The Village of Great Neck Planning Board violated open meeting laws when it posted a notice of a 7:30 a.m. public meeting on the village website on May 1 to discuss the Clover Drive development with only 24 hours notice, according to Robert Freeman, executive director of the New York Department of State Committee on Open Government.
“The law requires that notice be given to the news media and be posted in a conspicuous public place,” Freeman said.
Freeman said as soon as the board knew what date they were holding the meeting, they should have posted a public notice a week before the meeting date.
“That’s one of the key issues,” Freeman said.
Acting chair of the Village of Great Neck Planning Board Raymond Iryami said he was told by the board’s attorney, Christopher Prior, that the notice of the meeting did not violate open meetings law.
“I specifically asked about the lawfulness of our notice and I was advised by our lawyers that it was lawful,” Iryami said.
Prior, in an e-mail, said the board needed to schedule a special meeting as soon as possible to avoid having the application by developer Frank Lalezarian approved by default under state law.
The special board meeting was scheduled after a four-hour public hearing on Lalezarian’s plan to construct an 11-home development on 3.1 across of woodland along Clover Drive on Thursday, April 24 stretched into the early hours of Friday morning without a decision.
At the meeting, the board had considered whether to require Lazezarian to set aside parkland for the village or pay a fee that would be used by the village’s park trust fund. Village planners had closed discussion on all other aspects of the project at a public hearing in March.
“Once the planning board closed the public hearing on March 27, 2014, for all issues other than the parkland issue, one could conclude that the 62-day calendar on the rendering of the planning board’s decision began to run,” Prior said.
Iryami said that residents were told at that meeting to check the village’s website for the date of the special meeting.
“Everyone was on notice,” he said.
Freeman also said the meeting should not have been scheduled for 7:30 a.m.
“That is an unreasonable time to conduct an open meeting,” he said. “Can most people who have an interest in the application show up to the meeting?”
Prior said the board had tried to schedule an evening meeting.
“After significant effort to schedule an evening meeting to [vote], the only mutually available date and time to accomplish this in a timely manner was the morning of Thursday, May 1,” he said.
Iryami said he was pleased to see several residents make it to the meeting on May 1, despite the short notice and early start time.
“We had a lot of the neighbors who attended the prior sessions,” Iryami said.
Neither Lalezarian nor attorney Paul Bloom, a former chair of the Village of Great Neck planning board who is representing Lalezarian on the project, were present during Thursday’s meeting.
Following a 50-minute closed-door meeting at the April 24 meeting, Iryami announced that the board would support the project contingent on Lalezarian receiving approval from Great Neck Estates and the state approving a 26-foot wide roadway, which has been the subject of debate among board members and the public.
“Based upon the sense of the board members informally expressed, [the board] directed its counsel to prepare a draft of a decision conditionally granting subdivision approval,” Iryami said in an e-mail following the meeting.
Prior to the start of the closed door session, four board members said they would vote against the application, citing safety concerns.
Board member Robin Gordon said during the public hearing that the planning board should hold off on voting for the proposal until it gained the Village of Great Neck Estates’s okay since the only access to the proposed development went through Great Neck Estates.
“I think that this violates the village precedent in a way that hurts the village,” Gordon said.
Board members Allegra Goldberg, Fuller and Fred Knauer agreed with Gordon’s assessment of the proposal, saying they would deny the application.
Iryami then called an executive session, saying it was necessary for the board to receive advice of counsel.
Freeman also questioned the closed-door session that was ordered by Iryami.
“There are any number of situations in which a board will take legal advice,” Freeman said. “But once you start discussing the project again, it has to go out to the public.”
Iryami said he called the executive session to make sure that the board understood the legal ramifications of voting against the project.
“As the chair, I need to make sure that they understand all of the issues and all of the facts,” Iryami said. “We need to make sure our ultimate vote is consistent with the law.”
Iryami said he did not care how the other four board members voted on the application.
“As long as they understand everything, I don’t care how they vote,” he said.
Board members Robin Gordon and Fred Knauer declined to comment on the closed-door session.
Efforts to reach board members Michael Fuller and Allegra Goldberg for comment were unavailing.
