ALTAMONT — The village board of trustees at its monthly meeting next week is set to take up for the second time Stewart’s Shops’ request to have the property it owns at 107-109 Helderberg Ave. rezoned from residential to commercial — a request that the village board has fulfilled once already. 

A lawsuit filed in April by a group of Altamont residents against the village board and Stewart’s prompted the company in July to reapply for the zoning change, which the village board already approved in December 2018. By taking up the request again, the company and village board will be able to address one of the two bases of the lawsuit: That the board of trustees failed to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review process.

All sides of the suit agreed to an adjournment last month to allow the project’s approval process to play out in it entirety — village-board approval of the zoning change, zoning-board approval of any variance requests, and planning-board approval of a site plan — which could address the complaints laid out in the lawsuit.

The petition filed by the Concerned Severson Neighbors has two core components: Annulling and vacating the December 2018 law, because the village board violated state law by segmenting the State Environmental Quality Review process when it considered only the potential impact rezoning 107-109 Helderberg Ave. would have, and did not take into consideration the potential environmental impact the construction of a new store would have.

And second, that the zoning of 107-109 Helderberg Ave. be reverted back to its original residential designation because, as a commercially-zoned parcel, it was not in accordance with the village’s comprehensive plan, and, therefore, a case of illegal spot zoning. 

In December of last year, the village board voted, 3 to 2, to rezone 107-109 Helderberg Ave., from residential to commercial, which paved the way for Stewart’s to build a new shop on the site. The same rezone request had been rejected by the village board, in another split vote, 2 to 2, two years prior.

“As the Village Board is well aware, the previous zoning amendment process resulted in a rezoning of 107-109 Helderberg Avenue. However, litigation has since been commenced by one or more Village residents who has criticized technical aspects of the Board’s review process,” Stewart’s says in its application for the rezone request. “Stewart’s does not share these views. However, given the nature of the legal arguments raised, it seems that the most appropriate and effective way to address these concerns is through further review.”

Stewart’s also asked that the village board refer the application to the planning board for its comments. 

At its July meeting, the planning board reviewed the proposal as if the December 2018 zoning change had never taken place and based its recommendations as if the property were zoned residential, which it is not. 

The concerns that the planning board had and which it wanted the village board to take a deeper look at as it considered the rezone were: The size of the proposed shop; the variances Stewart’s would need for a code-compliant project; and that board of trustees perform an in-depth environmental review.

Proposed projects in New York State are typically subject to either a  short- or long-form environmental assessment review; the difference between the two is the number and depth of questions that have to be asked to determine a project’s environmental impact. 

When it approved the rezone the first time, the village board used a short-form environmental assessment (because of the nature of the project, the village board had its choice between the two) to determine only the impact the proposed zoning amendment would have; it did not consider the impact that construction of a new shop would have, which is because Stewart’s had not submitted a completed site plan.

The village board said in December 2018 it would let the planning board determine the construction’s impact. However, by looking only at the impact of the proposed zoning change, while allowing the planning board to eventually review a more complete site plan, the village board chose, in the words of the Concerned Severson Neighbors’ lawsuit, to “segment” its SEQR review, which state law does not allow. 

In April, Stewart’s went before the zoning board of appeals seeking seven variances. At the time, the board appeared not to have any serious concerns with the company’s requests. “I don’t really see a problem with it, but I’m just polling the board here if anyone has a problem with it. But it looks kind of practical,” Maurice McCormick, zoning board’s chairman, said in April. 

Chuck Marshall, a real-estate representative for Stewart’s, told The Enterprise this week that the company’s current proposal would need three variances for: a sign, lot size, and the location of the building. 

At a special meeting on May 28, the zoning board voted unanimously to overturn village Building Inspector Lance Moore’s classification of Stewart’s as a convenience store rather than a gasoline service station, which placed further restrictions on the project. Chief among them, is that “no building or other structure, except a fence, shall be closer than 50 feet to any lot in a residential district or any other lot used for residential purposes,” according to village code. 

So, Stewart’s would be seeking 30 feet of relief from the zoning board so that it could build its new shop 20 feet — which, if the project weren’t classified as a gasoline service station, would be enough of a buffer, according to village code, Marshall said — from the lot line of the adjacent property at 111 Helderberg Ave., which is owned by Carol Rothenberg, one of the Concerned Severson Neighbors which is suing both the village and the company. 

Other configurations of the site — which would require more variances — would likely mean that Rothenberg’s property would be exposed to more activity, Marshall said. As Stewart’s site plan is currently proposed, it uses the mass of the new shop to block Rothenberg’s home from the site’s activity, said Marchall. 

The village elections in March turned on the issue of the Stewart’s rezone, with two challengers critical of the move coming up just short in their bids for the board. The two incumbents, both of whom had voted for the rezone, were returned to office by the narrowest of margins.