Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/04/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin May 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 9 Citation: Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Monroe v. Freedom of Information Com'n, 316 Conn. 1, 2015 WL 1186306 (2015) CONNECTICUT (03/24/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether a planning and zoning commission improperly went into executive session in violation of a state Freedom of Information Act. The Background/Facts: In 2003, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Monroe (the "PZC") issued a special exception permit to Handsome, Inc. ("Handsome"). In 2008, prior to the expiration of that permit, Handsome applied for a five year extension. The PZC denied that extension on the ground that Handsome had failed to comply with the conditions of the original permit. Handsome appealed and the Superior Court determined that the PZC had improperly denied the extension. Subsequently, Handsome requested by letter that the PZC extend the permit. In response, the PZC put the request on the agenda for its May 5, 2011 regular meeting. At the start of the May 5, 2011 meeting, the PZC immediately went into executive session. The PZC later reconvened and extended Handsome's permit to 2013. Handsome and its principal officers, Todd Cascella and Mona Cascella (the "Cascellas") later filed a complaint with Connecticut's Freedom of In- formation Commission (the "FOIC"). They claimed that the PZC's execu- tive session at the May 5, 2011 meeting violated Connecticut's Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). FOIA requires that the meetings of all public agencies be open to the public, with exception. That exception, set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1- 200(6)(B), allows public agencies to convene in executive session for the purpose of "strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims or pending litigation to which the public agency . . . is a party until such liti- gation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled . . . .'' The FOIC found that, during the PZC's executive session, the members of the PZC had discussed two topics that potentially warranted convening an executive session: (1) how to respond to the prior decision of the Superior Court overruling the zoning commission's denial of Handsome's application to extend its permit; and (2) how to address Handsome's noncompliance with the conditions of the original permit. With respect to the second topic, the FOIC further found that, although the zoning commis- sion members had discussed potential options for addressing Handsome's alleged permit violations, they had not discussed initiating a zoning enforcement action against Handsome or filing an action against it in court or another forum for those alleged permit violations. The FOIC concluded that neither of the two topics the PZC had discussed warranted convening an executive session under the pending claims or pending litigation exception in § 1-200(6)(B) of the FOIA. The FOIC deteimined that the pending claims or pending litigation exception did not © 2015 Thomson Reuters 3