The Village's handling of zoning application and its side effects were

recently brought before the Board of Trustees. Perhaps our experience was unique. But we don't think so.

The Building Department in conjunction with the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Village Clerk made a "Mish Mash" of our ability to appropriately defend against the petition for two area variances.

Given the propensities of the board to grant petitions (every petition heard on July 25, 2000 was granted) one cannot be too optimistic that the final result would have been different some semblance of competence, due process and timeliness should be afforded the public.

As a professor who has previously taught administrative law, I have told my students that administrative courts deal out "quick and dirty justice."

However, I have not told them that there should not be some semblance of due process.

When it became apparent that this matter would be heard either at the July or August hearing, when we were going to be on our summer vacation, we engaged local counsel to protect our interests. However, we were able to ascertain before we left that the matter would be heard on July 25. No notice to that effect had been received. As a matter of fact we never received any written notice as to when the hearing would be held despite the fact that the petition was mailed in late May or early June. Having to guess or make inquiry as to when a hearing will be held is to say the least inappropriate.

What we did receive from the petitioners was a copy of the petition and a copy of the outside blueprint of the proposed Colonial. Holding hearings during vacation time without procedures for requesting an adjournment is certainly not appropriate.

Accordingly, it became necessary for us to cut our vacation short if we were going to testify. Luckily we weren't in Europe where we were for some part of June.

Upon our return we were advised that the counsel we had engaged could not handle the matter. However, another counsel was recommended and engaged. This was four business days before the hearing. New counsel determined that a prior hearing before the Architectural Design Review Board might be helpful because of the substantial change requested. A letter to that effect was hand carried to the board a few days prior to the hearing. In addition the letter suggested a compromise. The board never addressed the letter.

At the hearing held on July 25, only three of the five hearing officers were present. Further, the usual counsel to the board was absent and replaced by another member of the firm.

The chairperson asked the petitioners and their counsel whether they wanted an adjournment on the grounds that only three board members are present. They declined.

When our counsel requested an adjournment on the same grounds he was met with the admonition that our side was not entitled to an adjournment on that ground based upon the rules of procedure. Nothing to that effect is contained in the rules. Rules of other villages permit both sides an adjournment on such grounds.

Since we had monitored a previous hearing, it was our opinion that the two hearing officers that were absent adhere much more closely to the requirements of the Village law and the Garden City Village Code. Thus we wanted an adjournment. Fairness required it.

Joseph A. Calamari