Will County Planning and Zoning Commission met Oct. 5.
Here are the minutes provided by the commission:
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Stipan said all those that are going to speak or testify tonight I hope you are signed in. If you have not signed in and wish to we will do that shortly.
Chairman Stipan swore in the people in the gallery.
Chairman Stipan asked everyone to put their phones in Airplane Mode or turn them all the way down so the volume is off.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Kimberly Mitchell led the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM
Chairman Hugh Stipan called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Michael Carruthers | Commissioner | Present | |
| Kimberly Mitchell | Commissioner | Present | |
| Hugh Stipan | Chairman | Present | |
| Barbara Peterson | Present | ||
| John Kiefner | Commissioner | Present | |
| Roger Bettenhausen | Commissioner | Present | |
| Matthew Gugala | Present |
Land Use Staff present were Kris Mazon, Lisa Napoles, Marguerite Kenny, and Dawn Tomczak.
Chris Wise was present from the Will County State's Attorney's Office.
County Board Member Judy Ogalla was also present.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Planning and Zoning Commission - Public Hearing - Sep 7, 2021 6:30 PM
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0, with no corrections or additions. Mitchell, Peterson, and Gugala abstained from the Vote due to their absence at the last meeting.
| RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 0]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Stipan, Kiefner, Bettenhausen ABSTAIN: Mitchell, Peterson, Gugala |
1. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended for zoning case ZC-21-017, RDK Ventures, LLC, Owner of Record, (Mac’s Convenience Stores, LLC (Couche-Tard US, Inc.) (50.01% interest); Equilon Enterprises (Royal Dutch Shell, PLC) (49.99% interest); full list of interests are on file) and Ryan Swanson, Arc Design Resources, Inc., Agent , requesting (M-21-005) Map amendment from C-2/C-3 to C-4, (S-21-008) Special Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for Major Motor Vehicle Fueling Station and (S- 21-006) Special Use Permit for Package Liquor Sales, PIN # 19-09-24-101-013-0000; 19-09-24-101-016-0000 (Petition of Consolidation #2021-39), in Frankfort Township also known as 7654 Lincoln Highway, Frankfort, IL, County Board District # 2
Chairman Stipan announced that this Case is to be Tabled to the December 7, 2021 meeting.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
| RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 12/7/2021 6:30 PM TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala |
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case #ZC-21-073, which takes place in Wheatland Township.
There are four Variances requested under this Zoning Case. They are requesting a Variance for minimum side yard setback from 50 feet to 3.03 feet on the north side. A Variance for minimum side yard setback from 50 feet to 16.82 feet on the south side. A Variance for minimum lot frontage from 300 feet to 133.3 feet. Also a Variance for minimum lot area from 10 acres to 2.188 acres.
This property is an A-1 zoned property.
You can see the image on the screen. It is not a typical A-1, it is one of five parcels that are A-1 and are surrounded by the City of Naperville.
The subject parcel is only 2.188 acres in size. It is generally located roughly ¾ of a mile north of 95th Street and west of Route 59.
In that area we have townhouses to the east and then we have a mix of single family homes to the north and south. Directly west of the subject property is a park associated with the White Eagle Subdivision.
The subject site is accessed from a driveway on the west side of the property, which accesses Route 59. So, it actually goes to the east to Route 59.
There are several old trees on the property and also a lot of vegetable gardens and flower gardens. The site is well maintained and in pristine condition.
The applicant is actually looking to build an addition to the existing residence.
On the screen we have a Plat of Survey. You can see that the existing residence is built encroaching into the setbacks. There’s also a detached shed/gazebo that is also encroaching into the setbacks. So, the applicant is here to bring the property into conformance to be able to build the additions.
Looking at the proposed Site Plan, really they’re looking to just add a couple areas to their existing house. They have submitted Building Permits to do so. Basically, they are continuing the existing building line, they are not encroaching further into any side yard setbacks. They are looking to just go behind the house towards the back. The septic field is located in the front yard, so they are not encroaching into any septic areas. They are just looking to have a little bit more floor space to the house that was initially built in 1967.
Looking at the Zoning Map, you can see these five parcels are zoned A-1 and is surrounded by Residential Zoning Districts within the City of Naperville.
Now we’re just looking at some images. This first one is looking west towards the rear of the property. The tree line is located along that southern property line, so this is the southern setback. This is the northern property line looking east towards Route 59. This is looking at the rear of the property towards Route 59. This is looking at an existing agricultural stable. There used to be a horse on the property, but there no longer is. This is actually looking immediately north of the subject property at the adjacent A-1 parcel. This is looking back towards Route 59 along the south side of the property. You can see the flowers and the landscaping there. That’s the area for one of the proposed additions. This is another photo looking east towards Route 59. This is taken along that southern property line. This image is actually looking west from the rear of the home. You can definitely see some mature trees and some evergreen trees. These trees actually serve as a buffer. On the top left is where the residential single-family houses are within the City of Naperville. Directly behind, so the center and upper right, is the screening from the park that’s right there next to the property.
Of the agencies notified, none have objected.
Staff is recommending approval of all four Variances.
I can take any questions that you may have.
Chairman Stipan said I have no questions. Does anyone have any questions? No response.
Chairman Stipan said thank you. Are the owners or an agent here?
A gentleman in the gallery raised his hand.
Chairman Stipan said you have recommended approvals and we have no questions from anybody. You’re welcome to come down and speak if you want to or you can just stay there. Do we have any objectors or concerned citizens to this Case?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said it’s up to you if you want to come down and speak or if you just want us to take a vote we can do that.
The gentleman in the gallery said I’m good, thank you.
Chairman Stipan said okay.
3. Motion to Approve a Variance for Minimum Side Yard Setback from 50 Feet to 3.03 Feet (North Side)
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner SECONDER: Barbara Peterson, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala |
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner SECONDER: Barbara Peterson, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala |
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner SECONDER: Barbara Peterson, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala |
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner SECONDER: Barbara Peterson, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala |
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-035, which takes place in Washington Township.
