Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGBA 2009-06-11 MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE GAS BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS JUNE 11, 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER They meeting was called to order by Chairman Tom Duer at 7:01 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Tom Duer Randy Shiflet Garry Cope ABSENT CITY STAFF Director of Planning & Dev. Assistant Dir. Public Works Chief Planner ', Recording Secretary Kathy Luppy John Pitstick Greg VanNeiuwenhuize Eric Wilhite Tanya Hope 3. Approval of December 11, 2008 Gas Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes. APPROVED Rar dy Shiflet, seconded by Garry Cope, motioned to approve the minutes from December 11, 2008. The motion carried unanimously (3-0). Chairman Duer stated that the Gas Board of Appeals was chartered by the City Council to consist of the Chairman of the different boards and commissions. Mr. Duer explained that they are a five member voting board however one of the board members, Park Board Chairman, is now a City Council member therefore they do not have a Chairman. In addition Kathy Luppy is absent tonight. Mr. Duer explained that the voting in this muting will be simple majority. Pagel! of 16; 06!11/09 GBA minutes 4. GB 2009-01 Public hearing and consideration of a request from Chesapeake Energy Corporation for a deviation from distance requirements from gas wells under Section 104-6(i)(1)b. for the proposed TCCD South 2H gas well located at 828 W. Harwood Road. Norman Herrera, 100 Energy Way, Fort Worth, came forward representing the applicant, Chesapeake Energy. Mr. Herrera explained that Chesapeake has worked with the City Staff on each aspect of the site including the transportation route, the concrete drive approach, and masonry walls to be constructed prior to the commencement of drilling. Mr. Herrera presented a Power Point Presentation. Mr. Herrera spoke of Chesapeake Energy as a whole and Chesapeake Energy within North Richland Hills. The sites to be discussed will be the TCCD South and Morrow Stevens; two; cases where the company can operate in an urban environment, be responsible, do work in a safe orderly manner based on Ordinances that emphasizes site lines, and aesthetics. Mr.! Herrera gave some background on Chesapeake Energy. Mr. Herrera stated that Chesapeake is one of the leading producers of natural gas in the United States. Chesapeake was named one of the best managed energy companies and one of the top',hundred places to work. Chesapeake has more than five thousand operating wells in texas. Chesapeake has been active in Texas since 1990. Mr. Herrera explained tha~ Chesapeake came to North Richland Hills through the Harding-Exxon acquisition. Mr. ~' Herrera explained that Chesapeake has approximately forty-eight percent lease hold in North Richland Hills with six wells that have been drilled, four of which are being co~~pleted and two that are already actively producing natural gas. The city acreage is close to five hundred and eighty-nine acres that have been leased to the City of North Riceland Hills. Mr. Herrera presented a slide of the TCCD well site. Mr. Herrera showed on the slide where Harwood Road and Boulevard 26 are in relation to the gas well site. Mr. Herrera stated that City Staff along with Chesapeake's product engineers talked about the access road not coming from Boulevard 26 for maneuverability issues, water availability, visibility, right of way setbacks and also the approval of TX-DOT. The decision was made to have the access along Harwood Road as the entry point to the sits. There is an existing utility driveway off of Harwood Road. In addition there will be a njew road constructed for access to the site. Mr.~ Herrera presented a map that showed two apartment communities. Mr. Herrera stated that one apartment community is owned by Western Rim. Mr. Herrera stated that Western Rim had a representative that spoke in favor of the permit at the Planning anc Zoning Commission meeting. The other apartment community is owned by the Baskin Group. Mr. Herrera stated that the Baskin Group was notified of the permit and is it support of the permit. Page} 2 of 16; 06/11/09 GBA,minutes Mr.', Herrera stated that there are some key points for the location: • There will not be any permanent equipment placed on the one hundred year flood plain. • There will be magnesium chloride that will be applied as needed for dust control. Mr. Herrera explained the magnesium chloride creates a surface that is impermeable. • Prior to the commencement of drilling, Chesapeake is committed to having a permanent masonry wall with landscaping installed along the entire frontage of Boulevard 26 and also wrapping the pad corners for one hundred feet. • Masonry screening wall shall be tall enough to screen the height of all equipment from the Right of Ways. • No permanent light fixtures will be installed. • No water wells will be drilled. • No permanent buildings will be placed on the property without further permitting with the City. • Twenty four foot wide access road will be constructed of concrete. Mr., Herrera stated that there are five steps to a gas well site: • Prepare the site • Drill the well • Frac the well • Connect pipeline • Reclaim the site Mr.'' Herrera explained that by reclaiming the site Chesapeake would come back regjalarly to maintain the equipment, monitor the production rate and remove the produced water. Mr., Herrera presented a slide of the Landscape Plan. The Landscape Plan includes a heavy component of native trees; trees which include Native Live Oak, Native Red Oak, and Stevens Holly. All the landscape on the frontage of Boulevard 26 will be installed prior to the commencement of drilling. Mr., Herrera stated that the fence that will be used will be a Hawk Style fence. Mr. Her,~rera presented a slide that showed examples of the fencing that will be used. Mr.'Herrera presented a slide of a person standing at three different vantage points and hovVr the tallest structures on the site, the tank batteries, would be non-visible. John Pitstick explained that the TCCD well site required a Special Use Permit. The SUIT was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by the City Council fora 3.2 acre site. I'~~ Page~''3 of 16; 06/11/09 GBA 'ninutes MrJ Pitstick came forward and explained that the Chesapeake is requesting a waiver for the 600 foot distance requirement from the well site. Mr. Pitstick presented a slide that showed two residential structures and one commercial structure that fall between 460- 587 feet of the proposed well site. Mr. Pitstick stated that Chesapeake is requesting a valiance for just the TCCD South 2H well at this time. Chesapeake proposes to build up ~, o twelve wells on this site however only one application has been submitted at this time. Ranndy Shiflet asked for clarification on the office structure that falls within the 600 foot distance requirement? Mr, Pitstick explained that the office is considered a habitable structure. Mrr Duer asked if City Staff has received any written correspondence from the property owj~ers that were notified? Mr Pitstick said no. Mra Duer opened the public hearing at 7:18 pm. David Hoelke, Director of System Infrastructure and Engineering, came forward representing TCCD. Mr. Hoelke stated that a couple years ago TCCD made the depision to put all monies from the gas well royalties into scholarship funds. Mr. Hoelke requested a favorable opinion from the board. Mr. Duer closed the public hearing at 7:19 pm. Randy Shiflet, seconded by Garry Cope, motioned to approve GB 2009-01. The mc-tion carried unanimously (3-0). 5. GB 2009-02 Public hearing and consideration of a request from Chesapeake Energy corporation for a deviation from distance requirements from gas wells under Section 104-6(i)(1)b. for the proposed Morrow-Stevens A3H and B3H gas wells located at 9201 Kirk Lane. Norman Herrera came forward representing Chesapeake Energy. Mr. Herrera explained that there is already one well that has been drilled at this location. Mr. He'~rera stated that they spud the well in October and completed the well in March. Mr, Herrera presented a slide showing where the well is located within the city. Mr; Herrera explained that the access road to the site is on Kirk Lane off of Precinct Lime Road. Pag~- 4 of 16; 06/11 /09 GBP~ minutes Mr,', Herrera presented a slide showing the 600 foot radius and explained that the radius encompasses four habitable structures on Glendara Drive and one barn. Mr. Herrera staffed that Chesapeake did an outreach to the community and spoke to the current property owners of the four homes on Glendara Drive. Mr. Herrera presented signed acl~nowledgement documents saying that Chesapeake contacted each property owner ind!,ividually with the plans of natural gas production. Mr. Herrera stated that Cheesapeake's communication outreach includes having assigned public affairs representatives that go out and explain the drilling process. Mr Herrera stated that Chesapeake anticipates that they will spud Morrow-Stevens 63~i well in August 2009. Mr. Herrera explained Chesapeake's expectations from a land perspective on development plans. The B3H well contains a unit acreage amount of itoughly two hundred eighty eight acres. Of that amount forty acres are owned by the Cifi~ of North Richland Hills; one hundred and seven are lessors are part of the unit. Thy A3H well is twelve and a half acres of city property; three hundred other lessors sta~,nd to gain and benefit from approval of the permit. Mrs Herrera presented a slide showing the community outreach letters that