Land Use Discussed Behind Closed Doors

by Meg Yergin -

Recently, reports have surfaced that Village land use boards have discussed certain matters privately, outside of public meetings.  When municipal boards make decisions outside of the public view, the public is often not given access to all information discussed along with the reasoning behind the decisions made.  This practice may also violate residents’ rights under NYS Open Meetings Law (OML).  See HERE.

Private Zoom Meeting to Discuss 1011 Greacen Point

One report involves a private meeting to discuss the controversial proposed development of 1011 Greacen Point Road.  See HERE.

At the March 19 meeting of the Harbor Coastal Zone Management Commission (HCZMC), Robert Gaudioso, an attorney representing neighbors of the project, asked “Was there discussions between Board members and the applicant, as I heard mentioned earlier [in the meeting]?”  In response, then Village Attorney Mary Desmond said: “Absolutely not!”  But Chairman Jon Vosper contradicted Desmond and confirmed a Zoom meeting involving himself, the Chair of the Planning Board, Seamus O’Rourke, the applicants, and others did indeed occur.

While it is not unusual for land-use applicants to confer with Village legal counsel or a board chair on procedural matters, it is something different if the chairs and Village officials are meeting with an applicant in private to discuss substantive material revisions to the application in response to issues raised at public meetings.

An email thread obtained by a resident through a Freedom of Information Law request (FOIL) includes the private meeting’s Zoom invite for a Feb. 24th call.  See HERE. The invite was sent by the Village Land Use Coordinator to Vosper, O’Rourke, Desmond, Village Consultant John Kellard, plus the applicants and the applicants’ team of professional consultants.  The thread also shows then Village Planner Daniel Segal participated.  In the email thread, the applicant thanks the group for the call, saying

“Thank you all for your time today… this was a very helpful discussion, and we have actionable feedback.  We do plan to submit on Wednesday and will be in touch in advance if there are any questions - we think we are clear as of now, however.”

Circumvention of Open Meetings Law

Although she originally denied that a meeting took place, Desmond later pointed out that the private call that occurred between Board members and the applicant didn’t include a quorum of the board.  A quorum is the minimum number of board members required to discuss or take action on any application before them.  Such meetings must be publicly noticed under NYS OML.

Ahead of that February Zoom call, the applicant’s attorney Kristen Wilson sent an email specifically requesting non-quorum sized group meetings (which would not be subject to meeting requirements under OML).  Her Feb. 18, 2025 email was obtained by a neighbor through FOIL.  See HERE. 

“My clients would like to meet with both the Planning Board and HCZMC members in non-quorum sized groups with any member that is willing to meet.  We are hopeful that these meetings would allow members to ask any questions, express concerns or provide feedback that could help move this site plan/HCZMC amendment process forward.  We understand that many neighbors are raising concerns that we are happy to discuss if board/commission members have questions.  I have copied my clients on this email and they are willing to set up zoom meetings or meetings in person at the convenience of your board and commission members.  If you prefer that we reach out directly to the board and commission members, please let us know.”  Emphasis Added.

The Mamaroneck Observer is not aware of any other private meetings between the applicant and board members in addition to the Feb. 24th call that occurred in response to Wilson’s request.

In an earlier November 2024 communication, Wilson thanks Desmond for her call after a meeting.  See HERE. Desmond responds with the following regarding the progress of the application:

“I understand your client is anxious to move forward.  I recall applicant spoke about his wife and growing children before both the HCZMC and PB… At this point I think a discussion on what the applicant thinks boards and consultants knew or should have known about the retaining wall may introduce hurdles that could slow the process.  I should not have raised that during our conversation.  I too am hopeful at the meeting some solutions will be agreed upon and next steps determined to move forward. (Emphasis added.)

Note: Desmond is no longer serving as counsel to the Village or any Land Use Board. See HERE.  

Commissioners Fail to Publicly Discuss Greacen Point Decision

On May 21, 2025 HCZMC ultimately approved the consistency determination resolution for the 1011 Greacen Point application.  See HERE. However, only Chair Vosper publicly stated his personal reasons for approving it at the meeting. None of the other Commissioners made any comments regarding the conditions included in the resolution or explained why they were voting to approve.

This lack of transparency does not align with customary best practices for land use boards.  See HERE.  It is critical for land use boards to create a record during the application review process to inform property owners, help the public understand the reasoning behind board decisions and set a basis for any legal challenges.  It also ensures that decisions are made based on the record and not “an abuse of discretion.”

ZBA Use of Executive Session

Another report of land use board members discussing matters behind closed doors involves the Zoning Board of Appeals’ (ZBA) use of executive session. OML defines an executive session as a portion of a public meeting in which the public is excluded for the purpose of discussing a narrow and defined set of circumstances.  See HERE.

At its May 5th meeting, the ZBA voted to go into executive session for the purpose of conferring with their counsel on “potential litigation” concerning the Court of Appeals’  decision to annul the Board’s 2020 decision regarding 130 Beach Avenue.  See HERE.  Under OML, the discussion of proposed, pending and current litigation are circumstances permitted to be discussed in an executive session.  However, the ZBA did not cite any proposed, pending or current litigation involving 130 Beach Avenue.  Litigation regarding Beach Avenue ended when the Court of Appeals ruled and that decision was not appealed. 

(Any ruling by the ZBA has the potential of being challenged in court, so the term ”potential litigation” must be specifically defined if used to justify a discussion in executive session.)

Coming out of the executive session and re-opening the public meeting, the ZBA immediately added a new clause to the draft resolution under review without further comment, making it seem likely that the Board had discussed this material change privately, denying the public the ability to understand the reasoning that led to its inclusion.  

ZBA June Meeting

At the ZBA’s June 5th meeting, Chair Robin Kramer made a similar motion to go into executive session for advice of counsel related to potential litigation regarding the 130 Beach Avenue decision.  See HERE.  This time a majority of members did not approve her motion, and the Board remained in the public meeting.  As a result, Kramer said there was nothing to discuss.

The ZBA’s legal counsel can, and most often does, advise Board members in public during the regular meetings.  Kramer did not explain why in this instance the Board no longer needed to confer with the attorney in the public meeting.

Transparency and the Public Trust

Section 100 of the NYS Open Meetings Law states:

“It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that the public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of this state be fully aware of and able to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy. The people must be able to remain informed if they are to retain control over those who are their public servants. It is the only climate under which the commonwealth will prosper and enable the governmental process to operate for the benefit of those who created it.”

Land use board members are resident volunteers who rely on the opinions and recommendations of the experts hired to guide them.  In the area of proper board process and procedure – including compliance with OML – the board’s attorney must provide appropriate legal advice.

Although there can be “gray areas” where a situation does not fit neatly into the parameters outlined by law, it’s important to lean into transparency in order not to violate the public trust.

The NYS Committee on Open Government maintains a website with their decisions and recommendations as to how public meetings must be conducted.  See link HERE.