FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Nancy Burton,
Complainant,
against Docket #FIC 89-274
Redding Zoning Commission,
Respondent June 27, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 7, 1989, and April 26, 1990, at which times the complainant 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. By letter filed with the Commission on July 5, 1989, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging the agenda for the respondent's May 24 and June 14, 1989, meetings did not adequately inform the public that the Stormfield estate owned by Doreen Danks would be discussed. The complainant requested a null and void order of the respondent's vote concerning Stormfield.
3. At the hearing on this matter the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint as to the May 24, 1989, meeting, arguing that the complaint was not filed within 30 days of the meeting and the meeting was not secret or unnoticed.
4. It is found that the agenda of the respondent's May 24, 1989, meeting does not list the Stormfield estate among the topics to be discussed.
5. It is found that the respondent's members did discuss the Stormfield estate at the May 24, 1989, meeting.
6. The respondent claims it properly discussed Stormfield as part of the agenda topic "Report of the Zoning Enforcement Officer."
Docket #FIC 89-274 Page Two
7. It is found that an attorney representing Holcomb Properties, Inc., an entity that was trying to obtain a zoning permit to build a residence on the Stormfield estate, was present and participated in the discussion of the property.
8. It is found, however, that the agenda failed to inform the general public that the respondent would discuss Stormfield.
9. It is concluded, therefore, that as to that portion of the meeting at which the respondent discussed Stormfield, the meeting was unnoticed.
10. It is found that the complainant first learned of the discussion at issue when she read the minutes of the meeting on file at the municipal clerk's office on June 9, 1989.
11. It is found that the complainant filed her complaint within thirty days of discovering the unnoticed portion of the meeting took place.
12. The motion to dismiss is hereby denied.
13. In addition, it is concluded that the respondent violated 1-21(a), G.S., by failing to make available to the public an agenda for the May 24, 1989, meeting that clearly communicated which topics would be discussed.
14. It is found that the agenda of the respondent's June 14, 1989, meeting does not list the Stormfield estate among the topics to be discussed.
15. It is found that the respondent's members discussed the Stormfield estate at the June 14, 1989, meeting also.
16. The respondent claims it properly discussed Stormfield at its June 14, 1989, meeting as part of the agenda topic "Report of the Zoning Enforcement Officer."
17. It is found that the attorney representing Holcomb Properties, Inc., again was present and participated in the discussion of the property.
18. It is found, however, that this agenda also failed to inform the general public that the respondent would discuss Stormfield.
19. It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-21(a), G.S., by failing to make available to the public an agenda that clearly communicated the topics to be discussed at the June 14, 1989 meeting.
Docket #FIC 89-274 Page Three
20. It is found that no vote was taken to add the Stormfield matter to the agenda, either on May 24 or June 14, 1989.
21. It is concluded that the respondent further violated 1-21(a), G.S., by failing twice to vote to add an item to the agenda that was not specifically listed on it.
22. It is found that at the June 14, 1989, meeting the respondent's members voted unanimously, as regards Stormfield, "to request the Zoning Enforcement Officer to issue the Zoning Permit, based on the variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals."
23. It is further found that the respondent has changed its practice and now lists on its agenda each item to be addressed under the general topic "Report of the Zoning Enforcement Officer."
The following order of the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the complete record in the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent henceforth shall act in strict compliance with all the agenda requirements of 1-21(a), G.S.
2. The respondent's vote regarding Stormfield taken at its June 14, 1989, meeting is hereby declared null and void.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 27, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 89-274 Page Four
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:
NANCY BURTON
147 Cross Highway
Redding Ridge, CT 06875
REDDING ZONING COMMISSION
c/o Jeffery P. Apuzzo, Esquire
850 Main Street
P.O. Box 7006
Bridgeport, CT 06601
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission