Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGBA 2010-05-13 MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE GAS BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS MAY 13, 2010 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tom Duer at 6:31 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman CITY STAFF Director of Planning & Dev Asst Chief Fire Marshal Recording Secretary Tom Duer Randy Shiflet Garry Cope Marty Kusmierski Kathy Luppy John Pitstick Mike Rawson Lt. Greg Lindsey Gina Pastre 3. Approval of April 8, 2010 Gas Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes. APPROVED Randy Shiflet, seconded by Kathy Luppy, motioned to approve the minutes from April 8, 2010. The motion carried unanimously (5 -0). 4. GB 2010 -04 Public hearing and consideration of a request from Chesapeake Energy Corporation for a deviation from distance requirements from existing structures to gas wellheads at the proposed Hightower 4H gas well located at 7000 Hightower Drive. Distance Requirements are established in Section 104 -6 of the City of North Richland Hills Code of Ordinances. John Pitstick said that we have included a letter from Billy Graham and also an update on all the permitted and pending gas wells in the city. We currently have 27 wells in the city. This is the Hightower 4 -H which is the 9 th well on the Graham property. They are making a request to deviate from the 600 ft distance requirements. Mr. Graham's property is the only structures that are affected. He has his house and 2 barns that fall Page 1 of 8; 05/13/10 GBA minutes within the 600 ft. They are currently drilling out there and we recently approved 3 or 4 active wells. Graham B -1 -H, A -3 -H, 4 -H and 2 -H. I think they have completed B -1 -H and have started A -3 -H. Chesapeake representatives are here to answer any questions. Garry Cope asked if staff was recommending approval? John Pitstick said yes. We just approved 4 of these a couple months ago. This is a very similar situation. We have a letter from the affected property within 600 feet and there is an agreement with the property owner at West Hightower Place. They are going to start developing that but they are currently in agreement that they won't build any homes until after they have completed drilling on the Graham site. The only affected property owners within 600 feet is the Graham's property. He is the one who originally sold them the rights for the well site. We don't see any issues. This is for the Graham site they recently expanded the well site and fence and landscaping. We have encouraged them on the other sites as well as this one to clean up their landscaping with it being growing season. Scott Castaneda representing Chesapeake Energy, 100 Energy Way, Fort Worth, TX 76102. 1 come before you seeking on well permit for the Graham pad site. The Graham pad site is a private property with an entrance to the site from Hightower Drive. We have drilled 5 wells previously. Three wells by Chesapeake and 2 by Harding. We are currently drilling the Graham A -3 -H which will be followed by the Ender 4 -H. We do have one permit in hand which is for the Hightower 2 -H which is scheduled to be drilled in September 2010. We are seeking one new permit for the Hightower 4 -H, this well will have the potential to produce minerals for 340 acres with the potential to reach more than 1,000 leasors. The landscape and walls that were requested have been completed. We do have a letter of support from Mr. Graham and the waiver from Johnson Diversified Enterprises Inc. The actual Hightower well will be drilled to the northwest of the pad site. We have two approved transportation routes. One comes off of 820 north to Hightower onto pad site and the second route takes us from 820 to 377 onto Mid Cities Blvd, Rufe Snow to Hightower to pad site. At this time I would be happy to answer any of your questions. Randy Shiflet asked about the pictures of the landscaping at the Graham site. The top picture you stated was from the west of the site? Scott Castaneda said yes. Randy Shiflet said that you would be looking southeast. My concern is part of a bigger concern that I have. You show a small portion of the west wall. The back half of that wall has about 3 ft tall Johnson grass. The front is not bad but the back as of this afternoon has Johnson grass grown up. One of the stipulations on all of the sites with the ordinance and John had indicated that he had been in communication and had encouraged the maintenance on the sites. This is an actual requirement of the ordinance. My question is not so much about this specific case but Chesapeakes maintenance policies. Chesapeake will be drilling in the park and granted on this Page 2 of 8; 05/13/10 GBA minutes particular site unless you are looking all the way to the back of the property you don't see that. What is the plan for the maintenance of the landscaping. Scott Castaneda said that we have a department that takes care of that and should be taking care of that. If that is the case I will go out there tomorrow and make sure that it is addressed. Tom Duer asked if the tall grass is located near the ravine drainage easement. Randy Shiflet said that it is the back southern portion of the site. I couldn't see the back side and I did see the new landscaping adjacent to the east wall and the front half of the west side is how you have pictured there. The back half is unacceptable. Scott Castaneda said that he would address this issue first thing tomorrow morning and get this fixed. Randy Shiflet said that the department or division of Chesapeake that is responsible for this and we encourage that they exercise due diligence in taking care of the sites and maintenance. We had approved a special one at the city park off of North Tarrant and Chesapeake did an outstanding job initially and also at Tarrant County College. This is a major corridor for the city and we would hate to see weeds and Johnson grass growing up and not being properly maintained. Scott Castaneda said that this is something that I would be able to make sure is addressed. Public Hearing Opened 6:42 p.m. No one in the audience spoke for or against G132010 -04. Public Hearing Closed 6:42 p.m. APPROVED Randy Shiflet, seconded by Marty Kusmierski, motioned to approve GB 2010 -04. Motion was carried unanimously (5 -0). 