Altamont’s planning board has its work cut out for it. It is currently considering three projects that each, by itself, could  change the character of the village:

— A 120-foot cell tower proposed for village property on Aquam Lane that has raised both aesthetic and health concerns;

— Jeff Thomas’s plan to shoehorn 26 apartments and 3,600 square feet of commercial space along with parking in 1.6 acres next to the post office and library; and

— Stewart’s Shops’ proposal to expand its current gas station and convenience store in the village.

We believe, with the Stewart’s expansion plan, that the village board, in a 3-to-2 vote, gave up the chance for a needed in-depth environmental review when it changed the zoning of 107-109 Helderberg Ave. from residential to commercial — paving the way for the expansion.

Now the brunt of that examination will fall on the shoulders of the planning board.

On Dec. 12, when the village board decided to change its zoning to allow for Stewart’s expansion — something a previous board had turned down two years ago — Trustee Dean Whalen argued correctly that a full environmental review should be undertaken before the zoning change was allowed.

The state has set up a system where a board considering a project works through a list of 11 questions that can be answered in two ways — there will be moderate impact, or, alternatively, there will be no impact or a small  impact.

Whalen, an architect who led the committee that drafted Altamont’s comprehensive plan, said that the rezone would have a “moderate to large impact” on the land Stewart’s was seeking to have rezoned.

He noted that rezone would affect the site’s geological, historic, and archeological features, as well as having an impact on the surface water in the adjacent creek.

“I’m not trying to be difficult; I’m trying to be careful,” Whalen said.

It is essential that our representatives are careful. It is now up to the planning board members to look at that same form with 11 questions and to consider carefully, for each of them, if the effect of Stewart’s proposal will be moderate-to-large or small-to-none.

Among the factors that we believe will have a moderate-to-large effect are changing the intensity of use of the land; impairing the character or quality of the existing community; increasing the potential for erosion, flooding, or drainage problems; creating a hazard to the environmental resources or human health, with the proximity to the creek Whalen mentioned.

Requiring an in-depth environmental review — known as a positive declaration — doesn’t mean saying “no” to a project. True, it may take more time and cost the builder more money. But it ensures that the result will be better for the community and the environment.

At the December village board meeting, Trustee Nicholas Fahrenkopf was assured by both the village attorney and its mayor that the planning board would not approve a site plan that created a “moderate to large” material conflict with an adopted land-use plan or zoning regulation.

The planning board now needs to hold to that.

In the neighboring village of Voorheesville, when the planning commission made a positive declaration to proceed with an in-depth environmental review of a new Stewart’s Shop and gas station there, Stewart’s threatened to sue.

In the letter threatening the suit, the lawyer for Stewart’s wrote “We are aware of no other Stewart’s Shop across the State (of which there are over 300) ever being subject to a Positive Declaration.”

That makes us wonder what’s wrong with other municipal boards that did not want to demand an in-depth review if it were warranted. We believe the Voorheesville commission was courageous to continue working in the public interest, requiring an in-depth review, even when threatened.

Stewart’s eventually abandoned the Voorheesville project after the village’s new comprehensive plan included stipulations that the Vly Creek floodplain would not allow a gas station, nor would Stewart’s “standardized architecture” be accepted.

Stewart’s will not be abandoning its Altamont project now that it has been granted the zoning change it wanted. The company had purchased the two-family home next to its shop after the village board didn’t grant the zoning change two years ago and simply waited until it had the village board it wanted.

Now it’s up to the planning board to do its due diligence, requiring an in-depth review.

We would urge the planning board to apply the same sort of scrutiny to the two other significant projects currently under review.

After all, New York State passed the State Environmental Quality Review Act nearly a half-century ago to, in its own words, “establish a process to systematically consider environmental factors early in the planning stages of actions that are directly undertaken, funded, or approved by local, regional, or state agencies.”

The bottom line for a business or a developer is making profits. They often balk at paying extra fees for engineering and traffic reports or for environmental analyses. But the local board must stand its ground in assessing what is best for the community it serves.