Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGBA 2006-04-13 Minutes MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE GAS BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICH LAND HILLS, TEXAS APRIL 13, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Davis at 6:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Richard Davis Mark Haynes Kathy Luppy Michael Augustin* *Michael Augustin arrived during the meeting. He did not vote for the approval of the minutes, but did participate in the discussion and adoption of the Rules and Procedures for the Board. ABSENT Tom Duer CITY STAFF Dir. of Planning & Development Asst. Dir. of Public Works Attorney Fire Investigatorllnspector Recording Secretary John Pitstick Greg Van Nieuwenhuize Bryn Meredith Lt. Mike Smith Monica Solko 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 23,2006 MEETING APPROVED Mark Haynes, seconded by Kathy Luppy, motioned to approve the minutes of February 23, 2006. The motion carried unanimously (3-0). 4. REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF THE GAS BOARD OF APPEALS RULES AND PROCEDURE Page 1 of 8; 04/13/06 GBA minutes APPROVED Bryn Meredith, representing the City Attorney's Office, explained the board procedures were guidelines that were consistent with the Gas Drilling Ordinance. He asked if the Board wanted to go over each section or just wanted to ask questions. Chairman Davis stated he would prefer Mr. Meredith go through each section of the Rules and Procedures. Mr. Meredith explained that Section 101 and 102 were standard procedures according to ordinance. Section 103 was also standard protocol describing the duties of the Chairman presiding at all meetings and the Executive Secretary being the custodian of all minutes and other official records. Section 104 orientation for all new appointed members was optional. Chairman Davis stated that Section 104 orientation would be beneficial to have as new members are appointed. He stated if no new members are appointed it could still be listed on the agenda, so that existing board members could discuss any new ideas or changes. Chairman Davis asked Mr. Meredith to explain in Section 103 under chairman duties when it would be necessary to swear in witnesses? Mr. Meredith explained that the City Attorney's Office ran into a situation when they were litigating a Board of Adjustment Appeal. He explained that if one case was appealed to District Court, the District Court would act as an Appellate Court. The District Court would then handle the case as if it were before them at the District Court level. One of the issues brought by opposing council in this particular appeal was that the witnesses were not sworn in at the Board of Adjustment case. That was enough to give the District Court pause as to whether or not the case should be remanded back to the Board of Adjustment for a rehearing. Chairman Davis stated he understood that it was necessary to prevent potential appeals, but wanted a procedure added to Section 103 A to show the proper steps and terminology of how you would swear in witnesses. Mr. Meredith stated he could add a subsection to the effect of; that all witnesses shall attest to the following statement: "do you hearby. . . . . . . . . . ." Chairman Davis stated he would prefer it to be added as a next sentence and not a subsection. He went on to say by adding this sentence it would allow anyone attending the meeting to expect to be sworn in. Mr. Meredith moved on to Section 105 consisting of the standard practice of Roberts Rules of Order. Section 106 also consists of Roberts Rules of Order and would protect the Board from any challenges made on any ruling. Section 201 explains a quorum consists of three members. Page 2 of 8; 04/13/06 GBA minutes Chairman Davis noted for the record that board member Michael Augustin arrived at the meeting at 6:06 p.m. Mr. Meredith continued with Section 202 consisting of the agenda which was standard language with the exception of the last sentence, regarding any postponed/pending matters would need to be listed and attached each month to the agenda. This would keep the board members aware of any outstanding cases that would need future consideration. Mr. Pitstick asked if future agenda items needed to be listed. Mr. Meredith stated that they did not need to be on the actual agenda, but all cases postponed to an uncertain date needed to be listed separately as part of the staff packet. Chairman Davis stated that they also needed to attach future agenda items as part of the staff packet. Mr. Meredith clarified that postponed or future agenda items were not up for any discussion, they were just a reminder to the Board that there were pending/future issues. Mr. Meredith moved on to Section 203 stating meetings would be scheduled on the second Thursday of each month, unless there was no business or pending matters for consideration by the Board. Section 301 defines what constitutes an official record. Section 302 is standard procedure for recording of the vote. Section 303 tracks the Record Retention