City Council

Plan Commission Minutes Community Solar Projects November 12, 2024 MINUTES  PLAN COMMISSION MEETING RECONVENE PUBLIC HEARING SOLAR FARM ON GOLF ROAD Tuesday, November 12, 2024 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS  6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Daniel Danko called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Harry Godfrey, Scott Scheuer, Theresa Solon Wargo and Chairman Daniel Danko. Absent: Dean Chalkey, Janette Strabala, and Jason Telford. Staff Present: Jermery Palm, Community Development Director/City Engineer, Sheryl Churney, City Attorney, and Patricia Henderson, City Clerk. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Danko requested a motion and second to approve the minutes from the October 8, 2024 meeting of the Plan Commission. MOTION: Scheuer made a motion to approve the October 9, 2024 minutes; seconded by Solon Wargo. ROLL: Ayes: Godfrey, Scheuer, Solon Wargo, and Chairman Danko. Motion passed. Absent: Chalkey, Strabala, and Telford. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. NEW BUSINESS: 1. REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A PETITION FROM CS SPRING LAKE LLC, TO ALLOW FOR A “SPECIAL USE” PERMIT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 17, 17.16.090 TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEIGHBORHOOD UTILITY SOLAR ELECTRIC FACILITY LOCATED ON 520 GOLF ROAD, IN THE CITY OF STREATOR, LASALLE & LIVINGSTON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. Chairman Danko requested a motion and second to reopen the Public Hearing. MOTION: Scheuer made a motion to reopen the Public Hearing; seconded by Godfrey. ROLL: Ayes: Godfrey, Scheuer, Solon Wargo, and Chairman Danko. Motion passed. Absent: Chalkey, Strabala, and Telford. City Attorney Shery Churney made some introductory remarks to the participants attending the Public Hearing. She informed the public that we have additional exhibits to add to the case for evidence. Letters and comments that have been received. The public notice for the hearing that was advertised, letters, and addresses of property owners within a 250-foot radius of the proposed “Special Use” permit. She then introduced TotalEnergies attorney, Seth Uphoff, and Peizhi Yang, Associate Director of Business Development, and said they would give a brief presentation before we take questions for the Public Hearing. (The presentation slides are attached). The City Clerk swore in Ms. Peizhi Yang, and then she and Attorney Uphoff began their recap of the proposal. Attorney Uphoff explained after the previous Public Hearing in September, 2024, and hearing concerns, TotalEnergies reformatted the proposal. Summary of the Solar Site Plan Presentation: • Screening has been reformatted to 15-20 ft. wide vegetative screening with evergreen trees, shrubs, and native plants for a greater amount of vegetative screening • Pollinator-friendly seed mix within will be used around the project • Also included are 3-D rendered photos from planting to 5 years of growth for vegetative screening  • Solar Development will generate more taxes then a single-family development as evidenced by the analysis performed utilizing build-out rates of both the Cobblestone and Blackwood Subdivisions located in close proximity to the site • Sound study has shown no perceptible sound increase • Property Value – LaSalle County Assessor has shown there are no consistent negative impacts on property value • A decommissioning bond $300K will be provided to the City to ensure decommissioning costs are covered at the end of the project. • $723k Property Tax for lifetime of project, with $391k going to the local school district and 208k going to the City ($30k in year 1) • Solar Impact on Agriculture land – 20 acres would still provide LaSalle County with more than 99.99% of its tillable farm ground. After the presentation Attorney Uphoff asked Ms. Yang to sum up the benefits of additional information provided at this meeting. Ms. Yang stated: 1) TotalEnergies would like the City of Streator to view this as an investment opportunity 2) There will be utility bill savings based on income 3) 3-million-dollar labor construction contract to build this project 4) Sales tax will increase for the 6-month period this is being built 5) 30+ years of ongoing operation, maintenance, and landscaping to a local contractor 6) Educational offerings can benefit the School District Following the summary and before questions Attorney Churney recommended the City Clerk swear in Mr. Uphoff, he was then sworn in. Chairman Danko asked the Plan Commission members if they had any questions. Commissioner Solon-Wargo - Asked if TotalEnergies would guarantee this contract be awarded locally. Attorney Uphoff said he knew the company was talking to contractors about other projects and he thought they were looking at Illinois-based contractors at this time but could not guarantee. Attorney Uphoff did note that all work would require prevailing wage. The on-going maintenance will most likely be contracted out locally for upkeep