So we're posting the citizen follow up letter instead. Below the follow up letter is the letter sent after the permit was issued without any of the questions asked being answered. Scroll down to AND THEN to read that.
As a follow up on the Rutherford 1H Natural Gas Well site, I would like to provide the following information to support my request for not permitting this site and will add the following information.
The application site plan provided by Chesapeake (in violation of Ordinance) shows the gathering line as being less than 35 feet from an apartment which is a protected use. How can that be reasonable, it is a potential disaster waiting to happen with many lives at stake. Should the City want to be in a position for such an irresponsible act? It is an obvious hazard for which the city would have no defense.
There is supposed to be a Disaster Plan submitted (after all waivers are properly secured). The Disaster Plan Chesapeake submitted shows a line drawn from a fire station to the gas drilling site. Do you really consider that an acceptable disaster plan? I don't.
Even if the Fire Department is notified, their responsibility ends at the pad site boundaries or farther out. The Fire Department has stated they are not trained to deal with emergencies on a gas well pad site. Therefore the Fire Department is not an acceptable disaster plan for gas well sites and disasters. The City's acceptance of such a plan is a fraud on the Fort worth Citizens. It is no plan at all. A satisfactory plan is one whereby the citizens have an ability to secure a copy of the plan and could prepare for an emergency. The City does not have a plan.
The City is in violation of state law to permit this facility.
TEX LG. CODE ANN. § 253.005 : Texas Statutes - Section 253.005: LEASE OF OIL, GAS, OR MINERAL LAND
"(c) A well may not be drilled in the thickly settled part of the municipality."
This immediate area can not be a more thickly settled area as a community and with the placement of a well site literally in the middle of that community is contrary to Sec 253.005 of state law .
I will say again, this well site violates nearly every common sense approach and it also violates numerous legal regulations. The Rutherford 1H does not belong at the proposed location.
I must ask if this is the typical Natural Gas Well approval process for the City of Fort Worth? Is there any over site on the process?
How did this application go through the Gas Drilling Review Committee and no one caught any irregularities, particularly the one regarding no application is to be accepted without all of the waivers? I look forward to an explanation to all of my questions.
AND THEN -
FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL
The permit was recently issued for the Rutherford 1H gas well site despite my questions below questioning its inappropriate location.
The City ignores the fact this location is inside a TIF which has a stated purpose to enhance the area and a natural gas well is an obvious detractor for this or any area. The City also ignores that with a TIF, there are partners such as Tarrant County and others that are required to be consulted in a certain manner and was not done.
The City acknowledges there is a resident that lives in the apartment within the main office building of the Woodhaven Self Storage, or about 75 feet from the pad site. The city acknowledges the need to have a resident manager located there for adequate security, yet nothing was done to protect the Woodhaven Self Storage business that has been in operation several years and a benefit to local residents or the Resident Manager. Chesapeake's waiver states there is not a permanent resident. None the less, there is a resident and that is not in doubt.
The Texas State law (Sec. 253.005) forbids a well being drilled in a thickly settled part of the municipality. If every square inch of an area is developed with residential or residential friendly shops, eating establishments or a grocery store, with one exception and that is one piece of property where the well is to be located in the very middle, how can that not be considered thickly settled? This is contrary to the intent of the State Legislature and wrong.
For all intensive purposes, the City is Spot Zoning for the gas drilling industry and that violates common sense and Texas Law.
The following is an excerpt from: An Overview of Zoning in Texas, THE ZONING ENABLING ACT ZONING AND LAND USE IN TEXAS by David M. Berman, Nichols, Jackson, Dillard, Hager & Smith, L.L.P.
Spot zoning.
Spot Zoning generally refers to a singling out of a specific tract of land for a zoning use classification that is different and inconsistent with that of the surrounding area for the benefit of the owner of the property and to the detriment of the rights of other property owners. "Spot zoning" was described in Pharr v. Tippett as connoting "an unacceptable amendatory [zoning] ordinance that singles out a small tract for treatment that differs from that accorded similar surrounding land without proof of changes in conditions. . . . Spot zoning is regarded as preferential treatment which defeats a pre-established comprehensive plan. . . . It is piecemeal zoning, the antithesis of planned zoning."
From PHARR V. TIPPITT: A common element present in all cases which have condemned spot zoning is that in each case a small area (in relation to all of the area affected by rezoning) was singled out for treatment which was different from that of surrounding land. See McWhorter v. City of Winnsboro, 525 S.W.2d 701 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler 1975, writ ref'd n. r. e.). Spot zoning is legal only if justified by a change in conditions which affect the area in question, or where there is evidence of definite community need because of changed conditions which bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare which cannot reasonably be met otherwise. Thompson v. City of Palestine, supra; Weaver v. Ham, supra.
The City of Fort Worth appears to be playing outside of the bounds of Texas Law and common sense.
I am suggesting the City Council start requesting copies of the State Law be provided to them when the City legal department says you may act in a certain way when it doesn't make sense. Under State Law, it is presumed YOU know the law.
I requested information recently from the City about how it can justify questionable actions taking place within the city, like the ability of the City attorney to provide a definition of grandfathering that is different than what is stated in the Ordinance. It was refused. The State law says the words are to be used as they are written, if they are unambiguous. There is nothing in state law that says that the City Attorney can in effect, rewrite the ordinance behind closed doors in a manner different than what is clearly stated because she believes the intent was different.
Is there a reason I should not have access to how my City is being regulated? When I request what Ordinance or what State Statute authorizes the City to conduct itself in a certain manner, do I not have a right to know? I am not seeing open government; what I see is a City Government trying to hide something.
I would appreciate your comments or concerns.
No comments:
Post a Comment