FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
William Shia
Complainant Docket #FIC 86-67
against
Inland Wetlands
Commission of the Town of Bethany and Chairman of the Inlands Wetlands Commission
of the Town of Bethany
Respondents April 23, 1986
The above captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on March 27, 1986 at which time the complainant and the
respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the
complaint.
After consideration of the entire
record the following facts are found:
1.
The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of section
1-18a(a), G.S.
2.
By complaint filed with the Commission, March 7, 1986, the complainant
alleged that he had been denied his rights under the Freedom of Information
Act.
#FIC 86-22 page
2
3.
By letter dated October 7, 1985, the complainant requested the
respondents provide notice to him concerning any action pending concerning a
parcel of land adjoining his residence at 16 Oak Ridge Drive.
4.
The complainant's written request was a follow-up on an oral request
which had been made to the chairman of the respondent commission at an earlier
date.
5. The complainant's October 7, 1985
letter was lost or misplaced, so that it did not reach the respondents until
their December meeting, at which time the respondents granted a provisional
permit for construction of a residence on the parcel which was the subject of the
complainant's concern.
6. 1-21c provides in relevant part that:
The public agency shall, where
practicable, give notice by mail of each regular meeting, and of any special
meeting which is called, at least one week prior to the date set for the meeting,
to any person who has filed a written request for such notice with such body,
except that such body may give such notice as it deems practical of special
meetings called less than seven days prior to the date set for the meeting. .
. . Such public agency may establish a reasonable charge for sending
such notice based on the estimated cost of providing such service.
7. It is found that the complainant's request
for notice of actions concerning the lot next to his own was a request for
notice within the meaning of 1-21c, G.S., and that respondents' failure to
notify him was a violation of the notice requirements of that section.
8. The complainant requested that the
Commission declare null and void the permit to develop lot #27 of Oak Ridge
Acres, which was issued on December 23, 1985 and that it require that a public
hearing be held concerning the development of the lot, and that a member of the
staff of the Department of Environmental Protection be present at the hearing.
#FIC 86-22 page 3
9. 6.6b of the regulations of the
respondent commission provides that it shall render a final decision within 65
days from the receipt of a complete application, unless a hearing is scheduled.
10. The application concerning the lot #27
was signed November 17, 1985.
11. It is clear that the respondent
commission was not required to approve the application for a provisional permit
on lot #27 at its meeting on December 16, 1985.
12. Respondents have assured this Commission
that if they were to reconsider the application, the complainant would have an
opportunity to address the respondent commission concerning the merits of the
application.
13. It is found on the basis of the facts and
law considered herein, that it is appropriate to declare the action of the
respondent commission granting a permit to develop lot #27, null and void.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above captioned complaint.
1. The action of the respondent commission
granting a provisional permit for the development of lot #27, Oak Ridge Acres,
is hereby declared null and void.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its special meeting of April 23, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the Commission