5. General discussion of proposed revisions to gas ordinance. John Pitstick discussed the progression of the gas well ordinance. #2862 (November 14, 2005) - initial Gas Drilling ordinance #2945 (July 23, 2007) — adopting changes in technology, safety and quality #2953 (September 24, 2007) — adopting major setback from roadways #2964 (November 12, 2007) — requiring SUP in commercial zones #2965 (November 12, 2007) — establishing distance from streets at 150 feet Page 3 of 8; 05/13/10 GBA minutes #2993 (May 13, 2008) — updating seismic permits and right -of -way fees #3031 (December 22, 2008) — 180 day permit, allowing resolution in lieu of 150 foot no build zone easement for public entities, 600 foot gas well vicinity notice #3057 (August 5, 2008) — exempting 150 foot no build zone for gas well sites established prior to August 5, 2008, allowing future development around completed gas well sites. John Pitstick had some discussion regarding the possible proposed changes for the gas ordinance. 1). Revising 150 foot no build easement around the outside of the final pad site screening wall to a private covenant that can be enforced by the city rather than a formal easement. (initiated by gas companies). John Pitstick said that we are working with Chesapeake on another well site to allow a private covenant in lieu of a permanent easement. This would still allow the city to enforce the 150 no build zone. This would keep from hindering development. Sometimes title companies have issues with the easements. There still would be no building within 150 feet on new wells and would allow it to be enforced from a private rather than a public standpoint. Garry Cope asked if the city would be able to enforce this? John Pitstick said that the attorneys have stated that the way it is written that we could enforce private covenant based on that without a formal easement. 2). Considering requiring a more substantial "hawk style" wall around all gas well sites as a final permanent masonry screening wall. (concerns from staff with different masonry screening walls being built depending on approval process) John Pitstick said that we have two different regulations. If they drill in Agricultural or Residential zoned property then they have to follow the guidelines there. Therefore the fence that you see at Graham is different from the fence at Tarrant County College. When they traditionally have to come forward with an SUP then council and Planning & Zoning are going to require them to build a nicer "hawk style" wall. Staff would like to have a consistency with the requirements for the walls. We may come back and requiring regardless of where they are drilling we would probably establish a more substantial wall since it will be there for a long time. Marty Kusmierski asked what "hawk style" wall means? John Pitstick said that it is also a concrete wall but it is more substantial with piers. It looks more substantial as well. We are looking at bringing back changes to ordinance that would require the same standards for walls regardless if it is for a SUP or otherwise. Page 4 of 8; 05/13/10 GBA minutes I Tom Duer asked in the circumstance of an SUP if the city has control of everything? Shrubs, walls, construction style? John Pitstick said yes. But the ordinance regulates that as well with requiring how many trees that they need to have etc. I don't want them to start looking monotonous but the next drilling site is the Engler site at Iron Horse and Mid Cities. We will be approving that well within the next couple weeks and that will probably be a Superior Concrete Fence. We are looking to get direction from the board and letting you know what we are considering and get input. This is general discussion we don't have anything written or formal ordinance revisions. 3). Considering allowing deciduous and evergreen trees in the landscaped areas around the final masonry wall to provide for seasonal changes and a more natural landscape feel. (concerns from staff in providing an attractive and natural landscaping around gas well sites). John Pitstick said that in our current ordinance it requires evergreen trees and typically what they will do is place a lot of live oak trees. Live Oak trees are very pretty but when they are put real close together they don't grow real well. In lieu of putting pine trees and live oaks I think that we should offer some alternatives to put some deciduous trees among there. When they mature over time then you get a feel for multiple trees in there and not just live oaks. The cities used to use Bradford Pears along frontage roads and after awhile it becomes monotonous. We are hoping to have a more natural looking landscape around there. Garry Cope asked if we were just trying to give them a few more options? John Pitstick said yes. I don't think that every well site needs to look exactly the same. We would like to allow them some flexibility with what they can use and to allow some seasonal changes in the landscape. Those walls are going to be up 20 -30 years before the wells are abandoned. Tom Duer said that you don't want to drive by and instantly know that it is well site just from the appearance. Then it becomes an institutional thing. John Pitstick said yes. Even the "hawk style" walls at Tarrant County College have the Ashlar look. The style and look doesn't have to be all the same. I would almost want them to have a little bit different look each time. As long as it doesn't cost them anymore money and things like that. This would just allow for a little more flexibility. 