were here before the court today on a case arising out of an application for special use permit which mr tally may be billed to saybrook mr tally at that time was an employee of the bill to say a group yes for special use permit which led to some meetings by the builder saybrook and ultimately the adoption of an ordinance ordinance number seven hundred eighty eight my client ms norton filed in open meetings act action to contest the will galley of the meeting which occurred in the process leading up to the adoption of ordinance number seventeen eighty eight and a statutory action under section eleven dash thirteen deaths fifteen of the municipal code against mr tally we appealed today from the order of september twenty third two tenth two thousand and ten and the claim was filed on april twenty seventh two thousand and ten within the sixty day statutory time frame so because a statutory time frame has been satisfied i believe the court orders striking the claim should be overturned by the builder same work as contended that the open meetings act issue is a red herring to this matter because the alleged open meetings act violation would not affect the validity of ordinance number seven hundred eighty eight and while i would concede that point is correct and none the less has no bearing on the ability of my fine to pursue a separate statutory claim for a violation of the open meetings that you are meaning that gives a right to pursue a claim for violation of its provisions were that was of whether the violation has any substantive effect on the legality or validity of an ordinance that was ultimately adopted as to the mar to ensure we're holding our local public bodies to their obligations under that act for gardasil whether there are violations pertaining to the adoption of an ordinance or or the passage of the motion the statute is to be strictly constructed in favor of open meetings however tender as a policy argument that now recognizing year and subsequently acting to subsequently holding a new meeting does not correct what happened which was an illegal close meeting and similarly it doesn't correct asked between the mayor and the newly constructed zoning board of appeals it was in advance of the zoning board of appeals hearing to consider mr talley's application for special use permit where it was that the hearing was held  action was taken i believe on april twenty eighth two thousand and i don't recall whether that that's a date that sticks in my i minded don't recall whether that was the date of the village for final action or the zoning board recommendation but i know that the meeting of march ten of the board to know exactly what transpired at the meeting and the reason the zoning board of appeals was reconstituted was to deal with this one application so presumably and again this is a presumption the discussion at that meeting would have pertain the motion that i believe was actually on was the section two six one five motion to strike so i believe in the ordinary course on that motion would be dual allow an opportunity to replay declaimed back to any technical pleading errors and i understood their course opinion to be that the claim was deficient as a matter of law because of the failure to satisfy that sixty day provision and that deficiency is a matter of law could not be corrected because it just simply was not satisfied factually so there was not an opportunity given reporters was dismissed as a part so this is the second either the second or the first what i believe to be a sequence of events and i apologize that i am working off my best recollection i believe the sequence granted that motion after motion was granted we did not file to amend we filed a motion to reconsider with the court and that motion to reconsider was tonight so at the time the court dismissed the claim there was an amended complaint on record that issue was presented to the top or as a separate issue it it was rather presented in the context of the broader picture of the entire kind of a sequence of opera facts to your honor's  pleading at least in one instance referencing the open meaning tax there's an apparent intent to pursue that claim that was in front of the court the the trial court understood an open meeting tech claim to be before else it wouldn't have arrived at the sixty day statute of limitations the sixty day statute of limitations pertains to a claim alleging a violation the open meetings act had a trial for help we we didn't  consideration sixty day limitations period and also referenced the liberal allowance of amendments a liberal opportunity afforded a party who presented factually sufficient valid legally sufficient claim before a claim be stricken without leave file a separate motion for leave two men as a part of the disposition that motion and opportunity was requested i believe to be your decision to reconsider just the rest of the prior pleading before the court i believe so  rights to challenge ordinance because they didn't if you follow the pleadings their first original complaint was filed on in april complaint that was seven months after the after the court had granted the ordinance so either story five days according to the administrative law statute or ninety days according to eleven thirteen twenty five and both of those were gone so we said our contention is that they're trying to get a second bite of the apple indirectly by suing gene talley as an individual and kind of challenge scenting a need on its own merits whether it's through an administrative action or whether they just file a complaint within the ninety day period on seven hundred eighty eight which which they didn't do  ordinances and so forth and there are those ordinances are being valid if if those are challenged within ninety days so i think that the attempt to to review board in seventy eighty eight through this judge fully address that allegation that early on now on your corrected it's not specified in the order itself she just kind of summarily gives a summary judgment to the whole the whole our whole motion village with the original complaint but that was with that was an open meeting act i don't complain and there is nothing about how tense or nothing about a concrete slab and and that complaint so we would contend that say that's that that whole issues remedy because i have third and fourth a minute complaints that actually have that that remedy or that what we're seeking related back to the first and second minute complaint i don't think that's a valid argument because number one the first and second a minute complaints are the original and first time in a complaint only talk about invalidating sportin seventeen eighty five for off for that purpose for under the open filed i believe on july fourteenth twenty two in the village myself the move to dismiss that complaint again there were additional allegations in the in the nature of the cause of action kind of changed over time as your honour's of observed by looking at the pleadings the court dismissed that dismissed that second complaint again not and again found it there were insufficient allegations amended pleading and i believe even after that although i guess the third and fourth complaints we were my fights were not in in the pull in the case at that time but at least in the second complaint there were still a gaffe between anything that could even taken on its face is true save the march tenth two thousand and ten alleged illegal meeting that was still two or three steps removed from what action the village took and the complaint itself attached the exhibit of the public notice of the april twenty eighth meeting doesn't already that that was a violation of the open meetings act doesn't allege that that occurred in secret  the hearing when the judge dismissed it the first the minute complaint and i believe you know it was it was inquired of counsel do you have anything else to plead that might allow you to file the third complain entirely painting the the whole picture of what happened because i think if that's true a plaintiff would still have to show some kind of nexus or connection between the violation and some damage and why and what happened court head  that possibly could be construed to to to be valued valued for that the original first amid a complaint both that with the opens meetings act and trial in trying to invalidate board in seventy five those counts were not directly challenging seven hundred eighty eight itself challenging said were essential eighty eight through eleven thirteen fifteen with geno as the sole defendant was in the second and third complaints and not a amplification of back so i still think that the ninety day statute or the or the other statute of limitations was was not followed on were as far as  so they are saying that because seventeen ordinance seven hundred eighty eight is invalid that now he's he doesn't have permission to build a shed and therefore he's violating the underlying super village  right right i mean this case is ultimately about the ordinance and they put one line in there about how tense and in a concrete slab and i said we don't think that they say they can follow the act in and serving the mayor properly order referenced that plaintiff counsel made an oral motion for the in three plea it also references in paragraph three that there was no wedge action will violation your meetings and for references an oral request replete and says there's no facts that have been brought forth which would lead the court to believe that further amended of the further amendment would state a viable cause of action at the time the court enter that order there was on file i checked my records the amended complaint filed july twenty ninth two thousand and ten which what's important to keep in mind is is a procedure that was followed by the village there are two different means him which is a special use application can be acted on by a village the municipal could run support of these two distinct procedures one procedure board to make a final decision that's the last step in the process no further action by the village or powers entirely vested in the zoning or that's not the case here the zoning board made a recommendation final action was taken by the this claim under eleven thirteen thirteen is fulfilled however because the village where was one that took final action based on a mere recommendation from the zoning board the zoning board is instead serving as a legislative committee and where they serve as a lead slate of committee there is no final administrative order that would be subject to administrative review rather the final action is that taken by the village for which is subject to read you know who were of us a legislative decision for eleven thirteen twenty five ministry of decision this is a legislative act by the board it option of an ordinance is the way in which local governments pass a law so it's no longer an activist ministration it's a legislative act by the corporate authority comes