have been distributed along with a brochure about the flaring process. Mr Duer asked Mr. Herrera about the two producing gas wells currently in North Richland Hills and asked if they were both at Graham? Mrt Herrera said yes. Mrs Duer asked if the first well at Morrow-Stevens has been fractured? Mr Herrera said that it had been fractured and flared. Mr Pitstick came forward and explained that the request is for a variance from the 600 foot community standard. Mr. Pitstick reiterated that there are four residential structures within the 600 foot area and that the request is for two gas wells on the site. Mr Pitstick stated that the new standard for the City is that it requires a gas well vicinity noirice. Mr. Pitstick presented a slide that showed the gas wells in relation to the four residential structures present and the vacant lots. With the requirement, any new buildings that would be built within the 600 foot area would be effectively notified. The no~ice would be provided to Tarrant County. Mr. Pitstick stated that the permanent masonry screening wall will be built early this fall. Mr, Duer opened the public hearing at 7:29 pm. Ri k Stevens, 7132 Stoneybrooke Dr, came forward on behalf of his mother who re~ides at 9201 Kirk Lane. Mr. Stevens requested the approval of the permit. Pag 5 of 16; 06/11/09 GBA~minutes Mask Long, 1615 Precinct Line Road, Hurst, came forward as the engineer helping Mr. Barfield trying to protect his interest on the development to the north of the gas well site. Mr Long explained that Mr. Barfield has filed for a preliminary plat for the land north of the gas well site. Mr.' Long showed a copy of the preliminary plat and pointed out that the 150 foot radius world encompass eight lots between Glendara Drive and the current gas well site. Mr. Long pointed to the preliminary plat and explained that there is final plat approval to a certain point on the plat. Mr. Long explained that they are not able to proceed with the final plat approval past the point shown on the plat but Mr. Barfield would like to keep his'options open. Mr. Duer closed the public hearing at 7:33 pm. Garry Cope, seconded by Randy Shiflet motioned to approve GB 2009-02. The motioned carried unanimously (3-0). 6. ' GB 2009-03 '' Public hearing and consideration of a request from Chesapeake Energy Corporation for a variance to the required 150 foot "no-build" zone from the outside boundary of an existing gas well site under Section 104-6(0) for the proposed Morrow-Stevens A3H and B3H gas wells located at 9201 Kirk Lane. No ` an Herrera, came forward representing Chesapeake Energy. Mr. Herrera preented a slide showing the 150 foot easement. The slide depicts the four tracts. Mr. Herrera stated that Chesapeake sees the 150 foot area as a notice requirement. As a noti ~e requirement, it puts property owners, developers, home builders, universities, colleges, gas stations, etc on notice that no well site would be permitted within 150 feet. Mr.','Herrera stated that originally this well site was permitted before the requirement became effective. Mr. Herrera stated there is a letter signed by Chesapeake's permitting manager requesting a variance to Section 104-6(i)(o) as it pertains to obtaining the furnishing of a recordable easement. Mr. Herrera stated that there has beep conversation between Chesapeake, Mr. Morrow and Mr. Barfield in regards to the easement. Mr. Herrera stated as of today there has been both landowners unwilling or unreasonable in their demands in return for conveying the easement. Mr. Herrera req~iested that for those reasons the Gas Board of Appeals look at part of the Ordinance Section 104-6(i)(5) that says no new protected uses can be built no closer than 150 feet from the outside boundary of the pad site. Mr. Herrera stated that in essence it is not necessary to have 150 foot no build easement conveyed because the Ordnance does that for you. The Ordinance already limits any construction around 150 feet Mr. itstick came forward and stated that the request is to waive the 150 foot no-build zon ' around the outside perimeter of a gas well site. Mr. Pitstick reiterated that there is a pr vious gas well site that was established prior to the requirement of the 150 foot no- Page ~ of 16; 06/11/09 GBA nhinutes bui~d zone. Mr. Pitstick stated that Mr. Herrera is correct in stating that there is a redundant standard, if you will, that the City requires new gas wells to have a 150 foot no-'build zone but also require provisions that no new structures would be built within the 154 foot area. Mr. Pitstick stated that the City is trying to notify as best we can. The City has made some changes in terms of the gas well vicinity notice. Mr. Pitstick stated that the City had changed the community standard in the area of gas drilling. Mr. Pitstick stated that Chesapeake