FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Veronica Kasperzak, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-427 | |
|
John R. Torres, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Somers; and Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Somers, |
|
||
|
|
Respondent |
April 10, 2002 | |
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 9, 2001, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 §1-200(1), G.S.
2.
By letter dated September 10, 2001 and filed on September 12, 2001, the
complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated
the Freedom of Information Act
by holding a secret meeting at which they reviewed her July 16, 2001
application for a zoning appeals hearing. The
complainant requested that the Commission impose a civil penalty upon the
respondents. At the hearing in
this matter, the respondents requested that a civil penalty be imposed upon
the complainant.
3. Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “the
meetings of all public agencies . . . shall be open to the public.”
4. It is found that on or about July 16, 2001, the complainant
submitted an application for hearing to the respondents alleging that the
Somers Zoning Commission (hereinafter “the SZC”) violated certain notice
provisions in connection with a decision it rendered on or about February 5,
1990 concerning 111 George Wood Road, Somers, Connecticut (hereinafter “the
July 16, 2001 application”). It
is found that during 1993 the complainant submitted a similar application to
the respondent board, however, such board concluded at that time that it did
not have jurisdiction to decide the 1993 application.
5. It is found that after receiving the complainant’s July 16,
2001 application the respondent chairman sought the advice of the town
attorney regarding how to respond to the complainant.
6. It is found that upon receipt of the town attorney’s
advice, the respondent chairman informed the complainant, by letter dated
August 16, 2001 that, among other things, “it is the opinion of the [Zoning
Board of Appeals] ZBA” that it has no jurisdiction to rule on any actions
taken by the SZC regarding the SZC’s meeting of February 5, 1990.
7. At the hearing in this matter the complainant explained that
the phrase “it is the opinion of the [Zoning Board of Appeals] ZBA”,
contained in the August 16, 2001 letter, lead her to believe that the
respondent board held an unnoticed meeting at which her July 16, 2001
application was discussed.
8. It is found however that neither the respondent chairman nor
any member of the respondent board held any discussions regarding the
complainant’s application, except as described in paragraphs 5 and 6, above,
when the respondent chairman sought and received the town attorney’s advice.
9. It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not hold a
secret meeting and did not violate §1-225(a), G.S., as alleged in the
complaint. The complainant’s
request for a civil penalty is therefore denied.
10.
With respect to the respondents’ request for a civil penalty,
§1-206(b)(2), G.S., provides in relevant part:
If the Commission finds that a person has taken an appeal …
frivolously, without reasonable grounds and solely for the
purpose of harassing the agency from which the appeal was
taken, after such person has been given the opportunity to be
heard … the Commission may, in its discretion, impose against
that person a civil penalty of not less than twenty dollars nor
more than one thousand dollars….
11. It is not found that the complainant filed her appeal to this Commission frivolously, without reasonable grounds and solely for the purpose of harassing the respondents, within the meaning of §1-206(b)(2), G.S. Consequently, the respondents’ request for a civil penalty is denied.
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 April 10, 2002.
_______________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
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:
John R. Torres, Chairman, Zoning
Board of Appeals, Town of Somers;
and Zoning Board of Appeals,
Town of Somers
c/o Carl T. Landolina, Esq.
Fahey, Landolina & Associates, LLC
487 Spring Street, Suite Two
Windsor Locks, CT 06096
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-427/FD/paj/4/11/2002