2010_06.08 BOA Minutes_DRAFT224
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REGULAR MEETING – JUNE 8, 2010
KENNEDALE MUNICIPAL BUILDING – 405 MUNICIPAL DR.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Adams called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Ms. Roberts called roll.
Board of Adjustment members present: Rick Adams (Chair); Linda Elam (Vice-Chair); Patrick
Vader; alternates Darrell Dixon, Jeff Madrid, and Jeremy Redding.
Staff members present: James Cowey (Director of Development Services); Rachel Roberts
(Planner)
Members absent: Brian Cassady; alternate Richard West.
Ms. Roberts swore in those present who wished to speak during the meeting.
I. VISITORS/CITIZENS FORUM
No one wished to speak during the Visitors’/Citizens’ Forum.
II. CONSIDER BOA CASE # 10-05
BOA 10-05 to consider and receive comments on a request for a Special Exception to
the City Code Section 17-426 (c), to allow gas well drilling and production to be located at
824 Kennedale Sublett Road, Jesse B Renfro Survey A-1260 Tr 3 in the City of
Kennedale, Tarrant County, Texas. The Special Exception is requested by Chesapeake
Operating, Inc.
a) STAFF PRESENTATION OF CASE
Ms. Roberts and Mr. Cowey presented the case.
Ms. Roberts said staff had asked Chesapeake for a timeline for when they would be drilling
the eight request wells including a start date, and the information she had received in reply
had been handed out to the Board at the start of the meeting. She said they were planning
to remove the sound walls on site by June 15 per the condition placed on Chesapeake
when it received a special exception through BOA Cases 10-01 and 10-02 and that they
would replace the walls when they started drilling again, if they received a special exception
for Case 10-05.
225
Ms. Roberts went over the expected truck traffic from the additional eight wells. In addition,
she said that the drilling had been noisier this time (for the latest round of drilling at this site)
than before, although the fracing had been quieter. She told the Board that Chesapeake
planned to use a quieter rig for the requested eight wells.
Ms. Roberts said that Chesapeake had been meeting the sound regulations for the most
part but had been submitting hourly averages and that staff would be asking for non-hourly
averages so that staff could check for peaks in sound.
She spoke about road conditions, saying that for Cases 10-01 and 10-02 at this site, the
Board had agreed to let Chesapeake use an alternative material [for the pad site access
road base]. Chesapeake has continued to track debris onto the road and that staff had
been working on this, but that staff would prefer the road to the pad site be concrete or
asphalt. Chesapeake had told staff that they would perform daily checks of the site and
would maintain the road in current or better condition. Ms. Roberts said they were also
concerned about parking and that it wasn’t just the alternate road material but also the
contractors parking in unpaved areas and then tracking material onto the road when they
leave, and it’s not being cleaned up in a timely manner.
Ms. Roberts then spoke about development issues, saying that Chesapeake had installed
landscaping but had not maintained it adequately. She said that staff has asked them to
install additional landscaping and to add irrigation. She added that Chesapeake was in the
process of doing so and had already applied for an irrigation permit. Chesapeake had also
agreed to install pre-cast walls on site before permits would be issued. Staff was asking the
Board to require that the access road, the parking improvements, and required landscaping
also be completed before permits could be issued.
Chesapeake had told staff that the rig was supposed to have amber lighting.
Ms. Roberts said staff had one additional concern, about the frac pond that was supposed
to be installed on site when the original permits for this site were granted. When the original
permits for this site were granted, staff and Chesapeake had worked out that Chesapeake
would install a frac pond on site. Instead of a frac pond, Chesapeake had been using water
lines they had laid overland from the Bogi pond, and this was disturbing the earth and grass
and having a negative impact from staff perspective. Staff would prefer Chesapeake to
have a frac pond onsite as had been originally planned or come up with a solution better
than laying waterlines overland.
Mr. Adams asked if staff had discussed this with Chesapeake, and Ms. Roberts replied that
they had sent Chesapeake the staff report [which included comments on the frac pond] and
asked them to bring information.
Ms. Roberts said that in general staff had been pleased with the responsiveness from
Chesapeake, but considering past history, staff strongly recommended that if the special
exception were granted, the Board apply the condition that all improvements that must be
made would be done and approved by the city before the permits are issued. That way,
there would be no misunderstanding about when something was supposed to be done.
[One of the Board members asked] if Ms. Roberts thought it was a misunderstanding about
the pond originally. Ms. Roberts said that was before she had started working for the city so
she wasn’t sure and added that from the staff perspective, there was no
misunderstanding—they thought that Chesapeake was going to build the pond.
226
Mr. Adams [?] asked where the pond was supposed to be. Ms. Roberts said she wasn’t
sure and asked Mr. Cowey if he knew. Mr. Cowey said it was to be in the watershed [tape
unclear]. Mr. Adams asked where they were getting the water for the Bogi site frac pond,
and Mr. Cowey said they were getting water from two sources: some from Kennedale, but
the majority from Arlington’s water supply (an Arlington hydrant).
