FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by            FINAL DECISION

 

Robert E. Hanson,

 

                        Complainant(s)

 

            against              Docket #FIC 90-65

 

Winchester Planning and Zoning Commission, and Richard Nalette as Chairman of the Winchester Planning and Zoning Commission,

 

                        Respondent(s)              July 25, 1990

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 4, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondent commission 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  By letter of complaint dated February 19, 1990, and filed with the Commission on February 20, 1990, the complainant alleged that the respondent commission violated 1-21(a), G. S., when it held a special meeting on July 17, 1989, (hereinafter "special meeting"), and did not confine its discussion to the matters outlined in the agenda for that meeting.

 

            3.  Specifically, the complainant alleges that the respondent commission:

 

            a.  discussed and took action on the Highland Lake Zone Plan, (hereinafter "Highland plan"); and

 

            b.  failed to make an audiotape or prepare a transcript of the special meeting.

 

            4.  It is found that at least seventy-two days before the respondent commission's special meeting, the complainant had filed with the respondent commission an application and site plan for a special zoning exception for his proposed multifamily development known as Lakeside Townhouses, (hereinafter "Lakeside application").

 

Docket #FIC 90-65                                      Page 2

 

            5.  It is found that the Highland plan which sought to restrict the use of the area in question to single family dwellings predated the Lakeside application.

 

            6.  It is also found that the Highland plan had become effective by operation of law pursuant to 8-7d and 8-3, G. S., because no public hearing had been scheduled or decision rendered by the respondent commission concerning the Highland plan during the requisite sixty-five day statutory time period.

 

            7.  It is found that by letter dated July 10, 1989, the complainant's counsel contacted the respondent commission to formally request that pursuant to 8-7d and 8-3, G. S., the Lakeside application become effective by operation of law.

 

            8.  It is found that the respondent commission called its special meeting to discuss the question of automatic approval for the Lakeside application.

 

            9.  It is found that the actual business transacted at the special meeting was limited to a discussion of the Lakeside application.

 

            10.  It is further found that the discussion of the Highland plan was directly and specifically related to the issue of automatic approval for the Lakeside application.

 

            11.  It is found that no action regarding either the Lakeside application or Highland plan was taken at the special meeting.

 

            12.  It is also found that the Freedom of Information Act does not require that an agency make an audiotape or transcript of its proceedings.

 

            13.  It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent commission's discussion of the Highland plan as it affected consideration of automatic approval for the Lakeside application did not violate 1-21(a), G. S.

 

Docket #FIC 90-65                                       Page 3

 

            14.  The Commission declines to impose a civil penalty as 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 is hereby dismissed.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 25, 1990.

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 90-65                                      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:

ROBERT E. HANSON

101-9 Wakefield Boulevard

P.O. Box 997

Winsted, CT 06098

 

WINCHESTER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND RICHARD NALETTE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE WINCHESTER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

c/o Stephen O. Allaire, Esq.

Ruggiero, Ziogas & Allaire

271 Farmington Avenue

Bristol, CT 06010

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission