|
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION |
|||
|
In
the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL
DECISION |
||
|
Gerard
Piel and Eleanor Jackson Piel, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against
|
|
Docket
#FIC1999-380 |
|
Zoning Board of Appeals, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
February
9, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This matter was heard as a contested case on November 3, 1999, at which time the complainants, the respondents, and the intervenor appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Prior to the hearing in the above-captioned matter, Irwin B. Ackerman, owner of the property at 93 Sharon Road, Salisbury, moved for permission to intervene. Such motion was granted and Mr. Ackerman has been granted status as a party respondent.
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 §1-200(1),
G.S. [formerly §1-18a(1),
G.S.]
2. By letter dated and filed August 18, 1999, the complainants alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (hereinafter “FOI”) Act with respect to the July 19, 1999, meeting of the respondent board (hereinafter “the meeting”) as follows:
a) if the meeting constituted a “special meeting,” failure of the respondent clerk to post notice of such meeting and failure of the respondent board to specify the business to be transacted;
b) if the meeting constituted an “adjourned meeting,” failure of the respondent board to properly issue notice of adjournment and failure to conspicuously post such a notice on or near the door of the place where the meeting was held;
c) if the meeting constituted a “continued hearing,” failure of the respondent board to properly issue notice of adjournment and failure to conspicuously post such a notice on or near the door of the place where the meeting was held.
The complainants asked that the action taken at the meeting relating to the Ackerman site be declared null and void.
3. At the hearing in this matter, the complainants withdrew their complaint regarding the failure of the respondent clerk to post notice, as described in paragraph 2a, above. Accordingly, such allegation shall not be addressed herein.
4. It is found that the respondent board held a meeting on July 13, 1999, and that, at such meeting, the board voted to “adjourn the discussion” of the Ackerman site to Monday, July 19, 1999, at 5:30P.M.
5. It is found that, on July 14, 1999, the respondent board filed with the respondent clerk a notice of a special meeting to be held July 19, 1999. It is further found that such notice provided:
Please be advised that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Salisbury will hold a Special Meeting on Monday, July 19, 1999 following a site inspection at 93 Sharon Road. Site inspection is scheduled for 5:30PM.
6. The respondents contend that the meeting was an adjourned meeting within the meaning of §1-228, G.S. [formerly §1-21d, G.S.], and that the notice provisions of such statute apply to the facts herein.
7. However, it is concluded that the meeting was a special meeting of the respondent board, and that the notice provisions of §1-225, G.S. [formerly §1-21, G.S.] apply to the facts herein. Such statute provides in relevant part that:
[n]otice of each special meeting of every public agency… shall be given not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time of such meeting by filing a notice of the time and place thereof in the office of the…clerk of [the]…political subdivision of the state…Such notice shall be given not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time of the special meeting….The notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted….
8. It is concluded that the notice described in paragraph 5, above, fairly apprised the public of the time, place, and business to be transacted at the meeting within the meaning of §1-225, G.S. [formerly §1-21, G.S.] and that such notice was timely filed with the Salisbury Town Clerk as required by such statute.
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
February 9, 2000.
________________________
Ann B. Gimmartino
Acting Clerk of the Commission
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:
Gerard Piel and Eleanor Jackson Piel
c/o William O. Riska, Esq.
23 Union Street
Winsted, CT 06098
Zoning Board of Appeals,
Town of Salisbury; and
Town Clerk, Town of Salisbury
c/o Ralph G. Elliot, Esq.
Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, LLP
185 Asylum Street
CityPlace/35th floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3488
Irwin B. Ackerman
c/o Kevin Nelligan, Esq.
Capecelatro & Nelligan, LLP
117 Main Street
P.O. Box 1045
Canaan, CT 06018-1045.
__________________________
Ann B. Gimmartino
Acting Clerk of the Commission