title
Minutes from the September 19, 2007, Stormwater Management Board meeting.
body
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
Date: September 19, 2007
Location: Huntington Building
Conference Room #105
900 West Monroe
Jonesboro, AR 72401
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Opening:
Chairman Alec Farmer called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. on Wednesday, September 19, 2007.
In Attendance marked in bold
Members:
Dewaine Beisner
Don Culpepper
Michael Daniels
Alec Farmer, Chair
Jerry Farris
Betty Shaw
John Street
Gene Vance, Vice-Chair
Jon Wilbanks
Nathan Young
Dennis Zolper
Staff:
Doug Formon - Mayor
Tony Thomas - Project Administrator
Erick Woodruff - Public Works Director
Otis Spriggs - Director of Planning & Zoning
Kelly Panneck - Chief City Engineer
Craig Light - Assistant City Engineer
Janice Patton - Administrative Assistant
Teddy Hooton - Floodplain Administrator
Others:
Harold Carter - Citizen
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes for Stormwater Management Board meeting on August 22, 2007
Motion to approve the minutes was made by Dennis Zolper, seconded by Jon Wilbanks, and unanimously approved.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
V. PENDING ITEMS
A. Discuss Stormwater Drainage Design Manual
This matter was tabled until the next regular Board meeting.
B. Internal Operating Rules and Regulations with comments (Attachment)
Farmer began the work session for the review and revisions of the Rules and Regulations. Mr. Light, Mr. Daniels, and Mr. Zolper had comments for the Board to review. All comments were attached to the agenda. Pages one and two of the document were previously reviewed and revised at the August Board meeting. Those changes were reflected on the copy attached to the agenda. The Board discussed again the definition of the word “use” as compared to the definition of the word “facility.” It was decided to use the word “facility.” Page 2, paragraph 1g shall be changed from “use” to “development or improvement plan.” There was extended discussion and review on the changes that were decided at the previous meeting. The Board debated on the definition of a “functionally dependent facility,” as worded on Page 2, paragraph e. It was agreed that the definition was unclear and could be interpreted two different ways. The Board decided to delete the phrase, do some research and review paragraph 1e at the next meeting. It was also decided to add a “catch all” phrase at the end of the Variance Considerations. After much discussion, the Board decided that the statement made on Page 3, paragraph 3 was unnecessary and it will be deleted.
The reference to historical buildings on Page 3, paragraph 4a and paragraph 5 was discussed by the Board and staff. There were questions about the requirements for a historical building. The Board suggested someone contact Claudia Shannon from Shannon Design and Ruth Hawkins at ASU to get additional information for the next meeting. Therefore, paragraphs 4a and 5 are pending further information. Paragraph 4b(iii) will be amended to break down the guidelines listed and address Federal and State laws, rules and regulations. Page 3 paragraph 4c was discussed at great length. Teddy Hooton explained that there are some considerations for commercial buildings to be flood proofed above the BFE. Some areas have conditions in their floodplain ordinance to allow a variance. Zolper asked if that was a good practice. Hooton stated that it is not good practice. He said that it does happen. The new maps have potential to bring buildings back into the flood zone. There is a clause in the floodplain program to grandfather in an old development for a reduced rate. Discussion of circumstances for an industrial development took place among the Board and staff. The Board decided to delete paragraph 4c.
Page 3, paragraph 4d was briefly discussed and the Board decided to rephrase the paragraph to read that the City Floodplain Administrator shall report variances to FEMA upon request.
Page 3, paragraph 5 is pending information on the requirements for historical structures.
Gene Vance asked what the Board is allowed to override. He also asked if the Board can vary from the Ordinance and rules and regulations at the local level. Farmer stated the rules and regulations are going to coincide with the drainage manual that is adopted. Zolper said the Board can override the drainage manual. Farmer stated the Board will have Best Management Practices to go by as well. It will be an evolution as the Board progresses.