These next two Zoning Cases on your Agenda are for Special Uses for solar farms.
These actually were approved Special Use Permits back in early 2018. They went through the Special Use process and were approved by the County Board. With regards to the submittal to the State for the Adjustable Block Program, they were one of the wait listed projects. They were not awarded with the State Lottery for building solar farms.
The State recently updated their legislation for the Adjustable Block Program. They will be reconsidering the wait listed projects and potentially green lighting them to get built. The projects that are wait listed have to make sure that their zoning is up to date and appropriate.
This Zoning Case did previously go through the two Special Use extensions, which basically granted them another year. Since the Zoning Case went forward in 2018 and it’s been three years, so they are starting over.
They’re going to start with a new Special Use Permit. If it’s approved and they still don’t get the Special Use built within two years, they would still have the two extensions of up to 180 days each request that could be approved by the County Board.
Since this is a brand new request, I’m just going to summarize it, plus it’s been a few years.
The owner is Chanemcoco LLC, where Charlotte Alyce Andres is 100% beneficiary.
The agents are Keri Williams of GreenbergFarrow and Justin Hardt of Borrego Solar.
As you’re aware, this is for a solar farm. If approved, it would allow the applicant to construct a 2 megawatt solar farm on this property.
The subject property is located at the intersection of South Cottage Grove Avenue and East Indiana Avenue. It is located on the north side and is approximately a quarter mile from the eastern boundary of the Village of Beecher.
Looking at the subject site, on the top left is actually the Village of Beecher limits. In the blue shaded box is the proposed Special Use area. The subject parcel is 72.83 acres in size, but the Special Use area is only 17.23 acres.
Looking at the Plat of Survey, there are some wetlands shown on the site. The proposed Special Use area is contained to the furthest east side, closer to the overhead power lines that run along the eastern property line.
Looking at an excerpt from the proposed Site Plan. The applicant is seeking to install multiple rows of solar panel arrays, so roughly 6,480 panels.
The panels will be located north to south. They will be mounted on a single axis tracking system, so they would be following the sun’s rays throughout the day.
The equipment pad would be located approximately 375 feet from the nearest property line.
There will be 16 string inverters which will be centrally located on the site. The inverters are the loudest piece of equipment associated with solar farms as you recall. Since they are located roughly 215 feet from the nearest property line, the noise would be equivalent to the noise produced in a quiet room.
The property will be remotely monitored through computer systems to monitor the maintenance. Annual maintenance, where personnel comes out to the site, would happen on a need to need basis or roughly 1 to 2 times a year just to make sure that all the electrical components and things like that are maintained.
Landscaping will be required for the site. The previous Zoning Case did require screening along the road frontage and that is still one of the requirements per the Zoning Ordinance and one of the proposed conditions.
Staff has also increased the language of these conditions to insure that there is a maintenance plan regarding these landscape plans to be submitted as part of the Building and Site Development Permits. So, this would be the ground cover seed mix, the lot number associated with the seed mix, the re-seeding schedule, and things like that. Those are some things that would need to be approved as part of that landscape plan.
Looking at the Zoning Map, this subject property is completely surrounded by A-1. There are some Estate Residential parcels to the north and then we have some residential within the Village of Beecher. I also want to point out, directly south of this property is the next Zoning Case, ZC-21-037, which would be very similar to this proposal.
Now we are just looking at some images of the subject property. This is looking north from East Indiana Avenue. We’re looking northwest along the property towards that existing wetland on the subject property. The existing trees and things like that provide a natural buffer for the residences towards Cottage Grove.
In the winter time you can see the barn and similar structures. Looking west along eastern Indiana. Looking towards the overhead transmission lines where the interconnection agreement would be tapping on and feeding into the grid. This is looking northeast along East Indiana Avenue and then looking east again. Some of these photos are from the previous Zoning Case, you can tell from the different seasons and the different conditions.
With regards to the agency comments, Staff notified the Will County Health Department, the Will-South Cook Soil and Water Conservation District, Will County Division of Transportation, the Village of Beecher, the Beecher Fire Protection District, and Washington Township. Of these agencies, only the Washington Township Board voted and provided comment. They actually voted to deny this request this time around, mainly noting their concerns about the landscaping and the conditions of this property and the immediate agricultural field around the property. A copy of the letter has been provided within your Staff Reports.
Staff is recommending approval with 14 conditions. The first one is your typical site inspection. Going on, many of these are similar to the previous Special Use. Staff has enhanced Condition #4 where perennial vegetative ground cover must be established and maintained in all areas containing the solar arrays to prevent erosion and manage stormwater run-off. The seeding mix details, re-seeding plan and timeline, weed management practices, and mowing schedule shall be completed by an Agricultural Specialist or Agricultural Consultant and included in the landscape plan. A landscape plan shall be submitted at the time of the Site Development and/or Building Permit applications. Condition #5, again they are required to screen along the right-of-way, so along East Indiana Avenue and any residences within 1,000 feet. So, Condition #5 is just to make sure that they are providing a landscaped area at least 10 feet in width with one shrub per 5 linear feet and at least one evergreen tree per 25 linear feet and provide a certain height. The weed management practices should be stated within the landscape management plan. Outdoor lighting is prohibited except for that which is required by Building Code. The other big condition is that the owner/operator shall retain an agricultural specialist or agricultural consultant to serve as part of the development team and/or the construction team. So, this agricultural specialist shall be retained prior to submission of the Site Development and/or Building Permit. So, this is a new condition that we’ve been placing on other Special Use Permits for solar farms to ensure that the agricultural integrity of the land is protected at all times. For 13 and 14, when they come forward for the Building Permit or Site Development Permit, they are required to furnish a copy of the decommissioning plan and also provide that to all property owners of the property within the boundaries. Then we require a copy of the affidavit attesting that they’ve received copies of those plans. #14 is just a completed
Interconnection Agreement with ComEd to be able to connect into the existing utility.
