Will County Land Use & Development Committee met Dec. 14
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM
Chair Tyler Marcum called the meeting to order at 10:30 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Tyler Marcum | Chair | Present | |
| Amanda Koch | Vice Chair | Present | |
| Steve Balich | Member | Present | |
| Kenneth E. Harris | Member | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | Member | Present | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Member | Late | 10:32 AM |
| Tom Weigel | Member | Present |
Land Use Staff present were Kris Mazon, Marguerite Kenny, Nicole Roedl, Owen Needham, Scott Killinger, Brian Radner, Colin Duesing, and David Dubois.
Matt Guzman was present from the Will County State's Attorney's Office.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Kenneth Harris led the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Land Use & Development Committee - Regular Meeting - Nov 9, 2021 10:30 AM
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0, to approve the Minutes with no additions or corrections.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Amanda Koch, Vice Chair AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Harris, Ogalla, Weigel ABSENT: Traynere |
1. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended for Zoning Case ZC-21-056, Louis J. Sloan, Owner of Record, and Michael Borkowski, Community Power Group LLC, Agent; Requesting (S-21-016) Special Use Permit for a Major Utility, a Solar Farm Facility, PIN #21-14-32-300-014-0000, 21-14-32-300-013-0000, 21-14-32-300-012- 0000, Commonly Known as Vacant Land on the NE Corner of IL-50 and W. Offner Rd., Monee, IL, County Board District #1
(Marguerite Kenny)
Amanda Koch made a Motion to untable this Case. Jacqueline Traynere seconded the Motion. Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 7- 0.
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-056, which takes place in Monee Township.
This Zoning Case was heard at the November 2nd Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.
This Special Use Permit request is for a 2-megawatt solar farm project. The request for the special use area is for the entire 30 acres.
This is the proposed Site Plan. It is 3 parcels that are all owned by Louis J. Sloan.
The Agent is Michael Borkowski and Whitney Hughes of Community Power Group LLC.
When built, this project will consist of approximately 17 acres.
There will be a perimeter fence line that would meet the 100-foot setback from Offner Road as well as Illinois Route 50.
This request is a previous Special Use request that went through approvals and extensions. Since that Special Use was voided, they are now coming through again for the new Special Use Permit request.
At the Planning and Zoning Meeting, there were objectors present who had concerns regarding the location. Raccoon Grove is immediately to the north of the subject property. A Memo has been provided and I will show that shortly. The applicant has reached out to the Forest Preserve District and asked for their input on the solar farm.
Other concerns were regarding the adjacent residential properties regarding safety, the appearance of solar farms, the potential impact to the animals in the area especially birds, and if there was any glare with the solar panels.
At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the applicant and agent basically reaffirmed that the solar panels will be coated with an anti-reflective coating so they are designed to absorb sunlight and not reflect it.
In terms of the impact for animals, while the EcoCAT did identify protected resources in the area, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources did provide a follow-up letter stating that the proposed solar farm would not have any negative impacts to those identified resources.
There was also concern regarding electromagnetic fields. Per the agent, the solar farms will have a magnetic field, but it will be low voltage and confined to the actual direct vicinity.
Also, there will be screening requirements. Per the Zoning Ordinance, we do have to screen along both Illinois 50 as well as Offner Road to the south, and then for any residence within 1,000 feet. So, the northern, southern, and western property lines would have to be screened using landscaping. This would include arbor vitae, evergreen trees, shrubs, and things of that nature would be required.
That letter basically states that the Forest Preserve District of Will County has reviewed the proposed plans and there are no comments at this time. They would like to see some type of data, if there is some, regarding wildlife mortality and the wildlife observations once the solar farm is actually constructed and in production.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Special Use Permit with 13 conditions. With previous solar farms, we did amend and adopt additional conditions, so you’ll see that reflected. With regards to the 13 conditions, they’re typically regarding retaining an agricultural specialist to help provide the ground cover so it is appropriate for this region, that the weeds are kept to a minimum by perennial vegetative cover that is not weeds, also creating ground cover maintenance schedules to minimize the weed impact, and then mowing. Currently it would be four times a year. We do have a recommended condition amendment to require it 5 times just to be in conformance and continuity with the other approved Special Use conditions.
6 would be the owner/operator shall maintain the areas located within the lease area, so basically outside of those fence lines. An AIMA, Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreement, would be executed with the Illinois Department of Agriculture, which is State law.
Before any type of Site Development Permit or Building Permit is issued, a pre construction meeting would be held with all individuals. That would include County Staff, elected officials, Will County Farm Bureau, and other interested parties to get that construction timeline set and give the impact of what might be occurring on the site and about how long that construction period might last.
On-site power and utility lines, if ComEd requires them to be above ground, that would be Condition # 9 to allow that.
Basically 10 and 11 deal with the Operation Maintenance Plan and Emergency Services Plans, which would allow 6 months after the construction completion to provide the most updated O&M, Operations and Maintenance Plan and Emergency Services Plan that are reflective of what was constructed on site.
12 would be since each individual lot currently is a separate PIN and the solar farm is proposed to cross all 3 PIN’s, at the time of the Building Permit or Site Development Permit that a Petition for Consolidation be filed to unify all 3 sites so there are no Variances needed for encroachments or anything from property lines.
The final one is that the owner/operator is responsible for maintaining the drainage system, so the field tiles on the property. If there is any damage they need to locate the damage and fix it promptly.
To be consistent with the previous solar farms, Staff is recommending that Condition # 5 be amended to reflect that mowing shall occur five (5) times a year during each growing season on the following schedule: last week of May/1st week of June, end of June/start of July, end of July/start of August, end of August/start of September, and end of September/start of October.
Staff also recommends that Condition # 14 be added. The owner/operator shall be required to submit a drain tile map as part of the Building and/or Site Development Permit process. Any drain tiles existing on site shall be identified and marked on site prior to any construction of the solar farm. The owner/operator is held to the requirements of Section 155-9.245(L)(3) of the Will County Zoning Ordinance.
If these conditions were both to be adopted, the Motion for the approval or the final recommendation of approval would be with 14 Conditions as amended.
I’m happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Marcum asked, does anybody have any questions?
Tom Weigel said I think we should add a condition that includes the Forest Preserve request for an annual report on animal mortality in the solar field.
Jacqueline Traynere said I took some advice from Judy and I went out and looked at some of these solar farms out on the eastern side of Will County. I have to say that I was not impressed with the screening. I think the screening actually makes the solar farm look worse. I also noted that there was a large drop-off from the road to the actual solar farm out there on one of them and it was on a heck of an angle. It didn’t look like it had been mowed too much, but the farm across the street had the same drop-off and they hadn’t mowed theirs at all either. Do we require that all property owners mow five times during the year? Do we have somebody checking on this? Is this a requirement of living in unincorporated Will County? I just don’t see the point in treating a business any differently than we would treat a resident. I’m just not in favor of the screening at all and I think it looked horrible. The solar panels looked just fine on their own. So, that’s my comment about those two conditions. If we want to ask the developer to see if there’s dead animals, I don’t know how we can prove that they died because of the solar farm unless you were there with a video camera. I don’t quite understand the need for that. Thank you.
Judy Ogalla said Jackie, I’m glad you took a ride out. It’s kind of hard this time of year because a lot of the weeds are already dead so you wouldn’t see everything. There’s a drop-off along the road because that is how the drainage system works in the countryside. We don’t have sewers so there are ditches that are dug to the depth that need to be dug so it can carry the stormwater down to the local creek or stream. I do agree with you though. You probably didn’t go and see the one property that I did. From your description, did you go to the one on Goodenow Road?
Jacqueline Traynere said I went to all three of them over in your area and that drop-off was not a ditch, it was just a drop-off. There was no place for water to collect per se unless you were talking about the field in general. I know the difference between a culvert ditch that is meant to collect water and just the road drops off. The ground below is much lower and that’s where the house was built, and on the other side of the road was where the solar farm was. It had the fence and it had 4-foot-tall evergreens that looked to be struggling to survive, along with some bushes. I wasn’t really looking to debate, I was just sharing my thoughts.
Judy Ogalla said no, I was looking to ask where you were.
Jacqueline Traynere said I saw three of them over there, the three that are in operation.
Judy Ogalla said okay, good. A lot of times there’s a lot of drop-off from the road to the ditch just depending on the ground. I agree with you that the screening or the landscape screening is really terrible, especially on one, it makes it look worse.
