Granted: Access to building plans and non-complaint correspondence
April 06, 2009 Filed in: Granted
| Denied
| Plymouth
Twp | Infrastructure
security | Non-specific
requests | Non-criminal
investigations
Granted in part and denied in
part: A request for all records related
to a residential development in the Plymouth
Township zoning/code enforcement office,
specifically applications for building permits;
copies of permits; plans submitted for review
with reviewers comments; field inspection logs;
all correspondence to the office, with responses;
violation notices; certificates of occupancy; and
any other documents in these files.
From
the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information
Coalition
Granted in part and denied in part: A request for all records related to a residential development in the Plymouth Township zoning/code enforcement office, specifically applications for building permits; copies of permits; plans submitted for review with reviewers comments; field inspection logs; all correspondence to the office, with responses; violation notices; certificates of occupancy; and any other documents in these files.
The township had granted access to the building permit applications and permits, field inspection logs, violation notices and certificates of occupancy, but denied the other records. The township denied the plans citing the exemption about release of documents being a danger to infrastructure security. It denied the correspondence citing the exemption protecting investigative documents. It denied the "any other documents" request as being insufficiently specific.
The township also estimated the cost of the released documents to exceed $100, and requested prepayment, as permitted under the law. The requester objected to prepayment, and questioned the fee figure.
In response to the Office of Open Records, the township said in response to the "any other documents" request, it was willing to making other records about the development available for inspection, other than a CD of a study pertaining to stucco sent by residents to the township. The township said the CD did not qualify as a record since the township had not reviewed nor acted upon it.
The requester said he would prefer to view the documents rather than pay the prepayment fee for copies to be made.
The Office of Open Records ruled:
-- That the township did not prove that the release of the plans would threaten infrastructure security. "The show this exception, the township must establish that there is a 'reasonable likelihood' of danger," the OOR wrote. "The standard is higher than having a potential for harm."
It noted that the law does not exempt from disclosure all building plans and specifications -- but only those that an agency can show would pose a threat.
"The OOR reminds agencies that determining a record is public for one means it is public for all, such that the type of information must be closely scrutinized before release if security is at stake. Here, the township did not show reasonable likelihood of any harm or exposure of vulnerability."
-- The township did not show that the correspondence requested was investigative. "The township does not state the subject matter of the investigation in the denial, nor provide any other facts to show the applicability of this exception, although requested to do so." It noted that to the extent any of the correspondence is a complaint or a response to a complaint, it may be protected as investigative. But the OOR noted that any other correspondence requested was not protected.
-- The township established that the CD of the stucco-related study was not a township record and not subject to access, attesting that it was unsolicited, not reviewed, and did not receive it in relation to any township business. The Office of Open Records agreed. "Mere possession, without more, does not covert a record into a record of an agency."
The township was directed to provide access to the building plans and specifications and non-complaint related correspondence.
Vasys vs. Plymouth Township -- AP 2009-0150
Granted in part and denied in part: A request for all records related to a residential development in the Plymouth Township zoning/code enforcement office, specifically applications for building permits; copies of permits; plans submitted for review with reviewers comments; field inspection logs; all correspondence to the office, with responses; violation notices; certificates of occupancy; and any other documents in these files.
The township had granted access to the building permit applications and permits, field inspection logs, violation notices and certificates of occupancy, but denied the other records. The township denied the plans citing the exemption about release of documents being a danger to infrastructure security. It denied the correspondence citing the exemption protecting investigative documents. It denied the "any other documents" request as being insufficiently specific.
The township also estimated the cost of the released documents to exceed $100, and requested prepayment, as permitted under the law. The requester objected to prepayment, and questioned the fee figure.
In response to the Office of Open Records, the township said in response to the "any other documents" request, it was willing to making other records about the development available for inspection, other than a CD of a study pertaining to stucco sent by residents to the township. The township said the CD did not qualify as a record since the township had not reviewed nor acted upon it.
The requester said he would prefer to view the documents rather than pay the prepayment fee for copies to be made.
The Office of Open Records ruled:
-- That the township did not prove that the release of the plans would threaten infrastructure security. "The show this exception, the township must establish that there is a 'reasonable likelihood' of danger," the OOR wrote. "The standard is higher than having a potential for harm."
It noted that the law does not exempt from disclosure all building plans and specifications -- but only those that an agency can show would pose a threat.
"The OOR reminds agencies that determining a record is public for one means it is public for all, such that the type of information must be closely scrutinized before release if security is at stake. Here, the township did not show reasonable likelihood of any harm or exposure of vulnerability."
-- The township did not show that the correspondence requested was investigative. "The township does not state the subject matter of the investigation in the denial, nor provide any other facts to show the applicability of this exception, although requested to do so." It noted that to the extent any of the correspondence is a complaint or a response to a complaint, it may be protected as investigative. But the OOR noted that any other correspondence requested was not protected.
-- The township established that the CD of the stucco-related study was not a township record and not subject to access, attesting that it was unsolicited, not reviewed, and did not receive it in relation to any township business. The Office of Open Records agreed. "Mere possession, without more, does not covert a record into a record of an agency."
The township was directed to provide access to the building plans and specifications and non-complaint related correspondence.
Vasys vs. Plymouth Township -- AP 2009-0150