FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 11, 2008, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  The case caption has been amended to reflect the fact that Shelton is a city. 

           

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 the respondent commission held a special meeting on April 22, 2008 (hereinafter “the meeting”).

 

3.  By letter dated and filed on May 22, 2008, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by

considering and acting on a matter that was not on the notice for such meeting.  Specifically, the complainant alleged that an application for non-conformity numbered #013, for Fairchild Heights, Inc. (hereinafter “the application”), was not listed as business to be transacted on the meeting notice.

 

            4.  Section 1-225(d), G. S., provides in relevant part: 

 

[n]otice of each special meeting of every public agency…shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted.  No other business shall be considered at such meetings by such public agency….

 

 5.  It is found that the notice of meeting indicated, among other items:

 

III. Old Business

 

A.     Applications for Certificate of Zoning Compliance.

 

6.  It is found that the parties involved in the application were informed of the April 22, 2008 meeting prior to such meeting.  It is found that the application was discussed in open session under the heading described in paragraph 5, above.  It is also found that, at the end of a lengthy discussion among the respondent commission members, and after receiving public comment, the respondent commission voted to table the matter of such application. 

 

7.  It is found that an application for non-conformity is somewhat unusual in Shelton, but that such an application is considered a type of application for certificate of zoning compliance. 

 

8.  At the hearing in this matter, the respondent contended that it has been its practice for many years to list as an agenda item “applications for certificates of zoning compliance,” and to have a list of the individual applications available for the public’s inspection in the respondent’s regular place of business on the Fridays before the respondent’s meetings.  It is found that such practice was continued for the meeting of April 22, 2008, and that the respondent had available for public inspection a list of applications to be considered at such meeting, which list included the application at issue in this matter, on the Friday before the meeting of Tuesday, April 22, 2008. 

 

 9.  Nevertheless, it is found that the public could not discern from the notice that the application would be considered at the April 22, 2008 special meeting of the respondent.  Therefore, it is concluded that the notice of the April 22, 2008, special meeting of the respondent commission did not adequately specify the business to be transacted at such meeting.  It is also concluded that the respondent violated §1-225(d), G. S., 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.  Henceforth, the respondent shall comply with the provisions of §1-225(d), G. S.

 

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting

of December 10, 2008.

 

 

____________________________

S. Wilson

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:

 

Irving Steiner  

23 Partridge Lane

Shelton, CT 06484

 

Planning and Zoning Commission,

City of Shelton   

c/o Ramon S. Sous, Esq.

Attorney At Law

159 Main Street

Seymour, CT 06483

 

 

 

____________________________

S. Wilson

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2008-367FD/sw/12/16/2008