You are absolutely correct about that. That’s something that we’ve been debating about entirely. In this particular one, the Forest Preserve is back all along the side of it. I’m not necessarily in favor of all of the screening, because I think if this land ever gets converted back to farmland, you don’t want to have trees in the middle of your field. I think that could definitely be an issue. In this particular area where this proposed solar farm wants to come, there are quite a few landowners who have animals. I’ve had other people report to me over by Crete that there was a lot of noise during the installation, specifically putting these posts into the ground, that impacted the animals. I’m wondering what time of the day will the installation occur? And, how many days a week will they be working on that construction of this? Can we get those answers?
Mike Borkowski introduced himself to the Committee. This would be a typical five days a week workday. The real noise happens when the pilings are being put into the ground and typically that only lasts maybe two weeks throughout the construction cycle.
Judy Ogalla said yeah, but it’s a big impact. What are your workdays, what are your hours?
Mike Borkowski said a normal 8 to 5.
Judy Ogalla said okay, 8 to 5. I just know that there’s one small farm that has all kinds of different animals and there’s a horse farm across the road. Can we make sure that we would notify both of these landowners when the pilings are going to be going in so they can make sure that their animals are more secure or not out? This would be just in case they would get disrupted and try and run off. If they know that this is happening, they might be able to pay more attention and maybe put the horses in the barn or something like that. I don’t know if it will make them run, it may not bother them like that. If we can notify both the landowners in the area that have those animals, that would be appreciated.
Mike Borkowski said absolutely. I don’t know that there are landowners with horses adjacent to this site, but absolutely.
Judy Ogalla said they’re on the south side of Offner, across the street. My girlfriend has a farm there and she has horses. Then northeast of where that is, there’s another residence, and I believe you guys have spoken with them, and they have all different types of animals.
Mike Borkowski said oh okay, it’s really no problem. Like I said earlier, the noise is just really when those pilings are being put in. We can certainly alert the neighbors as to when that construction will take place.
Judy Ogalla said I know that construction is noise, it’s just when you’re living there its different. I would like to make a Motion that they do notify Land Use and the neighbors when this construction is going to begin, so we can ensure that they are aware of that. I’d like to make that Motion to add that as a condition.
Chairman Marcum said first we’re going to need to make a Motion to approve it so we can get it on the floor.
Judy Ogalla said I will make a Motion for that. Jacqueline Traynere seconded the Motion.
Chairman Marcum said let’s do the Staff recommendation for amendments first and then we’ll come back to yours if that’s okay.
Judy Ogalla said I will make a Motion to amend to include five times of maintenance and also to add Condition #14 to ensure that the tile map is done prior to construction. Tom Weigel seconded the Motion.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed 6-1 to amend Condition # 5 and add Condition # 14.
Chairman Marcum said okay, that has been amended and added. Judy, go ahead with your next one.
Judy Ogalla said I would like to make a Motion to add an additional condition that the project manager notify both the Land Use Department as well as the neighbors in the vicinity that have animals when the piling work will be done since that will be the most noise so that they can secure their animals during the day. Steve Balich seconded the Motion.
Jacqueline Traynere said I'm just concerned about the amount of details that we're asking these folks to do. I know, I live in a municipality. I don't live in a rural area. I can tell you all of the racket that goes on in my neighborhood, whether it is somebody getting a new roof, somebody cutting down a tree, somebody using a blower to blow their leaves, or on a Friday or Saturday night when the Village of Bolingbrook's Golf Club sets off their fireworks. They set it off almost every week of the year because there's a wedding or something going on there and they pay for the fireworks. How much noise do these pilings make? I guess that's my question. This just seems rather crazy to ask them to do this. Again, they might be perfectly willing to. I can't support this. Thank you.
Chairman Marcum asked, does anybody else have any thoughts on the amendment?
No response.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed 6-1 to add the condition requiring the project manager to notify both the Land Use Department and the neighbors in the vicinity that have animals when the piling work will be done.
Chairman Marcum said so this one passed. Does anyone else have anything?
Judy Ogalla said I do think something else to consider is what Tom Weigel asked, to have a survey for the animal mortality in the solar farm. This is the first solar farm that we are putting next to a Forest Preserve and we do have a lot of deer there. I’d like to have a little discussion and see what others think about it. I think it’s something to consider since this is a different situation from our other ones. Most of the other solar farms are out in the middle of farm country, so there’s not an area where we have a lot of animals. I’m just curious what others might think.
Chairman Marcum asked, Marguerite, can you pull that letter back up so we can see the wording of exactly what they’re asking for?
County Board Member Rachel Ventura said I’m kind of along the lines with Jackie here, I don’t want to make any unnecessary burdens for the businesses to be able to put up the solar farms. However, I would say, to Judy’s point, this is the first time we put up a solar farm next to our Forest Preserves. If the report is informational only, so there’s no fines or being held accountable or something for dead animals on the property, from a data collection standpoint, I think it might be worthwhile to see. If there’s a dead animal on the property, I’m sure they have to call somebody to come and remove it. It probably doesn’t hurt to document that somewhere or at that time immediately send an email to the Forest Preserve. If the Forest Preserve wants to collect all of those emails at the end of the year and say this was how many was on there and that’s fine, or if we want to have the company do that. I would have a limit on that date, maybe the first 3 years or 5 years. The reality is if there are none or if there’s one, it’s probably the same as what you would find in any other solar farm. To keep that in the future forever, it does seem like an unnecessary burden. Perhaps we do that for 3 years and then see if there’s a way to renew it if need be, for example it’s over a certain number of animals. If its relatively low, or what we would expect, that should go away then. That’s my two cents. Thanks.
Mike Borkowski said I just wanted to make a comment. In developing this project, we reached out to a variety of the neighbors there. I did just want to highlight one of the bigger concerns was how the solar farm may or may not impact peoples hunting. It raises two points. Quite possibly the hunters have a greater impact on the Forest Preserve than we would for sure. Number 2, especially with big game and you shoot them or whatever, they typically go for cover. The solar farm might be one of the best places for them to go to for cover. I wouldn’t want deaths to be unnecessarily attributed to solar when actually there may just be some hunting activity in the area.
Judy Ogalla said that would be pretty distinguishable, there’s either going to be a bow and arrow in that deer or there’s going to be a shotgun shell or muzzleloader shell in that deer. I think that will be something that’s easily identifiable as to whether that happened or not. Nobody should be hunting in your area, in the solar farm. Nobody should be hunting in the Forest Preserve. So, it would only be in the other area around that. I don’t know if that would be the impact. I think that there are only so many farmers that allow people to come out and hunt and there’s only so many deer that you can take and we call deer in the Forest Preserve as well. So, that happens in Forest Preserves as well. It’s an easy ask and I think Rachel has a good point if we could add a condition to set this for three years. Since this is something that the Forest Preserve has asked us to do, I think it’s something we should do. We should look at it and set it for three years and then at that point determine whether or not it should continue. I don’t even know if we can do that Brian. I think that’s something we should do because the Forest Preserve asked us to do it. This will be the first solar farm that is next to a Forest Preserve. I don’t think asking any business to do what we feel is necessary for our community is asking too much. It isn’t that much that they have to do and maybe they can work directly with the Forest Preserve on that. We should probably reach out to Cori. I don’t know Brian, did you guys at Land Use do that to find out exactly what they are looking for?
Brian Radner asked, Margie are you able to address that?
Marguerite Kenny said yes. I have not directly reached out to Cori yet regarding this letter. The letter was just received late yesterday afternoon, but it does state in the letter that they want observations for wildlife mortality or any notable wildlife observations. We can definitely propose a condition that they work with the Forest Preserve District to come up with a set report or annual submittal of some sort that provides that information that the Forest Preserve is looking for.
Judy Ogalla said that would seem like something reasonable. Then we would do it for a set number of years and review after that to determine whether we should keep that condition or eliminate it. I think that’s reasonable.
Chairman Marcum said it never hurts to collect information. I don’t that think this is unreasonable, it’s really just asking the developer to help us gain information.
It’s a minor ask, I think.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said I just wanted to make a comment on the impact on wildlife for farming versus a solar farm. I am familiar with these solar farms in Illinois, as well as in Michigan. Farming acreage provides wildlife the ability to look for food during the harvest and after the harvest. It also provides shelter and other resources that wildlife can use for survival. However, I believe it’s pretty apparent that one impact the solar farm would have would be that it would take away that opportunity for shelter and for wildlife to find food and other types of sustenance. So, I think that’s pretty apparent when you’re talking about what the impact of these solar fields are. I agree and I support getting this information and providing it to our Forest Preserve. It also is important for the neighbors and the farming and agricultural community that are in the vicinity of these solar fields. I just wanted to add that perspective. Thank you.
Chairman Marcum asked, anybody else have thoughts on this?
Judy Ogalla made a Motion to amend to ask the solar company to work with the Forest Preserve to gather the information regarding wildlife mortality and other notable wildlife observations for three years and review it after that to determine if it should be continued. Tom Weigel seconded the Motion.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0, to add that condition.
