FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In
the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Darby
Pollansky,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 94-29
Coventry
Town Planner,
Respondent July 13, 1994
The above-captioned matter was
heard as a contested case on April 8, 1994, at which time the complainant and
the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of
1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint filed February 3, 1994, the
complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent had
incompletely complied with her request for certain records.
3. It is found that the complainant on January 27, 1994
requested from the respondent records pertaining to an October 25, 1993
application to the Coventry Planning and Zoning Commission
("P&ZC") for the renewal of a special permit for gravel excavation.
4. It is found that the respondent on January 31, 1994
provided to the complainant those documents that were physically contained in a
P&ZC file for that particular permit renewal application.
5. It is found that the respondent did not provided to the
complainant a copy of a letter received by the P&ZC on November 4, 1993
from the previous owner of the land for which the permit was to apply, which
letter had apparently been solicited by the current owner of the property as
evidence that gravel removal on the site was a use that predated the zoning
regulations.
6. It is concluded that the letter from the previous
property owner is a public record within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and
1-19(a), G.S.
Docket
#FIC 94-29 Page
2
7. The respondent maintains that the letter from the
previous property owner was not within the scope of the complainant's request,
because it was located in a separate file in which all such letters concerning
pre-existing uses were placed.
8. It is found that the purpose of the letter from the
previous property owner was to support the position of the current owner that he should not have to
obtain a special permit.
9. It is therefore found that the letter from the previous
property owner was within the scope of the complainant's request,
notwithstanding the decision of the respondent to place it in a file separate
from the permit application file.
10. It is therefore concluded that the respondent technically
violated 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to search her files
for and provide a copy of the letter from the previous property owner.
11. It is also found that the respondent also did not provide
to the complainant a copy of certain plans submitted by the applicant to the
Coventry Inland-Wetlands Commission (the "I-WC").
12. It is concluded that the plans are public records within
the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
13. It is found that the P&ZC and I-WC were not separate
agencies until approximately September of 1993, that they continue to share a
single room in which the respondent occupies a separate office, and that
documents received by the I-WC are stamped "received" with the
P&ZC's stamp.
14. It is also found that the complainant was aware that the
applicant had applied for a wetlands permit from the I-WC at the same time he
applied for a special permit from the P&ZC.
15. It is also found that the respondent has direct access to
the I-WC's records.
16. It is also found that the respondent maintains all
P&ZC records in her office, separate from I-WC records.
17. It is also found that the respondent did not herself have
custody of a copy of the plans in her P&ZC files.
18. It is also found that the respondent was not aware that a
copy of the plans was contained in the I-WC files.
19. It is concluded that the plans were not in the
respondent's custody, and that the respondent therefore did not violate
1-15(a) or 1-19(a) by failing to provide them to the complainant.
Docket
#FIC 94-29 Page
3
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 strictly comply with the
requirements of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved
by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
July 13, 1994.
Debra
L. Rembowski
Clerk
of the Commission
Docket
#FIC 94-29 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:
DARBY
POLLANSKY
310
Cooper Lane
Coventry,
CT 06238
COVENTRY
TOWN PLANNER
c/o
Abbot B. Schwebel, Esq.
P.O.
Box 757
Rockville,
CT 06066
Debra
L. Rembowski
Clerk
of the Commission
FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In
the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Robert
White,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 94-48
Hartford
Police Department,
Respondent July 13, 1994
The above-captioned matter was
scheduled to be heard as a contested case on June 14, 1994, at which time the
respondent appeared but the complainant failed to appear to prosecute his
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 dismissed.
Approved
by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
July 13, 1994.
Debra
L. Rembowski
Clerk
of the Commission
Docket
#FIC 94-48 Page
2
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:
ROBERT
WHITE
77
Oxford Street, Apt. C-10
Hartford,
CT 06105
HARTFORD
POLICE DEPARTMENT
50
Jennings Road
Hartford,
CT 06120
Debra
L. Rembowski
Clerk
of the Commission