Sangamon Sun

Logan County Planning and Zoning Committee met February 7.

Here is the minutes provided by the Committee:

Present: Scott Schaffenacker; Emily Davenport; Kevin Bateman; Gloria Luster; Chuck Ruben

Absent: Dave Blankenship

Guests: Angela Reiners; Gene Rohlfs

Staff: Will D’Andrea

Mr. Schaffenacker called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.

A motion was made by Mrs. Davenport, seconded by Mrs. Luster, to approve the minutes from January 3, 2018 meeting as printed. Motion carried.

Old Business:

1. Small footprint homes: Mr. D’Andrea stated that there are 3 items in everyone’s packets, one is on Tiny Homes, Section 3. He stated that they will be striking the mobile home park language and adding tiny home park regulations, which is in the agricultural zoning district as a conditional use. Mr. D’Andrea discussed the second page, in the R1 district, they are adding a new use, which would be a tiny home subdivision. He discussed that these are both new uses, and over in Section 10, it is the conditional use portion of the ordinance. Mr. D’Andrea discussed removing language from this section, 10.1, requiring review by Logan County Planning and Zoning Commission. He discussed striking 10.13 where it refers to mobile home parks and there will be a new category called tiny home developments, which include a tiny home subdivision and tiny home park. Mr. D’Andrea discussed Section 10.3 and the planned development process he discussed amending the zoning designation on the zoning map itself. He discussed Section 13 and striking the wording for Zoning Board of Appeals and putting County Board because the Zoning Board of Appeals doesn’t have anything to do with approving of the preliminary plat. He discussed that after that, it would trigger the map change process. Mr. D’Andrea discussed Appendix B for Tiny Home Park Regulations. He discussed striking all the wording for mobile home parks. He discussed the Board needing to make some decisions on the definition of a tiny home, the acreage requirements, having a secondary entrance on a cul-de-sac, and other things. Mr. D’Andrea stated that he spoke with Ryan Williams, of the Health Department, to look at the language from the terms of septic and water supply and wells. He reported that Mr. Williams stated that the existing language is adequate to meet current requirements. Mr. Bateman discussed the re-write of the subdivision ordinance and the secondary entrance requirement. He discussed being in favor of the secondary entrance and the street being only 800 feet long, because of the length of the hoses on the fire trucks. There was discussion about some current subdivisions with only one entrance and no secondary access. There was discussion about what the minimum square footage was going to be for the tiny homes. Mr. Ruben discussed the international code listed minimum square footage at 400 feet or less. Mr. D’Andrea stated that was the only defined minimum square footage definition he could find and the range he found was a variety of numbers. Mr. Ruben asked what the County’s minimum square footage was currently. Mr. D’Andrea reported that for a single family in a residential district, the minimum is 1,200 square feet. Mr. Ruben discussed defining a tiny home from 200 to 800 square feet. Mr. Bateman discussed that if someone wanted a different square footage, they could always apply for a variance. Mr. Ruben stated that he feels the Committee needs to take the information home and come back next month to make some final decisions. There was discussion about minimum lot sizes. Mr. Bateman discussed that currently to build a home in the country you have to have a minimum of 5 acres. He discussed wanting to keep the 5 acres and that would apply to building a tiny home subdivision. Mr. Bateman stated that it would be up to the Health Department to decide how many tiny homes could be on the 5 acre lot with a community septic system. Mrs. Luster asked about discussing all of this ahead of the meeting next month so that they could provide Mr. D’Andrea with some answers. Mr. Ruben stated that it would have to be discussed in the open meeting format. Mr. D’Andrea stated that he would be happy to go through questions any member has before next month. Mr. Schaffenacker reported that the last weekend of April will be a vintage camper and picking rally at the fairgrounds. He discussed this being a good time to unveil the new tiny home ordinance. Mr. D’Andrea stated that the County does already allow tiny homes in a campground type setting. There was discussion that the tiny home subdivision would not allow homes on wheels, but the campground setting would.

2. Building standards: Mr. Schaffenacker discussed that last month the Committee made a motion to accept the language as typed. He stated that it will still have to go through the Planning Commission and ZBA. Mr. D’Andrea stated that was correct.