of the vegetative boundaries. Commissioner Solon-Wargo then asked who would be responsible to see the maintenance was being done. Attorney Uphoff replied the City would be responsible for investigating complaints or code violations. Jeremy Palm, City Engineer, replied this is a “Special Use” permit issued by the City and they have the same codes to maintain as anyone does in the city and the city would enforce the codes. Attorney Uphoff then added that on top of standard property maintenance code enforcement the ultimate remedy would be that the Special Permit could be revoked. Attorney Churney confirmed that was correct. Commissioner Solon-Wargo then asked in the event that the Permit was revoked who would pay to decommission the site. Attorney Uphoff stated that TotalEnergies would be required to decommission and the $300,000 bond was the guarantee of that. Commissioner Solon-Wargo then questioned if the $300,000 was sufficient taking into account inflation and what inflation rate was used to determine the figure. Ms. Yang stated the $300,000 was an engineering estimate but did not know the exact inflation rate used, but could find out. Attorney Uphoff then stated that the bond amount could be reviewed at set intervals and raised if needed in accordance with a Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreement (“AIMA”) with the Illinois Department of Agriculture. Attorney Uphoff noted that the idea of reviewing the bond amount at a given time frame is a standard practice as the value of the solar equipment changes over time as the 2 equipment has salvage value and even in the event of TotalEnergies going bankrupt another entity would likely by the site and continue to operate it, as was seen with the Enron bankruptcy years ago. Commissioner Solon-Wargo then asked how long TotalEnergies had been in the solar business. Ms. Yang stated that TotalEnergies had been investing in solar since at least 2005. Attorney Churney then questioned if the project had and AIMA and if the developer would be willing to submit a redacted copy of the lease with the landowner. Ms. Yang stated that an AIMA was not completed but could be if required and a redacted copy of the lease could also be provided. Commissioner Solon-Wargo then asked if there were any EMF issues with the project or what would happen if they were discovered in the future. Attorney Uphoff stated that any EMF discharges would be electrical in nature and that he believed the EMF output of the project would be less than the overhead power lines that already run adjacent to the site. Additionally, he believed he could supply a study that shows that the solar panels produce less EMF than the appliances in your home. Commissioner Solon-Wargo then asked what would happen if in the future studies came out that solar development has negative health impacts. Chairman Danko then asked if there would be any soil impacts related to the development. Attorney Uphoff stated that no harmful elements have been found to leach from the panels and that the resting of the soil over time has been found to have a positive impact on the soil conditions. Commissioner Scheuer then questioned how TotalEnergies picked this site and why a site with less opposition wasn’t chosen. Attorney Uphoff replied that several factors go into the selection of the site and not every agricultural site is acceptable. The factors that make a site viable start with accessibility to the electrical grid and also include topography, lack of floodplain, and numerous other issues. Potentially the largest factor is a cooperative landowner which this site has. The site landowner must want the project, as is the case for this site, and their rights as landowners are part of the basis for US law. Ms. Yang also stated that general constructability of a site is a factor. Commissioner Scheuer then asked why wouldn’t a landowner want a solar development on their land. Attorney Uphoff stated that could be a variety of reasons, but ultimately property owner rights to make decisions about their land was an important factor to consider. At this point questions from the audience were taken. The first question posed was if the development was receiving state or federal tax money for construction. Mr. Yang stated that project was receiving federal tax credits. Another question was asked about what happens when the local deer heard start crossing Golf Road to eat the installed vegetation. Attorney Uphoff stated that deer will do what they are going to do and that any landowner who plants vegetation in Illinois has to deal with the potential of deer eating it. The next question was what happens once the tax credits expire. Ms. Yang stated that the tax credit was in the form of an upfront payment. Next an audience member questioned the $9,000 city tax figure in the presentation. They said 3 that the previous presentation in September had also included the $9,000 figure as the total City tax for both solar projects so were questioning if the $9,000 figure was for both projects and not just the one on Golf Road. Commissioner