I’m happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Stipan asked, has the status of the solar farms been changed in Illinois to allow first come, first served or are we still under the lottery system?
Marguerite Kenny said it is my understanding that they are not repeating the lottery system, but they are opening for more solar. Within the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act that was recently signed into law, they are looking to significantly increase the amount of green energy projects within the State. So, solar farms are going to be increased in number. I think they want to give priority to the projects that submitted under the lottery system and have been wait listed. They have done a lot of their due diligence, they have gone through the zoning, and it’s just a matter of will they get the credit from the state to start construction. Then, they would have to come before the County and submit for the Permits.
Chairman Stipan said so the ones that have been previously approved, its first come, first served as far as the County’s concerned, correct?
Marguerite Kenny said most of the wait listed projects have expired Special Uses, so they would be coming forward again in the same situation as tonight. They would be starting fresh with a new Special Use. Then we would submit their new Special Use Permit if they get approved to the State, then the State would potentially approve their project. They would submit their Permits and go forward.
Chairman Stipan said okay, thank you. Does anyone else have any questions?
John Kiefner asked, do you think Condition #4 would address the concerns of Washington Township? The County will have a way to enforce if they deem that the plan is not being followed.
Marguerite Kenny said as far as the County’s regulations as it sits within the Zoning Ordinance, any property that’s over 2-1/2 acres, we don’t enforce weeds. If they are noxious weeds, we can enforce the State’s Ordinance regarding noxious weeds. In terms of going out and requiring them to mow and it’s over 2-1/2 acres, that’s something currently under our Zoning Ordinance that are exempt from meeting the weed management. With Condition #4, we did previously meet with the Will County Farm Bureau and the Illinois Extension Office. Some of their suggestions were to get the seed mix details so we could figure out what the lot numbers were, what the germination rates were, and what the suggested planting schedule would be for ground cover planting for the grasses, native planting mix, and things like that. This way we can get a better idea once they get rooted and established in the ground, weeds should really be inhibited from taking effect in those areas. However, with regards to these Special Uses, the Special Use is contained to the lease area that the applicants enter into with the property owners. So, if a farmer decides not to farm their agricultural fields for a year to allow for the building of the solar farm, that’s outside of the jurisdiction of the Special Use.
John Kiefner said specifically they point out the height of the weeds. I know the no mow mixes and the pollinator mixes are big. They’re going to seed things 20 or 40 inches, but it could be part of the plan.
Barbara Peterson said we add all of these conditions to cases. Who checks the conditions to make sure everything is copasetic?
Marguerite Kenny said part of the Building Permit process when they submit the application, we review it, and we also actually review the Ordinance of the Special Use. Any properties that have Special Uses approved, we do review the conditions. As far as conditions on the Special Use, if properties are called for potential violation of those conditions, there is a process to go through to get them to come into compliance. If they fail to come into compliance, there is a revocation process of the Special Use. Our goal is to always bring them into compliance the best way possible.
Barbara Peterson asked, who does Land Use look to, to get violations?
Marguerite Kenny said we look to the citizens of Will County. We are complaint based.
Barbara Peterson said that would be the Police.
John Kiefner said so, in this case, the Washington Township Supervisor could report that there’s noxious weeds and ask the County to step in. Marguerite Kenny said correct. We have existing solar farms and we have had complaints about weeds. We have retained an agricultural specialist of our own who is specialized in noxious weeds to go out and identify if there’s any on these existing solar farms. I believe they are forthcoming this week and they will be taking a look to see if there are any. Then, we will work with the property owner and the solar companies to come into compliance if there are any identified.
Barbara Peterson asked, what are we looking at for a length of time for this particular Zoning Case? How many years?
Marguerite Kenny said what we’ve seen in the past with the lottery, they were award in January, 2019. Of the 5 that were awarded or granted projects, we’re still in the review/permitting phase for 1 of the 5. The other 4 have been issued and are actually being constructed right now. So, potentially 2 years down the road. It could be longer, it just depends.
Barbara Peterson said no, how long do they keep this equipment?
Marguerite Kenny said with solar farms, it depends on the lease. Typically, they do enter into lease agreements for 20 year terms with possible extensions.
Barbara Peterson said okay, so at least 20 years. With the decommissioning of them, where’s all this metal put? I think it’s metal, isn’t it?
Marguerite Kenny said all of the components are stated within the Decommissioning Plan that are to be removed from the site. They are to be properly disposed of or even recycled. With the Decommissioning Plan and the State’s requirement of the Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreement (AIMA), they do have to appropriately dispose of them. They have to clean up the site and restore it to the condition before the solar farm came. This would allow the site to be agriculturally productive again.
Barbara Peterson said with the location of where this and the next Case is going, this is the eastern ingress/egress to Beecher and Washington Township. It’s a very traveled road. There’s 4 main roads that come into Beecher. Some have commercial and others don’t. We are agricultural. Is Will County still an agricultural County or are we going to be renamed a solar County?
Marguerite Kenny said I think that’s something this Commission and the County Board has to decide with these requests going forward. If you want solar, based on what the requirements are, it’s up to the Commission and the County Board.
John Kiefner said I could make a legitimate argument, because there’s probably more square footage of Amazon warehouse’s than there is solar in Will County.
Barbara Peterson asked, are we going to become a warehouse County?
John Kiefner said Washington Township is addressing that this is a commercial corridor and the ingress to Illinois. I guess I find it ironic that we’re worried about what the people of Indiana think when they come into Illinois.
Barbara Peterson said I don’t worry about Indiana, I worry about Illinois. I worry about Washington Township and the eastern part of Will County.
John Kiefner said in their letter, they address the image that presents when you come into Illinois and you see solar farms.
Chairman Stipan said when you go into Indiana you see windmills. You go right down 41 and it’s just loaded with windmills.
John Kiefner said or you see billboards telling you about cheaper cigarettes and gasoline because of lower taxes.
