Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Williams County panel approves variance for two small lots despite ExxonMobil objection
Summary
The Williams County Planning Commission approved a variance allowing two 2.07-acre lots to remain in the Agricultural Zoning District on land owned by Roger Baker, after public comment from ExxonMobil and local residents. The commission’s approval carries to the County Commission for final action.
The Williams County Planning Commission voted to approve a variance on April 15 permitting two 2.07-acre lots created by a minor subdivision of Roger Baker’s property to remain in the Agricultural Zoning District.
The request, filed as LUDash6Dash25, would create three lots from a roughly 78.95-acre parent parcel in Hoffman Township. The proposal would leave a larger ~74.93-acre parcel and two 2.07-acre parcels in agricultural zoning so Baker’s children could build homes in the future. Recordation of the plat was made contingent on approval of the variance.
The applicant and county staff described the proposal. Michelle (county planning staff) told the commission the parcel is in the south half of the southeast of Section 10, Township 154 North Range 96 West, and that, “Recordation of the plot will be contingent on the approval of the variance.”
Kevin Reichling, who identified himself as a development coordinator with ExxonMobil (XTO Energy affiliate), urged the commission to deny the variance, saying the land overlaps a planned oil-and-gas well pad that XTO has been planning since 2019. Reichling told commissioners the well pad “was surveyed at the time, with the landowner’s knowledge,” and said XTO had mobilized rigs and infrastructure in the area and “we have not found a suitable alternative location for this well pad without causing pretty significant drilling challenges and ultimately a loss of resource recovery.” He asked the commission to “take into consideration our planned development.”
Andy Thomas, president of Energy Sand Solutions LLC, told the commission his company “has no conflicts with Roger developing the residential lots on Section 10” and said Energy Sand Solutions and Baker “will continue to work hand in hand” on both projects.
Roger Baker, the landowner, explained the lots are located on “the highest spot on the east 40 acres” and said he and his family expect to use the lots for residences. Baker described prior interactions with XTO and said the new lots are intended for his children to have permanent addresses there.
Commissioners discussed legal limits on local control of mineral activity and setbacks for well pads. Michelle and other commissioners noted mineral siting and oil-and-gas permitting occur at the state level (Industrial Commission), and that the county does not control where a company locates a well pad. Commissioner comments included concern for property owners’ rights and for potential legal consequences if the county denies an applicant who otherwise follows local procedures.
Commissioner Dan (motion maker) moved to approve the variance with staff comments; the motion was seconded and passed on roll call. The commission advised the applicants to attend the County Commission meeting for additional dialogue; staff noted the matter will proceed to the County Commission for final action.
Votes at roll call were recorded as: George — yes; Mark — no; Dan — yes; Cheryl — no; Eric — yes; Brett — yes; Barry — yes; Tate — yes. The motion carried.
The commission opened and closed the public hearing for the item during the meeting; no formal conditions beyond staff comments were recorded in the hearing transcript. The planning commission recommended approval; the county commission will consider the recommendation at a subsequent meeting.