Solon-Wargo referred to the September presentation and confirmed that the $9,000 was shown as the total for all projects. Ms. Yang stated that she believed the $9,000 was just for the Golf Road Project. The next question raised was does the state have setback requirements for this type of project. Attorney Uphoff stated that they do but Attorney Churney and Mr. Palm stated that since the project is in City limits the City’s setbacks apply and the proposed development meets the setback requirements. Next Rick Wilkinson introduced himself as the owner of the Cobblestone Place development and questioned if the land wouldn’t be better suited to a senior housing development. Mr. Wilkinson then questioned if the project has to be decommissioned in 35 years who pays the difference over the $300,000 bond if costs are higher. Attorney Uphoff reiterated that the bond can be adjusted from time to time but ultimately the lease with the landowner covers who pays the decommission price. Mr. Dave Sickley then introduced himself as the landowner as stated that the lease requires TotalEnergies to pay all costs to decommission the site. An audience member then questioned what happens to the panels when they are decommissioned. Attorney Uphoff stated that the panels are 90% recyclable and that the issue is finding the right recycler but several recyclers operate within Illinois and midwest. The next question was are harmful chemicals released if a panel breaks. Attorney Uphoff stated that a study performed by the University of North Carolina found that even after the panels were broken into 1 cm pieces and placed in an acid bath no chemical were found to leach from the panels. Commissioner Scheuer that questioned in asbestos was once considered recyclable. Attorney Churney then questioned if the site was fenced. Mr. Palm stated that the proposed plan calls for the site to be fenced. An audience member then questioned what info existed to say that solar developments were safe. Attorney Churney spoke to the question by informing the Plan Commission that their job was ultimately not to decide if solar developments were safe, but if this site met the requirements for issuance of a Special Use Permit, since the City’s code allows for it. At this point hearing no more questions Attorney Churney recommended to Chairman Danko that public comment now begin with the City Clerk swearing in commenters. Mr. Rick Wilkinson was then sworn in by the City Clerk and stated that he is a lifelong resident of Streator and the developer of Cobblestone Place, a local plumbing business, and Gaetano’s vault. The cost to build a home in his subdivision is $300,000-$400,000 and he feels people won’t make that investment with a solar farm next door. In his opinion the proposed solar development is the worse use for the land as the Cobblestone development provides $150,000- $160,000 in tax revenue annually. The negative recommendation from the September meeting was the correct one and the best use of the land may be a retirement community. The property value studies presented at the first meeting don’t reflect a small community like Streator and he is sure the development will be a deterrent to sell lots in Cobblestone. The residential development presentation featuring Cobblestone and Blackwoods don’t reflect that he is not a production builder as his development stipulations ensure that only prime homes are built Mr. Justin Skinner was then sworn in and presented a petition that he stated contained 332 4 signatures and gave the petition to the City Clerk. Mrs. Brittany Skinner was then sworn in a stated that she had actually worked on the petition and wanted to read from it. Attorney Uphoff objected as the petition did not actually contain signatures and was just a list of names. Attorney Churney then referenced the Commission and stated that since the petition was not signed it could be entered into the record but should be considered hearsay and it shouldn’t be given any weight during deliberations. Ms. Skinner then resumed her statement and stated that the item submitted was a printout from the Change.org petition she set up. Ms. Skinner continued by saying that buyers dictate property values not assessors and that she lives at 528 Golf Road and the development will literally be in her backyard and if she wants to sell she is going to have to find the 1 person willing to buy. Mark Klachko was then sworn in and stated that he appreciated the very professional presentation but stated that nothing guarantees property values will not go down. He then questioned if battery backups will be used onsite as he has concerns about lithium batteries. He also stated that he believes the 15-20 deer heard will be cause a problem crossing Golf Road and questioned if IDNR was contacted regarding local wildlife and if TotalEnergies had looked into the Illinois Pollinator site program. Nancy Eurk was then sworn in and stated that she used to work at a lab and Streator has a high rate of bladder cancer that she attributes to Smith Douglass and is concerned this site