“There is nothing in the conditions that says Mr. Wilzig may not have a race [on the course]. . . . The purpose of zoning is to protect people from proposals like this,” Blechman maintained.

The discussion ended on a contentious note when ZBA member Tom Kiely, along with Romaine, took offense at a statement made by Blechman after the May, which was quoted in the Register-Star, in which she said the ZBA had been dishonest in its review of the project. Kiely read a dictionary definition of dishonest and then asked Blechman for an apology, saying he and fellow board members had not “been deceitful, lacked honesty, or made untruthful statements” in their review of the proposal.

Blechman said that her statement was made to the reporter following the lengthy May meeting and she had been tired, but she refused to apologize for the statement. “You can omit some things and include others and be dishonest,” she explained. “I feel there was a lot that was important that was omitted in the findings, and it gives a warped result,” she said.

Romaine scolded Blechman for her statements, saying, “You call us dishonest because you don’t think we can have opinions of our own. . . . . We did include the facts, but now you are saying we didn’t. That’s your opinion, or is that the opinion the Granger Group gave you? You call us dishonest, so our opinions are wrong. No, Moisha, that’s where you are wrong.”

Tuesday’s ZBA decision may bring to a close the debate at the town government level over the 40-foot-wide, mile-long track on Wilzig’s Post Hill Road compound, which has dominated Taghkanic town meetings for the past four years, but it is not the end of the debate. The town government for the past four years. It will however, not be the end of the debate. The New York State Supreme Court will have a say on the project through legal actions filed by the Granger Group.

Granger Group Lawyer Warren Replansky recently told ccSCOOP that an Article 78 proceeding challenging the Planning Board’s May site plan approval is pending. Also, State Supreme Court Justice Patrick McGrath  is reviewing a legal challenge to the town’s actions and, on June 1, issued an injunction blocking further activity on the controversial sporting complex.

The injunction—issued after McGrath heard arguments from both sides—allows time for the justice to review the circumstances of the case further without any additional development taking place on Wilzig’s property. Wilzig’s proposed mile-long sporting course is already partially developed.

The Article 78 suit seeks to overturn the site plan approval by specifically overturning the negative declaration the Planning Board made in the State Environmental Quality Review Act process, which cleared the path for the approval. The negative declaration means that the Planning Board did not believe the track would have a significant impact on the environment.

The Article 78 proceeding specifically alleges:

• The Planning Board failed to take the requisite hard look at the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action.
• The SEQRA review process was impermissibly tainted by misinformation and threats of litigation by Wilzig's attorney to the Planning Board.
• The Planning Board erred in failing to identify the noise impacts of this project as potentially large and failed to take the requisite hard look at the potential noise which would be generated by this project.

• The Planning Board failed to give due consideration to noise reports submitted by the Petitioners expert and the testimony of neighboring property owners as to the noise already generated by the racetrack in making its determination.
• The negative declaration issued by the Planning Board constituted an impermissible conditioned negative declaration.

“Our courts have consistently annulled lead agency determinations where potentially significant environmental impacts have been identified and the lead agencies have failed to adequately take the requisite ‘hard look’ at those impacts before issuing a negative declaration,” the challenge filed by Replansky in the Article 78 proceeding states.

The challenge also alleges that the Planning Board acted inappropriately in concluding that the Wilzigs’ offer to return 40 acres of grassland to agricultural use in exchange for the six acres of agricultural land that would be used for the track is an equal exchange and offset any agricultural impact.

“The Wilzigs supplied no documentation in the record to support the conclusion that they have converted, or will convert, 40 acres of fallow farmland into agricultural production. The Planning Board simply relied on the conclusory statement, the legal challenge states.

“If the Planning Board's SEQRA determination in the incident case was deficient, the site plan approval should be deemed to be equally deficient, and annulled,” Replansky alleged.

ccSCOOP ARTICLES ABOUT THE WILZIG TRACK ISSUE

"Judge Issues Injunction on Wilzig Project" - June 1, 2009

"ZBA Ruling on Wilzig Track: The Granger Group Responds" - May 22, 2009

"Wilzig Track Clears ZBA, but Matter Remains in Court" - May 20, 2009

"Another Round in Court for Wilzig Proposal" - May 4, 2009

"Residents Make Their Appeal to the Taghkanic Zoning Board of Appeals" - April 22, 2009

"Taghkanic Track Debate Shifts to ZBA Following Planning Board OK" - April 15, 2009

"Yet Another Taghkanic Panel to Hear from Public on Wilzig Proposal" - April 7, 2009

"Wilzig Proposal May Be Decided on Next Month" - March 12, 2009

"Wilzig Paving Plan Revs Up Opposition" - February 10, 2009

"Wilzig Asphalt Track Resurfaces" - December 10, 2008