FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Nancy Burton,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 87-302
Roy C.B. Bradshaw, Vincent
Viggiano, John Hayes, James McBroom, Barbara Obeda, Redding
Technical Team, Mary Anne
Guitar, First Selectman, Diane Taylor, Planning Commission Chairman and Reeve
K. Biggers, Conservation Commission Chairman of the Town of Redding,
Respondents March
9, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on November 20, 1987, at which time the complainant and the respondents
appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and
argument on the complaint.
After consideration of the entire record, the following
facts are found:
1. The
respondent first selectman and the respondent chairmen of the planning
commission and conservation commission are public agencies within the meaning
of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter
of complaint filed with the Commission on October 19, 1987 the complainant
alleged that she had been denied access to attend an October 15, 1987 meeting
of the Redding Technical Team, in violation of §1-21(a), G.S. Further alleging that access had been denied
willfully and without reasonable grounds, the complainant requested the
imposition of a civil penalty, pursuant to §1-21i(b), G.S.
3. The
complainant also alleged that she had been denied access to meetings occurring
more than 30 days prior to the filing of her complaint. Such meetings, however, were not unnoticed
or secret meetings within the meaning of §1-21i(b), G.S. and are not,
therefore, within the jurisdiction of the Commission.
4. The
Redding Technical Team (hereinafter "RTT"), which allows attendance
at its meetings by invitation only, claims
Docket #FIC 87-302 Page
Two
that it is not a public
agency and, therefore, not subject to the requirements of the Freedom of
Information Act.
5. It is
found that §5.1 of the Town of Redding's subdivision regulations provides that
an application for subdivision or re-subdivision will not be accepted for
consideration and action until the planning commission has verified that all
data required by the subdivision regulations have been submitted in proper
form.
6. Prior to
1978, applications for subdivision or other development plan approval in the
Town of Redding were reviewed for technical flaws by town employees or
consultants working independently. In
1978 the respondent first selectman established the RTT to encourage such
employees and consultants to meet and share their opinions on
applications. Since 1978, applications
for subdivision or other development plan approval have been submitted to the
RTT for review.
7. The RTT
is composed of five participants: the
town sanitarian and the town zoning enforcement officer, a planning consultant,
an engineering consultant and an environmental consultant. The role of engineering consultant is filled
by one of several members of an engineering firm engaged by the Town of Redding
and the role of environmental consultant is filled by either an independent
contractor or, infrequently, by the respondent chairman of the conservation
commission.
8. Initially,
the RTT meets with the applicant, reviews the application and advises the
applicant of necessary changes, if any, in the application. Occasionally an applicant will be required
to return several times to the RTT before the RTT is satisfied that the
application is technically correct.
9. Once the
RTT is satisfied that an application meets all technical requirements of the
subdivision regulations or other applicable regulations, it so certifies to the
planning commission and recommends that the application be accepted. The application is then put on an agenda for
a meeting of the planning commission.
10. It is
found that the review of a subdivision application or application for other
development plan approval for technical completeness is a function which could
be, and was, prior to the formation of the RTT, accomplished by staff members
working independently.
11. It is
further found that the review of a subdivision application or application for
other development plan approval for technical completeness is in the nature of
an administrative function, consisting of an objective review of a given application
to determine whether it meets certain established criteria.
Docket #FIC 87-302 Page
Three
12. It is
concluded that to the extent that the RTT meets for the purpose of reviewing
subdivision or other development plan applications for technical perfection,
such gatherings are administrative or staff meetings of a single-member public
agency within the meaning of §1-18a(b), G.S. and, consequently, public access
to such gatherings is not required by §1-21(a), G.S.
13. It is
found that following an application's acceptance by the planning commission,
the subject of the application is referred back to the RTT for an evaluation of
the merits and quality, rather than the technical completeness, of the
application.
14. Upon
referral of an accepted application back to the RTT, its members again meet to
consider the application. At such
second stage of the RTT's consideration of a subdivision or other development
plan application each member of the RTT evaluates the merits and quality of the
request, rather than its technical correctness, based upon his or her
particular area of expertise.
15. The RTT
then submits a second recommendation to the planning commission, in the form of
a report, which states the consensus of the RTT members on the issue of whether
the application should be granted or denied.
A dissenting member may submit his or her own report. Such reports are heavily relied upon by the
planning commission in its decision-making.
16. It is
found that a meeting to evaluate the merits and quality of and render a
decision on a request for subdivision or other development plan approval,
however non-binding, is distinguishable from the type of purely objective
review performed at the initial stage of the RTT's examination of a subdivision
application. Such a function is not one
typically or properly performed by individual staff members, rather, such
evaluations and determinations are generally within the province of a planning
commission or similar body.
17. It is
further found that the second-stage evaluations performed by the RTT are not
administrative or staff meetings of a single-member public agency within the
meaning of §1-18a(b), G.S.
18. It is
concluded that when acting in concert to render an opinion concerning the
granting or denial of a subdivision or other development plan application on
its merits and quality, the RTT is a multi-member public agency within the
meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S. whose gatherings are meetings within the meaning of
§1-18a(b), G.S. Such gatherings, therefore,
must be conducted in compliance with the requirements of §1-21(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC 87-302 Page
Four
19. It is
found that neither the respondent first selectman nor either of the respondent
chairmen is individually responsible for providing or denying access to
meetings of the RTT. The complaint, as
it relates to such persons individually, is therefore dismissed.
20. In the
absence of evidence concerning the nature of the RTT's October 15, 1987
meeting, the Commission declines to issue an order with respect to the
propriety of closing such meeting to the public.
21. The
Commission hereby declines to impose the civil penalties requested by the
complainant.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint.
1. The
complaint as it relates to the respondent first selectman and the respondent
chairmen is hereby dismissed.
2. The
respondent RTT henceforth shall comply with the requirements of §1-21(a), G.S.
regarding notice and minutes of, and public access to, meetings of public
agencies when acting in concert to render an opinion concerning the granting,
modifying and granting, or denial of a subdivision or other development plan
application on its merits and quality.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of March 9, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission