Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Oh, maybe the order back to you. Are you with that?

Sure am.

Say they billed it.

Well, we're at the meeting starting now. Meeting starting.

So I'll have everybody have an opportunity to check over to the agenda and entertain a motion to approve the agenda.

Do you want me to roll call first?

Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Brian Venema.

Here.

Tom Stewart.

Yes.

Christine Fogg. Here. Emerita Keyes. Here.

There we go.

Sandra Gerlach. Here. Monica McHugh. Here. Mike Burke.

Here. Now I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda. So moved.

I'll second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Anybody opposed? Okay, so move on to approval of the minutes. We want to do each meeting separately. or jointly, does it make any difference? Anybody? We're not getting somebody the minutes in particular they want to talk about that we can do approves of both the minutes at the same time?

I move that we approve both of the minutes. Second.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Next item is the designation of official quizzical posting location. Becca, do you want to go over that for us, please?

I will. So, is it?

Would you like to explain it? What it does is it requires the posting of the agendas. You can post them now on a website. It doesn't have to be on the door, but it's got to be 24 hours in advance. And if there's an amendment to the agenda, that also has to be completed 24 hours in advance. So we just did an advisory opinion on that on Thursday.

So any amendment has to be before the meeting?

Yes, before the meeting, 24 hours before the meeting. Okay. Yes.

Okay. So I can post a public notice, a general public notice that we're having a meeting in the newspaper and then wait to post the agenda until 24 hours in advance. And our official posting location is the main public entrance doors of the Jefferson County Courthouse.

So if something comes up that day, we can't address it?

No, we can't. Not if the agenda has to be amended. If you pull up website. We have to. So yeah, it's a done deal then.

We're on video or there might be a headline. Yeah.

And it is Advisory Opinion 26-AO-0008. Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait. Wrong one, wrong one. Sorry. No, that was another one. No, no, no. I take that back. The one we did was not on that. We will have another one this next meeting on the agenda because we're getting lots of questions on it. I'm sorry. Never mind.

OK.

Sorry.

So that part isn't in stone yet?

Well.

It is.

It is. We're just going to clarify.

OK. It just, you know, I guess in a government meeting, I guess you can afford to wait till the next meeting if you know something comes up the day of the meeting. It seems that that's not very flexible. That's all I'm saying.

The whole, we have had on IPIM so many problems with agendas being posted and um and we had we've had schools that have posted them on bulletin boards inside but the doors are locked so you can't see school board meeting notices but that's the official location legally they weren't wrong ethically it was a problem but we had to follow the law prior so like Here in Jackson County, all of the township meetings, they're posted in the auditor's office. That's their official location. All right. How many people can make it here between 8.30 and 4.30 to look at a township agenda? And it was a problem. The legislature knew it was a problem. And so that's why they allowed... the agenda is to be posted on the website if they have a website available. But yes, it does change the amendments. You cannot amend an agenda less than 24 hours prior to the meeting. So that is spelled out. And yes, I agree, but that's kind of an inconvenience compared to the issues of posting agendas where people can see them, because most people today go to a website to look for the agenda. So that's my IPIP story. OK. And we can move on.

Yep. We have a vote on that?

We have an option.

Well, she says we do.

We've been motioning to have it designated. Well, we don't have to.

Lisa suggested that we do. We don't have to. Okay, then we won't.

That's not required.

So we'll move on to the work session of the special about high density building facilities portals.