Chairman Marcum asked, is there anybody from the public who wishes to comment on this Agenda item?
No answer.
Chairman Marcum said Brian, if there’s anybody in the Board Room wishing to speak, please let me know.
Brian Radner said there is one call-in user that does not have a name attached to them. I have unmuted that person.
Chairman Marcum said if the call-in user wishes to comment on this item please go ahead.
No response.
Judy Ogalla said we had discussed about the landscaping. Marguerite, I’m guessing the landscaping is possibly on the west side, the south side, and maybe the northeast side. Is that where we’re proposing landscaping? Thank you for putting that picture up.
Marguerite Kenny said per our current Zoning Ordinance, they would be required to screen along Illinois Route 50, so the entire western side of the property. Also, the southern side along Offner Road and that would actually continue up a little ways because there is a residence down here. So, they would have to screen this southern property line as well due to the residences along the eastern side of the property. So, it would theoretically be the three sides that are not abutting Raccoon Grove.
Judy Ogalla said oh, all three sides?
Marguerite Kenny said correct.
Judy Ogalla asked, can we have some discussion on that Tyler, for that specifically? I would just like to see what others are thinking.
Chairman Marcum said go ahead.
Judy Ogalla said I want to see what others are thinking. I know that Jackie had a comment.
Tom Weigel said I don’t have a problem with removing the screening if you don’t feel that it’s doing any good.
Jacqueline Traynere said I agree with you, it does not do any good whatsoever. In fact, I honestly believe that it would do damage. I don’t know enough about where these tiles are, or how deep these tree roots go, or what kind of damage you could do to the drain tiles. As was mentioned by Judy earlier, if they revert back to farming this land at some point, now you have all these trees in the way. I just think it’s foolish to put in any kind of screening.
Chairman Marcum asked, anybody else?
Marguerite Kenny said the screening is currently codified in our Zoning Ordinance. So, in order to alleviate the screening, it would have to be a Text Amendment to remove that screening requirement. It is currently not a condition of this particular Special Use Permit.
Chairman Marcum said so that’s something that we will have to address when we discuss our changes later on that we started last month, so that wouldn’t be applicable to this Case.
Judy Ogalla said so let’s do that then Tyler. Thank you.
Judy Ogalla made a Motion to Approve as Amended. Tom Weigel seconded the Motion.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed 5-1, Amended with 16 Conditions.
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 owner/operator shall retain an agricultural specialist or agricultural consultant to serve as part of the development and/or construction team. The agricultural specialist or agricultural consultant shall be retained prior to submission of the site development and/or building permit application.
3. Perennial vegetative ground cover must be maintained or established in all areas containing solar arrays and in required setbacks to prevent erosion and manage run-off in accordance with sections 155-9.245 and 155-12.90 of the Will County Zoning Ordinance.
4. The landscape plan shall include ground cover maintenance details including, but not limited to, seeding mix details, reseeding timeline, and weed management practices. The landscape plan shall be submitted at time of the site development and/or building permit application(s) in accordance with sections 155-9.245 and 155-12.90 of the Will County Zoning Ordinance.
5. Mowing shall occur five (5) times during the growing season each year on the following schedule: last week of May/1st week of June, end of June/start of July, end of July/start of August, end of August/start of September, end of September/start of October.
6. The owner/operator of the solar farm shall maintain the areas located within the lease area, not excluding the areas located outside the fence lines.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. On-site power lines and utility connections must be placed underground except where necessary to connect to existing overhead utility lines.
10. The owner and/or operator shall submit an operation and maintenance plan of the solar farm within six (6) months of construction completion. The plan shall include detailing measures for maintaining safe access to the installation, storm water controls, property maintenance, as well as general procedures for operation and maintenance of the installation.
11. The applicant shall submit an emergency services plan, including but not limited to the project summary, electrical schematic and means of shutting down energy systems throughout the life of the installation, within six (6) months of construction completion.
12. A Petition for Consolidation, consolidating all three PINs (21-14-32-300-014-0000, 21-14-32-300-013-0000, & 21-14-32-300-012-0000), shall be required at the time of site development and/or building permit application, whichever occurs first.
13. The owner/operator is responsible for identifying the location of all subsurface drainage systems and for immediately repairing damage to drain tiles and other drainage systems that result from construction, operation, or maintenance of the solar farm (155-9.245-L-3).
14. The owner/operator shall be required to submit a drain tile map as part of the building and /or site development permitting process. Any drain titles existing on site shall be identified and marked on site prior to any construction of the solar far. The owner/applicant is held to the requirements of section 155-9.245(L) (3) of the will County Zoning Ordinance.
15. The construction company/owner/operator shall notify Land Use Staff and nearby neighbors of the construction dates and times of the pilings installation.
16. The owner/operator shall work with the Forest Preserve District of Will County regarding the data collection of observations of wildlife or any notable wildlife observations for a minimum period of three years with an option for the Forest Preserve District of Will County to require this data collection to extend further.
| RESULT: APPROVED AS AMENDED [5 TO 1]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member SECONDER: Tom Weigel, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Ogalla, Weigel NAYS: Traynere ABSENT: Harris |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Amanda Koch, Vice Chair SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Harris, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel |
| RESULT: APPROVED [6 TO 1]
MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member SECONDER: Tom Weigel, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Harris, Ogalla, Weigel NAYS: Traynere |
| RESULT: APPROVED [6 TO 1]
MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Harris, Ogalla, Weigel NAYS: Traynere |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member SECONDER: Tom Weigel, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Harris, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel |
(Lisa Napoles)
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-046, which takes place in Manhattan Township.
This is a Special Use Permit for Animal Care and Boarding.
This Case was heard on December 7th at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. There were also 2 Variances associated with this request regarding the setback for animal care and boarding from the nearest dwelling unit as well as the nearest Residential Zoned District.
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved those Variances and since Variances don’t continue on to the County Board, they have been approved. So, the request before you is the Special Use Permit.
The subject property is 10 acres. It is zoned A-1, agricultural.
The owner is Amanda Denwood Revocable Trust, where Amanda Denwood is Trustee.
The attorney is Priya Thennarasu of Sosin, Arnold, & Schoenbeck, Ltd.
The proposed use will be to have senior dogs or older dogs, not just puppies, for animal care and boarding. The applicant is proposing 25 dogs to start out with.
They are hoping to use the existing pole building on the property. They will renovate it to minimize the noise impact and have the kennels inside. They have provided fencing around the property and secure measures to reduce the chances of any dogs escaping.
Per their Business Plan, they do keep the dogs on a leash when they go outdoors and they do constantly supervise the dogs when they’re outside.
I believe further questions regarding the operations could be directed to the attorney.
There were several concerned citizens that came out last week. It was about three citizens that had objections regarding the possible noise with the dogs being confined to a kennel close to their property. Although it is zoned A-2 in the area, which is Residential Agricultural, it is residential use. They have children in the area and their personal pets. So, there is some concern if the dog escapes what is going to happen to the safety of the area for the other animals and the kids? Also, the noise of the dogs barking outside being excited and just waste management.
The applicant has provided copies of what they presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, which has been added to MinuteTraq. One is the Premier Rescue, which is the name of the proposed rescue. It is being relocated from the western side of the County. It has previously been in operation in Wilmington. That also contained statements regarding previous volunteers, friends, colleagues, and things of that nature.
Also, they presented some poster boards showing photos of the existing area, the proposed dog run and chain link fence and how it is screened from view. They also provided photos of what’s going on inside.
The applicant will be required to get Building Permits for the change of use for the pole building for all of the construction that’s occurring.
These are just some photos of the animals that have been part of the rescue.
The applicant did indicate that they are using fresh limestone for the material outdoors in the run area and the kennel area, which supposedly minimizes odors and things of that nature.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Special Use Permit with Staff’s recommended 8 Conditions. The big conditions are that the Special Use only be to the applicant, so Amanda Denwood and the Amanda Denwood Revocable Trust. There is a limit of 25 dogs or dogs rescued on the property. Building Permits and Site Development Permits be obtained for this use. A parking lot will be required for the commercial operation of the rescue so that the volunteers or employees who come to assist the applicant who does reside on the property have a place to park. Any increases or expansion of the areas associated with the rescue will require them to notify Land Use Staff. The owner has to get approvals from the Manhattan Township Road District, which would be required as part of the permitting process, in case there’s any type of improvements made to Kankakee Street in this area to ensure there’s no added traffic congestion entering and exiting the property.
The applicants are proposing an appointment-only operation. So, I believe it would be Tuesday through Saturday by appointment only where people can come and meet the dogs and start the adoption process. The anticipation is limited to a handful of people coming to the property each day.
