Peoria Standard

Peoria County Board Peoria County Board met December 18.

Here is the minutes provided by the Board:

Members Present: James Dillon - Chairperson, Thomas O'Neill, Brian Elsasser, Paul Rosenbohm, Sharon Williams, Brad Harding, Barry Robinson, Rachael Parker

Members Absent: Kate Pastucha

Others Present: Larry Evans - State's Attorney's Office; Scott Sorrel, Shauna

Musselman - County Administration; Andrew Braun, Kerilyn

Gallagher - Planning & Zoning; Mark Little - IT; Eric Dubrowski,

Julie Ciesla – Finance; Phil Salzer – County Board member;

Call to Order:

Mr. Dillon called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m.

Approval of Minutes:

A motion to approve the Land Use Committee Regular session minutes and Executive Session minutes from the November 27, 2017 meeting was made by Mr. O’Neill and seconded by Mr. Elsasser. A vote was taken on the motion and carried. (8-0) (Ms. Pastucha absent.)

Reports/ Other Minutes/Updates:

Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Minutes: No questions or comments.

Unsafe Structures: No questions or comments.

Development Summary: No questions or comments.

Mr. Dillon made a motion to receive and file the reports.

Zoning Case:

053-17-S, Petition of Peoria County:

Mr. Sorrel explained that because this item was not included on the official publication notice the prior Friday, it was not properly noticed and could not be voted on. Mr. Sorrel apologized for the error.

Ms. Gallagher stated that she would be presenting information about the proposed text amendment, which included two topics – an amendment to the fee schedule and ground mounted solar energy. Ms. Gallagher first explained the amendment to the fee schedule, which would change the fees associated with Special Uses. Ms. Gallagher further explained that this fee would only change for Special Use cases that were greater than 100 acres in size. Ms. Gallagher added that the reason behind this fee change was that cases of this size can typically result in multiple hearings and require more staff review and time, resulting in an increased administrative cost. Ms. Gallagher stated that this fee was consistent with Tazewell and McLean counties. Woodford County also imposes a higher fee for larger Special Use cases; however, their fee is higher than the proposed fee for Peoria County.

Ms. Gallagher then discussed the second topic of the proposed amendment, which is ground mounted solar use. Ms. Gallagher explained that, currently, solar panels are permitted when they are attached to a building. This proposed amendment covers panels mounted on the ground for either private, residential use or for solar energy generation facilities. Ms. Gallagher stated that part of the reason why a ground mounted solar ordinance was needed was due to the Future Energy Jobs Act passed recently in the State of Illinois. This act requires that utility companies provide a certain percentage of their energy from renewable sources by 2025 and also provides limited funding to help encourage this type of development. Ms. Gallagher further explained that having this type of solar use included in the ordinance would help promote this type of development in Peoria County.

Ms. Gallagher added that the proposed ordinance was researched and modeled off of 11 neighboring counties’ ordinances. Ms. Gallagher added that there are a couple of neighboring counties that currently do not have a ground mounted solar ordinance, but are also working on drafting one. Ms. Gallagher explained that most of the other ordinances are fairly new, with a majority of them being passed within the past year. In addition to neighboring counties, Ms. Gallagher stated that she also spoke with larger solar developers to understand their need and help balance the proposed ordinance to meet developers’ and residents’ needs.

Ms. Gallagher explained that there are two main types of ground mounted solar uses – private solar and solar energy generation facilities. Private solar use is currently permitted when mounted on a building. This proposed amendment would allow for these panels to also be mounted in the ground. These are generally smaller in size, considered an accessory use on the property, and permitted in all zoning districts. Ground mounted solar energy generation facilities would be permitted by Special Use in A-1, A-2, I-1, and I-2 zoning districts. The review process for ground mounted solar generation facilities would require a Special Use. If approved, the project would then require a building permit and a decommissioning plan. Ms. Gallagher explained that the decommissioning plan ensures that the equipment gets removed properly in the event of abandonment, bankruptcy, etc. The proposed amendment would also exempt solar generation facilities from maximum lot coverage and landscaping requirements. Security fencing would be required and setbacks and height requirements would be consistent with the zoning district. However, the proposed amendment also allows for a 0 foot setback for adjacent property lines in cases where the solar generation facility spans two properties. Additionally, there would be a requirement for generation facilities to be 75 feet from an adjacent residence. This 75 feet setback would not apply to the owner’s residence.