4). Considering updating the right -of -way maintenance agreement. (concerns from staff regarding wear and tear from heavy trucks and equipment on roadways). John Pitstick said that we have a right of way maintenance agreement and they are required for each well that they drill to put up a $50,000 bond if we have issues with that. There are no specifics and we are looking to see how we can deal with that. We have not had any problems with heavy truck traffic tearing up the roads. We have a few Page 5 of 8; 05/13/10 GBA minutes places for the Morrow Stevens site. Kirk Lane has a few places that we will have them clean up because of the heavy trucks coming off of Precinct Line. Tom Duer asked if we had any issues with any of our curbed streets or any of the streets that had been done in the last 20 years? Randy Shiflet said that everything is concrete now. John Pitstick said no. We may just have some restrictions for conditions if they are needing to use an asphalt road as their main entry into that site. There may be a condition that they will have to put up more money for that site. I don't think that it has has been a problem but we are concerned when these pipeline companies come in with their heavy trucks and starting burying pipe. Randy Shiflet asked if there were only two trees listed on the evergreen trees. John Pitstick said no but in this part of the country the only things they can really use would be Live Oaks and Pine Trees. Randy Shiflet said that I don't have any objections to giving them a little more variety but if you do that it will have to be specified for frequency. John Pitstick said that in the middle of the winter will have to screen something. When the leaves are off of the trees but what we are talking about maybe allowing them to intersperse some of those. Mansfield just came out with a new landscape ordinance. We may have them plant a 5 inch caliber tree rather than 3 inch caliber. There are some other things that you can plant to intersperse. We just don't want all of the well sites to look the same. 5). Considering requiring the latest technology in drilling rigs with electrical motors rather than diesel engines and establishing "hospital mufflers" (general noise concerns from surrounding neighborhoods). John Pitstick said that with technology changing all of the time and currently you are seeing a lot quieter rigs with electrical motors rather than the diesel engines. We are just talking about making that a permanent requirement. We haven't had many complaints on noise. The only time we have a little bit of noise is when they are putting in the pipe and it clangs and they are have been good about putting sound proof blankets up even though that is not a requirement of the ordinance. We have considered requiring hospital mufflers since we are becoming more urban. We don't want to put burden on the gas companies but want to do something to protect the relationship that we have with our citizens and the gas companies. Randy Shiflet said that he had a suggestion that rather than saying that they can't use the diesel engines all together that since we don't know what the economy is going to do and if they have something happen and have to go back to the diesel engines we might look at considering the use of those through approval of the gas board. In the Page 6 of 8; 05/13/10 GBA minutes beginning the only noise I remember being the problem was the squealing of the breaks. John Pitstick said that we only have Chesapeake in town and we have a good relationship with them and we want to keep it that way. Tom Duer asked if using decibel levels as criteria valid? John Pitstick said that it is about all we have got. When Fort Worth instigated their new sound regulations it was like a 5 page document. We didn't want to go that way with it. In Fort Worth you take a 72 hour reading and take an average and it would take a full time person just to take care of just that. The gas inspectors have the power to shut them down if there are any complaints on sound. 6). Future considerations for air quality depending on TCEQ studies (waiting on region wide studies for adopting future air control standards) John Pitstick said that TCEQ has come out with a website that gives the readings at specific areas and times. Most of the concerns have been from compressor stations and other things that we don't have in our community. That is not to say that we won't someday once the pipelines are put in but that would have to come through the gas board of appeals. The biggest issue that we have is where you see exposure is when the gas comes out of the ground. We allow them to flare and it burns off 95% and they have only flared a couple times in our areas. Usually if they flare it is only done for one day. They see what is coming out as far as gas volume. The second thing is that we don't allow open pits and ndd m mixed with sand. The spoils that out of the pum down into the grou ground at each gas well has a tank that water comes back out and every active well that we have we take water samples. We have a lab in Arlington that tests for Benzene and all of the affluents. The tests that we have e took a sample and it l t was escalated then we would any kind of health standards consider air sampling at that point. 7). Future considerations for "green completion or tying directly into pipelines following drilling when pipelines are installed (waiting on pipeline construction to all gas well sites) John Pitstick said that DFW and few other cities are starting to go to "green completion ". Once you pull the gas out of the ground hehe and th ngs like that The reason e l am eliminates the gas escaping into th e atmos p not recommending that have constructed pipelines yet. Once they most of the pipelines than we can consider changing our ordinance to that at that time. John Pitstick said we have a good ordinance. We did our homework early on and we are pro drilling with very high standards. Two things have made us above the other cities is the gas board and the in house gas inspector. If we have noise complaints we are able to pick up the phone and the inspector goes out and handles it immediately. The most of the things that we enforce are safety and aesthetics. Page 7 of 8; 05/13/10 GBA minutes 6. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:19 p.m. Chairman 7 0't , � i6A4.�� Tom Duer Secretary 4 Kathy Luppy Page 8 of 8; 05/13/10 GBA minutes