But what do you got. The purpose of tonight's discussion is not to finalize the ordinance or resolve every newly raised technical issue. Staff has incorporated the revisions previously discussed and requested by the Commission into the July 20th working draft. Since the Board of Supervisors will be asked on July 28 to consider a 12 month extension of the current moratorium. Tonight's goals are to review where the draft currently stands, acknowledge the additional comments and resources received, identify the major areas requiring further technical, legal, or agency assistance, establish priorities for continued work during the proposed extension period, and obtain commission direction on several items that can reasonably be addressed tonight. Technology and industry practices are changing rapidly. Staff recommends focusing on durable land use principles and avoiding detailed technical requirements that may become outdated or that have not yet been professionally reviewed. The current status of the July 20th draft incorporates the changes previously discussed or directed by the commission, including revisions relating to applicability within unincorporated Jackson County, application and interdepartmental review requirements, utility coordination, baseline post-startup, periodic and complaint-based testing, annual compliance certification, road use and financial assurance requirements, decommissioning and owner-operator responsibility, enforcement and cost recovery, permanent construction and enclosed building requirements, scenic fireway considerations, and cooling and water resource protection. The draft remains a working document. It has not yet been formally recommended by the zoning commission or adopted by the board of supervisors. The current moratorium expires August 31st, 2026. The commissioners have generally expressed support for extending the moratorium and the county attorney's office has advised that moratoria are legitimate temporary planning tools but that an unnecessarily lengthy moratorium may be subject to legal challenge. Based on that guidance, staff will present a proposed 12-month replacement moratorium resolution to the Board of Supervisors on July 28, 2026. The proposed replacement moratorium would update the original data mining terminology to cover the broader range of HDCF and data processing uses, allow time for targeted legal, technical, departmental, and agency review, provide a realistic timeframe for final ordinance revision, and automatically terminate upon the adoption of a HDCF ordinance should the ordinance be completed before the stated expiration date. Since the June 15th joint work session, staff has received or located additional information including written comments from the Jackson County Farm Bureau Board of Directors, technical comments concerning the use of a 600-amp threshold in the HGCF definition, information shared through the statewide data centers for county fruit, and additional public and Board of Supervisors comments concerning setbacks, noise, utilities, water, decommissioning, and enforcement. During the proposed moratorium extension period, staff should seek assistance concerning the following subjects. HDCF definition and electrical thresholds, appropriate use of kilowatts, kilovolt, amperes, megawatts, electrical design capacity, annual energy use, and aggregation of related phases or facilities. Noise and low frequency sound, appropriate DVA and DVC standards, tonal adjustment, measurement location, testing duration, and recurring compliance testing. Vibration. Test technically appropriate limits, measurement standards, equipment, and weather separate, daytime and nighttime limits are necessary. Cooling systems. Air-cooled, closed-lift, direct-to-chip, hydro, immersion, and other emergent technologies, including the complete cooling and heat rejection process. Water use and groundwater protection. Water demand, cooling water, discharge, coolant fluids, private 12, karst, sinkhole, shallow bedrock, and hydrologic review. Utility coordination. Information that may reasonably be required from applicants and utilities without attempting to regulate utility capacity, service rates, or operations. Backup generators and fuel storage. Generator testing, noise, emissions permitting, fuel containment, screening, emergency coordination, and applicable state or federal authority. Emergency response. Access, shutoff information, hazardous materials, device equipment, training needs, and local responder capability. Road use and infrastructure. Traffic studies, fall routes, road condition documentation, repair responsibilities and financial assurance, decommissioning and financial assurance, cost estimate, acceptable security instrument, update, default procedures, fencing, site security, building reuse and restoration, ownership and transfer obligation, successor responsibility, recorded acknowledgement, replacement financial assurance and release of prior owners or operators. enforcement inspection authority notices cure period equipment suspension permit relocation injunction abatement liens and cost recovery zoning structure whether HDCF should remain conditional uses and existing zoning districts were placed in a separate district or overlay items for discussion and possible direction tonight. These items are described individually on this discussion sheet. Any direction provided tonight will be incorporated into a future working draft and, where appropriate, reviewed by the county attorney. Following tonight's work session, staff proposes to present the proposed 12-month replacement moratorium to the Board of Supervisors on July 28, submit the draft ordinance and targeted questions to appropriate county departments, agencies, utilities, professionals, and legal counsel. Organize future work sessions into smaller focused topic areas. Prepare comparison materials and post language after the relevant technical input is received and return future substantive revisions to the commission for review and direction. Staff recommends using a proposed moratorium extension period to obtain targeted professional input while continuing to focus the ordinance on durable land use principles. Technical standards should be added only when they are supportable, legally defensible, practical for the county to administer, and adaptable to changing technology. Which leads us then into the discussion for the evening. Non-emergency generator testing hours. I believe this was brought up last month.