In conclusion, Ms. Gallagher stated that staff had researched this topic and modeled the ordinance on surrounding counties for consistency. Additionally, several solar companies confirmed that the ordinance was consistent with other solar ordinances and was reasonable.

Mr. Dillon asked Ms. Gallagher to go back and discuss the decommissioning plan in more detail. Ms. Gallagher stated that a decommissioning plan would be required as part of the building permit process for a generation facility. This plan would include an estimate for a cost prepared by an engineer for removal as well as a financial security document in the estimated amount of removal. The county would be listed as a beneficiary in the event that Peoria County would have to remove the equipment. Ms. Gallagher stated that the proposed decommissioning plan for solar generation facilities was consistent with the requirements currently in the ordinance for wind energy conversion systems and erosion control.

Mr. Harding asked what condition the property needs to be returned to in the event that the solar equipment is removed, and Ms. Gallagher responded that pylons are used underground, which is the main concern for removal. Ms. Gallagher stated that solar facilities generally do not pave the ground, although they could do so if they chose to. The decommissioning plan states that the ground must be returned to a state reasonably similar to the condition it was in before the solar development. Mr. Harding asked if there were any requirement to remove the pylons, and Ms. Gallagher responded that the decommissioning plan requires that all structures be removed. Mr. Harding stated that he was concerned that the solar use on a farm would impact future drainage of the site once it was removed. Mr. Harding stated that he also did not believe the cost estimates were ever accurate for decommissioning plans. Mr. Elsasser pointed out that there was language in the ordinance that stated that all debris must be removed up to a depth of 4 feet. Mr. Elsasser stated that he would like to see this changed to 6 feet in order to ensure that no drainage tile would be affected. Mr. Dillon asked if 4 feet was standard for other counties, and Ms. Gallagher responded that 4 feet was standard, with the exception of Sangamon county that required 5 feet. Mr. Dillon also pointed out that solar energy generation facilities would have to comply with stormwater drainage requirements. Mr. Harding stated that subsurface drainage was very different than stormwater drainage. Mr. Harding stated that he agreed with Mr. Elsasser that 6 feet would be a preferred depth.

Mr. Dillon pointed out that the ordinance was only the minimum requirement and that all landowners had the right to negotiate stricter terms in their individual agreements with the solar company. Mr. Dillon also pointed out that any changes made to the proposed ordinance at this point would have to be sent back to the Zoning Board to have an additional hearing. Ms. Harding asked if the ordinance stated that land owners could negotiate for stricter regulations in their contracts, and Ms. Gallagher stated that it was not stated because it is true for all instances that the ordinance is only the minimum requirement. Mr. Elsasser pointed out that a farmer would not have to sign a lease if he did not agree to the terms, but he did feel that having this language stated in the ordinance would be beneficial. Mr. Dillon stated that like all requirements in the ordinance, it was the minimum standard that would have to be followed. If someone wanted to go above that standard, they could choose to do so. Mr. Rosenbohm added that he hoped anyone entering into this type of agreement would consult a lawyer.

Mr. Rosenbohm asked if there were anything in Peoria County’s proposed solar ordinance that was different or more strict than neighboring counties, and Ms. Gallagher responded that several counties closer to Chicago had more strict rules; however, in general, the proposed ordinance was fairly similar to neighboring county ordinances. Ms. Gallagher pointed out that some counties required the local fire department to review the project as part of the building permit process; however, Peoria County was proposing to require it as part of the Special Use process. Ms. Gallagher stated that Peoria County will also be requiring a letter from the utility company that the solar company is working with them as part of their Special Use application. Ms. Gallagher concluded that the bulk of the proposed ordinance was consistent with a minimum of 3 counties in the surrounding area.

Mr. Elsasser asked about the 100 acre cutoff, and Mr. Sorrel responded that this applied to any Special Use case, not just solar generation facility Special Uses. Mr. Sorrel explained that the change to the fee schedule for Special Uses over 100 acres in size was to help offset anticipated higher administrative costs that can be associated with cases that are large in physical size. Mr. Sorrel stated that this was a separate topic contained within the text amendment.

