Wal-Mart decision may be delayed
BY MARY PERHAM THE LEADER

ERIC WENSEL/THE LEADER Bath residents hold up signs at Wednesday's planning board meeting expressing their opinions about the possible Wal-Mart coming to Bath.

BATH - A decision to go forward with an environmental study on the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter in the town of Bath could be delayed until early August.

Ann Clarke, of Fagan Consultants, told the town's planning board Tuesday night her agency has not received all the official responses to letters sent out by the planning board last month.

The responses are required before the planning board can decide whether to call for a detailed study on the 19.2-acre project located on State Route 54.

Planning Board Chairman James Emo said the board will publicize any meeting on the proposed supercenter if it is held before the regularly scheduled meeting in August.

Environmental impact studies determine whether a project poses risks to people or the surroundings. Developers then propose ways to offset any problems, if possible.

Roughly 250 people attended the 7:30 p.m. meeting held in the Civil Defense Building. The project has drawn large crowds to meetings since it was first announced about two months ago.

The 150,000-square-foot store is under fire from organized opponents and other area residents. So far, concerns seem to center on traffic patterns on the busy, two-lane state highway, and the impact the store might have on local businesses.

Bill Pyott, of the state Department of Transportation, attended the meeting to tell residents the DOT would involve town and county officials in looking at ways to ease any traffic problems at the site, near County Road 113.

The site is also located near a binary aquifer, and will be reviewed by the Steuben County Soil and Water District for recommendations on storm water management, officials said.

But a request to study the "market" impact on local businesses can not legally be a part of any environmental review, Clarke said.

Emo opened the floor for comments from the crowd, which packed the auditorium and spilled out into the hall.

Opponents wore identifying red badges, with about a dozen holding protest signs. But roughly half of the attendees wore green badges favoring the project and enthusiastically applauded supporters' comments.

In addition to concerns about traffic and the effect the store would have on local retailers, concerns included congestion near the local animal shelter and whether the project would take up "viable farmland."

Supporters said the project would attract more customers to the local businesses, reduce travel costs and build a stronger retail base.

Any environmental review on the project by the planning board will also include public information meetings and comment periods, with all concerns included in the official study.