FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Rebecca S. Balikci,

 

Complainant

 

 

against

Docket #FIC 2002-526

Planning and Zoning Commission,

Town of Greenwich,

 

 

Respondent

September 10, 2003

 

 

 

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 25, 2003, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared 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.  It is found that, on September 17, 2002, the respondent held a regular meeting, and that during such meeting, the members of the respondent voted to withdraw the floor area ratio [hereinafter “FAR”] proposals previously submitted to SWRPA and ACM/DEP on June 28, 2002.  It is further found that the town planner then verbally presented new staff proposals to modify and amend existing zoning amendments to existing FARs in the residential zones, to increase FARs in the conservation zones and to allow an increase in FARs for undersized, nonconforming lots in the residential zones.  It is also found that, at such time, the members of the respondent voted that the staff proposals to amend existing FARs for single family uses on lots in residential zones, to amend FARs for detached single family properties in conservation zones and to add a new Note 11 to Sec. 6-205 to create new FARs for nonconforming lots in the residential zones for single family properties be submitted to SWRPA and DEP/Cam, and that said proposal proceed to a public hearing. 

 

3.  It is found that, by letter dated September 20, 2002, the complainant requested that the town planner provide her with “the data that was used to analyze the conservation zone lots and the analysis generated therefrom.”

 

4.  It is found that, by letter dated September 23, 2002, the complainant asked to review any data generated regarding “(a) current house sizes on conforming-sized, conservation-zoned or undersized lots from the most recent revaluation; and (b) the impact on conforming-sized, conservation-zoned and undersized lots of the revised definitions of attics and basements that took effect in April of this year and the degree of nonconformity that would be created by the pending proposal given those revised definitions.”  It is also found that the complainant also requested the analysis done by the Planning and Zoning Staff to justify the currently pending proposal. 

 

5.  It is found that, on October 1, 2002, the respondent provided the complainant with a packet of information including the Planning and Zoning Commission Proposed Building Zone Regulations Amendments and documents entitled “Existing and Potential Living Area,” “Summary of Findings for Conforming Lots and New FAR Proposal,” “Number of Conforming Lots with Non-conforming FARs by Zone;” “Summary of Findings For Lots in the Conservation Zones and the New FAR Proposal” and “Summary of Findings For Undersized Lots and the New FAR Proposal”.  It is found that such documents and accompanying materials comprised 28 pages.

 

6.  It is found that, by letter dated October 1, 2002, the complainant requested the opportunity to review the “underlying data to support the existing square footage of homes;” in addition, the complainant posed two questions to the respondent.

 

7.  It is found that, by letter dated October 9, 2002, the complainant requested that the respondent provide her with “the underlying data that was analyzed for the currently pending proposal, under the Freedom of Information Act, for instance GIS maps, tabulations or other compiled information.”

 

8.  It is found that, by letter dated October 16, 2002, the respondent acknowledged receipt of the requests described in paragraph 6 and 7, above, and informed her that the cost for copies would be $484.50 for 969 pages, or, in the alternative, that she could review the office copy.  It is found that the documents described herein are comprised of hundreds of pages of calculations and tabulations, and are the underlying data which the complainant had requested as described in paragraphs 3, 4, 6, and 7, above [hereinafter “requested records”]. 

 

9.  It is found that the respondent does not have a public access computer in its offices, and further that the complainant was not able to review a hard copy of the requested records until October 24, 2002. 

 

10.  By letter dated and filed November 1, 2002, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by not promptly disclosing documents that are discussed at public hearing, by delaying disclosure of public records and not providing public records in electronic format when requested, and not allowing access to the information stored on its computer.

 

11.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., in relevant part states:

 

[e]xcept as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every

 

 

 

person shall have the right to (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212. 

 

            12.  Section 1-212(a), G.S., in relevant part provides that: “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record….”

 

13.  It is found that, by letter dated November 5, 2002, the respondent informed the complainant that she would be provided with an electronic copy of the requested records at a cost of $25.00.  It is further found that such letter responded to an October 31, 2002, request for such electronic copy by the complainant.

 

14.  It is found that, on November 12, 2002, the complainant picked up an electronic copy of the requested records.

 

15.  It is found that, on November 19, 2002, the respondent held its first public hearing on the proposed FAR amendments described in paragraph 2, above, and that the complainant attended and spoke at such public hearing.

 

16.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that the respondent’s failure to make available to the public the documents viewed by the members of the respondent at the meeting of September 17, 2002, before and during such meeting, and the respondent’s failure to include such documents in the minutes of such meeting invalidated the vote described in paragraph 2, above, relative to the new FAR proposed amendments.  The complainant asked that such vote be declared null and void.

 

17.  It is concluded that the respondent did not violate the Freedom of Information Act as alleged in paragraph 16, above.  Accordingly, the complainant’s request to declare null and void the vote described in paragraph 16, above, is hereby denied.

 

18.  It is found that the records described in paragraph 5, above, included final versions of the documents which were reviewed by members of the respondent during its September 17, 2002, meeting.  It is further found that, at such meeting, the respondent reviewed draft authorization to proceed with the many steps necessary to formulate new FARS, and drafts including raw numbers, which had been prepared by the town planner.

 

19.  It is found that the complainant did not request the records described in paragraph 18, above, in her requests described in paragraphs 3, 4, 6, and 7, above.  Rather, it is again stated that the complainant was requesting therein the much more detailed analyses, described in paragraph 8, above.

 

20.  It is found that the requested records, described in paragraph 8, above, were in the process of being compiled and assembled during late September and early October 2002. 

 

 

It is further found that, once such records were reasonably assembled, the respondent so informed the complainant by letter of October 16, 2002.

 

21.  It is found that, due to limited copying and printing capability in the respondent’s computer system, requests for electronic copies of the requested records were somewhat delayed, since such requests had to be assigned to the town’s administrative services department, which had other operations to perform.

 

22.  It is found that, based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent acted promptly to comply with the complainant’s requests described in paragraphs 3, 4, 6, and 7, above. 

 

23.  It is concluded that the respondent did not violate the Freedom of Information Act, as alleged in the complaint.

 

            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 September 10, 2003.

 

 

___________________________________

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:

 

Rebecca S. Balikci

c/o Alan Small

86 Buckfield Lane

Greenwich, CT  06831

 

Planning and Zoning Commission,

Town of Greenwich

c/o Haden P. Gerrish, Esq.

Town Law Department

101 Field Point Road

Greenwich, CT  06830

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-526FD/abg/09/11/2003