Page 4, Open Meetings. Farmer stated that the Board is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. He said the media needs to be notified of regular and special meetings and asked the secretary to contact the City Clerk for procedure and notify the media. If there are no items for a regular meeting, the Board requested that review sessions and educational sessions be held in place of the regular meeting, at the same date and time. Kelly Panneck stated that there will be plenty to review at those meetings regarding the drainage manual. The second paragraph under Open Meetings shall be revised to add “as required by the Freedom of Information Act by the secretary to the City Clerk and posted.”
Page 4, Hearing Procedure. Panneck announced Michael Daniels’ comment that there should be a format for the hearing. Zolper stated that he did not know why it was necessary for the secretary to read an opening statement at the hearing. Farmer asked the Board and Staff to look at the Appeal Hearing Protocol Procedure that was emailed and attached to the agenda. This is a cleaner document. The Board and staff began reviewing the Protocol Procedures. The document resembles the outline usually followed in a normal appeal hearing. Farmer briefly went over the procedures listed. Zolper suggested changing the five minute time limit to a ten minute time limit. Paragraphs 3 and 4 will be changed to reflect a ten minute limit. There will be a paragraph added between paragraphs numbered 6 and 7 to allow five minutes for rebuttal. Farmer suggested that all of the language currently listed under Hearing Procedure be stricken and replaced with the language form the Protocol Procedures with a separate section for conduct. The Board agreed.
Pages 4 and 5, Decision of the Board. The amount of days for the Board to make a decision was listed at 30 days. Some of the Board members asked if that amount of time was necessary. The Board discussed what additional measures would have to be taken if the decision was not given at a regularly scheduled monthly meeting. For example, a teleconference meeting could be held, but would require more additional time and effort to coordinate. It would also be difficult for all members to be present at a special called meeting. If the rules and regulations remain at 30 days, the Board will still have the ability to call a special meeting if needed. Farmer suggested the amount of time be changed to 31 days due to calendar days. The Board decided to list 31 days for decisions.
Zolper asked why each individual vote should have to be listed in the written decision. Each member’s vote will be listed in the meeting minutes. Discussion was also held on listing specific reasons for the Board’s findings and the language in the last sentence of paragraph 2 under Decision of the Board. The Board decided to add language to reflect that they are able to approve, deny or table any matter. This language will be added to the end of paragraph 1. Betty Shaw requested further language that requires an appeal application be completed for it to be considered. Zolper suggested that language be added to the first page of the Rules and Regulations. Language will include “application must be complete and filed.” After further discussion of paragraph 2 under Decision of the Board, the board decided to take out the requirement of each member’s vote to be listed on the decision. They also decided to delete the last sentence of that paragraph beginning with “and shall specify in what manner…” because it is repetitive.
Farmer asked if a third-party is able to appeal a decision. Shaw asked if the Board’s decision could be appealed to the Circuit Court. Staff said the City Attorney suggested that the rules and regulations specify which court the appeal would be filed with. Zolper suggested copying the language from the original Ordinance, Section 7.4. This will be listed under the section titled Appeals from Decisions of the Board. If the City approves a variance, the party can appeal to the Board. If the City denies a variance, the appeal goes to the Circuit Court. Farmer asked again who is eligible to appeal a decision. Zolper suggested that only the applicant can appeal. Farmer suggested a third-party be able to appeal the City’s decision. Vance stated that as long as the developer is meeting the City ordinances, rules and regulations, the third-party couldn’t appeal. Zolper suggested it be treated the same way as zoning, if the City approves it, the concerned party’s option is to go to Court. If the City denies it, the party can appeal to the Board. Other members agreed with this statement. The Board decided to add language that indicates the Board will only hear an appeal from the applicant. This will be reflected on the first page of the rules and regulations.