Act under state law that information should be retained by the City Secretary office. Section 304 consists of open records which followed the Public Information Act stating that all Board records are official records. Section 401 requirements for applications were expanded based on ordinance requirements. Mr. Pitstick stated that all applications come through the Planning Department and not through the Executive Secretary. He asked that Section 401 be amended to reflect that change. Mr. Meredith noted the change and continued. Section 402 requirements for application refusal stated no appeal shall be taken to the Board until and unless the authority exists for the appeal under Chapter 104 of the City Code. Section 403 application filing deadline would consist of receiving of an application 30 days prior to the next scheduled meeting. This would allow staff plenty of time to prepare for each case. Chairman Davis stated the problem he had was if the applicant applied today being that it is a regular scheduled meeting, 30 days from tonight would be close to the next scheduled meeting May 11 th. That would mean the applicant would have had to file the application yesterday in order to make the May 11 th agenda. He was concerned that the applicant would end up waiting more than the 30 days and information the Board could have discussed could be lost. He suggested changing the deadline to 21 days. Page 3 of 8; 04/13/06 GBA minutes Mr. Meredith stated again that future items could be placed on future agendas but new applications needed to be filed 30 days in advance. He explained that this section was optional and could be changed to fit the needs of the Board. Chairman Davis asked staff how long it takes to review an appeal with all the final plans. Mr. Pitstick answered it was taking staff awhile to process each application due to the fact that staff is taking the applications twice to Development Review Committee (DRC). DRC meets once a week on Wednesday. He explained that applications are submitted on Monday mornings between 8 a.m. and noon. They are then presented to DRC on Wednesday. At that time, staff reviews and comments on each application and returns comments to the applicants for corrections. When the corrections are made, it is then returned back to DRC for final review. He felt that staff needed at least 30 days to review. Chairman Davis asked why the application had to go through DRC twice. Mr. Van Nieuwenhuize explained that the first application was really a rough draft. Staff then reviews the application to make sure the applicant has met all requirements by ordinance. With that all comments are sent back to the applicant for corrections. The applicant then returns the corrections for a second review. Mr. Meredith stated he wanted to clarify that it was not 30 days from when the drilling application was filed, this was 30 days after the appeal was filed. Presuming the applicant has already had some feedback from staff or they have filed their application for a drilling permit. Mr. Pitstick stated there was already an application for the next meeting. Chairman Davis stated that the applicant had already met all the requirements. He asked if the applicants present had any comments. Linda Pavlik, representing Hardening Company, came forward. She commented that staff had been wonderful to work with and the experience of being the first to begin the process of drilling had been a positive one. She expected to continue to work with city on future items. She stated they would be coming back with an appeal regarding location and the distance of the drilling site. The appeal was not due to city staff but rather from procedural matter that they understood logistically came first before they could file a drilling permit. She was concerned that in the future, if a new company was coming in, the first step according to the ordinance was they would have go through the Board of Appeals procedure before they could file an application. Mr. Van Nieuwenhuize and Mr. Pitstick both stated that staff could not approve anything without it going through the Board. Page 4 of 8; 04/13/06 GBA minutes Chairman Davis stated if an applicant came in and told us that part of the application did not meet our requirements, they would expect to be on the next available agenda of the Gas Board of Appeals. Ms. Pavlik stated if they didn't meet one of the requirements, the way it was being set up it would be essentially 60 days before they could go before the board. Mr. Pitstick added if you came in right at the 30 days and we took the application to DRC and found they did not meet the requirement, we could give the application and plans back to the applicant and tell them because you did not meet our requirements you are not scheduled for the next meeting which essentially would make it the 60 days Ms. Pavlik referred to. Mr. Pitstick commented that staff was trying to push all applications through the process as fast as they could. Chairman Davis stated he understood and he felt the intention of the City was to process each application