3. In-Ground Swimming Pool Permits: Mr. Schaffenacker reviewed the minutes from last month on this topic. Mr. Bateman stated that he had not done any further research because he thought the Committee wanted to drop this subject. Mr. D’Andrea stated that he thought the Committee had wanted to do more research on this subject. Mr. Bateman discussed that he thought they decided not wanting to get involved in the legalities. Mr. Schaffenacker reported that last month the States Attorney sent wording to Mr. D’Andrea with a statute where it says that a local public entity is not liable for any injury caused by adopting or failing to adopt. Mr. Schaffenacker asked the Committee if they wanted to drop this or move it on. Mr. Bateman stated that he would like to see it pass. Mrs. Davenport asked if the Committee needed to decide on a dollar amount for the permit. Mr. D’Andrea stated that there are 2 questions the Committee needs to decide on, 1 is whether or not they want to have this regulated and 2 is what the language would be to adopt. He stated that he provided language last month for the Committee to look over such as required fencing, certain heights, and latching gates. Mr. Bateman discussed that they passed a Building Code permit, even though the permit is $0, and the purpose would be to get it on the tax registry. He discussed that an in-ground swimming pool does raise your taxes a significant amount. Mr. Bateman discussed that he would like to make in-ground swimming pools permitted, even if the permit is $20 or less, because it would put it on the radar for taxes. He stated that he does not know what to do with above ground pools because of all the variations. Mr. Ruben agreed and stated that since the in-ground pools have tax implication, he’s ok with making the permit $0 or $20. He discussed that he thought the Committee was trying to decide on all of the fencing decisions and didn’t want to make a rule that they can’t enforce. Mr. Bateman discussed dropping all of the other specifics and just making it so you have to get a permit for an in-ground pool. Mr. Ruben asked Mr. D’Andrea to draw up the language to that effect. Mrs. Luster stated that she agreed with just the permit and taxes and not doing all of the fencing specifications. Mr. Schaffenacker and Mr. Ruben discussed drawing up the language with a $20 permit fee. Mr. Ruben discussed that it’s already in the rules, that no matter what the cost of the permit is, the minimum fine is $200 or double the permit whatever is greater.

4. Solar Ordinance: Mr. Schaffenacker discussed that Mr. D’Andrea gave sample ordinances from Kankakee County, Montgomery County, and Grundy County. He reported that a solar company had reached out to Gene Rohlfs about a solar farm at the Airport. Mr. Rohlfs reported that for this particular solar garden, they don’t pour footings but they drive steel pilings and build a steel grid on those pilings which is what the panels go on. He reported that panels are a maximum of 10 feet high. Mr. Rohlfs stated that he asked the company about reflectivity, and they stated that there would be an engineering study that there would be no reflectivity. He stated that it would absorb the energy instead of reflect it. Mr. Schaffenacker asked if the FAA had been contacted and approved of it. Mr. Rohlfs stated that these solar gardens are being put up at Airports, so the FAA is already dealing with them. He discussed talking with the solar company and telling them the County would only be interested in 16 acres, near Rt. 10, because it’s difficult to farm. Mr. Ruben and Mr. Rohlfs discussed needing to know what’s going on with the Balloon Fest within a couple of weeks too so that decisions could be made on farming. Mr. Rohlfs reported that the proposed solar lease is being looked over by State’s Attorney Jonathan Wright. Mr. Bateman asked if there was any discussion about putting in extra panels to power the Airport. Mr. Rohlfs discussed that every County building could buy into the contract to receive power from the solar garden. He discussed getting the current average usage to the company and they could provide the savings, but are currently estimating 10% on electricity costs. Mr. Bateman stated that he is in favor of having Mr. D’Andrea pick out a sample ordinance to come up with language for Logan County. Mr. Schaffenacker discussed taking the lease from the solar company and the sample ordinances handed out and coming up with language for the County. Mr. Ruben discussed changing wording on the part where it talks about a 2 foot depth and making it a 4 foot depth, for farming purposes. Mr. D’Andrea discussed needing some guidance/direction from the Committee because the samples range from a 1 page document to a 20 page document, with different topics covered such as a solar garden. He stated that if they chose a sample without a solar garden, then what was discussed at the Airport would not happen. Mr. Schaffenacker stated that he would like to put in some work on this before next month’s meeting. Mr. Ruben discussed the one from Montgomery County being the most complete. Mr. Rohlfs asked how close the Committee was to adopting an ordinance so that he could communicate that to the solar company. Mr. Ruben discussed that even if the Committee voted on one next month, it still needs to go through the rest of the approval process. Mr. D’Andrea stated it would be April or May before it would be approved.

