STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SENECA SUPREME COURT ________________________________________________ DESIREE DAWLEY, JAMES DAWLEY, LYNN BARBUTO, ROBERT

BARBUTO, SHIRLEY DAWLEY, JAMES DAWLEY JR., DAVID SCHOONMAKER, HUBERT SCHOONMAKER, SANDRA PICCHI, MATTHEW D. NEARPASS, AMY NEARPASS, JASON GARRETT, DIANE GARRETT, DONALD GARRETT, CINDI DAWLEY, DAVID DAWLEY, KYLE DAWLEY, MARGARET WORDEN, RICHARD WORDEN, RAY GARRETT, WILLIAM B. SWEITZER, KAREN SWEITZER, MARILYN BARNER, FRANK BARNER, BRUCE F. GRIGGS, ANDREW WORDEN, JOLYNN WORDEN, JAMES NEARPASS, ASTRID NEARPASS, TODD WORDEN, LAURA WORDEN, JOHN NEARPASS, COLLEEN NEARPASS, SHAUN LILLY, BRITTANY LILLY, RICHARD BARNER, BETTY J. SMITH, RUSSELL SMITH, JONATHAN MORELLI, JANE MORELLI, CATHARINE STRONG, CHARLES VANARSDALE, ROY MANTELLI, MARY MANTELLI, HELEN VANARSDALE, RICHARD MEADE, WENDY KAIN, MARK BELLAMY, THOMAS AVERY, MARK NEARPASS, NICOLE NEARPASS, CATHY DAVIS, SCOTT DAVIS, GILBERT SAUNDERS, BERNICE SAUNDERS, HAROLD ABBOTT, LINDA WORDEN, JOHN WORDEN, LAMAY GILROY, JAMES PATSOS, HELLEN PATSOS,

VERIFIED COMPLAINT Index No.: Plaintiffs, vs. THE TOWN OF TYRE, THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF TYRE, RONALD F. MCGREEVY AS TOWN SUPERVISOR OF THE TOWN OF TYRE, WILMORITE CORPORATION, AND ROBERT C. SEEM AS PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN OF THE TOWN OF TYRE, Defendants. ________________________________________________ Date Purchased:

The Plaintiffs, by their attorney, Mario J. Fratto, respectfully show as follows:

Page 1

General Allegation 1. This action is brought pursuant to CPLR 3001 for a Declaratory Judgment to declare among other things that certain actions by The Town of Tyre to facilitate the development of a certain parcel of agricultural real property located on New York State Route 414 between Chase Road and New York State Thruway Exit 41 in the Town of Tyre, County of Seneca, State of New York (referred to hereinout as the Project), by passing LOCAL LAW NO. 1 of 2014 or otherwise known as the Planned Unit Development Law (referred to hereinout as PUD Law) as contrary to the laws of the State of New York and the laws and zoning ordinances of The Town of Tyre, and further declaring that such passage of the PUD Law did not comply with the procedures mandated by the laws of the State of New York and the laws, rules, regulations, zoning and ordinances of The Town of Tyre, including the Comprehensive Plan 2014 entitled Planning for a Rural Community in the 21st Century. (Referred to hereinout as 2014 Plan) The Project 2. The Project consists of a proposed Wilmot Casino and Resort calling for a $350 million facility with Two Thousand (2,000) slot machines, One Hundred (100) table games, a Two Hundred (200) room hotel, Five (5) restaurants, a One Thousand (1,000) space parking structure, and a Two Thousand (2,000) space parking lot; all situated on a parcel of real property zoned agriculturally and containing approximately 82.3 acres. The PUD Law 3. The PUD Law is an eight (8) page document that was provided to the Defendant Town of Tyre by Defendant Wilmorite Corporation. The PUD Law allows for any applicant with at least 75 acres to apply for the creation of a PUD district, which can be created at any that the Town Board approves. The PUD Law will allow for structures of up to 80 feet in height excluding signage. The PUD Law can be utilized to convert current agriculturally zoned land into a commercial PUD district. The word casino is mentioned ten (10) times in eight (8) pages, with specific provisions applying only to casinos. The PUD Law also gives all power for final approval of a proposal to the Town Board, which had previously been a power held by the Planning Board. Parties 4. The Plaintiffs are individuals who own property and/or live in the Town of Tyre, living next to the Project and the real property at issue in the instant proceeding, and have a strong and on-going interest in preserving and protecting the rural and agricultural character of their community and property values of land and property within the Town of Tyre, along with preserving the ecological and environmental balance within the Town of Tyre. As such, the Plaintiffs are aggrieved parties with standing to bring this action. 5. Plaintiff Desiree Dawley is a property owner who owns property situated at 1938 Chase Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Desiree Dawley brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home Page 2

will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. 6. Plaintiff James Dawley is a property owner who owns property situated at 1938 Chase Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff James Dawley brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 7. Plaintiff Lynn Barbuto is a property owner who owns property situated at 1843 Chase Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Lynn Barbuto brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. 8. Plaintiff Robert Barbuto is a property owner who owns property situated at 1843 Chase Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Robert Barbuto brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 9. Plaintiff Shirley Dawley is a property owner who owns property situated at 329 Black Brook Rd, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Shirley Dawley brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed Page 3

commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. 10. Plaintiff James Dawley Jr. is a property owner who owns property situated at 329 Black Brook Rd, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff James Dawley Jr. brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 11. Plaintiff David Schoonmaker is a property owner who owns property situated at 470 Black Brook Rd, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff David Schoonmaker brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 12. Plaintiff Hubert Schoonmaker is a property owner who owns property situated at 490 Black Brook Rd, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Hubert Schoonmaker brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 13. Plaintiff Sandra Picchi is a property owner who owns property situated at 490 Black Brook Rd, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Sandra Picchi brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and Page 4

enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. 14. Plaintiff Matthew D. Nearpass is a property owner who owns property situated at 818 Black Brook Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Matthew D. Nearpass brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 15. Plaintiff Amy Nearpass is a property owner who owns property situated at 818 Black Brook Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Lynn Barbuto brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. 16. Plaintiff Jason Garrett is a property owner who owns property situated at 1236 Black Brook Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Jason Garrett brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 17. Plaintiff Diane Garrett is a property owner who owns property situated at 2174 West Brook Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the Page 5

instant case. Plaintiff Diane Garrett brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. 18. Plaintiff Donald Garrett is a property owner who owns property situated at 2174 West Brook Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Donald Garrett brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 19. Plaintiff Cindi Dawley is a property owner who owns property situated at 2163 West Brook Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Lynn Barbuto brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. 20. Plaintiff David Dawley is a property owner who owns property situated at 2163 West Brook Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff David Dawley brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved.

Page 6

21. Plaintiff Kyle Dawley is a property owner who owns property situated at 1180 Middle Black Brook Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Kyle Dawley brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 22. Plaintiff Margaret Worden is a property owner who owns property situated at 754 Middle Black Brook Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Margaret Worden brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. 23. Plaintiff Richard Worden is a property owner who owns property situated at 754 Middle Black Brook Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Richard Worden brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 24. Plaintiff Ray Garrett is a property owner who owns property situated at 885 Middle Black Brook Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Ray Garrett brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. Page 7

25. Plaintiff William B. Sweitzer is a property owner who owns property situated at 1337 Middle Black Brook Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff William B. Sweitzer brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 26. Plaintiff Karen Sweitzer is a property owner who owns property situated at 1337 Middle Black Brook Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Karen Sweitzer brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. 27. Plaintiff Marilyn Barner is a property owner who owns property situated at 2060 Stevenson Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Marilyn Barner brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. 28. Plaintiff Frank Barner is a property owner who owns property situated at 2060 Stevenson Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Frank Barner brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken Page 8

by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 29. Plaintiff Bruce F. Griggs is a property owner who owns property situated at 1912 Stevenson Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Bruce F. Griggs brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 30. Plaintiff Andrew Worden is a property owner who owns property situated at 2109 Stevenson Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Andrew Worden brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 31. Plaintiff Jolynn Worden is a property owner who owns property situated at 2109 Stevenson Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Jolynn Worden brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. 32. Plaintiff James Nearpass is a property owner who owns property situated at 1987 Chase Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff James Nearpass brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use Page 9

and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 33. Plaintiff Astrid Nearpass is a property owner who owns property situated at 1987 Chase Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Astrid Nearpass brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. 34. Plaintiff Todd Worden is a property owner who owns property situated at 1875 Chase Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Todd Worden brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 35. Plaintiff Laura Worden is a property owner who owns property situated at 1875 Chase Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Laura Worden brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. 36. Plaintiff John Nearpass is a property owner who owns property situated at 543 Birdsey Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff John Nearpass brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, Page 10

light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 37. Plaintiff Colleen Nearpass is a property owner who owns property situated at 543 Birdsey Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Colleen Nearpass brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. 38. Plaintiff Shaun Lilly is a property owner who owns property situated at 2357 W. Tyre Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Shaun Lilly brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 39. Plaintiff Brittany Lilly is a property owner who owns property situated at 2357 W. Tyre Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Brittany Lilly brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. 40. Plaintiff Richard Barner is a property owner who owns property situated at 485 Route 414, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Richard Barner brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon Page 11

his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 41. Plaintiff Betty J. Smith is a property owner who owns property situated at 874 Route 414, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Betty J. Smith brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. 42. Plaintiff Russell Smith is a property owner who owns property situated at 874 Route 414, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Russell Smith brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 43. Plaintiff Jonathan Morelli is a property owner who owns property situated at 1077 Route 414, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Jonathan Morelli brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 44. Plaintiff Jane Morelli is a property owner who owns property situated at 1077 Route 414, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Jane Morelli brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not Page 12

be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. 45. Plaintiff Catharine Strong is a property owner who owns property situated at 1441 Route 414, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Catharine Strong brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. 46. Plaintiff Charles VanArsdale is a property owner who owns property situated at 1526 Route 414, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Charles VanArsdale brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 47. Plaintiff Roy Mantelli is a property owner who owns property situated at 1323 Shawn Drive, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Roy Mantelli brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 48. Plaintiff Mary Mantelli is a property owner who owns property situated at 1323 Shawn Drive, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Mary Mantelli brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed Page 13

commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. 49. Plaintiff Helen VanArsdale is a property owner who owns property situated at 1887 Worden Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Helen VanArsdale brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. 50. Plaintiff Richard Meade is a property owner who owns property situated at 864 Gravel Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Richard Meade brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 51. Plaintiff Wendy Kain is a property owner who owns property situated at 694 Gravel Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Wendy Kain brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. 52. Plaintiff Mark Bellamy is a property owner who owns property situated at 130 East Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Mark Bellamy brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and Page 14

enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 53. Plaintiff Thomas Avery is a property owner who owns property situated at 131 East Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Thomas Avery brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 54. Plaintiff Mark Nearpass is a property owner who owns property situated at 1679 Larsen Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Mark Nearpass brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 55. Plaintiff Nicole Nearpass is a property owner who owns property situated at 1679 Larsen Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Nicole Nearpass brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. 56. Plaintiff Cathy Davis is a property owner who owns property situated at 1390 Middle Black Brook Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue Page 15

in the instant case. Plaintiff Cathy Davis brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. 57. Plaintiff Scott Davis is a property owner who owns property situated at 1390 Middle Black Brook Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff James Dawley brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 58. Plaintiff Gilbert Saunders is a property owner who owns property situated at 306 Route 89, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Gilbert Saunders brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 59. Plaintiff Bernice Saunders is a property owner who owns property situated at 306 Route 89, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Bernice Saunders brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved.

