SPRINGFIELD — After just over a year of review, the Springfield planning board approved the Brookfield project with the stipulation, among others, that construction will not begin until they received a determination about current litigation between the town, Brookfield developer Bill Miller and neighbors to the project Paul and Davia Batista.

The Springfield planning board and Miller recently were issued an Article 78 petition from the Batista's.

According to the petition prepared by the Batista's attorney John Privitera, the Batista's are asking that the court annul and vacate the Negative Declaration which was adopted by the board and a complete an environmental impact statement (EIS) of the project.

Although litigation is still pending, the planning board voted five to two for the project's approval.

The original list of 43 conditions, which was added to the site plan application, was recently condensed into 27 items by consultant Nan Stolzenburg.

"We are extremely pleased with the approval we have obtained tonight. A tremendous amount of work has been put forth by the planning board members to get to this point where a vote could be taken for final site plan approval. My team has worked closely with the board to incorporate all of the changes required during the past 14 months of review," said Miller.

He stated that the Brookfield project is "one the entire town can be proud of."

"There has been much discussion about the desire to attract 'low impact' industry to the Springfield area. Through incorporation of 'Best Management Practices' regarding the environmental issues at Brookfield, not only has the impact of this plan been mitigated to the fullest extent, the conditions at the Brookfield property will actually be improved, resulting in a positive impact on our lake," said Miller. "Our goal now is to resolve the outstanding issues and to begin construction in the fall."

The first stipulation for project approval, that no construction could take place until the board heard word from Judge William F. O'Brien over the Article 78 petition, was something Miller's attorney Dave Brennan agreed to do.

"We're not opposed to holding construction," he said.

However, Brennan stated his concern over recent talk about the town board revising local law number three. He stated that if Miller was to hold-off construction of Brookfield, he wanted confirmation that the town board would not change the law in the mean time.

During the Springfield town board meeting Monday evening, town Supervisor Tom Armstrong stated that local law number three would not be reviewed or changed until after hearing from Judge O'Brien.

The Batista's attorney John Privitera asked that the board consider and take action on the developers proposed plans to rebuild, on an existing footprint, a pavilion within the required 100 ft. setback from Otsego lake.

Since the pavilion issue is currently a part of litigation, Privitera said the board could wait for Judge O'Brien's determination, but Privitera suggested the board take action.

"You have the power to do that right now," he said.

Harman disagreed, stating "If the judge is looking at it, let him look at it."

No action was taken.

Privitera also asked the board to review the issue of a new water well on the Batista's property which is only 43 feet from an existing well on the Brookfield property.

Privitera stated in a letter to Morris that the Brookfield project is in violation of the law because of their placement of a sewage field within 100 feet of the neighboring water supply.

He notified the board that the well has indeed been hooked up and requested that the board not approve the septic plans by Brookfield developers.

The board reviewed the fact that they had previously been informed by Roger France from the New York State Department of Health that the well had been illegally placed.

Town attorney Mike Trosset suggested that if the board was confident in their determination of this issue, they should continue with the site plan process.

A motion was denied which stated that developers could not subdivide the development into condominiums and sell them at a future date. It was initially a suggestion by Privitera in a recent letter to the board.

Harman, who had made the motion, said that it would be easier to add the stipulation now then to deal with it later, should the proposal actually arise.

"It makes the applicant, in the future, take the action," he said.

Although developers had not proposed turning Brookfield into condominiums, Brennan said they know they would have to come before the planning board to change the use.

"It's nothing we've ever spoken about," he stated.

Morris had a similar opinion- that local law number three already has restrictions in place for these changes of use.

Brennan questioned why the board would consider limiting the developers actions without any investigation into whether that kind of project were positive or negative.