is requesting a variance for Morrow-Stevens A3H and B3H wells to waive the 150 no-build boundary which is a current requirement. Mr. Pitstick requested that the Gas Board of Appeals hear from all the property owners from within the area. Mr. Pitstick presented a slide showing the 150 foot no-build zone. Mr. Pitstick stated the original standard fell within the Steven's property. The new standard encompasses both the Morrow and Barfield property. Mr. Pitstick stated that the previous standard wad 300 feet. Mr. Pitstick stated that there are no existing structures within the 150 foot bo~lndary at this time. Mr. Pitstick stated that there was a preliminary plat that was filed prior to the establishment of the change in the new ordinance; a final plat for Phases II and III were filed. Phase IV was filed but due to the offsite drainage requirement, Phase IV was not apoved. Mr. Pitstick stated that the City Attorney advises that City Staff and the Gas Bo 'rd of Appeals needs to look a# the existing facilities and existing site. Mr. (Pitstick stated that any new proposed buildings that fall within the boundary shown on the slide in red that were previously platted, Mr. Barfield would have the right to corr~e forward and make an application for a variance from the boundary based on Section 104-6(i)(5). Mr. Pitstick stated that Chesapeake has requested a variance from 104~'~ 6(0) which says prior to the issuance of permits. In order for Chesapeake to move forv~ard with permits for A3H and 63H, they would have to either acquire 150 foot no- build easement or get a variance from the Gas Board of Appeals before City Staff would issue a permit for A3H or 63H. Mr. Auer asked if 1 H was the original well? Mr. ~itstick said yes. Mr. Auer asked what is in existence now? The 150 foot radius no-build zone? Mr. ~uer asked if the City went back and re-established a no-build zone? Mr. ~'itstick stated that the City cannot do that. Page ~' of 16; 06/11/09 GBA minutes Mr{ Pitstick stated that City Council passed the ordinance in 2007 for the no-build zone an~f now Chesapeake is coming forward requesting to drill two new wells. Under the new ordinance Chesapeake will have to build to ordinance or request a variance. Mr, Duer asked if anyone wanting to build within the 150 foot no-build zone whether Chesapeake has the easement or not has to come before the Gas Board of Appeals? Mr Pitstick said yes unless it's waived. Mr. Duer asked whether Chesapeake has to get the easement established or not? Mr.' Pitstick stated yes for wells A3H and B3H. Ga ~ry Cope asked if the Gas Board of Appeals could even grant a variance for the 150 feet? Mr. Cope stated that the 150 feet is in the ordinance. Mr.!, Pitstick stated that it's a setback variance and 600 foot is the establishment right nova. Mr.l~ Cope asked if the 150 foot no-build is in the ordinance now? Mr. Pitstick said yes. Mr. Pitstick stated that there are establishments for the board to grant variances based on circumstances that exist at the time. Mr. Pitstick stated just as the 600 foot, the City had established that between 600 and 300 foot the board can grajnt a variance or grant a variance from 600 down to 150 foot. Mr. ~, Pitstick stated that the focus should be on wells A3H and 63H at this time. There is nothing within 150 feet at the moment. Mr. Pitstick stated that if there were a structure and Chesapeake came back with another well, Chesapeake would have to deal with the no-build issue at that time. Mr. Pitstick stated that there have been some points brought up in terms of the preliminary and final plat for the Thornbridge East Phases that there were some establishment of some existing platted properties that fell within the 150 foot zone that is the,new community standard. Mr. Pitstick stated that anyone has the right to come in to request a variance but currently the only request is from Chesapeake to drill two new wel sites. Mr. Pitstick stated that the Gas Board can require Chesapeake to acquire the 150 foot build zone and deny it or give Chesapeake a waiver to proceed with the two nevi wells. Mr. '+ Duet asked whether the Gas Board of Appeals approves or denies the case GB 2009-03, the City will still enforce the 150 foot no-build zone from the padsite? Mr.' Pitstick stated yes. Mr. Pitstick stated that there are two standards: Section 104-6(0) which reads prior to the issuance of any permit, the operator shall obtain and furnish to the city a recordable easement from the owner of affected property as grantor Page ~'8 of 16; 06/11 /09 GBA i ninutes to the city as grantee which prohibits residences, religious institutions, public buildings, retail or commercial buildings within 150 feet of the outside wall or other screening around the final production gas well site. Section 104-6(i)(5) notwithstanding the pra isions of this