Page 16

60. Plaintiff Harold Abbott is a property owner who owns property situated at 296 Route 89, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Harold Abbott brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 61. Plaintiff Linda Worden is a property owner who owns property situated at 1748 W. Tyre Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Linda Worden brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. 62. Plaintiff John Worden is a property owner who owns property situated at 1748 W. Tyre Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff John Worden brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 63. Plaintiff LaMay Gilroy is a property owner who owns property situated at 470 Black Brook Road, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff LaMay Gilroy brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved. Page 17

64. Plaintiff James Patsos is a property owner who owns property situated at 217 Route 414, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff James Patsos brings this action to declare his rights to maintain his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure that the value of his property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to his property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of his home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon his quiet use and enjoyment of his property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon his property and his use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of his property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of his property will be preserved. 65. Plaintiff Hellen Patsos is a property owner who owns property situated at 217 Route 414, in the Town of Tyre, State of New York which is situated nearby the location of the Project at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff Hellen Patsos brings this action to declare her rights to maintain her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure that the value of her property will not be deteriorated by the proposed commercial uses situated next to her property; to assure that the use and enjoyment of her home will not be negatively impacted through greater noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution and aesthetic intrusions upon her quiet use and enjoyment of her property; to assure there will be no increase in noise, dust, air pollution, light pollution aesthetic intrusions or other negative environmental impacts upon her property and her use and enjoyment of same; to assure that the value of her property is not deteriorated due to the action taken by the Defendants herein; and to assure that the agricultural neighborhood character of her property will be preserved.

66. Upon information and belief, Defendant The Town of Tyre is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New York. 67. Upon information and belief, The Town Board of The Town of Tyre (referred to hereinout as the "Town Board"), is the legislative body of The Town of Tyre, and is organized and existing pursuant to the powers and duties provided in the New York Town Law. 68. Upon information and belief, Ronald F. McGreevy is the Town Supervisor of The Town of Tyre. As such, it is the responsibility of the Town Supervisor, among other things, to assure that all actions taken by The Town Board are taken in accordance with the laws of the State of New York and the laws, rules, regulations and ordinances of The Town of Tyre. 69. Upon information and belief, Defendant Wilmorite Corporation, was and is a New York State corporation doing business in the State of New York, with principal corporate address of 1265 Scottsville Rd, Rochester, NY 14624. Upon information and belief, Defendant Wilmorite Corporation intends on building the Project. As such, Defendant Wilmorite Corporation is a necessary party to the instant proceeding since the Plaintiffs seek among other things injunctive relief enjoining Defendant Wilmorite Page 18

Corporation, its agents, representatives, successors and/or assigns, from proceeding with any construction and further permit and approval applications for the Project until such time as the laws of the State of New York and the Town of Tyre have been properly complied with. 70. Upon information and belief, Defendant Robert C. Seem was and is an individual residing within the State of New York with a primary address of 2445 Traver Road, Seneca Falls, NY 13148. Defendant Robert Seem was and is the Town of Tyre Planning Board Chairman. As such, Defendant Robert C. Seem is a necessary party to the instant proceeding since as Chairman of the Town of Tyres Planning Board, it is his responsibility, among other things, to assure that the Planning Board has adequate time and information to do their due diligence before making any decisions which could impact the Town of Tyre and its residents; and to assure that all actions taken by the Town Board are taken in accordance with the laws of the State of New York and the laws, rules, regulations and ordinances of The Town of Tyre.

Factual Allegations 71. The Project is a part of a vacant and undeveloped parcel of land that is zoned agriculturally and is located at the intersection of State Route 414 and Chase Road, North of New York State Thruway Exit 41, in the Town of Tyre. Upon information and belief, Defendant Wilmorite Corporation has a contract to purchase the vacant agriculturally zoned and undeveloped land. 72. On or about November 5, 2013, the residents of the Town of Tyre voted to elect Robert F. McGreevy as Town Supervisor for the Town of Tyre; And also to elect Reginald Aceto and Thomas Thomson as a Town Board members. 73. On or about November 5, 2013, the residents of the Town of Tyre by a majority vote of 114 to 100 rejected New York Casino Gambling Amendment, Proposal 1, which stated: Authorizing Casino Gaming: The proposed amendment to section 9 of article 1 of the New York State Constitution would allow the Legislature to authorize up to seven casinos in New York State for the legislated purposes of promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools, and permitting local governments to lower property taxes through revenues generated. Shall the amendment be approved? 74. On or about November 5, 2013 Ronald F. McGreevy, Reginald Aceto and Thomas Thomson, along with the current Town Board members, were on notice that the residents of Tyre whom they were elected to represent were opposed to any new casinos in the State of New York, which would include the Town of Tyre. 75. On or about December 11, 2013, Defendant Wilmorite Corporation presented the Projects plans at a Tyre Town Hall meeting for a $350 million development upon the agriculturally zoned undeveloped land that would include a casino, hotel, spa, dining and entertainment. Defendant Wilmorite Corporation said the Wilmot Casino & Resort would handle more than 9,000 daily visitors in a town of only 981 residents. 76. On or about December 19, 2013 at Tyre Town Board meeting, Defendant Robert C. Seem spoke of hiring an engineering firm to provide services to assure the Town is in compliance of local, state and federal legislation for the proposed gaming facility. At the same meeting, Bruce Boncke, a civil engineer for BME Associates, thanked the Town Board for holding the casino information meeting of December Page 19

