Council takes no action on developer appeal of tree-preservation buffer tied to pipeline easement

Tomball — The City Council on Feb. 17 heard an appeal from Investment and Development Ventures LLC seeking relief from buffer-zone requirements in Article 11 (tree preservation) where a 30-foot pipeline easement runs along the property’s eastern boundary. Council ultimately recommended no action while urging the developer to pursue agreements to preserve tree screening for adjacent homeowners.

City planning staff explained the code requires an 18-foot buffer when development abuts single-family residential zoning but reduces that buffer to 15 feet where a “parallel easement” such as a pipeline exists. The developer requested relief from the 15-foot buffer outside the pipeline easement because the combined 30-foot pipeline easement plus a 15-foot buffer would remove nearly 45 feet of developable width, the developer said.

Craig, the presenting planner, warned the council that the pipeline easement is controlled by the pipeline company and “if the pipeline company comes in and clears it, which they have every right to do and we can't stop them, they're not bound because we legally can't require them to replace or do anything. It would just be bare land.” Council members noted Tandem Energy was identified as the pipeline owner and that the line is active.

Why it matters: Residents on the northeastern edge of the property would face a direct view into future development if the pipeline easement were cleared, councilmembers said. Several council members pressed the developer to find ways to retain a vegetated buffer — for example, acquiring or obtaining maintenance assurances from the homeowner association land north of the site — rather than relying on mitigation requirements that apply off-site.

Developer response and next steps: The developer told council representatives they had verbal agreement from Tandem Energy to allow paving to the pipeline’s centerline and said they would seek written documentation. The developer also said that without relief the project’s leasable building area — and therefore its tax potential — would be substantially reduced. Council member discussion concluded with a recommendation to take no action on the appeal at this meeting and ask the developer to return with alternatives, agreements or documentation to preserve screening for nearby homeowners.

Council guidance to staff and developer included evaluating whether the developer could acquire or contract with the HOA for the forested triangle and whether Tandem Energy would provide a written agreement permitting the developer’s proposed improvements. The council did not vote to grant the appeal.