section, new residences, religious institutions, public buildings, retail or cortimercial buildings, hospital buildings or school buildings with classrooms may be built no closer than 150 feet from the outside fence or boundary of an existing production gas well site. Mr. Pitstick stated that it's a redundancy and Section 104- 6(1)''(5) isn't a requirement for Chesapeake at this time because there are no existing buildings and they are not requesting any buildings. Mr. Pitstick stated that Chesapeake is requesting a variance from Section 104-6(0} which is the no-build zone. Mr.. Duer asked if Chesapeake had to get an easement for the 150 foot radius prior? Mr.' Pitstick stated yes. Mr. Pitstick stated that Chesapeake put the entire production site on the Stevens property. Chesapeake built the wall right up against the Morrow and Barfield property. With the new change the City put a burden on Chesapeake to establish an easement and put a burden on the property owner for no building. Mr. Shiflet asked if the variance is approved that Mr. Morrow or Mr. Long can come in and go before the Gas Board of Appeals and request a variance? Based on the preliminary plat there are eight lots there. Mr. Shiflet asked if they would have to come in eight times for eight lots? Mr. Pitstick stated that they could come in one time for the eight lots. Mr. Pitstick stated thaf: Mr. Barfield would have to plat the property first and then make application for the eight lots. Mr. Barfield could come to the Gas Board of Appeals one time to ask perrhission for a waiver for building on the eight lots. Mr. Pitstick stated that Mr. Stevens had a plat prior to the previous standard. There was no iundication that Ms. Stevens or Mr. Morrow would build in that area. Mr. Pitstick stated that it is not a safety standard. Mr. Pitstick pointed to the slide and stated that the safety standard is the small yellow circle shown. Mr. Pitstick stated that it's more of an aesthetic community standard that is being established. Mr. Pitstick stated that there are a lot of wells going in and a lot of different setback therefore the City tried to establish a standard. Kirk (Marcum came up and stated that there are two standards; the 150 foot was for the no-I~uild zone from the well site itself. As long as there was one well site establishing the ~ 50 foot circle it's ok. When you have multiple well sites then you have an unfair advantage to where the welt sites sit on the property. Mr. Marcum stated that you coul~n't have anything built within 300 foot of the tank battery which again would cause a di advantage to same property owners. Mr. Marcum stated is why the 150 foot from the all came in so that you have a common boundary. Page 9 of 16; 06/11/09 GBA m inutes Mr. Pitstick stated that the production well site could shrink. As the production well site shi inks than the 150 foot boundary could shrink as well. It would be a way to encourage the final production site to be as small as it can and allow for multiple tanks. Mr Pitstick stated that Chesapeake drilled 1 H and that the well is established. Once Chesapeake establishes the final production pad site, the red line shown on the slide after 2007 when the ordinance went into effect, the City would not allow any new construction to occur outside. Any new permits for wells would have to get the 150 foot no~build zone. Mr. Duer asked once we passed the previous variance where they could vary from the 60p foot, Chesapeake now on the two new well sites would have to go by what the current ordinance is right now? Mr; Pitstick stated yes. Mr Shiflet stated that there is a possibility of eight lots plus the City doesn't know what cold be developed on the Morrow's property. Mr:', Shiflet asked how much each application is to request an appeal? Mr. Pitstick stated five hundred dollars. Mr. Pitstick stated that Mr. Barfield could come in end pay five hundred dollars and ask for application to get building permits of each of the eight lots and come forward to the Gas Board of Appeals and ask for a variance. Mr.', Shiflet asked if Mr. Ba~eld was approved than he would build it, but if he was not approved what would happen? Mr.' Pitstick stated if Mr. Ba~eld was not approved than he could not build. Mr. Shiflet stated that it seems as if we are flipping the burden. If the variance is approved than the burden would be on Morrow and Ba~eld as opposed to Chesapeake. Mr.~~ Pitstick stated that we have to look at the existing conditions on the site right now. There is nothing out there right now. Mr. Pitstick stated that whoever comes in next is the burden. Chesapeake may choose to come back in a few months and build another weN~l. Chesapeake would still have the burden to come back before the Gas Board of Appeals to get the variance. Mr. Pitstick stated that whoever does anything to affect the 15Q foot would place the burden on the next person. The City and the Gas Board of Appeals would have to look at the conditions and site at the time they come forward. Mr.