11, 2013. Mr. Boncke also informed the Town Board that Defendant Wilmorite Corporation must send a casino application to the State of New York in June of 2014, so time is of the essence in order to assure Wilmorite Corporation can be selected. The only public comments of Tyre residents at this Town Board meeting were in direct opposition the proposed PUD Law. 77. On or about January 2, 2014, an Organizational Meeting of the Town Board of Tyre was held. At this meeting, Town Attorney Charles Shaffer spoke of unknown legal work if a casino were established in the Town. Mr. Shaffer then informed the Town Board that he would be out of state for the entire month of February and that he will provide information to Town Board Supervisor, Defendant Ronald F. McGreevy and a name of an attorney that could fill in during his absence. 78. Furthermore, upon information and belief, any and all legal and engineering advice provided to the Town of Tyre with respect to the Project and the PUD Law has been paid for by Defendant Wilmorite Corporation. Both Wilmorite Corporation and Town Board of Tyre insist that the advice regarding the implementation of PUD Law is impartial. Moreover, Wilmorite and Town Board of Tyre maintain that there is no conflict of interest by Wilmorite Corporation paying legal counsel to advise the Town regarding a law written by and for the benefit of Defendant Wilmorite Corporation. 79. On or about January 14, 2014, the Planning Board for the Town of Tyre held their monthly meeting. At this meeting, a motion for roll call to recommend that the Town Board approve the PUD Law was taken. The motion failed by a 4 to 3 vote and the Planning Board did not recommend that the Town Board approve the PUD Law. Defendant and Chairman of the Planning Board Robert C. Seem was one of the three votes in favor of recommending the PUD Law. 80. On or about January 16, 2014, the monthly Tyre Town Board meeting was held. Defendant Town Supervisor Ronald F. McGreevy turned the Town Board meeting over to Defendant Planning Board Chairman Robert C. Seem. A majority of public comments voiced were against the proposed PUD Law. Tyre Zoning Board of Appeals member Eileen Franco questioned how this PUD Law would be in line with the Town of Tyre survey results in which the majority of Tyre residents stated they were against large commercial development. Other residents stated they were ashamed the Town is allowing a casino and allowing a casino to be built in their agricultural community, upon vacant land zoned agriculturally. 81. On or about February 18, 2014, the Town of Tyre Planning Board held their monthly meeting. An attorney Virginia C. Robbins, of Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, was present on behalf of the Town of Tyre, and being paid by, upon information and belief, Defendant Wilmorite Corporation. Attorney Robbins stated that if a developer meets the requirements of the proposed PUD Law, then the Town of Tyre would not be able to reject their application for a development. She stated that rejecting an application that complies with the PUD Law would be arbitrary and capricious. After these statements from Attorney Robbins, Defendant Robert C. Seem stated that a negative vote will jeopardize the Towns ability to manage where commercial development will take place in the Town. Defendant Seem went on to state that we just dont have a lot of time. Under the then current zoning laws of the Town of Tyre, a developer wishing to build a casino would require an application to the Planning Board for a special use permit, which could easily be rejected on the grounds that a casino resort would not comply with the Town of Tyres comprehensive plan and goals of keeping the Towns rural and agricultural character. However, Defendant Seem presented the PUD Law to the Planning Board as a way of protecting the Town in the case of a developer applying to build a casino. Defendant Page 20

Robert Seem was knowingly misrepresenting the PUD Law because the Defendant Wilmorite Corporation had publicly stated that they would not even consider formally applying to build a casino in the Town until the PUD Law was passed. Robert C. Seem presented the PUD Law as a measure of protection to prevent a developer from steamrolling the Town of Tyre with a casino, when in fact the PUD Law would force the Town to allow a casino if it complies with the PUD Law. Therefore, passage of the PUD Law would guarantee a casino development in Tyre because any denial would be arbitrary and capricious if the proposed development complied with the PUD Law. With complete knowledge of the foregoing facts Defendant Robert C. Seem intentionally deceived fellow Planning Board members, as well as the members of the Town of Tyre, who relied on his misrepresentation in order to secure a positive recommendation to the Town Board on behalf of the Defendant Wilmorite Corporation. 82. Furthermore, on or about February 18, 2014, the same motion of the January 14, 2014 Planning Board meeting was made for roll call to recommend that the Town Board approve the PUD Law. This time the motion passed 6 to 0 with one member abstaining. During the vote, one Planning Board member, Kenneth Hauenstein, actually asked if there was any way that the vote could be postponed in order to adequately consider the PUD Law. Defendant Robert C. Seem spent the next five (5) minutes in the middle of the vote trying his best to convince the Planning Board members that this is their only option. Robert C. Seem also stated that there was misinformation about what the PUD Law really is and that the people in the Town of Tyre do not understand. Two Planning Board members were among those who did not understand and wished to have more time to consider the PUD Law. Defendant Seem responded by telling the Planning Board delaying this vote will not do us a lot of good, and we need to press on. Defendant Robert C. Seem went on to state that he would rather be sued in court by the Towns residents because he could win that case hands down. However, he also stated that he would not wish to be sued by the developer because the Town of Tyre would lose. 83. On or about February 20, 2014, the Town of Tyre Town Board held their monthly meeting. During this meeting Plaintiff Desiree Dawley presented the Town Board with a petition with the names of one hundred and fifty-three (153) Tyre Residents in direct opposition to the construction of a casino in the Town. The subject of the Town Board meeting was the PUD Law and the 2014 Plan. At the outset of the meeting, three (3) Town of Tyre Planning Board members, Ken Hauenstein, Neil Worden, and David Kain, rescinded their previous recommendations in support of the PUD Law, both in writing and orally in front of the Town Board. The three Planning Board members stated that they made a hasty decision, and needed more time in order to do their due diligence before recommending the PUD Law. The Board did not acknowledge this action and proceeded with the meeting. During the public hearing portion of the meeting numerous Plaintiffs and other Town of Tyre residents spoke out against the PUD Law and the Project of Defendant Wilmorite Corporation. Residents also questioned why the Town was rolling over to the developer and tying their own hands with regards to allowing a casino in the Town. At some point following the public hearing the meeting was turned over to Defendant and Planning Board Chairman Robert C. Seem. Planning Board Chairman Seem continuously distorted the facts and misrepresented the PUD Law. Planning Board Chairman Seem told the residents that there is no way to stop a casino, and that this PUD Law has nothing to do with a casino, and is only a protective measure. Planning Board Chairman Seem made the aforementioned statements knowing that if the PUD Law were to be passed it would guarantee a casino; more specifically the Project proposed by Defendant Wilmorite Corporation could be constructed in the Town of Tyre. Planning Board Chairman Seem also knew that after passing the PUD Law, if the Town Board of Tyre denied Defendant Wilmorite Corporations application to utilize the PUD Law, the Town would lose in court, which he admitted on February 18, 2014. Planning Board Chairman Seem also knew that the majority of residents in the Town of Tyre did Page 21