as quickly as possible. He stated their objective was to make sure that neighborhoods/property owners were protected as well as protecting the rights of the drillers. Ms. Pavlik commented that she respected the time that staff needed to have for DRC. Chairman Davis stated that any applicant that has reviewed our ordinance was going to know if they needed to appeal or not the day they turned in their application. The way the ordinance reads it was almost a checklist they could follow. Mr. Pitstick stated the way the ordinance reads if you make an application to drill then staff has 45 days to say yes or no, but the 45 days does not start until the Board approves it. Chairman Davis disagreed with that. He stated that if someone brought in their application to drill, then staff has 45 days to have a hearing or give them a permit. Mr. Meredith stated that the filing deadline was something that he added to the procedure, it did not come from the ordinance. He merely suggested 30 days to allow staff to prepare the case. He added that the Board could dispense with this particular section or could amend it to suggest that the filing was upon completion of staff review of application. He commented that he just wanted to create some consistency with the amount of time it would take to process each application. Chairman Davis commented that he was convinced that staff could get the job done in a timely manner. He understood the ordinance to say when an applicant comes in with their application to drill a well with all their plans and they have met all the requirements we have 45 days to give them a permit - true or false? Mr. Pitstick answered hypothetically yes that is correct. Chairman Davis then supposed an applicant came in and said I have met everything but one requirement and I need to have that one item go before the Gas Board of Appeals. He asked why couldn't they go before the Board in that same 45 day period? Mr. Pitstick and Mr. Van Nieuwenhuize both answered they Page 5 of 8; 04/13/06 GBA minutes could. Chairman Davis stated then there should not be any reason for the process to take more than 45 days. Ms. Pavlik asked if they could get the 45 days given the language that legal council has put into the procedure. Chairman Davis asked if a filing deadline was even necessary with the existing ordinance giving a timeline. Mr. Meredith commented he was concerned with requiring the permit to be issued or denied within a 45 day period. Chairman Davis commented what about some action or delay? Mr. Meredith stated the action would be responding to the applicant that they did not meet all of the requirements and they have the right to seek relief from this court. He explained that since this was a new procedure there was no experience to know how long the process would normally take. Chairman Davis asked to take out Section 403. He commented that this would not affect what the Board was doing as far as procedure. His concern was if it took staff 3 months to prepare they could be faced with complaining applicants and if that was the case then the Board could go back and amend the procedure. Mr. Pitstick agreed. Chairman Davis suggested deleting Section 403 and keeping to the 45 days unless it became a problem then they would amend the procedure. Mr. Meredith moved on to Section 404 regarding notice requirements which tracked the ordinance. Section 405 consisting of submission of evidence requires all evidence to be presented through the Executive Secretary or directly to the Board so that board members are not contacted at home. Section 406 regarding withdrawal of an appeal consists of written notice by an applicant to withdraw an application. Instead of canceling the scheduled meeting the Board would take action on whether or not to cancel the appeal. Mr. Meredith explained that by having the meeting this would give the public the opportunity to hear the explanation of why the applicant has withdrawn. Chairman Davis agreed. Mr. Meredith continued with Section 501 consisting of types of appeals and Section 502 basis for relief; both sections tracked the ordinance. Section 503 timeliness of appeal also tracked the ordinance. There was also a typo found in Section 503 which referred to Section 501 f which should read Section 501 6. Section 601 is in regard to hearings are subject to the open meetings act therefore all hearings have to be open to the public. Section 602 order of business refers to standard rules which tract all previous sections discussed. Chairman Davis asked where in the procedure the swearing in of witnesses takes place. Mr. Meredith stated he could add another line under Section 603. Chairman Davis stated it needed to be listed first on the procedure. He suggested as each applicant came forward they would need to give their name and address for the record and then say do you solemnly swear. . . . . .and add the wording. Mr. Meredith stated that could be done, but he suggested that as the meeting got started the chairman could have everyone in the room stand up and swear everyone in at one