Page 5, Decision of the Board, paragraph 3. The Board discussed the purpose of alternate members. Alternate members should attend all meetings, but their vote will be tabulated only if members are unable to attend an appeal hearing. Farmer stated that alternate members’ votes do count at regular meetings. Craig Light addressed the section on a quorum in the Ordinance, along with additional language. The Board had to establish what a quorum will be. Shaw suggested a minimum of five member votes for any action. Farmer agreed. That way they will always have over 50% of the Board in agreement. A paragraph will be added to this section to reflect what is considered a quorum. Alternate members are not substitutes and should attend the meetings.
Page 5, Decisions of the Board, paragraph 4. The Board decided to delete “an order containing” from the beginning of this paragraph, and reword the last sentence to read “by the secretary and filed with the City Clerk’s office.”
Page 5, Re-hearings. The Board and staff discussed why there would be a re-hearing. The Board decided to leave the first sentence of this section and paragraph 1. The Board further decided to delete paragraph 2. The last sentence of the second paragraph in this section will be deleted beginning with “subject to such conditions…” Shaw requested that the rules and regulations limit how many times the applicant may withdraw the appeal and re-file it. The Board decided that the applicant may have the ability to withdraw a request for appeal one time and then the appeal would be placed on the next regularly scheduled monthly meeting. If the applicant withdraws a second time, he must wait 180 days before a request for appeal will be heard. This regulation will be a separate paragraph under the Re-hearings section.
The Board discussed at great length what should be required for a re-hearing. Zolper suggested the Board keep it simple because five members will have to vote in favor of a re-hearing. The Board decided to delete the first sentence of the third paragraph. They also stated that the request shall be made by the applicant in writing.
Page 5, Section 1.2 Conflict of Interest. Shaw requested language be added to require a Board member to notify the chairman if he/she has a conflict of interest in the matter being heard. Farmer said the member should contact the chair or the secretary. The Board member shall abstain from voting.
Farmer stated that any City board member must fill out a financial disclosure statement and file it with the City Clerk and Secretary of State.
The Board added an additional paragraph to Section 1.2 addressing a Board member’s requirements if he/she has a conflict of interest. Language was provided by Zolper and approved by the Board. The secretary was instructed to add the language.
Page 6, Section 1.3 Terminology. The Board and staff discussed the relevance of this section. All parties agreed the section would be deleted.
Section 1.4 Special Meetings. Farmer asked who would be allowed to call special meetings. Zolper suggested the chairman or vice chairman. The Board discussed situations where there may be a need for a special meeting. They decided to delete “in emergency situations” from the first sentence. These were the only changes made to this section.
Section 1.5 Amendment of Internal Operating Rules and Regulations. The Board requested a five member vote be required to amend the rules. The staff stated that the City Attorney suggested if the Board wanted to have the ability to suspend their own rules, they should specify that in the document. The Board decided to add an additional paragraph stating same.
Section 1.6 Time of Effect of Internal Operating Rules and Regulations. The Board agreed to keep this section as is.
Section 1.7 Appeals from Decisions of the Board. After previous discussion, the Board stated that language should be taken from the Ordinance, Section 7.4(e). They instructed the secretary to copy the language.
Section 1.8 Stay of Proceedings. After a brief discussion on the necessity of this section, the Board decided to delete it. Any stay of proceeding would be issued by the Circuit Court. Therefore, this matter is covered.
Additional discussion was held on the appeal process. Under Section 1.1, the Board agreed to change the time limit required for the appellant to provide all documents from seven days to ten days.
C. Appeal Hearing Protocol Procedures (Attachment)
This item was discussed simultaneously with Page 4, Hearing Procedure. See above.
VI. STAFF REPORTS
None
VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
The Board announced a special called meeting for October 10, 2007 from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. to discuss the Rules and Regulations and the Stormwater Management/Drainage Ordinance.
The next regular monthly meeting will be held on October 17, 2007 at 8:30 a.m.
Chairman Farmer adjourned the meeting at 11:45 a.m.