not want a casino, and were relying on the honesty of his statements. The Town Board first voted to pass the 2014 Plan by a vote of 5 to 0. Following that vote, the Town Board of Tyre voted on the PUD Law. The Town Board voted 5 to 0 to adopt the PUD Law, in direct opposition to the goals of the 2014 Plan that had just been adopted. 84. The actions of the Defendants in proposing and approving the PUD Law to facilitate the Project, which abuts right up against agricultural land and homes to the north, including the homes of the Plaintiffs herein, and having property lines abutting up to other agricultural areas, will prevent the Plaintiffs from using their agricultural property and home properties for the purposes for which they had purchased. Some of the homes were purchased more than forty years ago. 85. The Plaintiffs properties and the real property involved with the Project herein have been zoned agricultural in excess of twenty years. 86. The approval of the PUD Law was not adopted in accordance with the laws, rules, regulations and ordinances of The Town of Tyre, and not adopted in accordance with The Towns comprehensive and well-considered zoning plan known as the 2014 Plan. 87. The cover of the 2014 Plan is titled Planning for a Rural Community in the 21st Century. Page 1 of the 2014 Plan states the purpose of the plan: The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Tyre is a careful and deliberate review of the present and reasonably foreseeable needs of the community, whereby the town can adopt a general developmental policy for the community as a whole and amend its zoning law in accordance with that plan. 88. Page 1 of the 2014 Plan also addresses process of preparing the plan: The Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Tyre represents the culmination of a planning process that began in 2007. The Comprehensive Plan Commission met monthly for more than one year to coordinate the preparation of the Plan. As such, almost seven (7) years were spent developing this carefully thought out plan. 89. Page 5 of the 2014 Plan addresses land use for the Town of Tyre. The goals are as follows: A. Retain the rural, agricultural heritage of the Town; B. Identify and manage development in such a way as to preserve farmland and natural resources; C. Support residential development that is consistent with the character of neighboring areas; D. Support commercial and industrial development that is consistent with the character of neighboring areas; E. Build consensus on a vision for land use and design concepts for future development within the town. Building a $350 million Casino and Resort such as the Project of Defendant Wilmorite Corporation on over 82 acres does not even come close to complying with those goals. In fact, page 5 of the 2014 Plan clearly states that [c]urrent commercial development has utilized 30 acres of agricultural land with an additional 60 acres of potential development. There is no mention of allowing or even considering to allow more commercial development such as the 75 acres or more which the PUD Law requires. 90. Page 8 of the 2014 Plan addresses quality of life issues for the Town of Tyre. Referring to a survey of the Towns residents, of seventeen quality of life issues that respondents were asked to identify as important or not important to them, second in importance was: the desire that agriculture and the rural character of Tyre (which go hand-in-hand) be maintained, which was confirmed by answers to other questions regarding the continuation of farming (in favor), and conversion of farmland to other uses (against) in the Town. Clearly the agricultural and rural character of Tyre could not be maintained by Page 22

constructing the Project in the Town. Furthermore, the construction of the Project would require converting farmland, which the residents are against. 91. Page 10 of the 2014 Plan acknowledges that most comments received in the Town survey opposed conversion of farmland for business development. 92. Page 13 of the 2014 Plan addresses Watershed Protection and Environmental Quality of which the stated goals include: Protect the quality of groundwater, and Conserve wildlife habitat. Both of these goals would be incompatible with construction of the Project. Furthermore, over 90% of residents within the Town of Tyre are using well water which could be contaminated or otherwise have its quality jeopardized by such large scale construction on agricultural land. 93. Page 15 of the 2014 Plan states that Tyre residents felt that disruption (e.g., commercial development or housing development) should be minimal. 94. Page 17 of the 2014 Plan addresses Agriculture and Farmland. This page clearly states that Agriculture is Tyres main industry and its main land use. The goals with regards to Agriculture and Farmland are stated as: A. Enhance the economic climate for agriculture in Tyre by ensuring that future land use regulations encourage farming and ancillary agricultural businesses and discourage uses and regulations that will negatively impact, unduly, the conduct of farming operations; B. Promote the conservation of productive agricultural land in the Town; C. Ensure that residential and commercial development in the Town are consistent with the objectives of Goals A and B. An amendment to the zoning law such as the PUD Law is in direct opposition to those goals by allowing for the depletion of agricultural land negatively impacting, unduly the conduct of farming operations. 95. Page 19 of the 2014 Plan states: In the aforementioned Residents Survey (Appendix A), 78% encouraged the continuation of farming in the Town; 39% considered it very important or important to maintain farming in the Town vs. 8% who felt it was unimportant. In addition, 68% and 76% of respondents, respectively, said that conversion of farmland to residential or commercial development should be limited. 96. Page 19 of the 2014 Plan states: Clearly, agriculture is very important to the economy and quality of life of the Town of Tyre. Also clear is that current residents of the Town prefer that the Town remain rural and consider agriculture very important. The Comprehensive Plan, and resulting regulations pertaining to agriculture and land development should reflect these facts. This strong language of the 2014 Plan is unequivocal that the plan and resulting regulations such as the PUD Law should reflect the foregoing facts. 97. Page 19 of the 2014 Plan also addresses Issues and Opportunities with regard to Agriculture and Farming: In general, the major issues regarding the future of farming in any location are farm profitability (keeping farmers in business therefore keeping land in agriculture), land values, and development pressure. Of these, only development pressure is of concern to the planning process. Development pressure can occur locally, but metropolitan areas around Tyre are more important as the commuter range increases. Potential impacts of such suburbanization on agriculture include the direct loss of farmland to housing and industrial development, potentially higher property taxes due to increased demand for municipal services, so-called nuisance complaints from farm neighbors who are unfamiliar with, and at times in opposition to, normal, necessary farm operations, and increased opportunity costs Page 23