will cause the same issues. She then questioned if Streator could amend the codes to prevent solar farms and stated she could get a lot of signatures on a petition if needed. She continued by questioning how this could be placed on a residential property. She concluded by stating the development would be bad for Streator only generating $9,000 in taxes and only employing 1 person. Susan Boling was then sworn in and stated that she was upset that her ten page opposition letter was only provided to the Commission at the start of the meeting. She also questioned why Mrs. Skinner was not allowed to read from her petition by Attorney Uphoff was allowed to quote the LaSalle County Assessor who was not in attendance. She also researched the company and believes they only rebranded to include solar developments in 2021 not 2005. She believes the development will be an eyesore and has concerns about lithium batteries. She lives adjacent to the proposed site on Route 18 but was there to support the Golf Road residents. Ms. Yang then offered a rebuttal stating that no battery storage is proposed for the site and if any was proposed a new hearing would have to be held. With no more members of the public seeking comment Chairman Danko allowed Attorney Uphoff to give some closing remarks. Attorney Uphoff then began his remarks to the Commission to reiterate that these types of developments can’t be placed anywhere, requiring the parcel to have certain features and a cooperative landowner who has property rights that must not be overlooked. He cautioned the Commission to value evidence over speculation, as the presenters have provided evidence versus the speculation offered by the public. He stated that during their presentation they provided evidence in the form of assessor’s opinions of property values, references to health and welfare studies, tax and job estimate calculations, and maintenance plans to address resident concerns. He stated that the development might not provide a lot of full-time jobs, but 1 job is better than zero and during construction the construction jobs will have a positive impact on the community. Additionally, subscribers will save money if the project is built. He continued by saying that the Commission should not allow viewpoint vetoes as different people have different concerns and if 5 allowed, the discussion of items such as not allowing a certain color or house or type of tree may develop. Attorney Uphoff then referred back to the earlier presentation that there were no housing starts in Cobblestone from 2021 to 2024, and Streator is shown to have a decreasing population which put together he believes shows an oversupply of housing lots. He continued by saying that he feels the current agriculture use poses more of a health hazard relating fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticide spraying than the development will. He feels this again is evidence versus speculation. He stated that he agrees that his job would be easier if the project was supported, but just because it is not, doesn’t mean the owners property rights should be ignored. He concluded by reiterating that he believes they have presented evidence to support the development, not hypothesis, and thanked the Commission for their consideration and hoped for a positive recommendation. At this time Chairman Danko requested a motion and second to close the Public Hearing. MOTION: Godfrey made a motion to close the Public Hearing; seconded by Solon Wargo. ROLL: Ayes: Godfrey, Scheuer, Solon Wargo, and Chairman Danko. Motion passed. Absent: Chalkey, Strabala, and Telford. Following the closing of the Public Hearing Mr. Palm stated that now that evidence had been received the Commission should now review each of the 11 findings required for the issuance of Special Use Permit per 17.16.090 of the City’s Zoning Title and if following review of those findings regardless of whether the Commission wished to recommend approval or denial that the following stipulations be added to any potential Special Use Permit: (1) The Petitioner shall enter into a Standard Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreement (“AIMA”) with the Illinois Department of Agriculture Pertaining to the Construction of the Solar Energy Facility. (2) The landscaping plan as presented at the public hearing conducted on November 12, 2024 shall be installed and maintained. (3) A road use agreement covering the construction of the facility shall be entered into with the Bruce Township Road District and the City of Streator if deemed necessary by the City Engineer. The Commission was in consensus that those stipulations should be added and then Chairman Danko began requesting votes on each of the 11 findings. The record of those finding votes was as follows: (1) The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use or combination of uses will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or general welfare of the residents of the city. Member Yes No Absent Chalkey X Godfrey X Scheuer X Strabala X Telford X Solon Wargo X Chair Danko