Barbara Peterson said I like corn more than solar. I will tell all of you right now that I will concur with the Supervisor of Washington Township. My vote will be No on this. I’m not going to be one of these people that’s a futuristic type of a female. I’ve never been and I never will be. So, that will be my vote. I still like my corn, my beans, my wheat, and my alfalfa. I’m not too happy with solar.
Chairman Stipan asked, does anybody else have any questions of Staff? No response.
Chairman Stipan asked, Miss Ogalla would you like to speak now or would you like to wait until you hear from the solar people?
County Board Member Judy Ogalla said sure, I can wait.
Chairman Stipan said we won’t take a vote without listening to you, okay?
County Board Member Judy Ogalla said I would like to talk before you vote possibly.
Chairman Stipan said yes, that’s what I said. We won’t take a vote without listening to you.
County Board Member Judy Ogalla said okay, thank you.
Chairman Stipan said may I have the agents or the owners please. Are there any objectors or concerned citizens to this case?
No response.
Chairman Stipan asked, would you please come up here to the podium? Please introduce yourself and give your address.
Kip Smith introduced himself. I am with Borrego Solar. I’m the developer of the 2 projects. We’re talking about -035 now, but -037 is a mirror image on the south side. I’m a Senior Civil Engineer with Borrego. We were involved with the whole process from the start a few years ago when we went through this. Keri can introduce herself, she works for Borrego as a third party engineering consultant.
Keri Williams introduced herself. I’m with GreenbergFarrow. I’m a Civil Engineer and I’ve been working on a lot of the applications and the due-diligence part of the project. I am also preparing the plans.
Chairman Stipan asked, would you like to explain your actions in requesting the Special Uses for this solar farm?
Kip Smith said sure. As I think it was stated previously, there’s a goal from the State to provide renewable energy. It’s been ongoing for a number of years. Legislation has changed now from the previous version, but the goal is the same. So, there’s multiple projects across the state in both ComEd and Ameren territory to build these so-called community solar projects capped at 2 megawatt's. 2 megawatt's is equivalent to powering 150-200 homes roughly. Unfortunately, it was so successful and so wildly over-subscribed the first time around that we just weren’t able to build it the first time. So, we’re back here asking essentially for what we asked for 2 years ago. Technology has actually improved since then. The modules are more efficient now. The footprint might actually be a little bit smaller than what shows on the plan by the time we do the final design. A couple of things I heard, obviously I’m not going to change your mind. I will say, relative to many other developments and I think you mentioned an Amazon warehouse or something, one thing that we’re not doing is harming the potential to farm the land. The topsoil remains and everything remains. If, for whatever reason, solar makes no sense 30 years from now or 25 years from now and we decommission and walk away, you can have your corn and your beans back. I know that’s not something you can say about most developments. So, that’s something that’s unique to solar. In terms of our impact, it truly is a temporary impact. Granted if it were decades potentially, but we’re not negatively impacting the ground. I think it’s pretty straight forward what we’re asking for and what we have previously been granted by the County. We’re here for questions, I guess, more than presentations at this point. Is there something specific about the project?
Chairman Stipan said no, we just wanted to get your message. Thank you. County Board Member Judy Ogalla said I would like to ask some questions. That’s my County Board District out there. There are a number of solar farms that currently exist today and I’m not happy with one of them. I’ll tell you why, they look like a mess. They received information in their packet, which I have on my screen here too that shows the pictures. This one isn’t owned by you. What other locations does Borrego have in Will County? Do you know where they’re located? I’m going to be voting on the County Board and I sit on Land Use Committee. I came tonight because I know you were discussing solar farms. I’ve driven all over my District and I’m not happy with any solar farms, because there’s nothing but weeds everywhere. When solar companies came to us, they gave us this really nice picture of what the solar farm was going to look like. I do know that I did see one in Cypress Creek down in Kankakee County and it looked much better than anything here because it was cut. I haven’t been here since I took the pictures, so I don’t know how often they do it. My problem is, I’m also a farmer so I like corn and beans as well. I know the County has put this through and this is something that the property owner has the right to do and I don’t want to stop that. I will be looking at doing different types of restrictions. I’m glad they added that maintenance plan, but I don’t know how that’s going to work. I don’t know if you saw the pictures, but I do have them on my iPad that I took. They look very similar and I’m not sure when Washington Township took theirs. So, my question would be this. When you lease a parcel, the area between the road and the fence that they require you to put up, is that usually part of the property that you lease?
Kip Smith said I’m speaking for Borrego. To answer your first question, we didn’t build any of the projects in Will County. We’ve developed a couple but haven’t built any yet in Cypress Creek, I think you mentioned. I think we’ve built 15 or so in Illinois, but none in Will County. We do have one in Kankakee, right off of 57. You’re obviously welcome to go take a look at that.
County Board Member Judy Ogalla said I will go look at that.
Kip Smith said I would appreciate that. The lease area is typically 5 or 10 feet outside of the fence line. In this case, there’s a buffer as you’re mentioning, but the setback is 100 feet. So, there is a buffer between the road and the fence. You can see where the driveway comes in and then there’s a gap where the setback is. That can be handled in different ways. We could have an O&M plan that mows all of that, but typically the farmers will plant that. You said you’re also farming and they will plant every inch that they can, generally right up to the fence all the way around except for our roads. So, we’re normally just maintaining the strip along the side of the road and maybe a couple of feet outside the fence. In other counties where we don’t have a 100 foot setback and we might only be 40 or 50 feet, it’s not practical to farm that so we will mow that. So, that would be part of the O&M plan. Eventually, we will have to submit an O&M plan and a landscaping plan and it will have to be approved. That should all be locked down in the plan as to what exactly we need to mow and when and where. That is kind of a new thing. I’m not here to defend other sites that might not have done a good job of mowing and weeds. For some, it’s kind of a new thing to have some of these solar farms in Illinois, so maybe some of the firms underestimated the aggressiveness of weeds, if you will. I think maybe some things grew quicker than they thought or they didn’t manage it well. It’s a learning process and we certainly are a heck of a lot better at it than we were 2 years ago. So, we recognize that it’s an issue, and that it is something to be addressed. It also doesn’t do us any good to have out of control weeds on the site. We don’t need tall vegetation, we can’t have it actually within the fence for sure.
County Board Member Judy Ogalla asked, what do you do within the fence? I have seen as well where the weeds are so high. Some are so far off the road it’s hard for me to see them unless I would trespass on the person’s property or get a drone. I’m thinking I might have to get a friend with a drone because then I could fly on top of it.
Kip Smith said I recommend it. The first year is the most difficult, because you’re still building the project, it’s not completely done, you’re mowing, you’re building things, and not everything is commissioned. So, the first year is the most difficult year. Once the system is up and running and there’s an O&M plan, you’re mowing everything inside the fence. You can’t really have any vegetation more than 30” high. We either use a no mow fescue or a little herbicide. There’s a lot of things we could do, but weeds are our enemy as well. Shade is our enemy. Also, because it’s a tracking system where the panels travel and there’s a shaft and motor, we can’t have weeds and things growing up into the gear box creating a mechanical problem. We have plenty of reasons to not want tall vegetation inside the fence line. What I’m hearing, and correct me if I’m wrong, it might be outside the fence that’s more of an issue.
County Board Member Judy Ogalla said it depends on the farm when I’ve driven around. Some are outside and some are outside and inside, so it really just depends.
Kip Smith said the outside will be more permanently addressed with Condition #4 in Will County. The inside, I think probably what you’re seeing is this transition in year 1. This is where you’re still transitioning from a construction site to an operational site. Once you’re fully operational, you’re not going to have any of that. I’m guessing most of those sites are still in that transitioning phase right now. Again, I haven’t seen the sites you’re talking about, but I’ve seen hundreds of sites.
County Board Member Judy Ogalla asked, where exactly in Kankakee County is yours located? I know you said off of 57. I’ll give you my card and you can let me know.
Kip Smith said okay. I can send you the exact address.
County Board Member Judy Ogalla said since I do sit on Land Use and I’m not happy with what I’m seeing out there, I am considering asking for changes to be made to the Ordinance and possibly not have the 100 foot setback. Maybe that setback is causing the issue, because I do know Land Use has said the issue seems to be the area outside of the property. Although, this one on Corning I don’t believe has a 100 foot setback. So, I’m going to be looking into that. Possibly, during this time, I will ask the Land Use Committee to table these until we have a new Ordinance in place. I am not happy with it and Washington Township is not happy with it. I have not been to all of the other ones. You did say yours is not in Will County, but I will drive down to Kankakee County. I have just sent the Kankakee County Chairman a text message, because I want to see what their Ordinance is. I did see the one at Cypress Creek and theirs was much better. It was better maintained and it looked better than what we have up here in Will County. So, I’m going to be looking at that.
Kip Smith said we want everybody to be happy with these sites. If there’s something we can do to help with that, we’re more than happy to do it. If there’s an additional condition or something or a little more beef on it, we’d be fine with that. We’re not opposed to any of that. Tell us what you’d like us to do and we’ll do it.
County Board Member Judy Ogalla said great, I am going to look at that. I’m not sure that the landscaping is as important with trees and shrubs as once was suggested. I noticed in Kankakee County they didn’t have trees and shrubs. They just had a nice black fence, which I like. They did not have that crazy razor fence, which they wanted here in Will County. It doesn’t seem to be a problem in Kankakee County and I think it looks nicer without it. I am going to be asking the Land Use Committee to reconsider this. If you looked at my iPad you’ll see a lot of pictures and it’s pretty boring because it’s solar farms.
Kip Smith said we like boring.
County Board Member Judy Ogalla said if your group here has ideas as well, we would love to hear that. You hear different things than we do. The presentation is always a little different here than it is at Land Use. You guys go through all the meat and we just get what’s left. When they bring that forward we don’t always see what you guys see here. I just want to let you know that I will be making a request that we make changes, because what we have right now is not pleasant to look at in any manner. If I was the farmer next door and I had this abundance of weeds, it’s a problem. Maybe it’s just something that we work with the land owner on and say listen, if you have that 100 foot setback it should be your responsibility or we’re not going to do this Special Use Permit. We’ll put a condition onto them.
Chairman Stipan said may I ask that you continue that discussion privately. County Board Member Judy Ogalla said no, I’m done.
Chairman Stipan said thank you very much.
John Kiefner asked, there are no objectors then?
Chairman Stipan said there are no objectors.
John Kiefner asked, do we know that all adjoining land owners were notified? Chairman Stipan said yes.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed 6-1. Peterson was a No. Michael Carruthers asked, did we include the 14 conditions?
Dawn Tomczak said no, you did not.
Kimberly Mitchell made a Motion to approve the Special Use Permit with the 14 conditions. Michael Carruthers seconded the Motion. Chairman Stipan made a Motion for previous Roll Call. Michael Carruthers seconded the Motion. Voice vote was taken. Motion passed 7-0.
1. Upon fourteen (14) days of written notice to the owner of record and/or operator at their last known address, Will County Land Use Department and Will County Sheriff’s Department employees are hereby granted the right of entry in and upon the premises for the purpose of inspecting the premises and uses thereon for compliance with the terms and conditions of this special use permit.
2. The applicant must comply with all requirements of the Will County Division of Transportation and the Beecher Fire Protection District. Approval will be required as part of the building permit and/or site development permit application.
3. Ground mounted solar energy systems shall not exceed 25 feet at maximum tilt.
4. Perennial vegetative ground cover must be established and maintained in all areas containing solar arrays and in required setbacks to prevent erosion and manage runoff. The seeding mix details, reseeding plan and timeline, weed management practices, and mowing schedule shall be completed by an Agricultural Specialist or Agricultural Consultant and included in the landscape plan. A landscape plan shall be submitted at time of site development permit and/or building permit application(s) for Land Use Department approval.
