FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                                                Final Decision

 

Fairfield Resources,

 

                        Complainant(s)

 

            against                                                                          Docket #FIC 1996-054

 

Inland Wetlands Commission,
Town of Brookfield,

 

                        Respondent(s)                                                  October 9, 1996

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 14, 1996, at which time the complainant(s) and respondent(s) 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.

 

2.         By letter of complaint dated February 12, 1996, and filed with the Commission on February 14, 1996, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated §1-21c, G.S., by failing to provide it with seven days advance notice of its January 22, 1996 regular meeting (“January meeting”), then proceeding to take action on the complainant’s application for an inland wetland permit for certain property (“permit application”), after the complainant was advised that the permit application would be continued to the respondent’s next regularly scheduled meeting of February 13, 1996 (“February meeting”).

 

            3.         The complainant requested that the Commission declare that all action taken on the permit by the respondent at its January meeting be null and void.

 

            4.         Section 1-21c, G.S., states in relevant part, that:

            [a] public agency shall, where practicable, give notice by mail of each
            regular meeting, and of any special meeting which is called, at least one
            week prior to the date set for the meeting, to any person who has filed a
            written request for such notice with such body ….

 

            5.         It is found that on or about October 26, 1995, the complainant made a written request to the respondent for notice by mail of its regular and special meetings, in accordance with the provisions of §1-21c, G.S.

 

6.         It is found that on or about January 18, 1996, the respondent provided the complainant with notice of its January meeting by facsimile transmission.

 

            7.         The respondent concedes, and it is found, that notice of the January meeting was not provided to the complainant in accordance with §1-21c, G.S.

 

            8.         It is concluded that that the respondent’s failure to provide the complainant with at least one week’s advance notice of its January meeting violated the provisions of §1-21c, G.S.

 

            9.         It is found that the complainant’s permit application was an agenda item for the January meeting.

 

            10.       It is found that on or about January 19, 1996, the complainant telephoned the respondent’s offices and spoke to the land use secretary (“secretary”), concerning the January meeting.  The complainant requested that the permit application be taken off the January meeting agenda and be considered at the respondent’s February meeting because of the respondent’s failure to provide the complainant with notice of the January meeting as required by §1-21c, G.S.

 

            11.       It is found that the respondent’s secretary, the person who had forgotten to mail the complainant timely notice of the January meeting, advised the complainant during the January telephone conversation that the matter would be continued to the respondent’s February meeting. The secretary drafted and mailed a letter to that effect to the complainant, on or about January 22, 1996.

 

            12.       It is found that the complainant relied on the secretary’s express representations and did not attend the January meeting.

 

            13.       It is found that the respondent denied the complainant’s permit application at the January meeting.

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

            1.         The respondent’s actions at its January meeting pertaining to the complainant’s permit application are hereby declared null and void.

 

            2.         Henceforth the respondent board shall strictly comply with the notice provisions of §1-21c, G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 9, 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:

 

Fairfield Resources

c/o  Timothy J. Lee, Esq.

Fasano & Ippolito

388 Orange Street

New Haven, CT 06511

 

 

Inland Wetlands Commission, Town of Brookfield

c/o  Francis J. Collins, Esq.

148 Deer Hill Avenue

PO Box 440

Danbury, CT 06810

 

 

                                                                                    __________________________

                                                                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission