Sangamon Sun

Logan County Planning and Zoning Committee met Jan. 3.

Here is the minutes provided by the Committee:

Mr. Schaffenacker called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.

A motion was made by Mr. Ruben, seconded by Mrs. Luster, to approve the minutes from December 6, 2017 meeting as printed. Motion carried.

Old Business:

1. Small footprint homes: Mr. D’Andrea discussed that he included an amended Appendix B in the packets, which is the existing Mobile Home and was changed to include Tiny Homes. He discussed adding a new Tiny Home definition, and there is not a standard definition to go off of. Mr. D’Andrea discussed wording that included permanent occupancy on a permanent foundation. He discussed a definition from the International Code Council from 2017 that is defined as 400 square feet or less. He stated that most ordinances define a Tiny Home as one that is 50 to 500 or 600 square feet. Mr. D’Andrea stated that past meeting minutes there was discussion about a minimum of 500 square feet with discussion about the sizes of shipping containers. He stated that the Committee needs to decide on the square footage listed in the Tiny Home wording in the County’s ordinance. Mrs. Luster asked about minimum square footage on acreage. Mr. D’Andrea stated that there is no minimum square footage in an ag zone, just in R1 which is 1,100 or 1,200 square feet. He stated that this particular section of the ordinance is for people who would do a Tiny Home park/subdivision. Mr. Ruben and Mr. D’Andrea discussed that the minimum square footage would need to be decided before moving it forward to the ZBA. Mr. D’Andrea discussed another section, section 2 for sewer and water regulations, and that it references the State Department of Health regulations for sewer and water. He discussed reaching out to the Health Department to see if the Committee would need to make any more decisions on the wording in this section or if it was adequate. Mr. D’Andrea discussed wording in sections 3, 4, and 5 about permits. He stated that he is cleaning up wording discussing the differences in zoning/building permits and conditional use permits. He discussed an example in section 3 where it says a zoning permit is required, to an approval is required. He stated that he suggests scratching the entire section 4 because it is contrary to what was previously discussed in the ordinance and in section 3. Mr. D’Andrea discussed the Environmental Open Space under section 6.1 F, where it talks about the tract of land being 10 acres, which will be changed to 5 acres. He discussed section 6.7 where it talks about separation between Tiny Homes and other structures being 20 feet, but the Committee had discussed allowing garages, so he added language about garages and storage structures. He stated there was another section stating 10 feet between structures, so he was cleaning that up as well. Mr. D’Andrea discussed the section on page 6 about a front yard setback to allow for parking. He discussed page 7 where it talks about changes to the street system, and because they are private streets they will be maintained by the owners. He discussed the secondary entrance road and what would trigger this. He stated that currently it discusses 8 units per acre. Mr. Bateman discussed what the subdivision regulations were. Mrs. Luster and Mr. D’Andrea discussed how the lots would be rented out and who would be responsible for taking care of the roads then, such as the landowner. Mr. D’Andrea discussed page 8 where it calls for an oil and chip driveway and what would the Committee allow for Tiny Homes. He discussed the design of the roads and for pedestrian access. Mr. D’Andrea discussed page 9 where it talked about specifics with the sidewalks, where a minimum sidewalk is 4 feet wide and a typical sidewalk is 5 feet wide. He discussed section 7 for water supply and he has an email out to the Health Department to see if the language was ok. He discussed page 11 where it talks about sewage disposal and he also has asked the Health Department to look at this language. Mr. D’Andrea discussed page 13, section 12.3, where it talks about anchoring of the Tiny Homes and this language was stricken and replaced with built on a foundation. He discussed section 12.4 about storage structures and he is suggesting to strike out b and taking out language about smaller storage structures. He discussed adding section 12.5 about garages, with language for 10 feet from the Tiny Home and it needs to be a detached structure. Mr. Blankenship discussed adding language for the garage size where it says or less than the square footage listed. Mr. D’Andrea discussed  that in the ag district they would be adding language to allow for a Tiny Home park, in addition to a Mobile Home park. Mr. Bateman stated that he would like to strike the language for Mobile Home parks because he doesn’t want to allow anymore in the County. Mr. Blankenship agreed. Mr. D’Andrea discussed that there is added language for a conditional use in a residential district for a Tiny Home subdivision. Mr. Blankenship discussed the section for Electrical Distribution, section 9.1, and he would like the language to include that each Tiny Home would have its own independent electrical service. The Committee agreed to strike d to allow for Mobile Home parks. There was discussion that the only one in the County currently is Morning Side. Mr. D’Andrea stated that they previously discussed having the Tiny Homes go through the planned development process and the current language for this process is outdated and will need to be rewritten. Mr. Bateman asked Mr. D’Andrea to re-write that language and then send it the Committee to be looked over

2. Building standards: Mr. D’Andrea discussed handing out a copy with what should be the final revisions. He discussed section 12.22 where it talks about the project being inspected by an Illinois State licensed home inspector and the inspector shall submit the inspection report to the Zoning Office and that the inspection meets ASHI or InterNACHI standards. He stated that there is language that it will be the responsibility of the homeowner. A motion was made by Mr. Bateman, seconded by Mr. Blankenship, to accept the language as typed. Mr. Ruben asked about the process after this. Mr. D’Andrea stated that it will have to go through the Planning Commission, ZBA, and then voted on by the full Board to go through the public hearing process. He discussed bundling some of these things together to send them through the public hearing process. Motion passed.