X 6  (2) The proposed use will not diminish the use or enjoyment of other property in the vicinity for those uses or combination of uses which are permitted by this zoning title. Member Yes No Absent Chalkey X Godfrey X Scheuer X Strabala X Telford X Solon Wargo X Chair Danko X (3) The establishment of the proposed use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties for uses or combination of uses otherwise permitted in the zoning district. Member Yes No Absent Chalkey X Godfrey X Scheuer X Strabala X Telford X Solon Wargo X Chair Danko X (4) The proposed use will not diminish property values in the vicinity. Member Yes No Absent Chalkey X Godfrey X Scheuer X Strabala X Telford X Solon Wargo X Chair Danko X (5) Adequate measures already exist or will be taken to provide ingress and egress to the proposed use in a manner that minimizes traffic congestion in public streets. Member Yes No Absent Chalkey X Godfrey X Scheuer X Strabala X Telford X Solon Wargo X Chair Danko X 7  (6) The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the city. Member Yes No Absent Chalkey X Godfrey X Scheuer X Strabala X Telford X Solon Wargo X Chair Danko X (7) The proposed use will not materially affect a known historical or cultural resource. Member Yes No Absent Chalkey X Godfrey X Scheuer X Strabala X Telford X Solon Wargo X Chair Danko X (8) The design of the proposed use considers its relationship to the surrounding area and minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts of the proposed use on adjacent property. Member Yes No Absent Chalkey X Godfrey X Scheuer X Strabala X Telford X Solon Wargo X Chair Danko X (9) The design of the proposed use promotes a safe and comfortable pedestrian environment. Member Yes No Absent Chalkey X Godfrey X Scheuer X Strabala X Telford X Solon Wargo X Chair Danko X 8  (10) The proposed use has included adequate consideration consistent with these standards for buffers, landscaping, fencing, lighting, building materials, public open space, and other improvements associated with the proposed use. Member Yes No Absent Chalkey X Godfrey X Scheuer X Strabala X Telford X Solon Wargo X Chair Danko X (11) The off-site impacts of the proposed use such as vehicular traffic, noise, hours of operation, etc., have been shown to be complete with the surrounding area. Member Yes No Absent Chalkey X Godfrey X Scheuer X Strabala X Telford X Solon Wargo X Chair Danko X Following the finding votes the Commission moved on to consideration of the Recommendation. 2. PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 2024-11. RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND ISSUANCE OF A “SPECIAL USE” PERMIT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 17, 17.16.090 OF THE STREATOR MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD UTILITY FACILITY LOCATED ON 520 GOLF ROAD, IN THE CITY OF STREATOR, LASALLE & LIVINGSTON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. Chairman Danko requested a motion and second to recommend approval and issuance of a “Special Use” permit under the provisions of Chapter 17, 17.16.090 of the Streator Municipal Code to allow for the construction of a proposed neighborhood utility facility located on 520 Golf Road, in the City of Streator, LaSalle & Livingston Counties, Illinois. When there was no response to his request the Chairman asked if there was a motion to approve or deny the recommendation. Scheuer said he would make a motion to deny the recommendation to recommend approval and issuance of a “Special Use” permit under the provisions of Chapter 17, 17.16.090 of the Streator Municipal Code to allow for the construction of a proposed neighborhood utility facility located on 520 Golf Road, in the City of Streator, LaSalle & Livingston Counties, Illinois. MOTION: Scheuer made a motion to deny the recommendation; seconded by Solon Wargo. Commissioner Scheuer questioned to clarify that a yes vote on the motion to deny was a recommendation to deny. Attorney Churney stated that was correct. ROLL: Ayes: Scheuer, Solon Wargo. 9  Nay: Godfrey, Chairman Danko. Absent: Chalkey, Strabala, and Telford. Based on the split vote Attorney Churney stated that the motion failed but the full record of the proceedings including exhibits would be forwarded to the Council for their deliberation. STATUS REPORTS Mr. Palm stated that work had begun on the Lilja building façade project on Main Street PLAN COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS Chairman Danko stated that the votes at the meeting were merely recommendations and that the final approval votes would be made by the City Council at their meeting on November 20, 2024, at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:00 P.M. Chairman Danko requested a motion and second to adjourn the meeting. MOTION: Godfrey made a motion to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Solon Wargo. ROLL: Ayes: Godfrey, Scheuer, Solon Wargo, and Chairman Danko. Absent: Chalkey, Strabala, and Telford. ___________________________________________ Patricia L. Henderson City Clerk 10