5. Along the southern boundary of the project site, a landscaped area at least ten (10) feet in width with at least one (1) shrub per five (5) linear feet, plus at least one (1) evergreen tree per twenty-five (25) linear feet of perimeter area must be provided. Shrubs must be at least three (3) feet in height at time of planting. Evergreen trees must be at least five (5) feet in height at time of planting. A landscape plan, that includes weed management practices, shall be submitted at the time of site development permit and/or building permit application(s) for Land Use Development approval.
6. Top soils shall not be removed from the site during development. 7. Outdoor lighting is prohibited except for that which is required by code. 8. On-site power lines and utility connections will be allowed above ground if required by the electrical utility provider.
9. Any solar farm that has not produced energy for a continuous period of one (1) year or more must be decommissioned in accordance with the Decommissioning Plan currently on file with the Will County Land Use Department, with updated costs.
10. The owner and/or operator shall execute an Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreement (AIMA) with the Illinois Department of Agriculture. The owner and/or operator shall submit a copy of the signed Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreement (AIMA) at the time of building permit and/or site development permit application. Financial assurance shall be provided to the County in accordance with the AIMA.
11. Prior to submission of a site development and/or building permit application by the owner/operator, a pre-construction meeting shall be held. The agencies/individuals invited to attend shall include Will County staff, elected officials, Will County Farm Bureau staff, and other interested parties as determined by Land Use staff and/or the owner/operator.
12. The owner/operator shall retain an agricultural specialist or agricultural consultant to serve as part of the development and/or construction team. The agricultural special use or agricultural consultant shall be retained prior to submission of the site development and/or building permit application.
13. The owner and/or operator shall submit a copy of the decommissioning plan to all property owners(s) within the boundaries of the special use permit area. The property owner(s) shall sign affidavits acknowledging receipt of the decommissioning plan and their respective responsibility for decommissioning costs. These affidavits shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator at the time of building permit and/or site development permit application.
14. Prior to issuance of a site development and/or building permit, the owner and/or operator shall submit a completed Interconnection Agreement.
Dawn Tomczak said, please note that this Case does follow through to the Land Use Committee on October 12th, then it will follow through to County Board on October 21st.
| RESULT: APPROVED [6 TO 1]
TO: Will County Land Use & Development Committee MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner SECONDER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala NAYS: Peterson |
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-037, which takes place in Washington Township.
Like the previous Case, this is a request for a Special Use Permit for a solar farm. The owner is Chanemcoco LLC with Charlotte Alyce Andres as 100% beneficiary.
The agents are also Keri Williams from GreenbergFarrow and Justin Hardt from Borrego Solar. Kip Smith is here on behalf of Justin Hardt tonight.
If approved, the applicants would construct another 2 megawatt solar farm facility directly south of the previous Zoning Case.
They will have approximately the same number of solar panels and the number of inverters.
Looking at the subject property, the area highlighted in blue is the proposed Special Use area. It is located on a parcel that is 117.40 acres. This Special Use area is 17.62 acres.
Looking at the Plat of Survey, the area is the northeast corner of property and is also closely located near the existing utility transmission towers.
The proposed Site Plan shows that the property will have ingress/egress directly to the north along the west end.
The solar panels will also be oriented north to south. They will be single axis tracking, so again, they’re following the sun.
Just like the last development, 16 string inverters will be centrally located. They are approximately 215 feet from the nearest property line. Again, the noise that’s generated from the inverters is the loudest noise affiliated with a solar farm. From the property line, the noise would be comparable to the noise produced in a quiet room.
Similar to the last development, they will have landscaping requirements, so it will have to be maintained. Staff has recommended conditions regarding the landscaping that they provide details about the seed mix to make sure that the first year they really do get the ground cover established.
As far as the surrounding zoning, again this is surrounded by A-1 and residential in the Village of Beecher.
Just looking at some more photos. This is looking at the subject property, so you’re looking south from East Indiana Avenue. This is looking southwest towards residential properties. This one is actually zoomed in, it is from the previous Zoning Case because there’s a zoomed in photo of the residences that are nearby. This is looking southeast at the existing utility transmission lines. Looking southeast along East Indiana Avenue and then looking west.
Like the previous Zoning Case, of the agencies notified, the Washington Township Board has recommended denial for the same reasons as discussed in the previous Zoning Case.
Staff is recommending approval of the Special Use Permit with 15 conditions. Condition #4 is the same as the previous Zoning Case where they have to retain an agricultural specialist who helps draft the seeding mix, re-seeding plan to basically get the ground cover established and the landscaping around the perimeter established. This property will require landscaping along the right-of-way along the northern boundary of the project site as well as the south and western sides of the property. So, there’s more screening around the exterior, basically due to the locations of the residences within the area. Again, outdoor lighting is prohibited except as required by Code. Top soils shall not be removed. If the solar farm is not producing energy within a period of a year or more, it must be decommissioned in accordance with the Decommissioning Plan and part of the Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreements that they enter into with the Illinois Department of Agriculture. Another condition with regards to this is that they retain an agricultural specialist just to ensure that the intent is to protect the agricultural farmlands underneath the solar equipment.
I’m happy to answer any questions.
Michael Carruthers said I have one. These solar farms that we are talking about. They’re individually going onto these properties, right? The owners are given grants to put these there. Where does the owner come in as far as maintenance and upkeep?
Marguerite Kenny said in terms of the Special Use area, typically with these requests, the applicants are requesting the Special Use area which is what their lease area is. GreenbergFarrow and Borrego have agreed to roughly a 17 acre area to develop the solar farm. That’s what their agreement allows them to maintain. The fence line is going to be inset off of that lease area so they have at least a 10 foot perimeter to put the required shrubs and trees that are required for screening. This will also give them walking space along the exterior fence line. All of the panels will be inside secured by a fence. Outside of the lease area, it’s the farmer’s property, it’s the land owner’s property to maintain.
