Filling Station SUP on Monday April 13 P&Z Meeting

There is a public hearing for public input on the Specific use permit application for the 7-Eleven. The application for a specific use permit is in this case, fairly routine. The 7-Eleven wants to have gas pumps (that is, operate as a gas station) at the proposed store on the south west corner of 2181 and 2499. The lot in question is already zoned C-2, commercial 2. Commercial 2 parcels allow the gas station use with a specific use permit. A commercial 3 or industrial zoning allows a gas station use by right.

There are some additional differences between the C-2 and C-3 zoning classifications. The building setbacks are larger for the side yard on a C-3 lot. The minimum lot area, width, and depth dimensions are also larger for the C-3 Zone. Generally, the idea here is that more intense usage needs more space and a larger setback from other uses.

The gasoline station component of the uses is the most intense: flammable liquids are stored and dispensed on the premises. The rest of the store's usage is essentially as a grocery. Groceries are permitted in any commercial zone, so there is nothing out of the ordinary in locating such a store in a C-2 zone. The requirement for a specific use permit for the gasoline filling station is about the hazards of that use. The C-3 dimensions and sizes help alleviate those hazards somewhat, though certainly not entirely. Rather than allowing a filling station by right in the C-2 zone, having a specific use permit process allows the P&Z commission and the city council to review each such request in light of the surrounding zones and uses, ultimately providing greater flexibility to land owners, developers, and the city, while ensuring the health, safety, and well being of the city's residents.

Individuals at the public hearing could bring up issues with having a gas station here - that's the reason for the hearing. Absent those currently unknown issues, there doesn't seem to be any particular reason to not allow the SUP - the lot is ideally situated for such a use, and is well away from any residential uses.

The applicant is asking for some regulation changes, specifically that they have an ice machine and the storage for portable propane tanks outside the building on the west side. It seems to be reasonable to keep the propane tanks on the outside of the building for fire safety - any leaks are much less dangerous outside. Having the ice machine outside, away from the two major roads isn't unreasonable, and would allow customers to load the ice they've bought more easily. The main reason for not allowing out side storage is to avoid the clutter that can easily attend a convenience store/filling station. This follows the vision of our comprehensive plan, keeping the city and its businesses aesthetically pleasant and clean. However, safety trumps aesthetics for the propane storage, at least in my opinion. An ice machine is a classic outdoor appliance at this type of store, and hidden from easy view on the west side of the store, it doesn't violate the spirit of the comprehensive plan and the UDC.

I am, of course, very interested in anyone's thoughts on this subject. Anyone interested in this development and the requested SUP should come to the meeting tonight and consider speaking during the public hearing.

HB 3105 - big gas interests' way to crush cities

HB 3105, Relating to the applicability of the Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act to certain governmental actions, is designed to do one thing, and one thing only - destroy local control of drilling. It is designed to take away the power and ability of cities to regulate drilling in their jurisdiction. Big Gas made its impact felt.

What the Railroad Commission Really needs... besides a name change

The Railroad commission of Texas, or the Texas oil and gas commission, whatever its name finally is, needs more than just a nice name. It needs the resources to get out and inspect gas and oil wells during all phases of operation. While many other state regulatory agencies get their revenue from fees and fines from the companies being regulated, a large portion of the Railroad Commission's revenue comes from the regular funds of the state. Thus, as the entire budget is being cut, the ability of the railroad commission to actually go out and do its job is affected.

Texas Legislature on track to abolish the Railroad Commission....

...And replace it with a new/revised entity called the Texas Oil and Gas commission. This is Senate Bill (SB 655), "relating to the abolition of the Railroad Commission of Texas, the creation of the Texas Oil and Gas Commission, and the transfer of the powers and duties of the railroad commission to the oil and gas commission.". Basically all the powers of the Railroad Commission of Texas are transferred to this new entity, and some changes are made in the elected seats, as well as adding or refining some of its regulatory and enforcement powers.

Gas Wells - Business as usual in Austin?

Recently I read an article in the Denton Record Chronicle that described several bills filed by State Rep. Tan Parker affecting residents in communities in the Barnett Shale (and other shale plays in the future). HB 2125 sought to direct the Rail Road Commission of Texas to place a priority on inspections of gas wells (in any phase) in urbanized counties with a large number of wells. HB 2126 would have increased the maximum fine for regulatory infractions by gas well operators in urbanized counties to $20,000. The $10,000 increase would have gone directly to the fund established for setting up and operating air monitoring in these urbanized counties.

Salt water pipeline variance request

Based on the information I am reviewing, I think a salt water pipeline may be a bad idea all the way around. The fallout from a pipeline break is far more horrifying to me than the possibility of a truck accident.

more information...

Temporary fencing

In an earlier post I discussed this variance request. Since then our Gas Well inspector has confirmed to me that the sound blankets are as impenetrable (or more so) than a chain link fence. So, I would be inclined to allow the operator to forgo the chain link fence where the sound blankets are.

The entire north side of the site is still open, so I really don't see how to grant this variance in its entirety. I am convinced of the necessity that the site be enclosed by a barrier that is difficult to penetrate or go around. The regulation is not for screening for scenic effect, but rather to ensure the safety of the public to keep people from inadvertently wandering in. I still need more information from the application.

more information...

Tank Setbacks

There are two variance requests concerning tank setbacks. The first variance requested is for the rule of 114.12(A)(24)(j) which states that tanks must be located a minimum of 600 feet from any protected use. Another variance for 114.12(A)(32)(c) which sets the minimum distance of waste disposal tanks from any protected use to 600 feet also.

Reviewing the site plan, I believe there are locations on the site that would put the tanks in question (both types) at least 600' from any residences that have not already agreed to have the well or well support equipment at less than 600'.

The operator states that there is no alternative to the variance. I disagree, and will need the operator to prove that statement before I could agree to grant this variance.

The operator also states that 150' is an "industry standard" for setbacks from hydrocarbon tanks. While that may be true, that is a flammability/explosion safety issue, and does nothing to address adjacent property owner's rights, particularly to maintain the value of their property.

The operator does not address the hydrocarbon emission issue at all, and as recent TCEQ investigation of complaints around North Texas have shown, there are real issues with emissions of volatile compounds dangerous to human health.

My thoughts on the City's legal powers to regulate

I have been researching the Texas constitution, Texas Administrative Code, the Local Code, and such case law as I have been able to find, as well as some legal research works in law journals. The short story is that Home Rule Cities have far ranging authority to regulate. Yet they are subject to private property rules that can create takings claims.

I have put together my thoughts on this subject (at least the first part, our authorities) at my gas wells issue page.

Useful information

To follow up on a previous post, some people are sending in useful pieces of information. Even if I already have the information, it is good to be getting useful input from people. Recently someone sent me a link to an article at the Vermont Law review that was very on topic for our Gas Well deliberations.

That is an excellent example of useful information. While I was reviewing that article with our Attorney days ago, that is no matter - you can't really know if I have seen your particular bit of information.

So, please, keep sending in the references to drilling related sites and documents - I very much appreciate them.

Information Gathering to Continue on Drill Permit Request

At the Corinth City Council Session on April 15, 2010, the Council voted to continue the public hearing and postpone consideration of the variances and permits requests until April 29th. A special Corinth City Council Session will be called for the 29th. This will provide us on the council with 2 more weeks of fact gathering opportunities.

I have discussed my thoughts on some of the variances - now I am going to finish up those thoughts on the remaining variances, and revisit the first ones over again. I will discuss them here briefly and in more detail on my website

XTO request for a variance to the Storage Tank Setbacks

XTO has requested a variance to Corinth City Code section 114.12(A)(24)(j) which defines the setback distance for a tank from any protected use as 600'. The tanks are not collocated with the well bores, so an entirely different set of residences are within the 600' radius of the tanks. Many of those residences have not signed any agreements with XTO to allow drilling or tanks or other equipment inside of the stipulated distances set down in the Corinth Code.

The lack of agreements may be moot since there is no special provision for tank setback distance reduction such as there is for the well bores (114.13(B)). It would appear the decision is left to council discretion.

Because of the reduced distances, the issues raised by residents, and the recent tank fires in the area, I would want to see additional safety measures in place in order to be willing to grant this variance.

More Information...

Update on the XTO Gas Well Permit

Our council postponed action on the variances and the permits. I made the motion, and it was approved unanimously. I moved to postpone because I needed more time to evaluate all the information. I was in contact with the TCEQ that afternoon before the council session and in discussing the situation, was offered that they could provide technical resources to attend our meeting and discuss the air quality issues.

With that and the many good questions asked by the residents in the public hearing, I was convinced we needed more time to evaluate the situation. The mayor made it easy when he suggested that we postpone.

Drilling Permit First Variance revisited

I have had several people mention to me that $25,000 is probably not enough to repair our roads after the drilling trucks are done using them. To that end I have requested the cost of the road originally along with estimated life span and design traffic.

I am reviewing an ordinance from Burleson that attempts to put a value on the use by heavy trucks. I haven't finished reviewing that yet. I also believe the $25,000 is not enough - it is the ordinance though. We may have latitude under section 114.07(B)(10) to increase it, but I doubt it - that really deals with the technical requirements we can impose for safety reasons.

We may need ordinance revisions for the future.

Gas Drilling Variance - Item 12 - variance concerning High weeds

XTO is requesting relief from the 300' radius around the well and tanks requirement for keeping the grass cut and trash picked up. About 173' feet north of the well bore is City ROW for the Lake Sharon Rd extension. North of that is a tract belonging to Pulte Homes of Texas.

Basically they need permission to enter those properties to do the cutting and pickup. I imagine the city can give them permission to do just that on the City Right of Way within 300' of the well and tanks. They can ask Pulte for permission for entry also - if they refuse we can grant them that relief. Otherwise I am not inclined to grant this. Fire safety is just too important near a gas well and its equipment.