3. In-Ground Swimming Pool Permits: Mr. D’Andrea stated that the Committee had discussed what the liability to the County was and he sent this question to the State’s Attorney. He stated that the State’s Attorney sent wording from a statute where it says that a local public entity is not liable for any injury caused by adopting or failing to adopt an act by failing to enforce a new law. Mr. Bateman discussed wanting to do some more research and his intent was to get more taxes from in-ground pools and to keep kids from drowning. Mr. D’Andrea discussed his intent being to prevent kids from drowning.

4. Solar Ordinance: Mr. D’Andrea discussed handing out examples for review and doesn’t have anything new on this topic. Mr. Schaffenacker discussed Mr. Ruben bringing this up at a meeting where it was in the second phase from Swift Current and asked if they had any input on solar projects. Mr. Ruben stated that in talking with William Kelsey, he mentioned that a second phase might be solar rather than wind. Daniel Sheehan, of Swift Current, stated that he doesn’t have any specific information on that. He stated that from conversations he’s had, the second phase of the HillTopper project would also be wind turbines. Mr. D’Andrea discussed that he had brought this topic up because of some farmers reaching out to him after being contacted by solar companies and that there has been some interest in the County.

5. HillTopper Decommissioning Plan: Mr. D’Andrea stated that last month the Committee had asked him to reach out to the windfarm company about a third party reviewing the decommissioning plan and they agreed to that. Mr. Bateman wants to bring it forward to the full Board for discussion. A motion was made by Mr. Bateman, seconded by Mr. Ruben, to bring forward the Decommissioning Plan for discussion with the full Board. Mr. Ruben asked if they were going to have the plan reviewed by a third party, should that be done before discussing the plan with the full Board. Mr. Blankenship agreed with Mr. Ruben. Mr. Bateman stated that he wants the agreement to have Swift Current pay for the third party review to go to the full Board, not the actual Decommissioning Plan. Mr. Ruben stated that because the County is not actually expending any dollars, the Committee could approve the review by the third party. Mr. Blankenship asked if they would be allowing the windfarm company to pick the third party. Mr. Ruben stated the County would pick the third party and the windfarm company would pay for it. He discussed having Mr. D’Andrea pick a third party and have the plan reviewed so that he could bring it back before the Committee next month to be able to have the full Board vote on the Decommissioning Plan next month. Mr. D’Andrea asked if this would be an RFP to select a third party. Mr. Ruben stated that for professional services, they would not have to do an RFP. Mr. Bateman and Mr. Ruben stated that they would like to see this move forward. Mr. Sheehan asked if the Committee would like Swift Current to present them a group to choose from for a third party. Mr. Ruben stated that they would be more likely to know companies to choose from than the County would and that these would be professional organizations. Mr. Schaffenacker stated that he would like it to be with the company that Mr. Blankenship handed out literature on last month. Mr. Ruben asked what company that  was. Mr. Blankenship stated that he was unsure of the name and didn’t have the literature with him. Mr. Ruben stated to bring them forward as a motion. There was discussion about the name not being listed in the minutes from last month and that no one had the literature that was passed out by Mr. Blankenship previously. A motion was made by Mr. Blankenship, seconded by Mr. Ruben, to bring forward the company from last month to do the third party review of the Decommissioning Plan. Motion passed.

New Business:

1. Mr. Ruben discussed with Mr. D’Andrea that the County needs to review the permit fees for the wind towers. He stated that the County is currently at $10 per foot of height and with inflation it would come to $12.50 per foot. Mr. Ruben stated that he had discussed this with APEX on the Sugar Creek Wind Farm. Mr. Bateman asked Mr. D’Andrea to bring what Macon County charges back to the Committee. Mr. D’Andrea stated that he could bring some prices from other counties.

Zoning Officer’s Report: Nothing to report.

A motion was made by Mr. Ruben, seconded by Mr. Bateman to approve the bills. Motion carried.

Communications: None.

Public comments: None.

A motion was made by Mrs. Luster, seconded by Mrs. Davenport, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting ended at 6:12 pm.