5. HillTopper Decommissioning Plan: Mr. D’Andrea discussed contacting Patrick Engineering and they sent back an agreement. He stated that the agreement was reviewed by the States Attorney and Mr. Wright approved it for the Board to sign. Mr. D’Andrea stated that he spoke with Patrick Engineering a couple days prior and told them to proceed with their third party review of the decommissioning plan. Mr. Ruben stated that there is no cost to the County for this review, and that the wind farm would be paying for it. There was discussion about whether this could be approved out of Committee. Mr. D’Andrea stated that it would take Patrick Engineering about 2 weeks for the review. There was discussion about the windfarm wanting the decommissioning plan approved this month and whether that timeframe would be possible. A motion was made by Mr. Bateman, seconded by Mrs. Luster, to approve Patrick Engineering as the independent 3rd party to review the HillTopper Decommissioning Plan. Mr. Ruben discussed whether he had the authority to sign the agreement or not before the Board voted on it. Mr. D’Andrea discussed that they are scheduled to have a conditional use application review for the concrete batch plant that the windfarm submitted and this won’t happen until March. He stated that the Board not signing this agreement will not hold up the process. Mr. Ruben discussed the windfarm company engaging Patrick Engineering since they would be the ones to pay them. Mr. Schaffenacker discussed looking at a review that Patrick Engineering did for Livingston County. Mr. D’Andrea discussed that Patrick Engineering won’t be doing so much of a detailed review, but a higher level review to see if HillTopper has covered all of the decommissioning steps and have they used reasonable approaches with reasonable costs and followed general industry standards. Motion passed.

New Business:

1. HillTopper Condition Discussion: Mr. D’Andrea discussed this topic being a place holder so that if something comes up with the windfarm project he can keep the Committee informed. He stated that he wanted to bring the Committee’s attention to a potential issue coming up. He stated that one of the conditions is National Weather Service Approval and Receipt of Signed Data Sharing Agreement. Mr. D’Andrea discussed this originally coming out of the Sugar Creek wind farm because there was going to be interference with the Lincoln radar and they entered into an agreement with the Weather Service. He reported that so far for HillTopper they have not heard from the National Weather Service and that HillTopper has had what they think are unreasonable requests from the National Weather Service. Mr. D’Andrea stated that on February 1, HillTopper presented him with a letter that they sent to the National Weather Service suggested that what they provided satisfies the criteria. He discussed making a phone call to the National Weather Service in Oklahoma to get their version of what is going on. He stated that they would like something more secure in writing not with just this owner but the following owner of the windfarm. Mr. D’Andrea discussed this leading to someone making a decision on whether HillTopper has met the National Weather Service criteria or not. He stated that the National Weather Service is going to send him an email summary and suggestions of what might be needed for mitigation. He stated the specific condition does require their sign off. He stated that the correspondence is in everyone’s packet.

Zoning Officer’s Report: Mr. D’Andrea reported that Mr. Ruben had asked for other counties’ windfarm building permit fees. Mr. Schaffenacker asked Mrs. Kuhlman to add Building Permit Fees for Turbine Towers to new business for next month. There was discussion that the County is currently at $20 per foot of height for permit fees. Mr. D’Andrea reported that HillTopper is wanting to start construction for the full project on April 1, and they have been bringing a lot of things into the office.

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

Communications:

Public comments:

A motion was made by Mrs. Davenport, seconded by Mrs. Luster, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting ended at 7:30 pm.

https://logancountyil.gov/images/Planning_and_Zoning_020718.pdf