Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2012

Home

October 10, 2011 J Volume 51 No. 19 Zoning Bulletin ducted meetings to review and debate draft proposed amendments to the Town's zoning regulations concerning home occupation uses. At the January 9 meeting, the PZC had copies of, planned to discuss, and in fact did discuss two documents: (1) a four-page draft memo- randum from the town planner entitled "Home Occupations Retail Sales," dated January 8, 2008; and (2) a letter from the town counsel to the town planner regarding the proposed zoning amendments. At the January 15 meeting, the PZC had copies of, planned to discuss, and in fact did discuss an updated version of the "Home Occupa- tions Retail Sales" draft memorandum, dated January 15, 2008. At the January 9 meeting, Ford Fay, a member of the public, oral- ly requested a copy of both documents. The PZC denied his request. At the January 15 meeting, Charles A. Boster, a member of the pub- lic, orally requested a copy` of both documents. The PZC also denied his request. Two or three days later, Fay and Boster requested and received the two documents from the town hall. Nevertheless, in Febru- ary 2008, Fay and Boster filed a complaint with Connecticut's Freedom of Information Commission (the "Commission "). They alleged that the PZC's denial of their oral requests for the docu- ments at issue violated the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act (Conn. Gen. Stats. § 1- 210(a)). Section 1- 210(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part: "[E]very person shall have the right to (1) inspect such [public] records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with sub- section (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1 -212 ... ." Here, Fay and Poster had not requested to inspect or copy the documents, but had asked to receive a copy of the documents. Section 1-212(a) provides that: "Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon re- quest, a plain or certified copy of any public record...." The Commission concluded that the PZC violated the "prompt- ness requirement" of 1-212(a) by failing to provide to Fay a copy of the documents at issue at the time he requested them. The Com- mission made a similar finding with respect to Boster's request. The PZC appealed to court. The superior court overturned the decisions of the Commission. The court found that the PZC did not violate the "promptness requirement" of § 1-212(a). The court noted that the Freedom of Information Act "only requires agencies to respond to requests for copies promptly during regular office or business hours, not during evening meetings in progress." Because 8 © 201 1 Thomson Reuters