In terms of the volunteers, it would be a very skeleton staff. It’s primarily the applicant who lives on the property and a couple volunteers to help train the animals and just care for them.
The Manhattan Township Board of Trustees did object to this request. They did have a meeting and they voted to object to this request more because of the neighbors coming out with concerns about noise, smells, and things like that.
I’m happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Marcum asked, does anybody have any questions on this Case?
Steve Balich said it says the number of rescue dogs housed on the property will not exceed 25. My question is, how do you determine that number? From the pictures it looks like it could hold 50 or 60 dogs in there if they were in a nice sized room. Why is 25 the number?
Marguerite Kenny said it really came down to the neighbors coming out objecting to the proposed use. The applicant was willing to downsize and restrict it to 25 animals on the property. She does have 10 acres and she does have to meet the required setbacks for animal run areas and things of that nature. So, she would be restricted if she were to expand of where she could go to, depending on the Residential Districts as well as residential dwellings. With regards to the number of dogs, she felt 25, which she currently has, would be more appropriate to go to the County Board with that restriction than try to have an unlimited number.
Steve Balich said okay. I just looked at it like if I was the person building that, I would make sure I built it so it was soundproof. I would put extra stuff in so nobody heard the dogs bark or anything. Then at that point if nobody could hear it, why does it matter? I’m just throwing this out there, I have no problems with it. If I wanted to start that and I said I wanted to have 40 dogs because I can fit 40 dogs in there really comfortably and nobody will hear it because I have everything soundproofed it should be fine. So, if we do it with 25 are we setting a precedent? I’m just asking the questions because I don’t know the answers.
Marguerite Kenny said we have in previous animal care and boarding requests, limited the number of animals on the property. I can think of one case where they wanted to do a dog rescue and we limited it to 15 dogs. They also wanted to do a cat rescue so it was limited to 15 cats. So, it was no more than 30 animals and it was a 10-acre parcel. So, it’s not out of the norm, but it’s really up to this Committee if they feel that we shouldn’t put a limit on them. Really, it’s going to be the requirements with Animal Control and State law with rescues that if she can maintain a healthy functioning business, care of the dogs, and things like that. Maybe you feel that she doesn’t need a limit, she’ll do it within her opportunities and operations.
Steve Balich said it’s hard to hear you in this room. I’m trying to hear, but there’s a big echo in the speakers. I get better reception at my house on the computer I have. What I’m getting at is, if nobody’s going to be bothered by the animals, and they can fit a larger number of animals, what happens if somebody comes and they have to say we’re all filled up, we have 25 dogs? I’ve been in a lot of places where they give you rescue dogs and those were small places, this looks like a giant place. The small place has 10-15 dogs in there sometimes. That’s the only question that I had. I’m voting to approve it as is, but I just wanted to make sure that going forward we don’t say 25 dogs is the maximum because this one is 25 dogs. If that building is as big as it looks, you could probably put 40 or 50 dogs in there in nice cages and they’d be comfortable. If they have the staff to maintain them, why not allow it? That’s all I’m concerned about is we don’t start saying to dog people that you can’t have more than 25 dogs. Obviously we don’t have an Ordinance that says the number you can have. It’s like with the bees, we said you can have beehives, but you don’t count the bees, right? If we have pigs, dogs, cats, horses, and other kinds of animals, they’re all allowed but you’re only allowed so many per acre. With the dogs, do we have a rule that there’s so many dogs per acre? I’m just throwing this stuff out there. You smile about it, but for real this is a logical thing. How many dogs are you allowed to have in a house that’s much smaller than that? How many cats are you allowed to have in a house that’s much smaller than that? So that’s why I don’t like the number, that’s all. I’m just letting you know that I don’t like the number, I think it’s stupid.
Marguerite Kenny said you have a couple questions there. I can let the attorney, Miss Thennarasu speak on behalf of Miss Denwood regarding why it was 25 and regarding rescue operations and what Miss Denwood has experienced in the rescue business. With regards to having a set number of companion animals as we would call it, or the cats and dogs that you have in your house, you would be limited to 5. That is the amount that the Zoning Ordinance currently permits. Anything above that becomes animal care and boarding, which is what this Special Use request is.
Judy Ogalla said I think that since she’s asking for 25, I wouldn’t want to consider any more since the Manhattan Township Board opposed it because of the concerns of the area residents. So, I think we should stick with that. The building is going to be converted to have animals in it. I don’t know if there’s any insulation in it, but insulation alone would pretty much soundproof any noise from outside and I’m not really concerned about smells. If she’s a responsible person who’s going to do the rescue she’ll be cleaning up the animal waste and disposing of it properly. Honestly, there’s really no comparison to what dog poop smells like compared to pig, chickens, and other animals. The stench is a lot less. I don’t have any concerns with that. Thank you, that’s all I was going to say.
County Board Member Rachel Ventura said I have a question about if any of the cages are going to be stacked. And, if they are stacked, what type of barrier will there be between the cages? Our Animal Control has a metal flooring and a fair bit of spacing before the next cage begins. Obviously we don’t want animals to be treated inhumanely just because of their caging conditions. Was that specified, or is that something the County already specifies?
Marguerite Kenny said I would like to see if Miss Thennarasu could address that or if Miss Denwood is the call-in person, I believe they can answer that question.
Priya Thennarasu said the cages currently are not stacked, they are side by side. I think Miss Denwood can speak more to the kennel situation if she can get unmuted.
Chairman Marcum said Brian, I don’t know if you have to unmute the attendee, if they’re an attendee.
Brian Radner said she is unmuted.
Chairman Marcum said Miss Denwood, if you’d like to, you can speak to that. No response.
County Board Member Rachel Ventura said I’m not sure if she has to star 6 or not. I’m okay with them side by side. I don’t know if this Committee wants to put anything in writing that says the cages need to be side by side or there needs to be some sort of solid metal barrier if the cages are stacked. I prefer cages not to be stacked myself, so I’m okay with the way that they’re proceeding. Just so in the future if somebody else buys the kennels or if it changes hands, I don’t know if we want to set that precedence. I know this is something that we’ve considered with other livestock. I don’t know what the Committee thinks about that, but I prefer cages not to be stacked. Thank you.
Chairman Marcum said for this Case, I believe one of the conditions is that the business can’t be transferred, right Marguerite?
Marguerite Kenny said that is correct, it would be limited to the current applicant.
Chairman Marcum said okay. The 25 limit helps prevent that too. Does anybody else have any thoughts?
Chairman Marcum asked, does anybody from the public wish to speak on this Case?
No response.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0, with the 8 recommended conditions.
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 special use permit is only applicable to Amanda Denwood/Amanda Denwood Revocable Trust, dated May 29, 2020.
3. The number of rescue dogs housed on the property will not exceed 25.
4. The applicant must obtain the proper building permits to bring the existing structure which will be renovated to house dogs to commercial code.
5. The owner must notify Staff of any increase or expansion of dog runs or play yards in order to confirm if additional variances are needed.
6. The owner must submit a manure plan to the County detailing how the dog waste will be removed from the property.
7. The owner must obtain a site development permit to construct a parking area for employees, volunteers, and customers/visitors and any paved dog runs.
8. The applicant must obtain all necessary approval from the Manhattan Township Road District, including widening and improving the entrance to the property.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Harris, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel |
(Marguerite Kenny)
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-067, which takes place in Manhattan Township.
What this parcel actually involves is this will be creating a 14.43-acre parcel that is owned by the applicant.
The applicant is William W. Mancke Trust, where William W. Mancke is 100% beneficiary.
The attorney is Timothy McGrath of McGrath Law, P.C.
Mr. Mancke owns the 14 acres and his son owns an acre adjacent to him. Jackson Creek bisects his property, so he is looking to reconfigure his property creating a 2.8-acre A-1 parcel and give the remainder which would be roughly 11 acres or so to his son. The son would have a 14-acre legal, conforming A-1 parcel. However, his remnants of that consolidation and division would leave him with only 2.8 acres, which is deficient for A-1.
With the E-2 District, it has a lot of the similar uses that are permitted. You can keep farm animals, and do accessory farming, but you are restricted to the primary use of the property being residential. Since the property is improved with a residence, the applicant is requesting E-2 to create a conforming lot.
The surrounding area has a mix of residential uses, as well as agricultural uses. There’s R-2 to the immediate south as well as we have estate residential within the Village of Manhattan, almost kiddy corner to the south.
The suitability is appropriate for residential type uses and accessory farming. At the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, there were no objectors. Of the agencies notified, none objected.
