Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2012

Home

Zoning Bulletin October 10, 2011 Volume 51 No. 19 Fay and Boster's requests Were made after regular office or business hours, the court concluded that the PZC's denial of the requests did not violate the promptness requirement of § 1-212(a). The Commission appealed. DECISION: Judgment of superior court affirmed (on other grounds). The Appellate Court of Connecticut concluded that the PZC prop- erly denied Fay and Boster's requests because their requests were not reduced to writing as required by S 1-212(a). The court analyzed the statutory language of SS 1- 210(a) and 1- 212(a). Again, § 1- 212(a) provides that: "Any person applying in writing shall receive, prompt- ly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record ...." (Emphasis added.) The court found that Fay and Bolter,, by making oral requests for the documents at issue, failed to satisfy the express requirement of § 1-212(a). Because those requests did not comport with the legal requirements, the court concluded that the PZC did not violate the promptness requirement of §1-212(a). The court acknowledged that the PZC had not reduced to writing its denial of Fay and Boster's requests. Section 1-206(a) of the Act provides: "Any denial of the right to inspect or copy records provid- ed for under section 1-210 shall be made to the person requesting such right by the public agency official who has custody or control of the public record, in writing ...." The court concluded that because Fay and Boster did not properly make a request to receive a copy of the documents pursuant to § 1 -210 (i.e., because their requests were not in writing, as required by 1 -210), the PZC's "obligation to re- duce to writing its denial of the requests was never triggered." See also: State v. DeFrancesco, 235 Conn. 426, 668 A.2d 348 (1995). Case Note: Another member of the public, Paul Hennen, also joined Fay and Boster in bringing the complaint to the Commission. Case Note: Because the appellate court affirmed the superior court's decision on an alternate ground, the appellate court did not address the Commission's argument as to whether the Free - dom of Information Act requires agencies to promptly respond to requests for copies only during regular office of business hours. © 2011 Thomson Reuters 9