Ross Valenza, owner of the Diamond Tee Golf Range in Springfield, is poised to sue the Town of Springfield over a baseball camp planned for his Route 31 property.

Valenza said that a lawsuit will happen "sooner or later, probably sooner," to follow up the notice of claim sent by his attorney Burton Dorfman of Nyack, if Springfield chooses not to exclude his project from the new site plan review law.

"All we're looking for is for the town to say that we're not subject to this law," Valenza said. "Then we won't be forced to sue."

Springfield passed a site plan review law last week at a town board meeting.

Town Supervisor Tom Armstrong said that Valenza and Victor Alfieri, an attorney from Rockland County and one of the developers of Cooperstown Diamonds National Youth Baseball Center, have not been told that the law would apply to their project.

But at the same time, they have not been told the law would not apply to the project.

Seven and a half million dollars is the price Dorfman has tacked on the "unconstitutional interference" he said his client is experiencing.

Alfieri said that he'd been asked to hold off on the development of his baseball camp until the law had been passed so that he would be subject to it. Alfieri, who has no plans to hold off, said that either way he and Valenza would not be subject to this law since the land on which the camp is being built is already an outdoor recreational sports facility.

Dorfman, who filed the notice of claim, said that it is a precursor to a lawsuit should Springfield choose not to exempt the project from the law.

"Basically," said Valenza, "the land is already being used as a recreational sports facility. We don't feel that we're subject to the law. We're the only thing that's going on in that town. It's discriminatory."

While the Diamond Tee does not currently have a parking lot to accommodate 500 cars and does not draw the hundreds of people expected each week should the baseball camp become a reality in the town, Valenza said that people are overwhelmingly in favor of the project which would serve to boost the local economy.

"There's a little group of tyrants who want to tell everyone else what to do. You never know when you allow such a small group of people to be in charge what kind of freedoms they're going to strip away next. We've followed all of the proper channels. We've gone through the permit process, through the local code enforcer. This is the way it was here when I opened this place. Now all of a sudden they want to change all that," said Valenza.

Armstrong said that the town board has "nothing to do with it at this point. Now the planning board needs to decide what's going to happen."

Planning board member Dan Rosen said he wasn't sure whether or not this was true and that the planning board is still examining the intricate legalities of the situation, especially now that the notice of claim has been filed.

"We were hoping to have a meeting this week with some members of the town board and the Otsego County planning board so that we could get some of their insight into the law, since they're the experts," said Rosen. "But we lost this opportunity to learn."

Armstrong canceled the meeting, stating that the notice that was given in The Daily Star was not sufficient from a legal standpoint. There is some question about the validity of Armstrong's claim from Rosen and others, like Harry Levine, a member of Advocates for Springfield, both of whom were instrumental in setting up the meeting.

Armstrong was the lone dissenting vote when the law was adopted. He cited section 2.020 of the site plan review law as the reason why. The section is called "effect on existing uses," and states that the law does not apply to uses and structures which are lawfully in existence as of the date this law becomes effective. The section goes on to provide stipulations regarding discontinuation of use over time.

Armstrong said at the meeting that because town attorney Paul Elkan couldn't provide him with clarity regarding this section of the law, he didn't want to pass it.

The site plan review law has been filed with the secretary of state's office, according to Armstrong.

The Springfield Planning Board will be meeting next on Jan. 4.