The Manhattan Township Road Authority is looking to improve the Jackson Creek Bridge on Baker and as such, is looking to potentially take some right-of-way from the subject property. That was part of the Variance request that went to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
In accordance with the E-2 District, the property will be meeting all the setback standards typically found for an E-2 District property.
It is in conformance with the County’s adopted plans as well as the Village of Manhattan’s Future Land Use Comprehensive Plan. It is shown to be mixed uses, so medium density residential. Estate residential does fall within that mix.
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to approve this request unanimously this past December 7th.
I’m happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Marcum asked, does anybody have any questions?
No response.
Chairman Marcum asked, does anybody from the public wish to speak on this Case?
No response.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel ABSENT: Harris |
(Marguerite Kenny)
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case, # ZC-21-070, which takes place in Lockport Township.
Marguerite Kenny said we have an Aerial of the property on the screen and it is 1.85 acres.
The Special Use would apply to the entire parcel.
I do apologize, but the red box shifted. The red box should be in the upper right, at the north end of the subject property which is outlined in red.
With this property, due to the steep grade change that you can see by the orange lines, which is the elevation, the applicant is severely limited with developable area of the subject property.
In order to do the storage of equipment for the landscape business, he is not looking to put any type of primary or principal structure there. Since it is zoned C 1, he is looking to rezone to I-1 and then request a Special Use Permit for an outdoor storage yard.
The hours of operation would be Monday through Saturday from 7am to 3pm where 2 employees would be working from the site. The business would be open to the public and the estimated number of daily customers would be 5, which would then generate between 5 and 10 daily trips.
The outdoor storage would be required to be screened from all sides of the property.
The applicant did get a Variance for fence height along the street setback to allow for the 8-foot-tall fence, which would help with the screening along New Avenue.
Here we have a Site Plan. The applicant is looking to keep a 10-foot setback from the property lines to allow for landscaping and to meet the I-1 Districts setbacks. With regards to the street, there will be some landscaping along the road frontage that would be required. Within the area that he is using for outdoor storage, he will have parking, equipment storage, and then he will have bins for landscape materials such as compost, sand, gravel, and topsoil. He would secure the property with a gate.
Looking at the subject property, you can see that it is significantly limited. The property has a 20-25-foot grade change between the properties to the east and the properties to the west.
New Avenue is surrounded by industrial properties. The Shell refinery is directly west, on the other side of New Avenue. Then you have several trucking companies, manufacturers, and outdoor storage yards along New Avenue. So, the industrial zoning request is appropriate for this area.
With regards to outdoor storage, Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval. Staff recommended 9 conditions regarding this Special Use.
After the Planning and Zoning Commission met on December 7th, the City of Lockport actually submitted a letter of objection stating strong concerns for the conditions of what that outdoor storage yard would look like. They actually referenced another property the applicant owns further up New Avenue regarding concerns about what the conditions of the property are, if there’s any screening, concerns regarding the fact that there are a lot of properties along New Avenue that fall within the City of Lockport, and they want an area that looks nice to be associated with the City of Lockport. Their big concerns are screening, however Staff believes that with an 8-foot fence along the street as well as the required landscaping should be sufficient. The applicant will be required to submit a Site Development Permit to develop the property and it would have to adhere to the County’s adopted Codes and Ordinances in order to be legally established.
With the conditions in place, Planning and Zoning felt that they would recommend approval.
I’m happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Marcum asked, does anyone have any questions on this Case?
No response.
Chairman Marcum asked, does anybody from the public wish to speak on this Case?
County Board Member Rachel Ventura said I just wondered if Marguerite could please go over what Lockport was saying. Is the City not wanting the Map Amendment change or do they just not want the building at all?
Marguerite Kenny said the City of Lockport is not objecting to the Map Amendment, but they are objecting to the Special Use Permit. They would like to see a principal structure on site, potentially as an amended condition, since all of the other properties in the immediate area have buildings or they recently renovated to have buildings on the property. I do want to point out with this property, it is believed that there is shallow bedrock, so putting a building up might be quite a challenge or expensive. We do not allow mobile trailers or trailer offices to be used as structures. We actually do need a framed building to be built on the site for a structure.
County Board Member Rachel Ventura asked, was there any conversation back and forth with Lockport about that and what other solutions there may be?
Marguerite Kenny said their biggest concern is just in terms of screening outdoor storage. There are other properties within this area that operate a construction services yard, contractors yard, or an outdoor storage yard for a landscaper and there’s a lot of concerns with what it looks like. In terms of us trying to meet the City of Lockport, we don’t enforce the City of Lockport’s rules, we have different rules that we have to adhere to. Really, its screening from the right-of-way and if they put trees along the road frontage and they have an 8-foot fence, they should be screening all of the equipment that you can see from the roadway or at least do enough to minimize the appearance of it.
County Board Member Rachel Ventura said okay. I’ll just put it out there that this Committee knows that I’m very weary at moving anything to I-1. I still wish that we had maybe a lighter industrial. We talked about A/I, but that didn’t go forward. I know they want a storage container here, but there’s not much between one company putting a storage container on it and then selling the land. Now the next company will come in and put a full warehouse on. So, that’s always my concern, of course. I do wish we had a different zoning category that would be better for places like storage, landscaping, or other stuff but that does not appear to ever come into fruition here. That’s it, thank you for those answers.
9. Motion to Approve a Map Amendment from C-1 to I-1
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Tom Weigel, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel ABSENT: Harris |
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 shall provide one portable toilet on site which is properly maintained (pumped and cleaned) in accordance with Health Department regulations. Should a principal structure be constructed, the building shall have sanitary facilities (i.e., bathroom) for employees.
3. The applicant must comply with all codes and regulations enforced by the Lockport Fire Protection District.
4. Open burning of any substance on site is prohibited, except clean wood as a fuel source within structures.
5. A permanent structure shall be constructed around any manure storage piles. Structures shall be compliant with all local ordinances.
6. Manure must not be stored on site longer than 6 months. Manure must be stored more than 100 feet from any water well and more than 100 feet from any downgradient surface water.
7. All bulk organic product or material, including manure, shall be stored in a manner to prevent contact with storm water run-off or run-on. Bulk storage areas shall be located outside of drainage ways, swales, and depressions.
8. Any storage of herbicide, pesticide or any other toxin used for landscaping business must be kept indoors.
9. Bulk product, material, or wastes stored on site, which create odors that are detected off site, shall be removed from the site within 24 hours from the time the odor was detected or the time the odor complaint or notification was received.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel ABSENT: Harris |
(Brian Radner)
Brian Radner said the applicant, Nora Perez, applied for four Variances on August 27, 2021 to bring the property into compliance with some existing conditions and a structure that was put up without a Building Permit.
Those Variances were heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 2, 2021. 2 of those Variances were heard by the Plan Commission. Those approved Variances were the one for lot area from 10 acres to 3.5 acres and the Variance for lot frontage from 300 to 270.
The 2 animal confinement setback Variances were denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission by a Vote of 0 Yes and 5 No. That is an existing building that has already been put up and the owner was placed in violation for constructing that structure without a Building Permit.
There were numerous objectors that appeared at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that were not in favor of the structure setback for animal confinement.
I really don’t have anything else to add today for this request by the applicant to have the decision be overturned.
I did notice that the applicant is not on the hearing I believe. So, if the Land Use and Development Committee wanted to hear from the applicant, I do not believe that they are here today. If you thought that it was important to hear from the applicant then the Committee may want to consider tabling the request.
Chairman Marcum asked, does anybody have any questions or comments for Brian?
Judy Ogalla asked, Brian do you have a picture of the property so we can see what it looks like?
Brian Radner said yes, I’ll put that up for you. So, this is the image of the property. I can zoom in a little bit and see if that will help. This is located on the north side of Route 6, or Maple Road. I also have the survey too if you wanted to see that.
Judy Ogalla asked, what is to the right of it?
Brian Radner said I think that’s Norwalk Tank, the septic company facility.
Judy Ogalla said Norwalk Tank is septic, correct. Where is the building? Is it in that far upper left corner? Is that correct?
Brian Radner asked, Margie, is that correct?
Marguerite Kenny said the building is in that northwest corner of the property, that pole building that has a couple lean-to’s extending out of it. So, it is that big white roof structure.
Judy Ogalla said I can see it then. Does she have horses there, is that what she has?
Brian Radner said it is for animal confinement and it is zoned A-1. I’m not sure if there are horses in there today, but it would be permitted in the A-1 Zoning District.
Judy Ogalla said I would like to make the Motion to table it. I’d like to hear the landowner come and present her case. So, if we could make a Motion to postpone this until next month, can we reach out to the landowner as well?
Brian Radner said certainly.
Steve Balich seconded the Motion.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0, to table this item until the January meeting.
| RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 1/11/2022 10:30 AM TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Harris, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel |
1. Housing Text Amendments of Definitions and Uses in Residential Areas within the Will County Zoning Ordinance
(Colin Duesing)
Colin Duesing said I do not have anything new for the Committee quite yet. Kathleen Burke has been providing me with some wonderful information. I just have not been able to get it into a format that would be appropriate for the Committee. So, I don't have anything new for the Committee at this time.
Chairman Marcum said okay, thanks Colin.
| RESULT: NO ACTION
TO: Will County Land Use & Development Committee |
Brian Radner said I just wanted to say a couple of things first before Scott takes it over.
As you know, at the last couple of meetings we’ve been talking about solar-related Text Amendments. This was one that was on the list that both Staff and the Committee identified as an issue. Does the County require stormwater management facilities for solar panels?
We wanted to get this one going, I know this part was ready. We’re still working on some of the other Zoning Ordinance side of things, but this part of the Code is in the Water Resource Ordinance and the County Stormwater Ordinance.
Scott has already brought that language before the Stormwater Management Committee. They talked about it there and he’s going to give a report on what they found.
If the Committee is ready today, we have draft language that’s ready to go to public hearing. So, I’ll let Scott summarize this for you. Thank you.
Scott Killinger said for those of you that don’t remember, I’m a consulting engineer but I’m the Will County Chief Subdivision Engineer. I work for Brian in the Land Use Department.
Basically, there’s a lot of back and forth about stormwater management in solar farms. It revolves around whether or not the solar panels count as impervious area or doesn’t.
There’s really language in the State Department of Transportation. I always look for things in Illinois to see what they have. If the County doesn’t have something, I look to see if the State does. I looked and there’s really nothing available.
We’ve actually been talking about this since early 2018, going back and looking at my notes. I guess it’s time that we need to move forward with codifying it so when Nicole and I are reviewing plans we have something to fall back on.
This is item 5.2.a on page 332 in your packet. There’s a Memo from the American Society of Civil Engineers. I have some highlighted language there and it talks about the fact that installing solar panels with certain caveats, they don’t really impact the stormwater that runs off a piece of property.
In my professional opinion, the American Society of Civil Engineers is a professional organization and we can take that as a fact.
One of the problems they talk about disconnected impervious. Our Ordinance doesn’t have a definition of disconnected impervious in it.
So, we’re going to add a definition of disconnected impervious in our Ordinance. That will give Nicole, Brian, and I the ability to approve these plans relying on that.
As it currently stands, again there’s no definition of it. So, even though they argue that it’s disconnected impervious, I can’t really recognize that.
Brian mentioned that we talked about this at the Stormwater Committee on December 7th, just last week. The Stormwater Committee heard my presentation and they had no questions. They concurred that we should bring it forward to the Land Use Committee for further action and then actually changing the Code.
The next page, which is 333, there’s currently 2 Chapters that need to be changed. Chapter 55 is the model Ordinance, which all the communities in the County that wish to be certified adopt. Then there’s Chapter 164, which is the County Ordinance, which is our own specific Code.
From here it gets pretty simple, it’s just understanding what we’re trying to do.
The definitions in Chapter 55 are just in alphabetical order. Down here under Director, we’re going to put a new definition. The new definition is going to be Disconnected Impervious.
The language for that is on page 335, I think. The page numbers changed at the last minute.
There you can see the language that I’m proposing for Disconnected Impervious.
The other thing that we want to do is add in information in the General Information Section, which is Section 55.020. That area talks about exemptions from site runoff requirements. In there we want to add a paragraph 3, and you can see it on the screen and read it. We want to refer specifically to solar farm development. We want to say the groundcover vegetation must be maintained. The total proposed impervious area on the ground has to be less than 25,000 square feet.
If you think about the first Zoning Case, when you looked at the Site Plan, there was an access road. The access road remains impervious, but the panels as long as they are separated as indicated in # 3, we would call it disconnected impervious. # 3 says, open space between panels must be equal to or greater than the width of the panels. Again, if you think back to that Site Plan, the panels weren’t all right next to each other, they were separated. We didn’t measure it off, but we would in the review process, and make sure that they’re separated by an equal amount.
If all of those conditions are met then we would call it disconnected impervious and the panels themselves would not be calculated in the impervious calculation.
Section 164, this is the Ordinance that is specific to Will County, things that are done in the unincorporated County.
Basically, with the definitions we’re going to do the same thing. We’re going to put the same language in right after Director where I say, “Insert new definition here”.
Then in 164.020, our Section is different than the model Ordinance because we’ve added more conditions in there. What we will do is add a new section, paragraph 11. Brian I think it’s on page 338.
In paragraph 11, it’s the same language that I just went over with you, which we added to Chapter 55. There’s a # 4 which we’re going to add so we can be specific. We’re going to say, “for permitting purposes the entire project area is counted toward disturbed area”. In Land Use, when we figure out the Permit fee, it’s based on disturbed area. Even though we’re going to ignore the panels for stormwater purposes, we want to make sure that when we calculate the Permit fee that we’re counting the entire area as disturbed area. So, that’s why that’s in there.
It makes it a little more stringent than the model Ordinance. Other communities may want to add this language also, but I’m going to leave that up to them.
Last of all, we’re going to add some pages to the Technical Guidance Manual. The current language in the Technical Guidance Manual is shown here on the screen. It’s Section T200.3 and after that we’re going to add Section T200.4. In there we’re going to insert 2 new documents. One is a Memorandum from me which dates back to 2018 where I basically said the stuff I just described to you except I didn’t have a definition of disconnected impervious. So, this Memo doesn’t include that. It does include the groundcover language and it has on page 2 some information that we got for IDNR where they talk about concerns of putting these kind of facilities in floodplain.
Again, I’m going back to that first Site Plan that you saw. You could see that they showed the floodplain on there, but they worked around it, they weren’t putting anything in there.
So, that will be one document that we’re putting in the Technical Guidance Manual. I refer in this document to the State of Maryland. The State of Maryland Department of the Environment has some guidance on how to do solar panel facilities and stormwater in those facilities. When I was searching for regulations from the State of Illinois, there are none. There are others, but it seems to me that in my professional opinion, Maryland was the same kind of general topography, agricultural area, deciduous trees, etc. So, Maryland was probably the one that was most like Illinois.
I said in that first Memorandum that until the State of Illinois comes up with something specific, we’re going to rely on Maryland as the best engineering practice.
There’s actually some pictures of the panels and there are a couple of BMP’s shown. This would all be things that Land Use Staff would use when they review the Site Plan for the solar farm. These would be things that we could require, as necessary.
The last thing that I’m going to say and then I’m going to open it up for questions. Keep in mind, the Zoning Code has requirements, and I did include those pages in the packet. There is a requirement in the Zoning Code for a drain tile study. There also is a requirement that a Site Plan be submitted. This will be something that is drawn up and stamped by a professional engineer. When we review them in Land Use, we will review it against all of those and none of that will change. Those requirements for drain tiles especially will remain the same.
I think at this point I’m ready to answer questions.
Judy Ogalla said Scott, I was just wondering, did you guys talk with NRCS or the Soil and Water Conservation District at all regarding this? I don’t know if there would be a big impact from them, but I was just curious.
Scott Killinger said I did not talk to NRCS. I did talk to Mark Schneidewind. Mark didn’t actually see the language because he was out of town at the convention last week. Mark was generally okay with it having not seen the language. And no, I did not talk to NRCS, but I certainly can.
Judy Ogalla said I think that would be good just to get their input. I know the Soil and Water Conservation District is also submitting a letter regarding solar farms. If you could do that before we have our meeting on Thursday that would be good. Actually, my husband happens to sit on the Board and I know the other person who is the Chairman. I’ll contact them and see how they feel. I’ll get this information to them. If either Brian or you Scott could email it separate from the packet then I don’t have to download it, I can just send it in an email. I’m sure I can get feedback from them right away. From what I’ve seen it seems ok, but I just want to check with them first.
Scott Killinger said no, I think that’s great. If they have a letter, I’d love to consider what their opinion is. Like I said, I ran it by Mark and I honestly didn’t think of NRCS, that’s a good thought. We will have a public hearing on this and that will probably be the January meeting. We’re not going to do anything with this until we have a public hearing. Mark and NRCS can certainly be made aware of the public hearing and I can talk to them about it beforehand if they have any questions.
Judy Ogalla said that’s perfect, then there’s no rush. If we can get that emailed to me and then I will get that to them. Then also you, Scott, reaching out, that’s great and then I’ll know we have all of our bases covered and then I’ll be happy with it. Thank you.