Mr. Adams asked where the water would come from for a frac pond for this site. Mr. Cowey
said the original design would get a lot of the water from the watershed. He said it had been
a coordinated effort; the pond was to be part of the city’s water drainage detention/retention
plan. Mr. Adams asked why this had never been brought up before when the Board heard
the previous case for this site [BOA Cases 10-01 and 10-02], if it had been an oversight,
and Mr. Cowey said it had been an oversight and also mentioned some of the issues
stemming from laying a pipe all the way across from the Bogi site for eight wells. Mr.
Adams asked if they wanted to drill starting in August, would there be enough water in the
pond to be used for fracing. Mr. Cowey said that staff was requesting as part of the
condition for approval that Chesapeake be put on notice that staff would like to sit down
with them to resolve the issue, and if they can’t resolve it, then Chesapeake can come back
before the Board as an appeal board. Mr. Adams added that obviously the city felt the pond
was necessary because of drainage issues with this area but that he was asking if there
would be enough water in the pond by the time Chesapeake was going to frac, but he
agreed there needed to be something in the Board conditions about the pond. Mr. Cowey
said they needed to find out why the pond was never built.
b) APPLICANT PRESENTATION OF CASE
Ms. Tiesa Leggett of Chesapeake Operating presented the case on behalf of the applicant.
She mentioned that the sound walls on site would be taken down by June 15th [2010]. She
said Chesapeake planned to drill the first of the requested eight wells in October and that
they were working with the pipeline operator to make sure the pipeline would be connected
by the end of June 2010.
Ms. Leggett described the plans for extending the pad site, stating that the pad site would
be about 54 acres. She added that they would install eight-foot pre-cast walls prior to
drilling activity and would use asphalt millings on the roadway for dust control. Ms. Leggett
pointed out the planned location of the laterals.
Ms. Leggett talked about noise mitigation plans for the site, including bringing in a new rig
that had been successful in other high-impact areas.
Ms. Leggett went over the timeline. She said the site improvements should be finished in
August 2010, and that drilling for the first six wells back-to-back was tentatively scheduled
to begin in August to September 2010 and that drilling would take approximately 180 days.
The schedule for fracing was yet to be determined.
Mr. Adams said that before it was planned to be eleven wells at this site, and now it’s
sixteen. He then asked how many wells were planned. Ms. Julie Jones of Chesapeake said
that originally they had planned to add an additional pad site in this vicinity and that they
were trying to avoid creating a new pad, instead extending the Renfro pad to reach the
wells they had wanted to reach from the new pad site.
227
Mr. Adams asked how many tanks there would be on the site, and Ms. Jones said it
averages one or two tanks per well. Mr. Adams asked if they would be low profile and not
seen over the wall, and Ms. Leggett said that was correct.
c) PUBLIC HEARING ON BOA CASE #10-05
Rob Morris of 824 Kennedale Sublett Rd (owns the subject property) addressed the Board
in favor of the special exception. He said noise wasn’t an issue.
Roy Boenig of 1020 Kennedale Sublett Rd addressed the Board and spoke in favor of the
special exception. He also said that noise was not a problem. Mr. Boenig said he didn’t
know why staff was worried about the water lines [for frac water] being run from the Bogi
well site, as it mainly goes across fields. He said it seems like staff keeps putting more and
more on Chesapeake, and it’s just beautification.
d) APPLICANT RESPONSE
Ms. Julie Jones of Chesapeake told the Board they had just finished installing landscaping
on site, and Ms. Erica Wilson of Chesapeake gave pictures of the landscaping to Ms.
Roberts, who distributed them to the Board. Ms. Jones said her understanding of the frac
pond was that Chesapeake had shown it on their site plan to make sure the pad site was
not in the way of the city’s drainage plan and that Chesapeake’s preference is not to drill
another frac pond. Mr. Adams said they’d have to consult with staff on that. Mr. Adams also
asked about drainage. Ms. Jones said the direction of water flow on the site would still be
the same as it was before the pad site was built. Mr. Vader advised Chesapeake not to put
something on their plans if they don’t plan to build it.
e) STAFF RESPONSE AND SUMMARY OF CASE
Ms. Roberts responded on behalf of staff. She said that the city had received complaints
about noise from the site, but that the complaints had come from residents south of the site,
which may have had something to do with why the noise had not been a problem for Mr.
Morris [lives north of the site]. In response to comments made during the public hearing,
she said for the benefit of the public in attendance that the Board’s decision can’t be based
on people getting money (royalties) out of it. Ms. Roberts said that if the Board grants the
exception, staff would prefer to have the air sampling requirement such that the city hires
the contractor and the operator [applicant] pays for it. Ms. Roberts disagreed with Ms.
Leggett’s statement that Chesapeake had gone above and beyond the ordinance. She
stated that Chesapeake had met the oil & gas ordinance requirements but still had to meet
the requirements for a special exception. She said that she wanted to make sure the public
in attendance knew that anyone applying for a special exception has to demonstrate
compatibility with surrounding uses and that it’s not something that just Chesapeake has to
do. Mr. Cowey added to Ms. Roberts’ comments about showing compatibility in order to
receive a special exception.