Michael Carruthers said okay.
Chairman Stipan asked, any other questions of Staff?
Roger Bettenhausen said I have just one question. With the construction of the solar farm, is there any danger to the field tile? Could it be damaged? If so, is that the responsibility of the agricultural specialist to determine that?
Marguerite Kenny said I do believe part of the reviews regarding the engineering is that there should not be any damage to the drain tiles. There should not be any relocations. It really comes down to our Engineering Department to review drainage tiles as part of the Site Development to make sure that they are protected and they are preserved and if there is any damage that they get repaired promptly.
Kimberly Mitchell said that was brought up when we were reviewing that 2 years ago. They indicated that they sit at a depth where they shouldn’t be impacted according to the companies that were doing the installation. If they do, they repair it as soon as they identify it.
County Board Member Judy Ogalla said that was a stipulation that we did put in place to make sure that the drain tiles were not damaged. You never really know where drain tiles are, so there’s a potential for possibly doing that. We have had one solar farm that really had issues, but the specialist has worked with them to correct the drain tiles and fix them. So, that is in the whole Ordinance that we created when we did this 2 years ago.
Chairman Stipan said thank you. I don’t believe that there’s any reason to call the solar people back up. There are no objectors here.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed 6-1, with 15 Conditions. Peterson was a No.
1. Upon fourteen (14) days of written notice to the owner of record and/or operator at their last known address, Will County Land Use Department and Will County Sheriff’s Department employees are hereby granted the right of entry in and upon the premises for the purpose of inspecting the premises and uses thereon for compliance with the terms and conditions of this special use permit.
2. The applicant must comply with all requirements of the Will County Division of Transportation and the Beecher Fire Protection District. Approval will be required as part of the building permit and/or site development permit application.
3. Ground mounted solar energy systems shall not exceed 25 feet at maximum tilt.
4. Perennial vegetative ground cover must be established and maintained in all areas containing solar arrays and in required setbacks to prevent erosion and manage runoff. The seeding mix details, reseeding plan and timeline, weed management practices, and mowing schedule shall be completed by an Agricultural Specialist or Agricultural Consultant and included in the landscape plan. A landscape plan shall be submitted at time of site development permit and/or building permit application(s) for Land Use Department approval.
5. Along the northern boundary of the project site, a landscaped area at least ten (10) feet in width with at least one (1) shrub per five (5) linear feet, plus at least one (1) evergreen tree per twenty-five (25) linear feet of perimeter area must be provided. Shrubs must be at least three (3) feet in height at time of planting. Evergreen trees must be at least five (5) feet in height at time of planting. A landscape plan, that includes weed management practices, shall be submitted at the time of site development permit and/or building permit application(s) for Land Use Development approval.
6. Along the southern and western boundaries of the project site, a landscaped area at least ten (10) feet in width with at least one (1) shrub per five (5) linear feet, plus at least one (1) evergreen tree per twenty-five (25) linear feet of perimeter area must be provided. Shrubs must be at least three (3) feet in height at time of planting. Evergreen trees must be at least five (5) feet in height at time of planting. A landscape plan, that includes weed management practices, shall be submitted at the time of site development permit and/or building permit application(s) for Land Use Development approval.
7. Top soils shall not be removed from the site during development.
8. Outdoor lighting is prohibited except for that which is required by code.
9. On-site power lines and utility connections will be allowed above ground if required by the electrical utility provider.
10. Any solar farm that has not produced energy for a continuous period of one (1) year or more must be decommissioned in accordance with the Decommissioning Plan currently on file with the Will County Land Use Department, with updated costs.
11. The owner and/or operator shall execute an Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreement (AIMA) with the Illinois Department of Agriculture. The owner and/or operator shall submit a copy of the signed Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreement (AIMA) at the time of building permit and/or site development permit application. Financial assurance shall be provided to the County in accordance with the AIMA.
12. Prior to submission of a site development and/or building permit application by the owner/operator, a pre-construction meeting shall be held. The agencies/individuals invited to attend shall include Will County staff, elected officials, Will County Farm Bureau staff, and other interested parties as determined by Land Use staff and/or the owner/operator.
13. The owner/operator shall retain an agricultural specialist or agricultural consultant to serve as part of the development and/or construction team. The agricultural special use or agricultural consultant shall be retained prior to submission of the site development and/or building permit application.
14. The owner and/or operator shall submit a copy of the decommissioning plan to all property owners(s) within the boundaries of the special use permit area. The property owner(s) shall sign affidavits acknowledging receipt of the decommissioning plan and their respective responsibility for decommissioning costs. These affidavits shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator at the time of building permit and/or site development permit application.
15. Prior to issuance of a site development and/or building permit, the owner and/or operator shall submit a completed Interconnection Agreement.
| RESULT: APPROVED [6 TO 1]
TO: Will County Land Use & Development Committee MOVER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala NAYS: Peterson |
Lisa Napoles presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-053, which takes place in Green Garden Township.
This is for a Map Amendment from A-1 to E-2.
The owner is the William J. Cullen Trust, dated August 7, 1997, with William J. Cullen Jr. 100% interest.
The attorney is Nathaniel Washburn of Kavanagh, Grumley, & Gorbold, LLC.
The owner is seeking this Map Amendment to re-zone the property to ensure two legal parcels can be created by a future division.
The subject parcel is located on the east side of South Center Road south of West Stuenkel Road and measures approximately 10 acres in lot area with 421.24 feet of lot frontage. The parcel meets the lot standards for the A-1 District and is legal, conforming. The parcel is improved with a residence with an attached garage.