County Board Member Rachel Ventura said good to see you again, Scott. I’m assuming the sloping and the designs that you’ve added here, this is specifically for water runoff so it goes towards the field tiles for the drainage. Is that correct?
Scott Killinger said that’s correct. The diagram that’s on the screen right now, that one refers to solar panels that are actually fixed as opposed to ones that rotate and the tilt changes. If you see it says Figure 2, typical installation slope greater than 5% but less than 10%. There’s some gravel riprap shown there underneath the edge of the panels. So, in this specific case here, this would be if there’s an area that’s not as flat as Illinois is and it has a greater than 5% slope. We would ask them to install some sort of an energy dissipator at the drip line. By putting it in the Technical Guidance Manual, it gives it a little more oomph so that when we require it there’s not as much pushback.
County Board Member Rachel Ventura said okay. I have 2 other questions. In the above language, it talked about maintaining the landscaping like any other owner. My understanding is that we require certain native grasses, or certain species, or a selection of species that people can choose from. I believe the idea of that is that the deeper roots would help the water penetrate down into the ground. Is that language then that we’re replacing? Or, is that the language about what plants need to be planted still included in our Ordinance somewhere else?
Scott Killinger said you are correct that the reason we want native plants and prairie plants is because the root system is deeper and that encourages the water to infiltrate into the ground and that’s what we would like to have happen. I’m not sure of the answer to your question though. I’m going to make sure that I know that before your next meeting. The prairie plant language, I’m not sure if its in the Zoning Code, but if it is not, I want to make sure that’s included in there. I refer to it in my Memorandum. So, I’m sorry I don’t know exactly where that is, but I am going to check on that for when we hear this.
County Board Member Rachel Ventura said okay. I just want to make sure that the new language that we’re adding doesn’t somehow contradict that. We’re saying that you have to maintain landscaping as in any owner, but we don’t require any other owner to necessarily put prairie grass in. As much as I would love for that to happen, that’s just not something that our County’s going to enforce. I want to make sure that we’re not creating a problem for ourselves going forward. Now we’re requiring a licensed engineer to sign off on a plan. I don’t know if we were already doing that, if we were this is a moot point. If we’re not, one of my concerns is again, adding additional barriers for people trying to get into renewable energy. My question then becomes, are they allowed to hire you or a County engineer to help sign off on this? Or, do they have to go out to the private sector and possibly be charged much higher than cost of a plan like this?
Scott Killinger said the requirement of a professional engineer is because a Site Development Permit is required. As part of the submittals, the Ordinance requires that it be done by a professional engineer. I am a professional engineer, however, my job is to represent the County. So, I represent all of you and the taxpayers of the County. As Staff, we are all checking to make sure the Code is followed. So, they don’t hire me to do it because that’s specifically a conflict of interest. They go out and they get an engineer to draw up a Site Plan. We’ve reviewed several of these solar farms and they all have engineers. Everybody requires that the Site Plan be engineered by a PE and stamped by a PE. Did I answer your question?
County Board Member Rachel Ventura said I think so. Before we add this language, they already have to have an engineer help them with the plan for solar?
Scott Killinger said yes.
County Board Member Rachel Ventura said okay. So, we’re not adding any additional burden to them?
Scott Killinger said no we’re not. To go back to your previous question, I’m going to check on the prairie plant language. There’s no intent here to take away the prairie plants. On the contrary, we actually prefer that they do those so I’m going to make sure that’s crystal clear somewhere in here.
Brian Radner said the Zoning Ordinance still requires perennial vegetative groundcover must be maintained and established in all areas. So, that’s still a requirement.
Scott Killinger said that’s not going to be struck.
County Board Member Rachel Ventura said I just want to make sure this new language wasn’t contradicting that or providing a gray area for somebody to make their own interpretation. If you feel that that’s very solid, then I’m fine with that. Thank you for answering my questions.
Judy Ogalla said I just wanted to let you know Rachel that when you have anything done on your property you have to have an engineer. We put up a pole barn and we had to hire an engineer because we’re close to a ditch. The ditch leads into a creek and that’s part of our drainage system, as I was saying earlier today. So, we had to hire an engineer. It’s not like it’s a burden or an extra thing that we’re asking solar companies to do. Everyone that has stuff on their property like that, you have to do it. It’s just typical of how we do things out in the country. Thanks.
Chairman Marcum asked, does anybody else have anything that they’d like to add?
Jacqueline Traynere said I just wanted to say that I really like the fact that they mention prairie plants. I really think we should be focusing on that, native plants, and grasses. It’s crazy to put these trees around solar farms, because it just looks silly. Going back to prior conversations, they don’t seem to do well because they don’t get watered. I think that should be the only thing we ask anybody to plant. Thank you.
Chairman Marcum asked, anybody else?
No response.
Chairman Marcum asked, do you need a Motion to send this to public hearing? Brian Radner said that’s correct, thank you.
Judy Ogalla made a Motion to send this to public hearing. Tom Weigel seconded the Motion.
3. Motion to Approve to Send to Public Hearing
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member SECONDER: Tom Weigel, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Harris, Ogalla, Weigel ABSENT: Traynere |
(Owen Needham)
Owen Needham said the pole barn people were requesting that we look at an exception for the metal siding on the pole barns if the structure is not heated, insulated, or it doesn’t have interior coverings.
I put that as a draft exception to add exception # 3 to the Water Resistance.
The new Code requires detached accessory structures to have the weather resistive barrier.
Chairman Marcum asked, does anybody have any questions for Owen?
Judy Ogalla said I’m sorry Owen, can you explain that a little bit better? We currently require it and they want to exclude that? Can you just explain it better? I’m sorry.
Owen Needham said yes, I’m sorry about that. Let me start at the beginning.
Currently, detached accessory structures do not require a weather resistive barrier.
As part of the new Code adoption, switching to the 2018 International Residential Code, detached accessory structures will require a weather resistive barrier.
In discussions with the pole barn people, they checked with their manufacturers to see if they met one of their exceptions in the 2018 IRC. They did not meet one of the exceptions in the 2018 IRC.
So, they were requesting that the pole barns without interior finishes or insulation have an exception in our Ordinance thinking that it wouldn’t damage any building materials. It’s a 2-hour wind-driven test where over the 2 hours the person from FBI Buildings stated that you can get some condensation, but it would dry within a reasonable time. Without interior finishes and insulation, they didn’t think that the extra expense was worth it to the residents.
Judy Ogalla said okay, that’s wonderful. Thank you and I do agree with that. I thought that’s what you wanted, but I just needed it to be clear. Thank you.
Owen Needham said no worries.
Chairman Marcum asked, does anybody else have anything for Owen?
No response.
Brian Radner said we’re also looking for a Motion to go to public hearing on this language too.
Chairman Marcum asked, does anybody want to make a Motion to send this to public hearing?
Steve Balich made a Motion to send this to public hearing. Judy Ogalla seconded the Motion.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Harris, Ogalla, Weigel ABSENT: Traynere |
1. Chair, Will County Land Use and Development Committee
Chairman Marcum announced that today is Ken Harris's final meeting as a member of our Committee. Thanks Ken for being on the Committee. He is taking over as the Assessor in DuPage Township and we will miss you.
Ken Harris said thank you.
Otherwise I just want to wish everybody a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and Happy Holidays.
Especially Staff, I know I said last year it's been a lot of fun with all of the virtual stuff and you guys have continued to do a great job this year. It's doesn't seem that we'll be in person soon. Thank you to you all.
2. Committee Members, Will County Land Use and Development Committee
Steve Balich said Merry Christmas to everybody and God bless everybody. I just have a question, are we going to start meeting in person after January? Are we going to do it next month or are we just going to skip it again?
Chairman Marcum said what was brought up at the last Executive Committee Meeting is that the Caucuses are going to discuss it at their meetings tonight and I think the Republican Caucus is tomorrow. I think there's some Members who have concerns. I'll defer to Speaker Cowan, I don't know if she's still on here. The discussion last week was that we were going to discuss it at Caucus. I think we'll have more information on Thursday regarding in-person. Does that answer your question Steve?
Steve Balich said my vote is to go in-person.
Tom Weigel said I would just like to wish Ken Harris good luck in his new position and thank him for all of the work that he's done for the County so far.
Ken Harris said thank you. It's been a pleasure serving on Land Use and on the Board with all of you guys and the Staff that's involved. I really do appreciate everyone. Thank you.
Judy Ogalla said thank you Ken.
3. Director, Will County Land Use Department
David Dubois said I would just like to echo Board Member Marcum and Balich's comments. I just want to wish everybody a safe and Happy Holiday as well as thank Board Member Harris for his service. It's been a pleasure.