due to land speculation, to name a few. These concerns would clearly be exacerbated by the approval of a Law such as the PUD Law and its utilization to construct the Project. 98. Page 19 of the 2014 Plan states the Recommended Actions with regard to the three preceding paragraphs: Develop and implement a Right to Farm Law Several municipalities have passed local Right to Farm laws. Such laws typically establish a town policy in support of farming. These laws also typically include a requirement that purchasers of property in the town must be notified of the policy encouraging farming and that farm practices may include operations that produce odors, noise and other potential annoyances. Develop and implement Agricultural Protection Zoning This type of zoning designates farming as the primary, preferred land use. This method can be effective in limiting non-farm development and reducing conflicts between agriculture and non-farm neighbors. It can also protect large areas of farmland at no direct cost to the public. Encourage Land Conservation through Conservation Easements Landowners may place farmland under a permanent conservation easement to be held and monitored by a government agency, private land trust, or other non-profit organization. An approval of a law such as the PUD Law and its utilization to construct the Project would clearly contradict the aforementioned recommendations. 99. Page 21 of the 2014 Plan addresses Housing and Residential Neighborhoods. The pertinent stated goals are: B) Create an environment where property values are not negatively impacted. C) Support smart growth that reflects residents desire to keep Tyre a rural community. A n approval of a law such as the PUD Law and constructing a Casino and Resort such as the Project would be in direct opposition to these goals. 100. Page 23 of the 2014 Plan states that Town of Tyre residents overwhelmingly wish to keep Tyre rural and the present zoning law favors that sentiment. An approval of the PUD Law is clearly contradictory to that sentiment. Also mentioned is that the majority of comments received by residents with regards to the survey were directed at keeping Tyre a rural residential town. The Town of Tyre would no longer be a rural residential town if the Project is constructed. 101. Page 27 of the 2014 Plan addresses Tax Base and Economic Development. Clearly stated under Issues and Opportunities is as follows: Further development pressure along Routes 318 and 414 could provide additional strength to the Towns tax base. Present zoning law will limit many types of development, but it seems clear that Towns citizenry is willing to keep development to a minimum on these routes. On the other hand, the PUD Law and the Project will not keep development to a minimum, but will be the absolute maximum in the form of a $350 million Casino and Resort. This is clearly not the type of development called for in the 2014 Plan. 102. Page 28 of the 2014 Plan addresses Transportation and Infrastructure. Goal C is stated as: Encourage designated developers to design their sites in planned and concentrated commercial areas that already exist in the Town. The proposed site of the Project is on agriculturally zoned land that is not located in the concentrated commercial area that already exists in the Town. As such the adoption of the PUD Law to facilitate the construction of the Project is in clear conflict with the 2014 Plan. 103. Furthermore, page 28 of the 2014 Plan goes on to state that 50% of residents are concerned with traffic at dangerous intersections, namely Route 414 at the Thruway interchange, which is the precise location of the proposed Project for which the PUD Law was adopted. Page 24

104. Page 29 of the 2014 Plan addresses Traffic Congestion of which the pertinent part states: Traffic congestion and wider roads are inconsistent with the rural character and natural, scenic resource values of the Town. Such traffic congestion would be inevitable with an estimated 9,000 visitors daily according to the Defendant Wilmorite Corporations own estimates. 105. Page 33 of the 2014 Plan addresses Community Facilities and Services of which goal A is: Create a stronger sense of community by residents within Tyre. Adding over 9,000 visitors a day to this rural town of less than 1,000 people would totally inconsistent with the aforementioned goal. This would by default mean that less than 10% of the population in the Town on any given day would be part of the community, thereby converting the rural community into a tourist town. 106. Page 49 of the 2014 Plan is titled Town of Tyre Comprehensive Plan Implementation Plan. Number 1 is: Continue to review and revise Town of Tyre Zoning Law where appropriate to address these and other land use related issues. Seek assistance from county and state agencies to draft any potential new regulations. This is listed as a responsibility of the Planning Board. However, in this case the PUD Law was approved by the Town Board and the assistance in drafting the new regulation or PUD Law was sought from and given by the Defendant Wilmorite Corporation. Furthermore, the PUD Law strips all power from the Planning Board and transfers it to the Town Board. This is in clear conflict with the 2014 Plan. 107. Pages 60-61 of the 2014 Plan addresses the survey results from Tyre residents, of which the pertinent part states: In order of importance, the seven challenges have been ranked by respondents as: 1. Protecting natural resources and water quality; 2. Maintaining agriculture and promotion of farming; 3. Maintaining the rural character and heritage of the Town; 4. Trying to ascertain public water and sewer for the community; 5. Controlling traffic congestion on highways in the Town; 6. Accommodating residential growth; 7. Accommodating commercial growth. It is quite clear that a commercial development of this magnitude such as the Project and approval of the PUD Law is inconsistent with the sentiment of the town residents and is in direct conflict with 6 of the 7 aforementioned challenges. 108. Pages 62-63 of the 2014 Plan address the survey results under Appendix B. 94% of Tyre residents felt that the rural character of the town was very important or important. The PUD Law and the Project completely undermine this sentiment. 109. Page 65 of the 2014 Plan states that 66% of Tyre residents feel that commercial development should be limited to existing concentrated growth centers in the Town which are currently South of New York State Thruway Exit 41. The PUD Law and the proposed Project would be utilized to convert longestablished agricultural land surrounded by equally long-established agricultural land north of New York State Thruway Exit 41, in direct opposition to the will of the people. 110. Page 67 of the 2014 Plan states that 55% of Tyre residents are either very concerned or concerned with traffic the intersection of 414 and the New York State Thruway. 111. Page 68 of the 2014 Plan states that 69% of survey respondents have lived in Tyre for more than 10 years and that 86% plan to live in Tyre in the next 5 years.

