The Fort Worth Star Telegram’s editorial board came out with an excellent Op Ed piece regarding the two gas permits that are currently up for consideration in Southlake.   Here is the abbreviated summary of the shenanigans to date:

1. -XTO filed two permits to drill in Southlake before City Council imposed a 180 moratorium on new drilling permits.
   

1. -The first permit (a “Specific Use Permit” or “SUP”) is for the Milner site is off of Highland Street, near 3 subdivisions, a children’s hospital, and several schools.  Before a SUP can be approved, it has to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission and then the City Council.  If the P&Z Committee denies the SUP, then approval at the City Council must be by a 6-1 supermajority vote.  This requirement exists so that the vast majority of our elected leaders must approve when an issue is controversial.
   

1. -At the November 18, 2010, the P&Z Commission voted 4-3 not to approve the Milner site.
   

1. -The very next day, the City Spokeswoman announced that the Southlake City Attorney Tim Sralla, had determined that since the P&Z Commission voted 4-3 not to approve, but did not vote 4-3 to deny the SUP, so the City would treat the P&Z’s vote as though they failed to make any recommendation on the SUP.  This strained interpretation of Texas Legal Code is allowing that City Council could approve the SUP by a simple majority instead of a super majority.
   

1. -This is clearly incorrect according to state law, but here is his opinion.  Contained in his opinion is a section of Texas Local Government Code which states “Before taking action on any proposed amendment, supplement, or change, the City Council shall submit the same to the Planning and Zoning commission for its recommendation and report”
   

1. -Mr Sralla states in his letter that he discussed with P&Z in executive session that they would need to vote to approve and vote to deny the permit.  At least 3 members of P&Z refute this statement.
   

1. -The Department of Planning said a vote has never been handled “quite this way before”
   

1. -Over the next week no less than four members of the P&Z Commission wrote letters or e-mails to either the Mayor or the City staff complaining that Mr. Sralla’s interpretation of their vote was in error.  They believed that they had voted to deny the SUP.  Some P&Z Commissioners requested that the matter be sent back to P&Z so that they could clarify their vote.  Here are their emails , and they are very clear.  The Mayor and City Council refused these requests.
   

1. -During the month of December, the East Chapel Down Subdivision organized a petition of properties within 200' of the proposed pad site property line that would require a super majority approval by City Council.  The week of December 6th the organizers were given a map of surrounding property owners and their applicable land areas. 
   

- At 2pm on Jan 3rd, 19 petitions were submitted, accounting for 20% of the land area provided on the original map triggering a super majority requirement.

- A new “more accurate” map was given that now included the streets, thus lowering the 19 petitions to     only having 18% of the land area required.  

- At 11am on Jan 4th, 5 more letters were submitted bringing the total to 24 properties and a total of 21% of the land area within 200' as required on the new map.

- At least 6 land owners that signed the protest petition were contacted Monday afternoon by the           applicant, the first ones around 3:30pm less than 2 hours after submission

1. -Subsequently, between 6:20pm and 8:10 pm on January 3rd, 5 people recanted their original position of opposition and submitted new forms to the city.  This brought the total land area within 200' down to 15% from the originally submitted 21%.
   

2. -Petitions are protected by state legal code once submitted, but again the City of Southlake “shenaniganed” its way out of a super majority requirement
   

1. -On February 8, 2011, the second XTO application for the Joe Wright site came before the P&Z Commission.  This time, leaving no question about their intentions, the P&Z voted 4-1 to deny the second SUP.
   

1. -The Editorial Board of the Fort Worth Star Telegram believes that the City Council should send the original SUP back to P&Z to clarify the their intention.
   

1. -Several citizens have also requested that City Council handle these 2 permits the same.  How can they allow one permit to be voted on “correctly” and the other “in the unusual position of proceeding without any recommendation as part of the P&Z’s report” (from Sralla’s letter)
   

-On February 15th our neighbor Keller discussed how they handle their voting.  (Link to Video, go to minute 23) Their city attorney seems to have a different opinion on how P&Z votes are interpreted,  an opinion that is consistent with State Law requiring a recommendation and report before a city council can vote and interpreting any vote other than an affirmative approval of a permit as a denial.  A denial would trigger a super majority requirement. 

-Why would Southlake handle its business so differently?  Especially on this issue?  Either they have no recommendation, which is what Sralla’s letter stated so they cannot vote or they have a recommendation which is a denial of the permit and must vote under a super majority. 

-On February 22nd City Council vote 5-2 to approve the Milner site, not achieving the super majority needed for a valid approval.

What City Council is doing is wrong.  Are we really going to handle these 2 permits differently?  Leaders are supposed to do what is right, even when it is difficult.  Even if Mr Sralla’s opinion maybe  technically correct who could actually agree with the ethics of proceeding under a technicality like this?  This action invalidates the hundred’s of hours that P&Z dedicated to this issue and will compromise the integrity of our system! 

Please call, write, or email City Council and ask them to do the right thing regarding these permits.