FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Alfred M. Marzullo and Marzullo Associates,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 94-2
Woodbridge Planning and Zoning Commission and Woodbridge
Planning and Zoning Commission Sub-Committee,
Respondents June 8, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 27, 1994, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. At the hearing, the caption of this case was corrected to read Alfred M. Marzullo and Marzullo Associates v. Woodbridge Planning and Zoning Commission and Woodbridge Planning and Zoning Commission Sub-Committee.
Docket #FIC 94-3, Thane Grauel and New Haven Advocate v. Woodbridge Planning and Zoning Commission and Woodbridge Planning and Zoning Commission Sub-Committee was consolidated with the above-captioned case for purpose of hearing.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent Woodbridge Planning and Zoning Commission ("P & Z Commission") is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated December 30, 1993 and filed with the Commission on January 3, 1994, and supplemented by letter dated January 5, 1994 and filed with the Commission on January 6, 1994, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent P & Z Commission created a sub-committee responsible for writing new legislation on affordable housing, and that such sub-committee had improperly convened unnoticed meetings in violation of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act.
3. It is found that the respondent P & Z Commission held a meeting on November 15, 1993 at which time it discussed the issue of amending the town of Woodbridge's ("town") zoning regulations to provide for affordable housing.
Docket # FIC 94-2 Page 2
4. It is found that at the November 15, 1993 meeting, described in paragraph 3, above, three members of the respondent P & Z Commission volunteered to review the affordable housing regulations of other towns with the purpose of reporting their findings to the respondent P & Z Commission, and with the expectation that those findings would provide information to the respondent P & Z Commission to assist in the revision of the town's zoning regulations.
5. The respondent P & Z Commission contends that no sub-commitee exists because it did not create one and further, that the three volunteers, described in paragraph 4, above, comprise less than a quorum of the respondent P & Z Commission's members.
6. It is found that at the respondent's December 20, 1993 meeting one of the volunteers, described in paragraph 4, above, reported on the update of the zoning regulations.
7. It is found that the three members of the respondent P & Z Commission who volunteered to review the town's zoning regulations comprise a committee of the respondent P & Z Commission because they undertook to perform a duty of the respondent P & Z Commission with the expectation that they were acting on behalf of the respondent P & Z Commission. Further, once they took it upon themselves to perform the zoning regulations review, they were then committed with the management of such review.
8. It is concluded that the committee of the respondent P & Z Commission described in paragraph 7, above, is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
9. Section 1-18a(b), G.S., defines a meeting as:
any hearing or other proceeding of a public agency, any convening or assembly of a quorum of a multimember public agency, and any communication by or to a quorum of a multimember public agency, whether in person or by means of electronic equipment, to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.
10. It is found that the complainants failed to prove that the committee of the respondent P & Z Commission, described in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, convened meetings within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S., at unnoticed times.
Docket # FIC 94-2 Page 3
11. It is therefore concluded that in the absence of evidence that the committee, as described in paragraphs 7 and 8, above, convened meetings at unnoticed times, the complainants have failed to prove that the respondents violated any of their rights under the FOI Act.
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 June 8, 1994.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission
Docket # FIC 94-2 Page 4
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:
Mr. Alfred M. Marzullo
Marzullo Associates
628 George Street
New Haven, CT 06511
Woodbridge Planning and Zoning Commission and
Woodbridge Planning and Zoning Commission Sub-Committee
c/o Alice S. Miskimin, Esq.
Jacobs, Grudbert, Belt & Dow
350 Orange Street
P.O. Box 606
New Haven, CT 06503
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission