RIGHT OF WAY PROBLEMS
The Steven Garth Smith Story
“Mr. Smith is concerned that repeated attempts to engage Dominion
in discussions have been dismissed by Dominion.” (67)
“Dominion may not rely on the eminent domain authority
to enlarge the width of its right-of-way beyond this limit.” (68)
“The proposed route would require removing all the trees from his property line”. (69)
“Dominion has informed him that he cannot
replant the trees after construction is complete.” (69)
“We will require, in Environmental Condition No. 26,
that Dominion incorporate Smith Variation 2 into its project route
and include updated alignment sheets, or provide sufficient justification
for retaining its original route.” (74)
Mr. Stephen Garth Smith states that while he is not opposed to the project, he is
concerned that repeated attempts to engage Dominion in discussions have been dismissed by Dominion.
We reiterate our expectation that all applicants will engage in meaningful
negotiations with all affected landowners.
Mr. Smith is concerned primarily with the width and location of Dominion’s proposed right-of-way.
68.
Steven Garth Smith believes that Dominion is seeking to obtain a 65-foot-wide operational right-of-way across his property, which would be inconsistent with the 50-foot-wide operational right-of-way described in Dominion’s application and in the EA.
Mr. Smith states that a 65-foot-wide right-of-way has already been flagged on his property, which extends the right-of-way to his water well.
We stress that this order grants Dominion only a 50-foot-wide operational right-of-way for the portion of its proposed right-of-way route across the Smith property.
Consequently, Dominion may not rely on the eminent domain authority conferred by NGA section 7(h) to enlarge the width of its right-of-way beyond this limit.(51)
69.
Mr. Smith asserts the proposed route would require removing all the trees from the south and southwest side of his home, including a large row of trees that have historically marked his property line.
Mr. Smith explains these trees are of particular importance, as his home was deliberately sited to utilize the shade of the tree line to provide natural cooling for the house.
He also relies on these trees to provide a break from the wind and weather, to dampen traffic noise from Pisgah Road (located approximately 200 feet from his house), and to sever off-road vehicles’ access to his property.
Because the proposed Dominion pipeline is adjacent to and parallel with a Texas Eastern right-of-way used by off-road vehicles, Mr. Smith is concerned that if the tree line is removed, these vehicles’ access will be no longer be blocked.
Mr. Smith states that Dominion has informed him that he cannot replant the trees after construction is complete. We clarify that while trees cannot be planted within the operational pipeline right-of-way, trees could be replanted within the construction right-of-way and any adjacent extra work areas after construction is complete.
70.
To avoid losing his trees, Mr. Smith has presented Dominion with variations to the
proposed route that he believes would lessen the environmental impacts on his property. He suggests three variations.
71.
The first variation would relocate Dominion’s pipeline from its currently proposed
weather, to dampen traffic noise from Pisgah Road (located approximately 200 feet from his house), and to sever off-road vehicles’ access to his property. Because the proposed Dominion pipeline is adjacent to and parallel with a Texas Eastern right-of-way used by off-road vehicles.
72.
The second variation would move the proposed route approximately 190 feet to
the southeast so it would parallel three existing and active Texas Eastern rights-of-way located on an adjacent property.
As currently proposed, this pipeline route would skirt the property line between these two properties, with the majority of the construction right-of-way on the commentor's property.
We note that this variation would reroute the proposed pipeline from approximately MP37.5 to MP38.3 near the Water Dam Road crossing. Mr. Smith declares that the landowner of the adjacent property approves of this variation.
73.
The third variation would move the proposed route to the north of Mr. Smith’s
house, avoiding the trees on the south/southwestern side of his house.
Similar to the second variation, this revision would require that the proposed location of the route through Mr. Grooms' property be shifted northward at approximately MP3
north of Mr. Smith's house across his property, and rejoin the proposed route before
Water Dam Road (~MP38.3) on the Southwestern Pennsylvania Water Authority
property.
This variation would remove substantially more forested lands than either the
current proposed route or the second variation. In addition, this variation would establish a new right-of-way that does not parallel an existing right-of-way, which is contrary to the Commission’s preference for routing along an established right-of-way where possible, as this generally reduces the impacts of a new right-of-way.
74.
Based on our review of the variations provided by Mr. Smith, only the second
alternative appears to be viable, as it appears it would not add additional environmental impacts.
Therefore, we will require, in Environmental Condition No. 26, that Dominion
incorporate Smith Variation 2 into its project route and include updated alignment sheets, or provide sufficient justification for retaining its original route.
mDominion Transmission, Inc - Docket No. CP10-448-000
June 16, 2011
m
No comments:
Post a Comment