More information>

Request for variance conerning the temporary fencing

Section 114.14(A)(1) requires a temporary chain link fence at least 8' tall with a locked gate. The fence is to surround the entire drilling site. The applicant is asking that the requirement for the temporary fence be dropped. The state that the sound blankets required by Section 114.12A(G)(3) on the three sides facing the protected uses are enough to screen the site. They are asking for no fence whatsoever on the North side.

The 16 foot tall sound blankets are required to help suppress noise from the drilling and fracing operation. They are in addition to the chain link fence. I am uncertain as to whether the sound blankets provide security. I intend to get that answer from our drilling inspector.

Unless the sound blankets provide real security to prevent casual intrusion, I am inclined to deny this requested variance. If the blankets actually can be relied on to keep intruders out, I would be willing to allow them to put the chain link fence on the north side. Under no circumstances would I be willing to allow the entire north side of the site to be unsecured.

My primary concern is kids, who will be very inquisitive about the drilling platform and the sounds and smells and such. They will go over there. The fence around the Christian center property as a whole is not going to keep them out in the least. The chain link fence and locked gate will keep out all but the most determined intruders - most kids won't fit that category.

Second gas well variance - Item 10 on agenda

XTO is asking for a variance to the 600' well bore to protected use setback requirement in Section 114.13(A)(4) of the Corinth City Code. XTO has acquired consent agreements and in some cases liability waivers from all land owners that have physical buildings within the 600' distance.

The Lake Sharon Christian Center has buildings between 200' and 300' from the well bores. They too have provided and filed signed consent forms to allow this variance.

With these agreements from the actual impacted land owners and referring to my earlier discussion on drilling rights, I see no real alternative to approving the variance.

We are allowed to impose additional requirements for the reduction in distance. As to what meaningful requirements we could impose that would insure safety, I am unclear.

Additional Information

Gas Well Drilling in Corinth

On April 1, 2010 we have a public hearing and consideration of a permit for Drilling two wells on the west side of Corinth. Already I have been contacted by residents nearby the proposed drilling site (which is near Oakmont and Lake Sharon).

Their primary concerns are with some perceived safety issues with the drilling and pumping operations. One issue brought up about the safety of the kids on their way to the nearby schools and the impact on traffic the drilling operation with its heavy equipment and trucks hauling drilling supplies will have.

I'm examining these issues; as part of that I will be out near the site talking with residents Wednesday night (March 24).

Disc Golf Course decision

We have a decision on the Disc Golf Course on the pavilion hill at Corinth Community Park: the council voted to stop the course.

It was a very difficult decision for me. On the one hand, the volunteers installing the course contacted the city administration, pitched the idea, and received permission from a city official to proceed with the project. Through no fault on their part, the city official did not have the authority to authorize the project. On the other hand, by this point the proper process had been completely ignored, and for my part, I was unable to find a truly compelling desire on the part of residents to complete the park. When I went door to door and spoke to people, almost none even heard of the park and the controversy. While some (less than fifty percent) agreed the park was a good idea and should go ahead, their comments were almost always that "it may be a good idea: I will never use it, but it may be a good idea". In all cases they only wanted the course "if it won't cost the city anything".

Ultimately at the point I had to make a decision for my vote, that cost factor and the lukewarm reception the idea received caused me to vote against the course. The final vote was 4-1 to dismantle the course.

I simply could not be sure that the volunteers would be able to deliver on a "cost free" course for the city. Although the materials had already been purchased, the cost of ongoing maintenance, while not high, was not negligible either. We would have to rely on the volunteers to make it work.

When members of the trails committee expressed that they did not wish to participate in making the trail and the course coexist, it seemed that the only action would be to keep the existing trail and dismantle the course.

Safety could be the deciding factor for Disk Golf in Corinth

At the recent Corinth Trails Committee meeting some information on safety was presented by a resident attending the meeting. Basically, the PDGA guidelines on Disc Golf Course Design discourage building fairways that cross heavily trafficked trails, paths or sidewalks or cross those the same passages blind.

I'll get some of the links up here soon.

At this point, as far as I am concerned, safety is going to be the main issue going forward. We already have a problem in terms of how the project launched without proper input from the Parks and Rec Commission or the Council. As we go through the belated process of public discussion, we will have to sort out the costs and safety issues.

As the course is laid out now, it violates the PDGA principles in that it crosses a well trafficked multiuse trail in several places. I think this has to be addressed to have any chance of going forward. Issues of drainage and erosion control also have to be addressed. I think those are easier to handle, but could be expensive. I can't support adding any significant expense to the city budget to put the course in. We could be forced to spend to correct the problems presented by the de facto course - my gut feel is that will cost less than the design and construction work necessary to bring the course in.

I look forward to seeing the design changes that the Disc Golf volunteers would propose to solve the safety issues.

There is a Parks and Recreation meeting Tuesday February 16th at Corinth City Hall. The disc golf course should be on the agenda.