` Cope asked if the variance is approved what in affect is the Gas Board of Appeals doing? Mr. Cope asked if they are just allowing Chesapeake not to have to purchase the easement? Pagel 10 of 16; 06/11/09 GBA iminutes Mrs Pitstick stated for wells A3H and B3H. Mr Cope asked if the Gas Board of Appeals is saying that they will allow Chesapeake to build the wells without getting the easements? Mr. Pitstick stated that we have to ask ourselves what the existing conditions are for these two wells. Mr. Pitstick stated that he hopes that Mr. Barfield continues to build anc~ hopes that Chesapeake continues to drill their wells. Mr. Pitstick stated that this is probably not the only time that the Gas Board of Appeals will have to deal with this situation on this site. Mr. Pitstick stated that the Gas Board of Appeals may approve or deny the variance and there may be another condition six months from now where Chesapeake comes in with another well where the conditions have changed such as a building has gone up or a permit has happened. Mr.' Duer asked if the Gas Board of Appeals denies the variance request, Chesapeake would have to go back to the effective property owners and negotiate some way of getting the easement? Mr. Pitstick stated that the Gas Board of Appeals needs to hear from the surrounding property owners. Mr. IDuer opened the public hearing at 8:00 pm. Mr.', Long. 1615 Precinct Line Road, Hurst, came forward as the engineer for John Barfield. Mr. Long stated that he is here representing Mr. Barfield and trying to protect Mr. IBarfield's interest. Mr. Long stated that their concern is if the variance is granted that!, Mr. Barfield's eight lots are in jeopardy. Mr. Long stated that Mr. Barfield could come in and request a variance but if the variance is denied then he would have eight lots','that he could not build on. Mr. Long stated that the City would be taking valuable property from Mr. Barfield and Mr. Morrow without any compensation from Chesapeake. Mr. '~ Long stated that it's aself-imposed hardship and that Chesapeake could easily mo~!e their well site 150 foot south and east; and all be controlled on the Steven's pro~erty without getting Mr. Morrows or Barfield's permission. Mr. Long stated that Chesapeake can control their own destiny in that affect by just moving their drill sites. Mr. '.;Long stated that the Morrow's could potentially lose their property without any corr~pensation. They would have to come back in to request a variance which would cosh them money, time and effort and could possibly be denied the use of their property. Mr. ';Long stated that he believes there is an unfair burden pushed onto adjacent property owners that were not there before. Mr. Barfield planned here prior to the ordinance being changed and when the City changed to the 150 foot pad site it caused Mr. Barfield to jump through more hoops than he had previously. If Mr. Barfield was unaware of the ordinance change in 2007 that would have taken that into consideration prior to laying the lots out. Mr. suer asked if Mr. BarField's lots would be in the no-build zone whether the Gas Boa~d of Appeals approves or denies the variance? Page ~~ 1 of 16; 06/11 /09 GBA minutes .• Mr. Long stated that the City changed the ordinance to affect Mr. Barfield's property to make him come back to ask for a variance. Mr. Long stated that the preliminary plat wad approved, the final plat was not approved but the intent was there to use the strip of land. The intent was taken away or diminished by making Mr. Bafield come in and ask for permission for a variance that could be very well denied. Mr. Long stated if one well is there, the Gas Board of Appeals may be less apt to deny the variance, but if you put twe ve wells there then the Gas Board of Appeals would be more likely to deny Mr. BarMeld's use of the eight lots in proximity of the land. John Barfield, 416 Louella Drive, Hurst, came forward as the developer. Mr. Barfield stated that there is taxation without representation. Mr. Barfield stated that he has had no pffers to buy from him. Mr. Barfield stated that he has been working with Mr. Mor~ow. Mr. Barfield stated that he got Mr. Morrow to agree to grant twenty five foot of his roperty for the City's use as a trail and pipeline. ~; Mr. ~?uer closed the public hearing at 8:07 pm. Mr. ~hiflet asked Mr. Herrera about the statement from Martin Johnson and asked if it's just economics. Mr. Herrera answered yes. Mr. Herrera stated that the two permits that Chesapeake is permitting are primarily acreage that is on Mr. Barfield's property. Mr. Herrera stated that illlr. Barfield stands to gain from having