The Springfield Town Board met in front of a packed house Monday night to field concerns about the proposed site plan review law and suggested changes to the law stemming from a public hearing held last week.

"We'll take questions and comments for about two minutes," Supervisor Tom Armstrong said.

Springfield resident John McGlynn asked if the baseball facility proposed by developer Vincent Alfieri at the current site of the Diamond Tee Golf Range would be classified as a tax-free educational facility.

"I got no idea," Armstrong responded.

Councilman Gary Sikkema said that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss changes to the proposed site plan review, not specific projects.

"We've been trying for some time to run this through the legal system," Sikkema said. "We can't get sidetracked. Talking about the baseball camp is going to hold us up."

Doug Zamelis, a Syracuse attorney representing the Advocates for Springfield, said that he hoped the board was intending to take the suggestions of the Advocates into consideration.

Sikkema explained that all changes were being considered, and that no substantive changes had been proposed.

"What we have now is better language, tighter enforcement, but no changes to the law," Sikkema said."I thought that the public hearing went very well. What we have to do is balance the rights of developers with those of property owners."

Several members of the board wondered aloud about the necessity of having to hold another public hearing once changes were made to the document. Attorney Paul Elkin said, "It would be a more conservative thing to do, to have a hearing, so the changes won't be challenged on that ground."

Armstrong was adamant about having a public hearing regardless of whether or not it was mandated.

Springfield resident Jim Willsey asked the board how much trouble it would be to put the changes through and then make amendments to the site plan review law later on.

"It's easier," said Armstrong, "No SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act)."

A mumble of, "No, that's not right," rippled through the crowd.

Elkin explained that the Planning Board is not a mandated part of the process of instituting changes to the site plan review law, but that they are a very helpful part. He also said that if the recommended changes were adopted, the timetable would be as follows: first, there would be another public hearing, followed by a meeting of the county planning board, then the final changes would be adopted at the next town board meeting, and finally, the site plan review law would be forwarded to the secretary of state.

Elkin engaged in a page by page review of possible changes, all of which were aimed at clarifying sticking points or broadening the power of the planning board. For example, in Article III, Item 16, the "location and design of outdoor lighting facilities" may be amended to include "public speaking and address systems," specifying further that they not be audible beyond the property boundary.

Towards the end of the meeting, the board took some time to review the SEQRA form. They signed it after determining that the proposed site plan review law did not affect air, water, plants, animals, agricultural usage, critical environmental areas or the character of the community.

The board decided that another public hearing will be held on November 29 at 7:30 so that the public may comment on the changes.