4. Other
Colin Duesing said with regards to solar farms, the Committee has mentioned several issues including the stormwater that we talked about just a few minutes ago and also the long debate about screening and landscaping materials.
One of my questions is regarding the industrial-sized solar farms. Those are becoming a thing more and more. What we’re talking about is 1,000 to 2,000 acres of solar farm in a widespread area between 10 and 15 square miles.
We’re going to start looking at our Ordinance to better accommodate these smaller ones that you’ve been seeing, but also trying to reach what these larger scale solar farms are going to look like.
One of the things that a lot of communities are doing is what’s called a visual impact study. Is that something that the Committee would like to see for these large-scale operations?
Chairman Marcum asked, can you explain what that would entail?
Colin Duesing said the way these things look are like the same smaller ones that we have been seeing, the 20-to-40-acre sites, but they’re all interconnected and they’re not necessarily contiguous. So, they’re scattered all over the place. It is a much larger, integrated operation.
The visual impact studies tend to be more in the areas where there’s more varied terrain where there are viewsheds. People come over a hill and instead of seeing acres and acres of farmland, now they’re seeing acres and acres of solar panels.
So, the question is, do we want to see something like that? Not only for the viewsheds, but also for the residents that would be adjacent to these solar farms.
Judy Ogalla said that is one of the things that I’m interested in. Especially out in eastern Will County on Goodenow Road, we seem to be getting more and more small community solar farms there that would impact the area and they would grow. Not a company coming and requesting a Permit for a commercial solar farm, small companies coming in and going to different landowners and putting up these little ones. So, you start out with one or two and then you get to three or four or five or six. Then suddenly within this 10-to-15-acre section you could have a lot which in whole is entirely a commercial solar farm. I think that is much different than approving community solar. I think that is important because the negative impact on somebody’s property values could be significant. We never permitted a commercial solar farm but in essence it grew to one commercial solar farm although its disconnected and possibly many different companies creating that. I think that’s something important. I think that’s something we should look at as a Board as we move forward. We can say, do we want to limit the amount of community solar farms that are allowed in an area such as that? When we look at approving a commercial solar farm it would be a completely different type of animal, because we would know from the onset that we’re going to have 2,000 to 3,000 acres of solar panels within an area. Then, the community input would come from that versus we have one or two starting up then you can kind of get lost in it. I think there’s 2 different things here and I think it is important to do. It is important to protect. It is a fact that we need to recognize. They are doing this in farming communities and we’re changing the whole scope. A solar farm is not farming, it’s not growing anything. It produces energy obviously, but it’s not growing anything, it doesn’t provide anything to the wildlife in the area like a regular farm where the animals eat off the crops all year long. From my opinion, yes, I think that this is something we should look at.
County Board Member Rachel Ventura said I had a question about the study, but before I did that, Judy just reminded me of something. That is, in tandem growing of farm food with solar panels. In some areas they’re growing things such as lettuces and spinach underneath. I know we just had a conversation about prairie plants, and yes, I definitely support that. But, if there’s a way that we can also allow a farmer to continue to grow food crops underneath, I think that should be permissible. I don’t know if that’s something that you guys can research or add in, or maybe it’s already in the language.
Colin Duesing said that’s currently being looked at by the University of Illinois about what crops work well within the solar farm area. Also, the State of Illinois recently passed legislation creating a pollinator-friendly solar farm program which solar farms can participate in. That was going to be another question, trying to implement that within our Code.
County Board Member Rachel Ventura said I definitely support that as long as those pollinator plants are less than the 5 foot or whatever it is. Obviously you don’t want them blocking the solar panels, but I’m assuming that you guys could pick out the correct species. Some of those pollinator plants can become quite large.
Colin Duesing said that’s a State program, it’s just a matter of if we want to adopt it and how much we want to promote it.
County Board Member Rachel Ventura said okay. What is the purpose ultimately of the study? What are the things that you would be looking at and what would the outcome of that possibly dictate? Then the second question is, what is the cost of this study?
Colin Duesing said the cost would be variable depending on the scope of the solar farm project. Like I said, we’re talking about 1,000 to 2,000 acres of solar panels scattered over a wide area. It would identify the viewsheds that are within that community and also identify what it would look like for nearby residents.
County Board Member Rachel Ventura said once you have that information, what would it dictate?
Colin Duesing said it would give you, as Board Members, an idea as to what the impact would be for the area residents and what abilities to mitigate those impacts.
County Board Member Rachel Ventura asked, is this being driven by the residents or are we just curious? How did this thought process come about?
Colin Duesing said after reading the evening news, I’m seeing more and more large-scale solar farms being proposed out there and they’re getting closer and closer to Will County. So, it’s something that we’re likely to see in the near future.
County Board Member Rachel Ventura said okay. I’m not necessarily against the study because it will bring in some information. I just want to make sure that if this is going to be costly that we are using our tax dollars appropriately.
Colin Duesing said the study would be done by the applicant. It would be something that the applicant would provide to Staff.
County Board Member Rachel Ventura asked, so the person who wants to bring a solar farm would have to pay for a study first?
Colin Duesing said correct.
County Board Member Rachel Ventura said okay, I don’t know that I’m in favor of that because again, it adds those barriers unless the residents are saying oh no, you’re taking all of our farmland. To me the solution is working with farmers to provide both energy and food production. Like you said, the University of Illinois is exploring that. I would rather the County spend their time and energy in exploring those means so that we can have carbon free energy in the future and local food production. I don’t know that we should be adding more barriers to moving towards renewable energy. I think we should be trying to do the exact opposite. Thanks.
Judy Ogalla said you’re saying a solar company comes to say Goodenow Road out in eastern Will County, unincorporated Crete, and they want to put another solar farm. Are you saying then that they would have to do the study to determine what the impact would be?
Colin Duesing said correct, what we’re discussing is those larger ones. Right now, we’re just looking at 20- and 40-acres ones. Those are what we’ve been seeing here in Will County. What I’m predicting is that we’re going to be seeing in the very near future are those between 1,000 and 2,000 acres at one shot.
Judy Ogalla said okay and I’m aware of that as well. So, you’re saying have them do that impact study, and what would the impact study say? I was talking completely different, I was looking at the small community solar farms that come out to 17 to 20 acres. They could populate an area and essentially be like a commercial solar, but not be, versus a commercial solar farm that comes forward. What would that do? I think we should look at the fact that we should only allow so many per square mile of the community solar so that the entire landscape of the rural community does not change. But when we’re looking at commercial solar, I think we should look at that in a different type of Permit process. It’s obvious that you’re going to see all those things if its commercial, it’s going to be several thousand acres. What would you be looking for that visual impact study to tell you?
Colin Duesing said for Will County, mostly to identify the individual residents within the area and how each one would be affected. Right now, we just look at the four different sides, because it’s easy to calculate that. When we’re talking about a widespread site over thousands and thousands of acres in an area of between 10 and 12 square miles, that becomes a little bit more daunting, at least at the Staff level, to identify each and every possible resident impact. So, it would be something that the applicant would provide to us so we could identify that a lot easier and provide the mitigating abilities to mitigate the impacts on the area residents.
Judy Ogalla said when you think about that, when you put 1,000 to 3,000 acres of solar panels, it’s going to be a huge visual impact. For me, it would be ugly. For those that are totally into renewable energy, they would think it’s beautiful. I think the impact is the same if you have a bunch of small ones as well as one large one. A commercial solar farm you know is going to be unsightly, it’s not going to be something that’s in the typical landscape of the farming community and I would think most residents would not like that. How would you be able to mitigate it? Out where I live it is very hilly, but other areas are totally flat. In a totally flat area perhaps you would be able to compensate it. You wouldn’t be able to compensate that in hilly areas because you go up on top of the hill you can see everything down in the valleys. I guess I’m looking for more comments from the rest of the group.
Chairman Marcum asked, does anyone else have any thoughts? No response.
Colin Duesing said what I can do is download one of these impact studies and get it emailed to you so you can look at it and see what it looks like, what information it provides and what information it doesn’t provide and we can comment on it at the next meeting.
County Board Member Rachel Ventura asked, can you also include the typical prices that the people would have to pay for a study like that? Thanks.
Colin Duesing said okay.
Tom Weigel said if there are certain views that would look bad for certain residents, we could prohibit certain solar farms in that area. That would be one thing that we could do. I think it would be worthwhile to have that type of a study.
Chairman Marcum said I like the idea of sending one out because I’m having a little bit of a hard time visualizing exactly what information we’re going to get from it. So, I think I just need to see it. I don’t know if anybody else has anything.
5. Public Comment
None.
VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn the Meeting
Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Tom Weigel, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Harris, Ogalla, Weigel ABSENT: Traynere |
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=4212&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up