mineral development on his large lease. Mr. Herrera stated that if there is a move from the Gas Board of Appeals to say deny or approve, certainly there is unreasonableness there on personal gain with no real benefit to the City. Mr. Herrera stated that the City has the requirement that it didn't have when the first well was drilled. The requirement is there now. The wells do not happen. Chesapeake does not drill the wells unless they get a variance from the Gas Board of Appals or unless they get the easement signed. Mr. Herrera stated that Chesapeake is at''the meeting tonight requesting the variance and asked for the Gas Board of Appe Is to take a snapshot picture of where they are today. Today under the existing standard there are no homes platted on Phase IV that has been approved by Planning and honing or Gas Board of Appeals. When you look at the radius, there is nothing there!; Mr. Herrera stated that there are conceptual plans and ideas of plans but nothing finali~d and approved. Mr. Herrera requests that the Gas Board of Appeals approves the variance requirement for the reasons: 1) at the time Chesapeake came to you originally the requirement wasn't there. Mr. Herrera stated that Chesapeake is drilling additional wells on approximately a four acre pad site that contrary to the point of moving wells within that, Chesapeake has to go back to the surFace owner to say that they geed to move their pad around. Mr. Herrera stated that Chesapeake is constructing a masonry wall around the four corners of the site. As they construct the wall mound the four corners of the site, it will give the radius of the no-build easement. There~':is no ability to shift outside the radius of the pad site. Mr. Sf~iflet asked if the fence was in place today? ~k. Page 12 df 16; 06/11109 GBA mini tes Mr. Herrera answered no. Mr. Herrera stated that there is an expected spud deadline of late. August, Chesapeake wants the construction to be no later than the first of September. Mr. Herrera stated that they cannot ask the landowner to move and there is no 'benefit other than personal gain, nothing coming to the City, without having the variance approved. Mr. Herrera stated that if the City were to talk to the same neighbors that he spoke with, they would tell you that they would rather see your pad site there than homes. They don't want to look in their backyard to another row of homes. With the trees and maeonry wall, that is something we want to see versus more homes and backyards. Mr. ~ierrera stated that is the opinions of the citizens of North Richland Hills. Mr. ~ierrera stated to Mr. Cope that the Gas Board of Appeals gave two variances twice toni 'ht. Mr. Herrera stated that the Gas Board of Appeals does have the ability and pow' r to grant variances and Chesapeake requests to please look at the snapshot of where they are today when there is a Phase IV that has not been approved; original site had been permitted before the requirement went into effect. Whip looking at the slide, Mr. Duer asked if the area shaded in red is the Steven's property, the yellow is Morrow, and the blue is Barfield's. Mr. I~errera answered yes. Mr. Herrera stated that the strip was deeded over to the City and at some point there will be a park trail. Mr. Duer asked if the parkland shown was originally owned by the Steven's family? Mr. Herrera answered yes. Mr. Duer asked about the letter and Mr. Herrera stating that Chesapeake has had trouble negotiating with Mr. Morrow and Barfield? Mr. Herrera answered yes after the good faith effort of communicating exactly what ChesaNpeake has communicated with the Gas Board of Appeals. Mr. Duer asked if the 1 H well was all within the Steven's property? Mr. He'rrrera answered that the entire pad site is on the Steven's property. Mr. Duer asked if it was ever approached build zpne is on their property? with the Steven's family that the entire no- Mr. Herrera stated that the conversation is always with a different person than himself for thaf part. From a permitting perspective and field perspective, Chesapeake explores aN optigns. There will be a conversation on ponds and moving the rig in and out. Once Page 13 oil 16; 0811!109 t3BA minutbs •' th~ wall is constructed it will give the operational area to do as many wells as possible at ghat location. Mr; Duer stated that it would enlarge the pad site tremendously. Mr Herrera stated yes. Mr. Herrera stated that it would be a staging area that Chesapeake have a strong leasehold position to the north, south, east or west. Mr.