time. Then when each applicant approached the podium the chairman could ask them to confirm that they had, in fact, been sworn in. Chairman Davis agreed and asked that the statement of swearing in witnesses be added to become Section 603 A and all other letters would follow in the same sequence under that. Page 6 of 8; 04/13/06 GBA minutes Chairman Davis moved on to Section 603 G and asked how long would be reasonable for an applicant to give their presentation? Mr. Pitstick commented that you could present for 20 minutes but the audience would only listen to you for about 10 minutes. Chairman Davis stated this was new ground for the Board and he knew of only one time during a Planning and Zoning Meeting they had to set a 3 minute time limit for a total of 30 minutes that gave 10 people a chance to talk. Chairman Davis felt that each appeal was very important and did not want to set a time limit in case there were witnesses and things of that nature. Mr. Meredith stated that the time limit was also optional. He explained the way it was written there was a standard amount of time that each applicant had unless an extension was granted or the Board could flip them around. He added the Board could give an unlimited amount of time unless they determined that a uniform time limit should be observed for that particular meeting. Chairman Davis asked Ms. Pavlik if time limit would be an issue as her case would be the first for the Board. Ms. Pavlik stated she did not have a problem with the Board setting a time limit. She respected the Boards time and interest. She felt that the Board would be able to manage that properly. Mrs. Luppy agreed with Mr. Meredith's idea of not having a time limit unless determined that night by the Board prior to the beginning of the meeting. Chairman Davis agreed and commented that if the Board knew there were going to be many witnesses wanting to testify the Board could then set a limit. Mr. Pitstick asked if the decision would be made the night of the meeting. Chairman Davis stated that the chair would make a recommendation based upon how many witnesses the secretary knew were going to be called. Chairman Davis asked Mr. Meredith to correct letter G to reflect the change of setting a time limit the night of the hearing. Mr. Meredith moved on to Section 604 which simply states that the chairman directs the meeting and addresses the board members if they have questions for witnesses. Chairman Davis stated that the remaining sections were standard practice. Chairman Davis made a brief summary of the changes made to the Rules of Procedures: · Adding to Section 103 A the language to swear in witnesses. · Changing the application filing from the Executive Secretary to the Planning Department in Section 401. · Deleting of Section 403. · Correcting the typo found in Section 503 referencing Section 501 f to be corrected to Section 501 6. · Adding to Section 603 the oath procedure of swearing in of all people as letter A with all other letters filing accordingly. Changing the new letter H to reflect that a decision by the Board to restrict presentation time will be made the night of each meeting. Chairman Davis called for any changes as presented and any other recommendation from staff. Chairman Davis stated that these procedures could easily be amended when duly posted at the next meeting. He commented that it was always good to know the rules for both staff and applicant when applying for a permit. Chairman Davis Page 7 of 8; 04/13/06 GBA minutes called for any other questions or suggestions from anyone. Mr. Pitstick stated he liked the idea that the Board lists both sides of the process. He stated the board members are likely to turn over because the Board elects their own chairman. Chairman Davis stated it was a good guideline. Chairman Davis asked what was the pleasure of the Board. He stated they had made four and five corrections to the rules and procedures. They had two options. They could move forward with the adoption of the rules and procedures as corrected or they could wait and see a corrected document on the May 11th meeting. Chairman Davis called for a motion. Kathy Luppy, seconded by Mark Haynes, motioned to approve the adoption of the rules and procedures with the following stipulations: the addition to Section 103 A the language to swear in witnesses, to change the location of the application filing from Executive Secretary's office to the Planning Department in Section 401, the deletion of Section 403, the correction to the typo in Section 503 to read Section 501 6 not Section 501 f, the addition to Section 603 the procedure of swearing in all people as letter A with all other letters filing underneath, and the change of the new letter H to reflect that a decision by the Board to restrict presentation time will be made the night of each hearing. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). 5. ADJOURNMENT The chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:31 p.m. Chairman Secretary Richard Davis ~~~~ Kathy Luppy ÇfK\-~J)(W~Ö Page 8 of 8; 04/13/06 GBA minutes