidewalk.
If necessary the district commission will issue recess orders in the next couple of days, which require the applicant to provide further documentation before a ruling is made. Liccardi said this was the first of several public hearings.