~: Duer asked if Chesapeake moved the pad sites for the two new wells to where there is rio no-build affecting the Morrow or Barfield property what aspect are you talking the ~? Mr. Herrera stated that he would have to defer to both Jonathan, on Chesapeake's team anq Mr. Pitstick. Any shift either direction doesn't really change the fact that Chesapeake would still have to have the same conversation of an easement conveyed from both Mr. Morrow and Barfield. Mr.'Pits#ick stated that Staff can't recommend approval if they don't get consensus from the surrounding property owners. Staff would either recommend denial or postpone this until July 9, 2009. Staff would recommend that there be some agreement with the property owners particularly within 300 feet boundary. Mr. Pitstick stated that there is an existing trail and pointed it out on the slide. Mr. ~'itstick stated that Mr. Ba~eld is not agreeing to waive the requirement. Whits pointing at the slide, there was general discussion on the boundary changes from the c-ld ordinance to the new ordinance. Mr. Shiflet stated that they were advised the final plat was denied due to drainage issues to the south across the Steven's property. Mr. F~itstick stated that was correct and that there are some extenuating issues, there is a pipeline that will be built through the area, there is a trail system that needs to be built and here are drainage issues. There are extenuating circumstances that affect all the prop rties as well. Mr. Pitstick stated that Staff recommends a postponement for at least a month to see if some of the circumstances could be worked out. Mr. [suer asked when Chesapeake comes back with a fourth well the Gas Board of Appeals will have to go through this over again? Mr. Pitstick stated that under the current regulations, as conditions change it would force (someone to come forward to this Board. Mr. Pitstick stated that there needs to be an agreement with all three property owners. Mr. Pitstick stated that it would be difficult to change the community standard without acceptance from all the property owners affect ad . Page 14' f 16; 06/11/09 Gt3A mir~utes I Mrs Shiflet stated that there was a similar situation with development and downstream drainage in another portion of the city which took approximately fifteen years to resolve. Mr. Shiflet stated at the appropriate time he would make a motion to postpone because it dbesn't seem that the community standard has been met or that it meets how we best develop the area. Mr. Shiflet stated that he hasn't heard what reasonable attempts have been made. The only mention that he has heard about Mr. Morrow is from Mr. Barfield. Chesapeake has not said anything about Mr. Morrow. Mr. (Pitstick stated that we should be encouraging cooperation not the opposite. Mr. 'Shiflet asked if the Gas Board of Appeals would put the postponement? Mr. Pitstick stated that Chesapeake made the request therefore it should be up to Chesapeake to say do they want to vote tonight or are they willing to postpone? Staff would recommend a postponement. Mr. [suer asked if he had officially closed the meeting? Mr. ~ihiflet stated no. Mr. Stevens came forward and stated that back in 2005, himself, Mr. Barfield, and Mr. Morrow were under the assumption that the inner yellow line shown on the slide was the boundary and that was what everyone agreed to. The problem now is that the target is continually moving. Mr. Stevens stated that if they knew a few years ago that alt this would happen then they may have said that Chesapeake would need to find somewhere else to drill. Mr. Stevens stated that he wished the City would just stick with what they came out with originally. Mr. Stevens said that as landowners they are frustrated because they can't plan on anything because nothing is fixed, they don't know what the future is going to hold. Mr. Ling came back forward and stated that the park trail that will be going through would ~~be going through either Mr. Morrow's or Mr. Bar'Feld's property to hook up the trail system. Mr. Long stated that if the Gas Board of Appeals makes Mr. Barfield too mad that the park trail may not go through in the future either. Mr. Shiflet asked for clarification on what Mr. Barfield said earlier about the easement? Mr. Pitistick explained while pointing to the slide that the City has a deeded area and that the pipeline comes up to a certain point. Mr. Pitstick showed on the slide where Mr. Ba~el~'s lots were. Mr. Pitstick stated that there is a twenty five foot area that would cross Mr. Barfield's property. (idlr. Duar closed the public hearing at 8:36 pm. I Page 15 ot~16; 08/11/09 fl8A minutes '' Mrs Shiflet, seconded by Mr. Cope, motioned to postpone GB 2009-03 to July 9, 209. The motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mrs Duer commented that there are several issues that haven't resolved yet. Mr. Duer stated that there needs to be cooperation from all the entities involved. 7. 'i ADJOURNMENT Thq chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:40 pm. ~~ Chairman Secretary r Tom' Duer ~,~.4 - ~ ~' Kathy Luppy !lMps to of+,ts; asi~ Dios minutes