FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Catherine Hull and Richard Hull, Sr.,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against              Docket #FIC 88-494

 

Morris Planning and Zoning Commission,

 

                        Respondent                  December 18, 1989

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 30, 1989, at which time the complainants and the respondent 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 and conclusions of law are reached:

 

            1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2. It is found that the respondent held a regularly scheduled meeting on December 7, 1988.

 

            3. It is found that the agenda for the respondent's December 7, 1988 meeting included discussion regarding the complainants' application to the Morris zoning enforcement officer for a certificate of zoning compliance for a change in use of a nonconforming building.

 

            4. It is found that the zoning enforcement officer sought guidance from the respondent as to its interpretation of regulations regarding changes in use of nonconforming structures generally and the complainants' building in particular.

 

            5. It is found that at its December 7, 1988 meeting the respondent, following the technical recommendation of the town planner, instructed the zoning enforcement officer to advise the complainants that their building could contain only one use.

 

            6. By letter of complaint dated December 19, 1988 and filed with the Commission on December 22, 1988, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent at its December 7, 1988 meeting failed to take up the matter of the complainants' zoning application at the point indicated on its

 

Docket No. FIC 88-494                                  Page 2

 

agenda, alleging that the respondent failed to make its record of vote available for public inspection, and requesting that the Commission declare null and void all actions taken by the respondent with respect to the complainants' zoning application.

 

            7. With respect to the complainants' allegation concerning the order of business, it is found that the respondent delayed discussion of the complainants' application in the hope that the complainant Richard Hull, who was not present at the meeting, would later arrive.

 

            8. It is concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-21(a), G.S., by delaying discussion of the complainants' application.

 

            9. With respect to the complainants' allegation concerning the record of vote, it is concluded that the zoning enforcement officer, and not the respondent, was charged with making the decision on the complainants' zoning application; and that the respondent's advice to the zoning enforcement officer regarding that application did not constitute a vote of the respondent.

 

            10. It is concluded therefore that the respondent did not violate 1-21(a), G.S., by failing to record its advice to the zoning enforcement officer as a vote.

 

            11. Although the complainants at the hearing on this matter indicated that their concern was only with the respondent's failure to record a vote on the matter specifically affecting them, the Commission notes that the 1-21(a), G.S., requires that the votes of each member of any public agency upon any issue before the agency shall also be recorded in the minutes of the session at which taken, and that the minutes for the December 7, 1988 meeting fail to record the members' votes upon other matters voted and approved.

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

            1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of December 18, 1989.

 

                                                         

                                    Karen J. Haggett

                                    Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket No. FIC 88-494                                  Page 3

 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

 

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

CATHERINE HULL AND RICHARD HULL, SR.

P.O. Box 9

Bantam, CT 06750

 

MORRIS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

c/o Michael D. Rybak, Esquire

Guion and Stevens

P.O. Box 338

West Street

Litchfield, CT 06759

 

                                                         

                                    Karen J. Haggett

                                    Clerk of the Commission