FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
John Pisciotta,
Complainant(s)
against Docket #FIC 89-454
Stafford Planning And Zoning Commission, Lisa Bradway, Edward Roberts, And Roger Cheman, As Members Of The Stafford Planning and Zoning Commission,
Respondent(s) July 9, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 9, 1990, 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 and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent commission and its members, Lisa Bradway, Edward Roberts and Roger Cheman, constitute a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated December 4, 1989, and filed with the Commission on December 7, 1989, the complainant alleged that the fourth item on the respondent commission's agenda for its November 28, 1989 meeting, (hereinafter "meeting"), failed to adequately inform the public of the subject matter to be undertaken. The complainant further alleged that because of the vague wording of the fourth agenda item he did not attend a meeting which he would have attended had he been better apprised.
3. It is found that the complainant is an abutting property owner to the Stafford Savings Bank, (hereinafter "bank property").
4. It is found that the question of the issuance of a zoning permit for a canopy located on the bank property had been discussed or scheduled for discussion on several earlier occasions, and either the complainant or his representative had been present.
Docket #FIC 89-454 Page 2
5. It is found that Attorney Craig Argenta's reason for requesting that his name be placed on the respondent commission's meeting agenda was to discuss the issuance of a zoning permit for the canopy on the bank property.
6. It is found that there was action taken by the respondent commission at its meeting which impacted the complainant, and appeared to reverse the respondent's earlier position concerning the bank property.
7. The respondent commission argues that its action in granting Attorney Argenta's request to appear and participate in the meeting, as outlined in agenda item four, was not done malevolently, but rather as an accommodation to Mr. Argenta who had been unable to participate in prior discussions about the bank property due to a personal matter.
8. It is found that prior to the hearing on this contested case, but subsequent to the filing of the complaint in this matter, the respondent commission implemented a policy of providing more detail about its agenda items in an effort to ensure that all persons who want to attend its meetings have the information necessary to make that decision.
9. It is also found that the respondent commission's agenda for the meeting failed to adequately inform the public of the business which was to be transacted.
10. It is further found that the fourth agenda item was vague and therefore misleading.
11. It is concluded, therefore, that in its zeal to accommodate a member of the public the respondent violated 1-21(a), G. S.
12. The Commission declines to impose a civil penalty.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended
on the basis of the record concerning the above captioned complaint:
Docket #FIC 89-454 Page 3
1. Henceforth the respondents shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-21(a), G. S., and provide an agenda notice which outlines the business to be transacted at a particular meeting with detail and clarity sufficient to inform members of the public who may want to attend the meeting.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of July 9, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 89-454 Page 4
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:
JOHN PISCIOTTA
c/o West Side Motors
West Stafford Road
Stafford Springs, CT 06076
STAFFORD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, LISA BRADWAY, EDWARD ROBERTS AND ROGER CHEMAN AS MEMBERS OF STAFFORD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
c/o Thomas J. Fiore, Esquire
3 Grove Street
Stafford Springs, CT 06076
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission