Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/03/2013

Home

Zoning Bulletin August 25, 2013 1 Volume 7 1 Issue 16 Procedure /Open Meetings Law —As a result of large public turnout at public meeting on special use permit, planning board relocates meeting Opponents of special use permit contend the meeting relocation violated the Open Meetings Law Citation: Frigault v. Town of Richfield Planning Bd., 107 A.D.3d 1347, 2013 WL 3213803 (3d Dep't 2013) NEW YORK (06/27/13) —This case addressed the issue of whether a town planning board's relocation of a meeting at which a special use permit was granted violated the Open Meetings Law. The Background /Facts: In March 2011, Monticello Hills Wind, LLC (the "Applicant ") applied to the Town of Richfield Planning Board (the "Board ") for a special use permit. The Applicant proposed the construction of six wind turbines and associated facilities (the "Project ") on 1,190 acres of land located in the Town of Richfield, Otsego County, New York (the "Town "). The Board evaluated the proposed Project under the State Environmental Quality Review Act ( "SEQRA "), held a public hearing, conducted multiple meetings and considered public comments both in support of, and in opposi- tion to, the Project. At a November 22, 2011 meeting, the Board, among other things, granted the Applicant a special use permit. In regard to the November 22, 2011 meeting, the Board had initially provided proper notice that a Board meeting was scheduled to take place at the Town Hall at 7 p.m. on that date and that the Project would be the focus of the meeting. As a result of the large public turnout at that meeting, the room in the Town Hall was filled in excess of the maximum occupancy limit. The Town attorney; announced to those in attendance that the meeting would be relocated to a community room in a church located approximately two blocks away. A note was placed on the door of the Town Hall to inform late attendees of the move, and the meeting commenced approximately one hour after it was scheduled to begin. Subsequent to the November 22 meeting, a group of local citizens and prop- erty owners in the Town (the "Opponents ") brought a legal action against the Board. Among other things, the Opponents contended that the Board failed to comply with the Open Meetings Law (Public Officers Law art 7) by relocating the meeting without proper notice. The Open Meetings Law provides that "[p]ublic notice of the time and place of a meeting scheduled at least one week prior thereto shall be given to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at least seventy -two hours before such meeting," and "[p]ub- lic notice of the time and place of every other meeting shall be given, to the © 2013 Thomson Reuters 7