What was that? It was language. And I don't see.

8 to 5, normal business hours.

8 to 5, normal business hours. I mean, it shouldn't disturb anything as long as, I mean, there's going to be noise by this facility anyway during that time. I would assume. Running a generator is not going to make a whole lot of difference.

And if it's a nine-year-old?

I do agree with the setting of time, so it's not testing it at midnight or something. Well, it would be like that.

It would, but if this is the data center, and the power goes out, and they have to have enough generation to keep it running, it's not one generator that's going to be going. They're going to have both. No, this is just the testing of the generator. Right.

So, I mean, we can't control that. No. No. Oh. Okay.

Right. And there will be more than one. So you get them all done between 8 and 5 instead of like one this hour, one the next hour, and do it.

Yeah, do a little sequence rather than all at once.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay. Mandatory considerations of scenic highway impacts. The current draft allows the Board of Adjustment to consider scenic impacts and impose conditions. Public comments have requested stronger language comparable to the county's wind energy protection. The proposed language is where a proposed HDCF is located within the beer shed of the Greenwood Scenic Highway, the Great River Road, or another designated scenic highway. The Board of Adjustment shall consider the facility's visibility and potential effects on scenic resources and may require reasonable conditions to reduce adverse visual impact.

Yes.

I have two.

Oh, come on. Okay, why?

It would be consistent. It would be, but there's a difference between the look of a wind turbine and a building.

Well... That's subjective. But, okay, so here's my question on this.

What happens when a farmer decides he wants to put up a shed because they can put one up and they make it as ugly as sin? But then we're going to reject a...

I think the scale is a big thing to me. You're not rejecting. Yeah. I think the scale is a big thing to me because if you're talking even a medium to small size data center, it's going to be bigger than what you think. And if you're talking about something like they're proposing up in Dubuque, a hyperscaler, you're talking massive. And so I think it would be, considering that we have always taken into account the scenic byway, I think we ought to be at least as, or the same restrictions in par with what we're doing for windmills. It's not going to be a machine shed size building that is holding the data center.

I do use the word may in here as opposed to shall considered.

Well, may means they have discretion. Exactly.

What do you mean that you're stupid?

Don't get me wrong, because I understand the economic value of these things. I do. Well, we've got to think about what's right for Jackson County. My concern with it is, are we, you know,

Are we being fair with a similar type of building that houses another business? That's my concern.

Okay, so you're saying if some big manufacturing outfit came in that didn't feed, would we treat them the same way? That would have A similar size building. Can you answer that question?

At this time, we don't. But who's to say we shouldn't?

Right. I mean, that's my concern. Because yes, we need to be aware of that. But my concern is okay, we limit the data center. But then we have a warehouse that comes in or a manufacturer or something like that, are we going to do the same thing?

Sure. Let's do that. I mean, seriously. Well, you're talking the scenic byway.

And I get it. But I mean, I'm just saying that we need to be fair. So is this something that we should break into all of it? Or are we going to play favorites one over another? That's my concern.

She's absolutely right. I think we ought to look into doing it all to protect the Scenic Bible.

Yeah.

I agree. I agree too. We're coming at it from two different directions, but we agree.

Yeah. I mean, my concern with it is if we have a manufacturer that comes in and we're not restricting them, but we're restricting a data center, The data center is going to turn around and sue the county. Yeah.

We get it.

Yeah. So let's treat them all the same.

Well, we got a year to work on it, right? A year and a month, actually. Not really. It took a couple weeks. That's all I'm saying. I get it. Well taken. That's

So we're okay with this language then?

I am, but we have to do it with everything and not just this.

We've done it with the wind turbines. We'll do it with the HGCU.

I don't want to miss the opportunity to have this right. So we're doing this right now.

I get it, but my caveat is I don't want this unless we are guaranteed that we're going to do it with the rest of it. Otherwise, I'm opposed to it.

Because if we don't come back... We're not making a final decision right now, anyway.

