WOONSOCKET -- Saying the proposal would destroy too much wildlife
habitat, the state Department of Environmental Management has denied
Wal-Mart’s application to alter wetlands as part of a plan to expand into a
24-hour Supercenter on Diamond Hill Road -- a major setback for the retail
giant.
In a four-page decision
issued Friday after an 18-month review, DEM says the Bentonville,
Ark.-based company had failed to adequately explain why it is necessary to
sacrifice so much wildlife habitat for the expansion and had done too
little to offer initiatives to compensate for the loss.
"The proposed alterations are, therefore, inconsistent with the
best public interest and public policy" standards established under
state law, the ruling says, adding, "Your application to alter a
freshwater wetland is hereby DENIED." The emphasis is included in the
decision, signed by Martin D. Wencek, permitting supervisor for the
Freshwater Wetlands Program.
Lawyer Charles Hambly of Providence, who represents Wal-Mart’s interests in
the city, said the ruling does not mean the expansion plan is dead. That’s
unlikely, he said.
Wal-Mart, Hambly said, is exploring a number of ways of addressing the
ruling, including petitioning DEM for an administrative appeal. Wal-Mart
has up to 30 days to do so. Also, Wal-Mart is considering an alternative
drainage plan that would satisfy DEM and neighbors who filed suit against
Wal-Mart and the city recently over similar wetlands issues.
"We’re exploring any option that might be available here," Hambly
said. "We’re investigating any possible way we can solve this problem
and solve the neighbors’ problems."
The plan, according to DEM, proposes alteration or disturbance of some
25,650 square feet of freshwater wetlands, including a man-made retention
pond and a swath of forested wetlands, located about 750 feet south of
Diamond Hill Road, behind the store. Moreover, it would result in "the
direct loss of approximately 20,975 square feet of forested wetlands
habitat and overall disturbance of wetlands on the subject property,"
resulting in "a significant displacement of some wildlife species
requiring a woodland habitat.
"This will result in a loss of food, escape cover, shelters, breeding
sites, nesting sites, brood rearing sites and travel corridors," the
decision says. "The loss of forested wetlands habitat will in turn
eliminate opportunities to observe, hear, photograph or study wildlife
requiring forested habitat. ..
DEM said the increase in paving associated with Wal-Mart’s plan would
divert too much storm runoff away from natural wetlands into the retention
pond, possibly wreaking additional havoc with the groundwater ecosystem for
plants and animals.
The documentation accompanying the plan fails to explain "the
compelling necessity for nearly doubling" the size of the existing
parking area, the decision says.
In yet another critique, DEM questioned a major feature of the proposal
city officials have touted as a boon for residential abutters south of
Wal-Mart who complain of flooding during heavy storms. Wal-Mart has offered
to enlarge the city-owned retention pond at its own expense -- a project
that officials say could cost $750,000 -- to alleviate the problem.
But DEM said Wal-Mart provided insufficient information for the agency to
judge whether the proposal would be effective. Since the expansion of the
pond is based upon the city’s needs, the city should have provided an
analysis to "justify the extent of pond expansion necessary to
alleviate the flooding and subsequently, the overall wetland
encroachment," the agency said.
DEM’s ruling seemed to bolster neighbors who have already taken legal
action in attempts to stop Wal-Mart from tampering with the drainage pond.
Calling the basin "the people’s pond," Warwick lawyer John Revens
filed suit in Superior Court on Jan. 30 on behalf of the Walnut Hill
Homeowners Association, an abutters group that has been a thorn in
Wal-Mart’s side for several years.
The suit, which names Wal-Mart and the Zoning Board of Review as
defendants, challenges the city’s approval of Wal-Mart’s "master
plan" for expansion, including modifications to the holding pond. The
suit contends it is illegal for Wal-Mart to use the pond, located on
passive recreation land, for an expansion of commercial purposes.
Rita Piedmonte of Priscilla Road, a member of the Walnut Hill group, was
guardedly optimistic about DEM’s ruling.
"I’m not going to go out and buy my bottle of champagne today,"
she said. "Wal-Mart is a big entity and it’s been a long haul. We’ll
have to wait and see what happens."
One thing that might happen, according to Planning Director Joel D.
Mathews, is that Wal-Mart will scuttle its plan to alter freshwater
wetlands altogether by embracing a new kind of drainage system. The city,
which is technically a co-applicant for the wetlands permit because it owns
the land on which the drainage pond is located, has asked Wal-Mart to
consider the move.
Mathews said the company could install a drainage system based on huge,
subterranean holding chambers known as "galleys" that are
designed to disperse storm runoff into the ground slowly. Such a system
would be "very costly," said Mathews, but if would enable
Wal-Mart and the city to circumvent most of the legal issues raised by DEM
-- and the Walnut Hill Homeowners Association.
"It’s still speculative, but it might be a real possibility that we’ll
do it that way and avoid all the legal problems," Mathews said.
At any rate, Mathews said he hopes DEM’s ruling does not spell the death
knell for Wal-Mart’s expansion. If the company hits an insurmountable
roadblock, Mathews said, he worries Wal-Mart will withdraw from Diamond
Hill Road completely, leaving the city with fewer jobs, less tax revenue
and a cavernous, vacant box store that would be hard to market to other
commercial interests.
"We don’t want to see a big vacant building sitting there for a couple
of years before it’s finally torn down," he said.