Mr. Adams asked Mr. Cowey about the frac pond. Mr. Cowey replied that the city had a
drainage study showing a pond needed at this site. Chesapeake had approached the city
about building a frac pond at that site. The frac pond proposed was about half the size of
228
what was needed for the drainage study, but the city was either going to partner with them
to build the larger pond or make do with the smaller pond, perhaps enlarging the pond at a
larger date.
ACTION ON CASE
Mr. Vader stated that issues the city had asked to be addressed had not been done, and
added that he doesn’t think noise is an issue, although the city receives some complaints
from time to time. Mr. Vader made a motion to deny the request, stating that he was very
concerned with the exposure of 16 or 32 tanks and 16 gas wells at that location, but the
motion did not receive a second and therefore failed.
Mr. Adams asked about the pipeline, asking Chesapeake if they knew whether it was a high
pressure or low pressure line. Ms. Leggett said, in reference to the gas pipeline explosion
recently, that it was human error. Mr. Adams said he assumed that what had exploded was
a high pressure line and asked what was the difference between a low pressure line and a
high pressure line. Ms. Jones said the gas explosion was a 36” pipeline, and the pipeline
connecting to the Bogi and Renfro sites was an 8” pipeline. Ms. Leggett added that it was
low pressure.
The Board discussed Chesapeake not finishing all the improvements when they said they
would be finished.
Ms. Elam made a motion to approve the special exception with the following conditions:
Operator shall install a sign on site addressing truck routes and shall install truck
route signs along the required routes. Operator shall coordinate sign design and
installation with city staff. Operator shall also address tracking materials at the exit
site.
Operator will ensure that trucks going to and from the site carry a truck route map,
along with notes addressing the issue of tracking materials onto city streets.
At least one week prior to commencement of fracturing activities, Operator shall
notify all owners of real property within 1000 feet of the pad site of when fracturing is
scheduled to begin and approximately how long it is expected to last. Operator may
state in the notice that the dates of fracturing activities are subject to change. A copy
of the notice sent and a list of recipients shall be submitted to the city.
Operator shall prepare a sound management plan specifying how noise levels from
fracturing operations will be managed. When a violation occurs, Operator shall take
immediate action to correct the violation, or operations will be required to cease.
During fracing operations, Operator shall monitor sound on multiple sides of the site.
Operator shall improve the drive way and access road on site so that it is
constructed of asphalt or concrete, and operator shall supply adequate parking
facilities that meet the approval of city staff.
Operator shall work with city staff to ensure that other physical aspects of the sites
are compatible with the surrounding area. Operator shall submit a detailed site plan
to the Director of Development for review and approval, showing how the site will be
made compatible to the adjoining properties, including recently developed
properties, and how it will meet the city’s development guidelines and regulations.
The site plan should include plans for installing permanent fencing or screening,
229
along with landscaping. Improvements, including permanent fencing or screening,
shall be made prior to drilling.
The special exception shall expire one (1) year from the date it is granted. A new
special exception shall not be required to maintain existing wells permitted under the
special exception, but any wells not drilled by the date of expiration will require a
new special exception.
Sound walls must be removed if drilling or fracing has ceased for thirty (30) days.
Operator shall provide to the city an estimated date by which the requested wells
will be completed.
Operator shall pay for air sampling provided by an independent contractor chosen
by the city. Air sampling shall be conducted at least once during each of the
following times: prior to drilling; during drilling; at completion; 10 days after drilling is
complete; and 30 days after the well is operational.
The issue of the pond that was originally proposed for this site, as well as the
required water for fracing, shall be resolved with city staff.
City staff shall have the discretion and authority to determine any questions about
the meaning, intent, implementation, or enforcement of these conditions.
This special exception is granted with the above conditions and upon the completion
of all improvements, including the pre-cast wall, the frac pond if the operator is
instructed by the city to construct one, the landscaping and irrigation, and any other
improvements that the city has requested as part of meeting the city’s development
and special exception requirements but that have not yet been completed by the
operator. These improvements will be completed by the end of August 2010.
Mr. Dixon seconded the motion, and all but Mr. Vader voted in favor. Mr. Vader voted in
opposition to the motion.
III. REGULAR ITEMS
a) Minutes from the May 2010 Board of Adjustment meeting
Ms. Elam made a motion to approve the minutes, and Mr. Dixon seconded the motion. All
members voted in favor.
b) Board of Adjustment appointments, including chair and vice-chair
Ms. Abbott motioned to leave the appointments as they are, including chair and vice-chair,
and Ms. Elam seconded the motion. All board members voted in favor.
IV. STAFF REPORTS
a) Update on City Projects
230
Staff described the progress on the Bowman Springs, TownCenter, and Sonora Park
projects. Mr. Adams asked about the Sublett Road project, and Mr. Dixon asked when
Sonora Park would be completed.
V. ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Abbott made a motion to adjourn, which was seconded by Ms. Elam. All members voted in
favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
_____________________________
Rick Adams, Chairman
Board of Adjustment
ATTEST:
__________________________
Rachel Roberts
Planner