But that's my concern.

So you could agree to this if we are going to consider it for all of it?

Only if we consider it for all of it.

I'm okay with that.

It'll be the first thing written into the solar.

And then we also need to change our current ordinances that are out there. So, yeah. Okay.

And they're ready to require a visual impact or you should another. Some sites may require more information before the county can reasonably evaluate visual impacts facility sized photography proximity to neighboring properties. Visibility from public roads or proximity to scenic resources may make a visual impact analysis appropriate. This would not require an analysis for every application. It would authorize staff or the Board of Adjustment to require one when site-specific circumstances warrant it. The proposed language is When required by the zoning administrator or the board adjustment due to facility size, topography, proximity to occupied structures, visibility from public roads or scenic resource concerns, the applicant shall provide a visual impact or view shed analysis identifying locations from which the proposed facility would be visible and evaluating reasonable screening, landscaping, building orientation, or site layout alternatives. The analysis may include photographs, maps, maps, line of sight diagram, photographic simulations, or other information reasonably necessary to evaluate potential visual impacts. All costs associated with the analysis shall be the responsibility of the applicant. This was after I went on Thursday to the solar farm and Nextera to represent us from Nextera, They said that they did this. They said, we came out here. We went to everybody in the area, whether they were participating or not. We did a viewshed analysis on them. And they planted trees. Right, Ben? Yep. They planted trees. Some of the places around there, they were just had whatever was already in their landscaping, they planted more of. OK. That's where I got this thought was from the solar farm tour on Thursday.

I just wish I could have gone on that. Yeah, I know. You know.

It was very, it was actually really good.

I was in the morning and I had meetings. Yeah.

Anyway. Good idea. Yeah.

And it was the next era of representatives. It sounds like that took the.

Yeah.

Yeah. took the initiation on them. Security fencing during decommissioning. Jackson County Farm Bureau recommended that security fencing remain in place during decommissioning to discourage vandalism, unauthorized entry, and impossible squatting. The current draft requires removal of fencing that is no longer needed, but the timing could be stated more clearly. The proposed language for that is Required security fencing shall remain in place until decommissioning and site restoration are substantially complete and remaining site hazards have been removed. Thereafter, fencing shall be removed unless approved as part of a lawful reuse or continued site security plan.

Sure, that makes it more clear. No longer needed to me meant just that. It's just we didn't spell it out properly.

Exactly, yeah.

I can't remember. The decommissioning bill, I mean, we're requiring them to put up a permanent structure. So... we're allowing them to leave the structure, correct?

Mm-hmm.

So the fencing could stay there permanently anyway.

Mm-hmm.

OK. That's what I was confused at on this one. But they have to take everything out of the inside of the structure. Right. Yeah. See, that's the one that, or someone, somebody else, right?

Yeah. And that's, yeah, someone, somebody else for another purpose that they want.

I and to build right and you know you and I and I question that because we don't make other companies there in the county remove what they have been saying.

But should we.

Are you going to go through every every you know we're entire tractor repair place. Right.

It's such a fine line between nuisance and the county's responsibility.

I'm not sure it is the county's responsibility because it's the same thing that we discussed on the wind turbines. We might say this, we don't have any authority to go inside that building. Right.

Inside.

Right. So... We're saying this in the ordinance, but we don't have the authority to do so.

Yeah.

So.

But the potential impacts, if they didn't. How do we know?

I know, I know. We can't go in. And we don't own the property. I'm not sure we can legally do this.

Well, I guess what the question is, that depends on what the decommissioning plan says. But the decommissioning plan... Well, if the decommissioning plan allows the county to inspect, then you can. It's a plan on how the decommissioning process goes about.

But is there a contract? You know, so here's the other thing. The data center, are they going to buy the land or are they going to lease it from somebody? We don't know how that structure is going to be.

And then we have something in there about buying versus leasing.

I can't remember, honestly.

So they couldn't leave.

Right. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah, because I know that was what they proposed down in Spragueville, right? Yeah. But we didn't have anything in place at that point. I think they were trying to buy a home. They were talking about both options. Yes.

