FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
Alan Drouin, |
|
||
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-149 |
|
Planning
and Zoning Commission, |
|
||
|
Respondents |
July 26, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on June 14, 2000, at which time 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 §1-200(1),
G.S.
2.
By letter dated March
23, 2000 and filed on March 24, 2000, the complainant appealed to this
Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”)
Act by:
a.
failing to properly
notice its meetings;
b.
discussing his
property at a meeting without notice to him;
c.
altering approvals
that had been perfected without notice;
d.
causing certain
filings to occur on land records of his property as a result of unnoticed
meetings;
e.
failing to notice,
either prior or subsequent to, the filing of a ‘Notice’ on his land
records.
The
complainant requested the following relief be granted:
aa.
“the town be held liable for all legal fees required to
correct damages
from their actions;
bb.
the town be held
liable for all legal fees pertaining to this and the previous action before
your Commission;
cc.
the Planning and
Zoning Department and their Commissioners be accountable and liable for their
actions;
dd.
that all legal fee
[sic] from past applications and resultant appeals be paid by this Commission;
ee.
that all meetings
improperly noticed be deemed illegal and stricken from all records;
ff.
that all meetings not
perfected properly be deemed illegal and stricken from all records;
gg.
that the “Notice”
be deemed illegal and removed from the land records and all references to the
same be removed from the all records [sic];
hh.
that all information
obtained through or created by these meetings be deemed illegal [sic] obtained
and removed from all records;
ii.
that damages be
awarded as you may deem fit.”
3.
With respect to the
allegation found in paragraph 2a, above, §1-225(a), G.S., provides in
relevant part that:
“
. . . the chairman or secretary of any such public agency of any political
subdivision of the state shall file, not later than January thirty-first of
each year, with the clerk of such subdivision the schedule of regular meetings
of such public agency for the ensuing year, and no such meeting of any such
public agency shall be held sooner than thirty days after such schedule has
been filed . . . Notice 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 such subdivision for any public agency of a political
subdivision of the state . . . .”
4.
It is found that on
July 3, 1997, the respondent held a meeting at which it discussed and took
action regarding the complainant’s application for site plan modification.
5.
It is also found that
the respondent properly filed notice of the July 3, 1997 meeting with the town
clerk of the Town of Stonington.
6.
It is also found,
however, that the complainant was not aware that the respondent held a meeting
on July 3, 1997 or that his property was to be discussed at that meeting and
did not attend.
7.
The complainant
contends that the respondent failed to comply with his written request for
notification of its meetings. The
complainant also contends that the respondent violated his rights by not
giving him notice of the meeting and the actions taken at the meeting should
be declared void. The complainant
further contends that he did not become aware of the July 3, 1997 meeting and
the fact that his property was discussed at that meeting until recently.
8.
It is found, however,
that the complainant’s request for notice, dated July 18, 1995, was a
request for notice of any meeting that the commission will discuss or act on
his property.
9.
Section 1-227, G.S.,
requires a “public agency . . . [to]
. . . give notice by mail of each
regular meeting and of any special meeting . . . to any person who has filed a
written request for such notice” and does not require an agency to provide
notice of meetings when a specific subject is to be taken up at a meeting, as
the complainant has requested in this case.
10.
Section §1-227 also
provides that any request for notice . . . shall be valid for one year from
the date on which it is filed . . .” and the complainant’s request was
well over a year old at the time of the July 3, 1997 meeting and there is no
evidence in the record that the request had been renewed.
11.
Furthermore, it is
found that even if this Commission were to find that the respondent’s July
3, 1997 meeting was an unnoticed meeting, the complainant became aware, in
fact, of the meeting, at the latest, in December of 1999 - more than thirty
days from the date of the filing of this complaint. Under such circumstances, this Commission would lack
jurisdiction over the July 3, 1997 meeting of the respondent commission,
because the complaint regarding the meeting was not timely filed pursuant to
§1-206, G.S., which provides in relevant part that “in the case of an
unnoticed or secret meeting . . . the appeal shall be filed within thirty days
after the person filing the appeal receives notice in fact that such meeting
was held.”
12.
With respect to the
allegations described in paragraph 2b through 2e, above, it is found that the
complainant has not alleged a violation of the FOI Act and consequently such
allegations will not be considered.
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.
2. The Commission notes that the complainant’s request for relief as set forth in paragraph 2aa through 2dd and 2ff through 2hh of the findings, above, are beyond the Commission’s statutory authority to grant and could not have been granted even if a violation of the FOI Act had been found.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 26, 2000.
_________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
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:
Alan Drouin
c/o Atty. Richard D. Dixon
58 Huntington Street
New London, CT 06320
Planning
and Zoning Commission, Town of Stonington
c/o Atty. Jeffrey Londregan
38 Huntington Street
PO Box 1351
New London, CT 06320
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC2000-149FD/mrb/07/31/00