Champaign County Environment and Land Use Committee met Dec. 9.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
Committee Members
| Present | Absent |
| Aaron Esry (Vice-Chair) | |
| Stephanie Fortado | |
| Mary King | |
| Kyle Patterson | |
| Jacob Paul | |
| Chris Stohr | |
| Eric Thorsland (Chair) |
Others Present: None
MINUTES
I. Call to Order
Committee Chair Thorsland called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m.
II. Roll Call
A verbal roll call was taken, and a quorum was declared present.
III. Approval of Agenda/Addendum
MOTION by Ms. King to approve the agenda, seconded by Mr. Esry. Upon voice vote, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously to approve the Agenda.
IV. Approval of Minutes
A. September 9, 2021 – Study Session
B. October 7, 2021 – Regular Meeting
MOTION by Mr. Paul to approve the minutes of the September 9, 2021 Study Session and October 7, 2021 regular meeting, seconded by Mr. Stohr. Upon voice vote, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously.
V. Public Participation
There was no public participation.
VI. Communications
There were no communications from the committee.
VII. New Business: For Information Only
A. Residential Electronics Collection 2021 Report – May 22 and October 16, 2021
Residents of 21 municipalities and Champaign County participated again this year. Approximately 15% to 18% of those registered did not attend, so attendance is pretty good. There was an expected decline in the collection of cathode-ray-tube TV’s and monitors while LCD TV’s and monitors continue to trend up. Mr. Paul commented that the Other category is very large. He asked what the top of the other category is. The contractor has the opportunity to collect materials that are electronics and scrap that they can make a profit on as long as they transport it and don’t use state funds to do so. Mr. Stohr asked if the no-shows are a big problem, where 15-18% do not show up. Ms. Monte answered no, as they allow for that and bump up the number of registrations.
B. Heritage Disposal Summary for IEPA One-Day HHW Collection on April 4, 2021
The Disposal Summary is the only feedback received from this event. There were 974 participants registered and 89% showed up. The event ran very smoothly.
C. Update of Zoning Ordinance Requirement for Wind Farms
Mr. Thorsland led the discussion on the ordinance for Wind Farms. The newer wind towers are bigger. This is just to start discussion as to if the ordinance needs to be updated. Mr. Thorsland stated that the FAA has updated the lighting requirements. They’ve made a change in that those towers 499 to 699 feet are a different category. That’s just one foot off of our ordinance. Bigger towers mean fewer towers and has actually helped in the sighting requirements. This would be a lot of work and a lot of hearings for ZBA. We would either have to update the ordinance or do a lot of waivers. There is no timeline for this. Will try to bring more information back in January.
VIII. New Business: Items to be Approved by ELUC
A. Annual Renewal of Recreation and Entertainment License
1. Gordyville, LLC, 2205 CR 3000N, Gifford. 01/01/22-12/31/22
MOTION by Mr. Esry to approve the R&E License for Gordyville. Seconded by Ms. King. Upon voice vote the MOTION CARRIED unanimously.
2. Hudson Farm Wedding & Events, LLC, 1341 CR 1800E Urbana, IL 61802. 01/01/22-12/31/22
MOTION by Mr. Stohr to approve the R&E License for Hudson Farm Weddings & Events. Seconded by Mr. Esry. Upon voice vote the MOTION CARRIED unanimously.
B. Annual Hotel/Motel License for Urbana Motel Inc. dba Motel 6 at 1906 North Cunningham Ave., Urbana for 01/01/22-12/31/22
MOTION by Ms. King to approve the Hotel/Motel License for Urbana Motel and seconded by Mr. Paul. Upon voice vote, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously.
C. Direction Regarding Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to add Data Center to the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Hall stated that an individual has interest in doing two Data Centers in our jurisdiction. It is a non manned Data Center, which means it is probably cyber currency mining. It would consist of a building and a 2 Mega Watt solar array to provide power. Two Mega-Watts would take approximately 16 acres of solar arrays to power a building 20 foot wide by 100 feet long stuffed with computers with no staff on site. We don’t allow solar farms anywhere but AG-1 and AG-2. This solar array is not really a solar farm as it would not be selling the energy; it would all be used to power the onsite data center. It will look like a solar farm to a neighbor. Do we want to treat solar arrays the same as a solar farm? If a solar farm goes broke, you’ve taken out best prime farmland for a solar farm and require a decommissioning agreement to return it to farmland.
The way this text amendment is structured Data Centers would only be allowed in B-4 (General Business) and I-1 (Light Industry). If the Data Center goes broke, do you want a decommissioning agreement to remove the solar array? If we don’t require a decommissioning agreement up front, you’re going to be stuck with a solar array. This amendment assumes that we will treat it just like a solar farm. They will have to provide a decommissioning agreement so that if they go broke, they will have to remove it. The other thing about treating it as a solar farm, is we don’t allow a solar farm within 0.5 mile of a municipality. You would expect B-4 and I-1 to be within 0.5 mile of a municipality. There is an inherent contradiction built into it. The two that are proposed are both within 1.5 miles of the city of Urbana. Urbana has already approved three Data Centers for the same person. They have not been constructed yet.
The other thing this text amendment does is to define and allow accessory solar arrays. It does two things; introduces Data Center as a use, it says it will be treated the same as a solar farm and it identifies the threshold of 1 Mega Watt or over as a solar farm.
Mr. Thorsland asked if we anticipate feedback or protest from Urbana. Mr. Hall said he anticipates feedback from Urbana and maybe a protest on the re-zoning. Mr. Thorsland asked if the building and solar array have to be zoned the same? On the fringe of AG-2, there would be a lot of public input if we would re-zone. If the County Board would want to take a less restrictive approach, allow them in AG-2 it makes it simpler for everyone and with the decommissioning agreement may be allowing in AG-2 is not a problem. Mr. Thorsland said he thought the decommissioning agreement should be something that stays with the amendment.
Discussion was held on a range of concerns. These buildings can get very hot and could result in fire calls, etc. If there is no one physically in the building to monitor the safety aspects – fire and theft; would the county be responsible? Treating it like a solar farm with the ground cover, screening, decommissioning agreement is important. Allowing the actual Data Center in AG-2 would be easier on staff and the County Board. Allowing in AG-2 may not have as big an impact as we think. Mr. Thorsland asked if we make it too easy will that cause an influx of these facilities. Mr. Paul answered that it is the wave of the future and being a college town, he could see it growing.
Ms. Fortado says she wouldn’t support it if it doesn’t have the decommissioning aspect. That must be a part of it. Mr. Paul suggested having a requirement for minimum staffing. Mr. Hall said that is not something that we currently do. If it’s because of the safety concerns, we could require approval from the fire protection district. Does the local fire protection district have the knowledge on how to fight this type of fire?
Mr. Esry commented that he thinks it should have the approval of the local fire department. Not sure of how we would require staffing. Also, maybe look at the placement of invertors. It should be treated like a solar farm. He had no problem with getting the land rezoned but also was not opposed to allowing in the AG-2 as well.
Is the committee comfortable with AG-2 option or make them rezone to B-4 or I-1 and go through the process? Also, how will the various zoning options possibly limit things.
Mr. Stohr had a concern that it takes up so much space that it might limit or keep other business out of commercial and industrial areas. Also, is it a risk of people breaking in? Mr. Paul said absolutely. The cards themselves are very expensive and there is that risk. The space we’re talking about would hold millions of dollars’ worth of chips. Security would be up to the owner.
Ms. Fortado asked for clarification on the zoning choices. Is it either B-4 and I-1 or AG-2? Or are we adding AG-2 to the B-4 and I-1. Mr. Hall said that we would be adding AG-2 as an option. Ms. Fortado suggested adding AG-2 to send to the ZBA to get input at their hearings. Mr. Hall said he would be inclined to run two text amendments one for the B-4 and I-1 and one for AG-2. If we find no one likes that idea, the County Board can leave that part out.
The committee is interested in the AG-2 option.
D. R&E License for Troy Feldkamp for Demo Derby at the Champaign County Fairgrounds, 1302 North Colder Avenue, Urbana. 4/22/22-4/23/22
Mr. Thorsland read the statement from the Sheriff about the issues with the previous promoter with the event running late and lots of noise complaints. Mr. Feldkamp is aware of the issues with the previous promoter and is wanting this to be a successful event with no issues.
Motion by Mr. Patterson and seconded by Ms. Fortado to approve the R&E License for Troy Feldkamp for a Demo Derby. Upon voice vote, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously.
IX. New Business: Items to be Recommended to the County Board
A. Resolution Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement between the County of Champaign, Parkland College and A-Team Recyclers with regard to the Residential Electronics Collections on May 20-21, 2022 and October 14-15, 2022.
Motion by Mr. Esry and second by Ms. King to approve and recommend to the County Board the Intergovernmental Agreement as presented.
Mr. Esry asked if there are any issues in working with A-Team Recyclers. Ms. Monte said no, they are a dream to work with.
Upon voice vote, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously.
B. Resolution Approving an Intergovernmental Cost-Share Agreement between the County of Champaign, the City of Champaign, the City of Urbana and the Village of Savoy for the Residential Electronics Collection events and IEPA-Sponsored Household Hazardous Waste Collection Event in 2022.
Mr. Stohr noticed that we are renting State Farm Center for $1000.00 for the HHW Event and that Parkland does not charge us. Parkland has been very generous in allowing us to use their facilities. The State Farm Center is a new venue for us this year.
Motion by Mr. Stohr and second by Mr. Esry to approve and recommend to the County Board the Intergovernmental Cost-Sharing Agreement as presented.
Upon voice vote, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously.
X. Other Business
A. Monthly Reports
i. September 2021
ii. October 2021
The reports were received and placed on file.
Ms. Fortado had a couple of items for Other Business. First was about the ARPA funds and water projects. There is some movement on some of the water issues in some of the smaller municipalities and those should probably be brought to ELUC before going to the Committee of the Whole. These will need an MOU or IGA.
The second item she had is the funding regarding the Mahomet Aquifer. This is on the books, but we don’t have how this is going to happen. This may require an RFQ and those can take a while to do.
XI. Chair’s Report
There was no Chair’s Report.
XII. Designation of Items to be Placed on the Consent Agenda Items IX. A and B
XIII. Adjournment
Mr. Thorsland adjourned the meeting at 7:34 p.m.
https://www.co.champaign.il.us/CountyBoard/ELUC/2021/211209_Meeting/211209_Minutes.pdf
Alerts Sign-up