Page 25

112. The PUD Law was clearly not adopted on behalf of the Town of Tyre residents that the Town Board was elected to represent. On the contrary the law was written by and adopted for the Defendant Wilmorite Corporation. 113. The Defendants have not demonstrated any overriding factors to warrant the approval of the PUD Law for this Project, allowing for the commercial invasion into an agricultural neighborhood for a Casino and Resort. 114. Upon information and belief, numerous false and misleading statements and information has been submitted and stated in conjunction with the approval of the PUD Law. 115. Upon information and belief, the Town Board acted upon such proposed approval of the PUD Law without having had an adequate opportunity to hear the true sentiment, feeling and beliefs of the community. 116. That by reason of the aforesaid, all further actions of the Town Board were without adequate, proper or due hearing in violation of the rights of the Plaintiffs and other town residents, and were arbitrary and capricious in nature. 117. The PUD Law was not designed as a measure of emergency or for the purposes of promoting the health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community. Thus the PUD Law is not a proper and valid exercise of the police powers of the Town. 118. By reason of the foregoing, the approval of the PUD Law is without or beyond the statutory authority of the Town Board of The Town of Tyre. 119. By reason of the foregoing, the approval of the PUD Law is arbitrary, unreasonable, exclusionary, discriminatory, confiscatory, unconstitutional, void and ineffective. 120. By reason of the foregoing, the approval of the PUD Law was made without foundation in law.

121. By reason of the foregoing, the approval of the PUD Law violates New York State laws and laws, rules, regulations and ordinances of The Town of Tyre. 122. By reason of the foregoing, the approval of the PUD Law was made not pursuant to the comprehensive plan known as the 2014 Plan. 123. By reason of the foregoing, the approval of the PUD Law does not promote the health, safety, morals or the general welfare of the community. 124. By reason of the foregoing, the approval of the PUD Law was made without any legitimate criteria. 125. Such approval of the PUD Law also deprives the Plaintiffs of their unlimited and unconditional use of their real properties, and as such constitutes the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Page 26

126. The action of the Defendants in enacting the PUD Law complained of herein was an illegal and arbitrary use of the Defendants' zoning power in that it was not enacted to benefit the health and welfare of the public at large and was not enacted to benefit the local agricultural residents of the neighborhood, but was, rather, designed to benefit a commercial developer at the expense of all other Town residents and of the Plaintiffs herein. 127. The PUD Law approval complained of herein also violates the Constitution of the State of New York and the Constitution of the United States, each of which, in substance, among other things, forbids the passage of any law depriving any person of property or an interest therein, without due process of law; and that by reason of all of the foregoing and without any reasonable necessity for the accomplishment of any lawful purpose, the Plaintiffs have been and are deprived of the unlimited and unconditional use of their real properties in which they have an interest, and have had the greater part of the value of such land unreasonably confiscated and destroyed. 128. If this Project is allowed to proceed, the Plaintiffs and their real properties will be adversely affected through deterioration and diminution of their property values, along with increased traffic, noise, air pollution, light pollution and negative aesthetic intrusions on an otherwise pastoral setting and other negative environmental impacts. 129. This lawsuit seeks a declaration of the legal rights of the Plaintiffs herein, so that the various laws hereinbefore stated are complied with, and so that Plaintiffs' rights to a clean and healthful environment, and to maintaining the rural and agricultural character of their agriculturally zoned neighborhood, along with not having their real property values diminished, will continue. 130. The Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable damage as a result of the actions, the continued actions and the proposed future actions of the Defendants. As such, the Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief in addition to a judicial declaration of their rights. 131. The Plaintiffs have expended considerable time and large sums of money in advising, educating and challenging the Defendants as to their illegal and wrongful acts. 132. All administrative remedies available to the Plaintiffs herein have been exhausted.

133. No previous application for this or similar relief has been made by or on behalf of the Plaintiffs in this Court or in any other court. AS AND FOR THE PLAINTIFFS FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 134. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 133 as hereinbefore maintained.

135. The approval of the PUD Law by The Town does not promote the health, safety, morals or the general welfare of the community. 136. 137. As such, the actions and decision of The Town are arbitrary. As such, the actions and decision of The Town are capricious. Page 27

138.

As such, the actions and decision of The Town are without foundation in law or in fact.

139. As such, the actions and decision of The Town are contrary to laws, rules, regulations and ordinances of The Town of Tyre. 140. As such, the actions and decision of The Town are contrary to The Towns comprehensive plan known as the 2014 Plan. 141. As such, the actions and decision of The Town are made without any legitimate criteria. AS AND FOR THE PLAINTIFFS SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 142. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 141 as hereinbefore maintained.

143. The decision of the Town Board in approving the PUD Law to effectively convert agriculturally zoned real estate parcel herein constitutes spot zoning. 144. The decision of the Town Board to approve the PUD Law is not for the general welfare of the community, but instead was for the benefit of a commercial developer. 145. The decision of the Town Board to approve the PUD Law is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan known as the 2014 Plan of The Town of Tyre. 146. As such, the approval of the PUD Law was, is and remains to be contrary to the laws of the State of New York. 147. 148. As such, the approval of the PUD Law was, is and remains to be improper. As such, the approval of the PUD Law was, is and remains to be illegal.

149. As such, the approval of the PUD Law was made and remains to exist without any legitimate criteria. AS AND FOR THE PLAINTIFFS THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 149 as hereinbefore maintained. The manner in which the PUD Law was considered is improper and incorrect. The procedure taken by the Town Board in considering the PUD Law is improper and incorrect. The manner in which the PUD Law was approved is improper and incorrect. As a result the motion for approval of the PUD Law stands as defeated. AS AND FOR THE PLAINTIFFS FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Page 28

155.

The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 154 as hereinbefore maintained.

156. The manner in which the Defendants considered the motion for the approval of the PUD Law violated rules, regulations and procedures pertaining to open government. 157. The manner in which the Defendants considered the motion for the approval of the PUD Law violated rules, regulations and procedures pertaining to ethics. AS AND FOR THE PLAINTIFFS FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 158. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 157 as hereinbefore maintained.

159. The Town Board violated its own laws, rules, regulations and ordinances in that the approval of the PUD Law at hand did not promote and protect to the fullest extent permissible the environment of The Town and its public health, safety, convenience, comfort, prosperity and the general welfare. 160. The Town Board violated its own laws, rules, regulations and ordinances in that the approval of the PUD Law at hand was made inconsistently with the objectives of the comprehensive plan known as the 2014 Plan in existence at the time of the zoning amendments adoption. 161. The Town Board violated its own laws, rules, regulations and ordinances in that such approval of the PUD Law does not protect the character and values of the agricultural neighborhood and it does not insure the orderly and beneficial development therein. 162. As such, the approval of the PUD Law by The Town violated the laws, rules, regulations and ordinances of The Town of Tyre. AS AND FOR THE PLAINTIFFS SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 163. 164. 165. 166. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 162 as hereinbefore maintained. The Plaintiffs will suffer substantial and irreparable damage. A preliminary injunction must be issued. The Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. AS AND FOR THE PLAINTIFFS SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 167. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 166 as hereinbefore maintained.

168. That if any and/or all part of this application is properly one under Article 78 of the CPLR, that the Court permit the Plaintiffs to amend its application herein and replead as such. 169. Alternatively, that the Court sua sponte convert this application to an Article 78 pursuant to the CPLR. RELIEF REQUESTED Page 29

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray for a judgment that this Court declare among other things the legal rights, relations and duties of the parties with respect to the following matters: 1. That a declaratory judgment be made and entered that the Plaintiffs have standing to contest the validity of the PUD Law that effectively rezoned a certain parcel of real estate passed by The Town of Tyre as hereinbefore stated, and that such PUD Law and rezoning is void, unconstitutional, and ineffective as being passed contrary to the laws of the State of New York and the laws, rules, regulations and ordinances of The Town of Tyre; 2. That a declaratory judgment be made and entered that the PUD Law passed by The Town of Tyre as hereinbefore stated has no effect as to the subject property or elsewhere; 3. That to effectuate this Court's declaration that the zoning ordinances is void, that further and consequential relief be granted to the Plaintiffs by permanently enjoining and restraining the Defendants herein, or any other individuals, agents, officers, heirs, successors and/or assigns, from enforcing said zoning law amendment as to the subject property or elsewhere; 4. That to effectuate this Court's declaration that the zoning ordinance is void, that further and consequential relief be granted to the Plaintiffs by permanently enjoining and restraining the Defendants herein, or any other individuals, agents, officers, heirs, successors and/or assigns, from constructing any Project that would not fall within an agricultural zoning classification upon the real property at issue until such time as The Town of Tyre has fully complied with all applicable laws, rules and regulations of the State of New York and the Town of Tyre; and 5. That the Defendants and their agents, officers, heirs, successors and/or assigns be preliminary enjoined and restrained from any further action including construction and permit and approval applications until there is a final ruling on the merits of this matter; 6. That if this application is more properly an Article 78 action under the CPLR, that the Court permit the Plaintiffs to amend its application herein and replead as such; 7. Alternatively, that if this application is more properly an Article 78 action under the CPLR, that the Court sua sponte convert this application to an Article 78 action; 8. That the Plaintiffs be awarded their costs and reasonable attorneys fees and

9. For such other and further relief in declarations of the rights and legal relations of the parties to this action as shall be necessary and proper in the premises.

Dated: March 20, 2014 Geneva, New York.

THE LAW OFFICE OF MARIO J. FRATTO

________________________________________ Mario J. Fratto, ESQ. Attorney for the Plaintiffs 1 Franklin SQ, STE 201 Page 30

Geneva, New York 14456 Telephone: (315) 400-0653 Facsimile: (315) 759-5041 Email: Mario@FrattoLaw.com

VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK ss.: COUNTY OF SENECA Mario J. Fratto, being duly sworn, states that he is the attorney for the Plaintiffs in this action and that the foregoing Verified Complaint is true to his own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated on information and belief and as to those matters he believes it to be true; that the grounds of his belief as to all matters not stated upon his knowledge are correspondence and other writings furnished to him by the Plaintiffs and interviews with the Plaintiffs and agents thereof; and that the reason why this Verification is not made by the Plaintiffs is that the Plaintiffs are located in a different county than that of the attorneys office.

_______________________________ Mario J. Fratto, ESQ. Attorney for the Plaintiffs 1 Franklin SQ, STE 201 Geneva, New York 14456 Telephone: (315) 400-0653 Facsimile: (315) 759-5041 Email: Mario@FrattoLaw.com

Sworn to before me this __ day of March, 2014.

___________________________________ Notary Public

Page 31