SPRINGFIELD CENTER - An overwhelming majority of the more than 100 people who attended the Springfield town board's public hearing Monday night about site plan review were in favor of adopting the local law.

Spurred by the recent announcement of plans for a Dreams Park-style baseball camp on County Route 31, residents and property owners have banded together as the Advocates for Springfield with an aim to protect and enhance the quality of life in the town, according to a letter distributed in the town by 20 individuals.

On hand to assist the group was Syracuse attorney Doug Zamelis, a familiar face in the debate of land use issues in area. Zamelis represented a group of Pine Boulevard residents when the Brookwood School wanted to locate in the old D&H railstation off Main Street in Cooperstown. He again served as a legal advisor for a group when the Concerned Citizens of Hartwick hired an attorney with funding from the Glimmerglass Coalition.

Advocates member Melinda Smith told people she was concerned about people coming in from the outside doing whatever they want. "I'm upset because I worry about my corner, It's real personal to me," she said as she introduced Zamelis in a meeting prior to the hearing. Zamelis explained his presence, the site plan review law and offered some advice to people who intended to make comment in the hearing.

"The most meaningful comments will come from the people who have lived here. Your job is to let the town board know how you feel," he said.

"Site plan review is one of the simplest land use controls and is only as good as its administration. "It's up to the town board and citizens to make sure it is administered correctly," Zamelis said.

Because the proposed law is virtually identical to the town of Hartwick's, its experience with incurring bills of more than $70,000 in the review process by hiring engineers and an environmental attorney was brought up, by residents worried that the same thing may happen in Springfield. It was pointed out the law provides for recovering those costs from the developers.

"Unfortunately, the town of Hartwick has not done its job," commented Springfield resident Jim Bernegger, who is also the Otsego county Conservation Association president and chairman of the Glimmerglass Coalition steering committee.

Before listening to comments from the public about the proposed local law, the town board asked Terry Bliss of the Otsego County planning department to present an overview of site plan review.

"It is a half step between nothing at all and zoning. It is a good mid-step that applies a blanket equally over every parcel in the town," he said.

Site plan review is not as restrictive as zoning and allows a fair amount of freedom to propose whatever a person wants anywhere in town.

Before commencing the hearing, town supervisor Tom Armstrong told the crowd that if the majority of people don't want it then the process would stop right there.

Tara Sumner said she was in favor of the law, but had reservations. "It may not be enough. We need to look at the language to make sure it is tough enough so we don't end up with something we regret," she said.

Another resident was not in favor of the law because it put too much power in the hands of the planning board which is not elected, but appointed by the town board.

Homer Fassett, who lives on Continental Road, said in no way was he in favor of a baseball camp.

"No way I'm in favor of a fat cat coming in here," he said. "What we need is $25 a hundredweight for milk. "

The town, he added, had some of the best farmland around and it should stay that way.

Ellen Levine, one of the organizers of the Advocates for Springfield, said, "The bottom line should not be the bottom line of developers. The people of the community should decide how the community will look."

The town board also accepted a list of recommended changes to the proposed site plan review lawfrom Zamelis and the Advocates for Springfield. The suggested changes cover a range of issues in the law included making a public hearing on a site plan mandatory rather than optional.

Following the close of the hearing, Armstrong opened up the meeting to a question and answer period so residents could quiz Bliss about the law.

One question which came up quickly was whether the baseball camp developer Victor Alfieri would have to submit his plans for review.

Bliss said that at this point timing was the key. The law could be passed and on the books fairly quickly, but it may not be fast enough to afford any review of Alfieri's project.

"You have to look at the dollars and cents investment he has put into the project," Bliss said. "The more he has spent and invested in the project, the less he has to worry about."

What constitutes a 'substantial' investment in the project is an issue that may have to be decided by a court, Bliss said.

"Whenever there is a race between a developer and a town efforts at control, it is a good setting for a moratorium," Bliss said.

But at this point, he added, the town could probably have the site plan law on the books before they could adopt a moratorium.

A week ago, Armstrong commented that the town would not adopt a moratorium while it considers passage of the site plan review law.

Alfieri attended the hearing and was introduced to the crowd by Armstrong, who asked the developer to explain his plans and answer questions.

Alfieri said his camp will be very similar to the Dreams Park, but that he will be able to learn from what the park did right and what it did wrong.

He plans eight ballfields, six of which will be illuminated for the 32 teams the camp will host during each of the 11 weeks in the season.

The fields and the 21 bunkhouses will be screened from view by a berm which will have 35 pine trees planted on its topside. The camp, he is predicting, will generate 89 jobs.

Residents tried to pin down Alfieri on whether he would voluntarily submit his plans to the planning board for review even if the law was not enacted before he was ready to begin construction, but the developer responded that he was "going to move as expeditiously as possible and will comply with all existing regulations."

In a show of good faith, he said he would apprise the town and planning boards of what they are doing, but the boards would have no jurisdiction if the law is not in place, he said.

The town board did not take action on the proposed law, but will meet again Monday in its regularly scheduled, monthly session.

The board would have the option of adopting the law in its current form, or amending it to include some or all of the suggestions made during the hearing. Any substantive changes in the law would require a second public hearing which would slow the process. If adopted, the law must be forwarded to the county planning board for a review in its advisory capacity.