FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Veronica Kasperzak,
Complainant(s)
against Docket #FIC 1996-101
Zoning Enforcement Officer,
Town of
Somers; Chairman, Zoning Board of
Appeals, Town of Somers and Zoning
Board of Appeals, Town of Somers,
Respondent(s) December 18, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 3, 1996, at which time the complainant and respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated March 8, 1996, and filed with the Commission on March 12, 1996, the complainant alleged that the respondent zoning board of appeals based its October 14, 1993 decision to deny the complainant’s July 29, 1993 zoning appeal on an ex parte communication and a February 16, 1970 letter that the complainant was unaware of at the time of her zoning appeal. The complainant requested that the Commission declare null and void the ZBA’s 1993 decision.
3. The respondents moved to dismiss the complainant’s appeal claiming that the Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint since what is at issue is a 1993 ZBA decision which is outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction. The respondents asked the Commission to impose a civil penalty against the complainant as permitted by §1-21i(b)(2), G.S., for filing a frivolous complaint solely for the purpose of harassing the respondents.
4. It is found that the complainant has failed to allege a violation of the Freedom of Information Act.
5. It is concluded that the Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to §1-21i(b)(1), G.S., to hear this appeal and the respondents’ motion to dismiss is therefore granted.
6. It is found further, under the facts of this case, that the complainant’s appeal was taken frivolously, without reasonable grounds and solely for the purpose of harassing the respondents, within the meaning of §1-21i(b)(2), G.S.
7. However, at this time the Commission declines to grant the respondents’ request for the imposition of a civil penalty against 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 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
2. The Commission cautions the complainant that she may be subject to the imposition of the maximum civil penalty of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) if the Commission again finds that she has filed a complaint frivolously, without reasonable grounds and solely for the purpose of harassment.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 18, 1996.
__________________________
Elizabeth A. Leifert
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:
Veronica Kasperzak
120 George Wood Road
Somers, CT 06071
Zoning Enforcement Officer, Town of Somers; Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Somers and Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Somers
c/o Carl Landolina, Esq.
487 Spring Street
Windsor Locks, CT 06096
__________________________
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1996-101/FD/eal/122096