In May, 2021, the applicant attended a pre-application meeting to discuss a proposal to divide the parcel to convey portions of the property to parcels 18-13- 10-101-014-0000 and 18-13-10-101-016-0000, located directly south of the subject parcels west end. Both parcels are owned by the applicant and are zoned E-2. Conveying portions of the property to the adjoining parcels will result in the remainder subject parcel falling below the minimum 10 acres lot area required by the A-1 Zoning District. The portions to be conveyed need to match the Zoning District of the other parcels as the county prohibits the creation of split-zoned lots per the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant is requesting a Map Amendment from A-1 to E-2 in anticipation of the proposed division described previously in order to remain a legal, conforming parcel in accordance with the residential lot and building standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
This is a Zoning Map showing the parcel outlined in blue. The parcel in contiguous with the corporate boundaries of the Village of Frankfort to the East.
This is a Plat of Survey for the property.
These are the Map Amendment Review Criteria used to review the proposal. For this Case, a LESA score was not calculated.
Staff evaluated the existing uses and zoning classifications within a 1 mile radius of the subject property.
Within this radius, the uses of the properties are agricultural and residential within unincorporated Will County and the Village of Frankfort.
Residential uses include stand-alone residential parcels and residential subdivisions.
The Valley Farm Estates residential subdivision lies adjacent to the subject parcel to the south.
The Harvest Hills residential subdivision lies to the southwest, less than one quarter mile away from the subject site.
Within a one-mile radius, the Zoning Districts include A-1, A-2, E-1, E-2, R-1, R-2, R 2A, and C-1 (vacant and undeveloped) in unincorporated Will County.
In the Village of Frankfort, the Zoning Districts are AG (agriculture) and R-1 (single family residential).
Due to the relatively small size of the parcel, it would be suitable for small-scale agricultural uses permitted under the current A-1 zoning classification.
As the parcels current use is exclusively residential, permitted as of right in the A-1 District, it is suitable for continuing that use.
However, once the parcel is less than 10 acres, the parcel would be considered an illegal zoning lot.
Permits could not be issued until the parcel is brought into conformance with zoning standards.
The applicant is requesting to re-zone the property to an Estate Residential District to rectify the lot area deficiency; accessory farming and other agricultural use (for example, the keeping of farm animals) would still be permitted as of right.
The subject parcel was zoned A-1 as part of a larger parcel in 1978 when the County was comprehensively re-zoned.
The current parcel was created as an approximately 10 acre parcel in 2000, possibly due to the creation of the subdivision to the south.
Since that time, the general trend in the area has been for the division of agricultural parcels for stand-alone residential development as well as residential subdivisions.
The parcels immediately south of the subject parcel (Valley Farm Estates) were re zoned to E-2 in 2000 to allow the subdivision to occur.
Most of the parcels immediately north of the subject parcel were re-zoned to E-2 between 2000 and 2006.
Parcel 18-13-10-100-019-0000 was later re-zoned from E-2 to R-1 in 2009.
Parcels on the west side of Center Road across from the subject parcel were comprehensively zoned A-2, a compatible District with E-2, in 1978.
The request is in conformance with the County’s Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP).
Per the LRMP, the subject site is identified as being on the cusp of Suburban Community and Rural Area Development Forms.
Estate Residential is compatible to the Conservation Design Development Use Concept, which is permitted in both the Rural Areas and Suburban Communities.
The existing use is large lot single-family residential, which fits most closely under the Conservation Design Development Use Concept.
Under the Conservation Design Use, “net development density in Rural Areas for Conservation Design Use Concept should be in the range of one dwelling per 2.5 to 10 acres.”
The Village of Frankfort is contiguous to the east of the subject parcel.
Per the Village of Frankfort’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the future land use plan shows the area along Center Road is designated as rural residential and single-family detached residential districts, making the request in conformance with the Village’s plans.
The Green Garden Township Future Land Use Plan identifies the general area where the subject site is located as “Mixed Agriculture-Residential”, making the request in conformance with the Township’s plan.
This is a view of the subject parcel looking east from Center Road. This is another view of the subject parcel looking northeast. This is a view of the applicants parcel looking west. This is a view of the adjacent parcels looking northwest. This is a view of the adjacent parcels looking south. This is a view of the adjacent parcels looking south along Center Road. This is a view of the adjacent parcels looking north along Center Road.
On September 27, Michael J. Schwarz, Director of Community and Economic Development with the Village of Frankfort sent an email pertaining to this Zoning Case with the following comments: “The Village does not object to the request. The Village’s adopted Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates this subject property as rural residential, which includes single-family residential homes on lots greater than one acre in size and primarily located outside of existing and future public sewer service areas.”
The Will County E-2 District is compatible with the “rural residential” designation. Staff is recommending approval of the Map Amendment request. Of the agencies that were notified and provided comments, none objected. I can take your questions.
Chairman Stipan said thank you, I have no questions. Does anybody have questions for Staff?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said thank you very much. I presume both of you gentlemen are here for the same Case. Is one of you an objector?
Nathaniel Washburn of Kavanagh, Grumley, & Gorbold LLC introduced himself. The other gentleman is the property owner, Bill Cullen. We stand by Staff’s report and unless you have any questions, we have nothing further to add.
Chairman Stipan said we have no questions for you at this time. Thank you. Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Dawn Tomczak announced, please note that your Case does follow through to our Land Use Committee on October 12th.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Land Use & Development Committee MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner SECONDER: Barbara Peterson, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala |
PZC ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRPERSON
1. Motion to Approve the Nomination for John Kiefner to be Vice Chairman
Chairman Stipan said as we all know, Tom White has retired from the Committee and now we have an opening.
I've talked to a number of people and John Kiefner said he had an interest and I'm assuming he still has an interest.
Are there any other Motions?
No response.
Roger Bettenhausen made a Motion to appoint John Kiefner as Vice-Chairman. Barbara Peterson seconded the Motion.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: Barbara Peterson, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala |
None.
VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn the Meeting
John Kiefner made a Motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 PM. Barbara Peterson seconded the Motion. Voice vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: John Kiefner, Commissioner SECONDER: Barbara Peterson, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala |
Alerts Sign-up