Mr. Harding asked what a solar permit would cost for an area 2 acres in size. Ms. Gallagher responded that it would depend on the use of the property. If the use was only for private solar  use and energy consumption with no subscribers to the energy output, then it would be permitted through a normal building permit process with no Special Use required. The permit fee would be .20 cents per square foot as are all other accessory structures. An electrical permit would also be required for the project. Mr. Braun explained that a 2 acre solar generation facility would most likely be far too large for private use and consumption, and would likely be considered a commercial use. Mr. Harding stated that based on the fee schedule, a 2 acre facility would cost approximately $16,000. Mr. Dillon pointed out that panels would not cover a 2 acre portion completely and the permit cost would only be based on the size of the panel, not the property. Mr. Harding responded that even if the cost was reduced by half, it would still be a very expensive permit for private use. Ms. Gallagher explained that there were other factors to consider other than the size of the facility to determine whether it was being used privately or for commercial purposes.

Mr. Rosenbohm asked about agriculture use for solar generation and whether or not they would be exempt or if they would be considered a commercial use. Mr. Braun responded that staff would have to review each case based on its own factors to determine if it would be agriculture exempt. Ms. Parker asked if staff knew how big a typical area for solar panels was for a residence so that they could work from there for a permit cost. Mr. Dillon asked if there was a commercial rate for these type of permits, and Ms. Gallagher stated that it would follow the current commercial rate of $7.50 per $1000 of estimated cost for the project. Mr. Dillon stated that a 2 acre facility being used for commercial purposes would be much less than the .20 cents per square foot.

Mr. O’Neill and Ms. Williams left at this time.

Mr. Harding stated that he has an agriculture facility that consumes a large amount of electricity and a 2 acre area for solar panels would most likely not be sufficient to produce enough electricity for that facility. Mr. Harding asked if it would be agriculture exempt, and Mr. Braun responded that agriculture exempt permits are always reviewed on a case by case basis to determine exemption status. Mr. Braun stated that staff would have to look at case studies and state statute to determine whether or not solar generation facilities could be considered for agriculture exemption. Mr. Harding asked if this should be determined before the final vote, and Mr. Braun responded that agriculture exempt requirements are determined by state statute. Mr. Braun stated that it is very difficult to base a proposed ordinance on a handful of “what if” scenarios. Mr. Braun added that in the case of agriculture exemption staff always looks at past precedence, the principal use of the property, and how these factors apply to the given property and situation.

In response to private solar use, Mr. Braun added that a typical single family home would use 10 kwh of electricity, and that a typical 2 acre solar facility would produce 400 kwh, which would be 40 times the average needed.

Mr. Dillon asked Mr. Evans if the committee would need to meet again to vote on the text amendment or if they could do a poll vote, and Mr. Evans stated that they would need to meet again since the issue was not properly noticed. Mr. Dillon suggested a special meeting before the County Board meeting in January, and Mr. Sorrel added that they would coordinate schedules and notify the committee of a time as soon as possible.

Committee Action:

Review of Executive Session Minutes:

Mr. Evans recommended that all previously held minutes continue to be held as the need for confidentiality still exists, and to destroy all audio recordings of executive session minutes more than 2 years old except for those that are related to pending litigation. A motion was made by Mr. Rosenbohm and seconded by Ms. Parker to accept the recommendation of the State's Attorney's Office. A vote was taken and the motion carried; (6-0). (Mr. O’Neill, Ms. Williams, and Ms. Pastucha were absent.)

Miscellaneous:

Mr. Harding stated that he had just found out that the cell tower in Trivoli denied by the County Board in Zoning Case 018-17-V was lowering its height to 196 feet in order to obtain a permit without needing to go through a variance process. Mr. Harding stated that it was his understanding that as long as the tower met all building permit requirements, it could be placed at the proposed location without needing special approval, and Mr. Braun responded that this was correct since the tower was now shorter than the ordinance maximum height requirement of 200 feet. Mr. Harding stated that he and Captain Brown, owner of the nearby airport, would be traveling to Springfield to fight the tower with FAA officials because of its proximity to the flight path in the area. Mr. Harding welcomed anyone else interested in the cause to travel to Springfield to discuss the issue.

Adjournment: Mr. Dillon adjourned the meeting at 4:00 p.m.

http://www.peoriacounty.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02262018-493