A rendering of the proposed Dollar General on Route 9 in Stockport. Primax Properties, who was developing the project, withdrew from purchasing the land for the store from the town of Stockport last month.
A rendering of the proposed Dollar General on Route 9 in Stockport. Primax Properties, who was developing the project, withdrew from purchasing the land for the store from the town of Stockport last month.
STOCKPORT — The developer for the proposed Dollar General in the town withdrew from purchasing the land the store would be located on, the town supervisor said Tuesday.
Primax Properties, which was developing the Dollar General discount store, withdrew from purchasing the land Aug. 27, Town Supervisor Matt Murell said.
The municipality gave Primax Properties three 120-day options to purchase the town-owned property, extending the company’s chance to purchase the property for close to a year, but the town did not want to extend the agreement further, Murell said.
“We felt a year was enough time for them to do what they needed to do,” he said. “The feeling was that they dragged their feet.”
The town was selling the land for $170,000, Murell said.
The store would have been built on a 4.2-acre piece of land on Route 9 and Crown Court in Stockport, and would have included parking, landscaping, utilities, lighting and stormwater management, according to the project’s environmental assessment form.
The location also would have used town water and would require a septic tank to be installed on the property.
Josh Lanning, a development associate for Primax Properties, declined to comment on the company’s withdrawal from the land sale.
“It’s their (Dollar General’s) project, so we can’t comment on that,” he said.
Dollar General said in a statement that it had been evaluating the site in Stockport for a potential location, but decided not to continue with the plans.
“At this time, we are not planning to move forward with that particular location and are evaluating additional opportunities in Stockport and surrounding areas for a new location,” according to the company statement.
The proposed Dollar General would have been a Dollar General Market, according to renderings submitted to the Planning Board in April.
Dollar General Markets sell produce, refrigerated and frozen food, and fresh meat, as well as other general items sold at regular Dollar General locations, according to the company.
The project generated strong opposition from members of the community, with over 50 residents attending the initial Planning Board public hearing on the project April 11.
A group of residents opposed to the proposed Dollar General in Stockport put up a billboard against the project in May.
File photo
A petition against the project, garnering over 175 signatures from Stockport residents and an additional 250 signatures from people in the surrounding communities, was delivered to the Planning Board at the April 11 public hearing.
Keep Stockport Wild, a group of residents concerned with the original project, also put up a billboard on Route 9 in the town in May expressing its opposition to the project.
The property the store would have been located on was purchased by the town in 2007, and the original plan for the land was to relocate town hall and potentially allow one of the fire companies in Stockport to also build a new firehouse at the site.
It was more economically feasible for the town to renovate the existing town hall, and the current Town Board wanted to put the property back on the tax rolls after deciding it did not need it anymore, Robert Fitzsimmons, Stockport town attorney, said at April’s public hearing.
Michael Chadwick, a resident of Stockport and member of the Keep Stockport Wild group, said he was “thrilled” with the company backing out of buying the land.
“I don’t think it was a good fit for the location, or for the town,” he said.
Ideally, Chadwick would like the town to consider a moratorium on big box stores, such as Dollar Generals, coming into Stockport, he said.
“At least for a time period that allows a better look at the issue,” he said.
The location needs “creative thinking” to properly address resident concerns with traffic, drainage and the endangered species of bats that live on the property before it can potentially be developed, Chadwick said.
“I think the next step is the right people putting their heads together and seeing what their options will be,” he said.
The property the store would have been located on is home to the Indiana bat, which was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Its numbers have declined by half since it was listed, and fell 19% since 2007, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Threats to the bat include human disturbance when hibernating, loss of summer habitat, as well as pesticides and other contaminants, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Murell said it was too early for the board to consider a potential moratorium on big box stories, but its members will discuss potential uses for the land, Murell said.
“We’re going to have discussions with the Town Board about that, but no decisions have been made yet,” he said. “We, as a board, are going to have to decide what we’re doing moving forward.”
