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