Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/2009

Home

j1 jl I' H Ii il I! " Ii ,I " i' Ii ji ii II I,' il I' !I d 11 II I, II I' il ,I I r " I, ( ) :1 ~ I j ~ I . j I I I I I ( ) .......-/ Zoning Bulletin March 10, 2009 I Volume 3 I No.5 equipped with a video broadcast so that people could see and hear the proceedings. Approximately 50 people spoke at the hearing. All who wished to testify had the opportunity. Subsequent to the hearing, the Commission approved ERRC's appli- cations. The applications were later approved by the city council. These approvals re-zoned the sites and granted special permits for height and setback waivers. Windsor Owners Corporation ("Windsor"), owners of property ad- joining ERRC's proposed development, petitioned the court. Windsor challenged the Commission's approval of ERRC's applications. Wind- sor argued that the time and location of the public hearing violated New York's Open Meetings Law. The Open Meetings Law required public body meetings conducting public business, other than executive sessions, "be open to the general public." Windsor noted that prior to the hearing there were many "written and oral objections" by elected officials and neighborhood representatives to the hearing's time and lo- cation. Those objectors had alleged that the time was inconvenient for most and the location insufficient in size for the expected c~owd. Wind- sor contended that the city knowingly or inte~tionally excluded the public and chilled the participation of neighbors opposed to ERRC's development by holding the hearing on ERRC's proposal mid-week and mid-day and in a facility that was too small for the crowd. DECISION: Petition denied. The Supreme Court, New York County held that the December 5 public meeting did not violate New York's Open Meetings Law. In so holding, the court noted that the Open Meetings Law required that the public be "able to observe the performance of public officials and at- tend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the. mak- ing of public policy." The law; however, did not specify "where or when meetings must be held . . . ." The court said it could only find a violation qf the Open Meetings Law if Windsor could show: insuffi- cient notice; unreasonable starting time; improper convening of execu- tive sessions; or improper exclusion of members of the public. It would not overturn the Commission's decision "based on technical violations or negligent failure to comply precisely with the Open Meetings Law." The court found that the meeting did not violate the Open Meet- ings Law because: the meeting was held in the usual location and at the usual morning time for the Commissions' public hearings; there was sufficient space at the location for all of those who attended; the Com- mission heard every speaker that asked to testify; and there was no evidence that the Commission intentionally or knowingly discouraged anyone from attending the hearing. @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 3 105