And this could be a good county attorney question. With the proposed subdivision that just went through the preliminary plat, the Bellevue residents are concerned about the drainage basins.

Mm-hmm.

So the county attorney is writing up something that if they don't keep care, keep good care of the drainage basins, the county can take care of them, will take care of them, will make them take care of them. Right. So something similar.

But that's outside the building. Yeah. Not inside the building. And I, I, I knew I just, I have a problem when we're trying to tell her this, when we don't require it at most other businesses and other abandoned businesses, you know, like I said, sure.

But, but in my mind, and maybe I've got this on, we're making a ordinance for data centers. Okay. So is this in my mind, it's a standalone ordinance. so it doesn't have to match exactly our other ordinances. Am I right when I'm thinking that? It's a stand-alone ordinance, so it can vary.

But should it? I mean...

It's altogether a different animal, so why wouldn't it be different?

So we're okay with tractor repairs And oil leaching in. This is what I'm getting at.

I might not be okay with it, but we're talking apples and oranges here. What we're working on is how do we try, and I might emphasize try, to put some guardrails on this for down the road.

And with a firm repair, who's to say the Board of Adjustment wouldn't put that condition on there. Right.

I want to know if they have. Because I'm betting that they never have.

Well, the ordinance with the home industry and home occupation did just change in November, so we haven't had anybody yet. So, yeah.

It's just... Is there any... farm repair business has been to a joint process because they're probably all on farms.

If they're not ag-related in their business like that, they have to be zoned appropriately. And we did. We had some place two years ago. We had to change zoning on it.

It wasn't farm, though, was it?

Yeah, that wasn't farm.

that was. Car electronic.

Yeah, it was car engine. Yeah.

Booth. Something. Something.

Yeah.

But similar issue. I'm not saying we can't do this. I'm saying I'm playing the devil's advocate because legally dependent.

Okay, well, hey, let's move on.

That will definitely have county attorney review.

I was just looking ahead, for example, into Section 10. I mean, it kind of talks about emergency access and safety coordination plan. Our main concern, the hazardous waste in this building.

Right.

And there are some, so it's on page 15, there are some paragraphs that may help us in allowing us to visit. Because that is in that safety coordination plan. The plan shall be provided to the emergency response agency having jurisdiction for informational review and coordination purposes. So I'm guessing, based on, I'm wondering, based on that paragraph, and that does not give at least the emergency management people permission to enter that facility. I don't think so. No.

Well, informational review. They're just providing information information hazmat sheets on products they have in their facility probably to emergency responders so they know what's in the building.

But if you had questions about that, would you be allowed to go look at that?

Probably not. I'd probably just be able to talk to the owners about what actually what is it. An interior task.

Now it's a safety data shift. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

And all that information for that product is on there. You don't need to ask any more questions. It's there. It all used to be back in the old days.

It still is.

Well, I mean, we're telling them they have to maintain, I mean, the hazard awareness and containment. They have to maintain all of that. I mean, are we not ever allowing us to go look at that to make sure it is being maintained? It's already required by federal law. Right. Isn't somebody going to be looking at it then?

I don't remember.

Somebody will be looking to make sure that that is. That's what I'm saying. Somebody will be paying attention. if there is hazard material may not be protected.

But the federal government would cover that and it wouldn't be a state or county issue.

I'm saying somebody should be looking in that building. And at some point, if there is a concern, somebody should be noticing that.

There's a complaint. or an issue, they probably will look at it. If there's never a complaint or an issue, the company already looked at it.

Well, and at some point, if they say they're no longer in business, then aren't they going to no longer have to submit something? Then is somebody going to look at that to make sure that that was cleaned up and that's why they are no longer submitting? I mean, you can't just settle quick things.

Can you just ask the county attorney about adding language to the inspection? Yeah.

Do you commission the language? Have it in there? Wow.

No concept.

The commissioning plan, I would disagree with you. Let's hear what the county attorney has to say. Yeah. Yeah.

Yes, that will be for you. Number five, road repair financial assurance cross reference. The current graph already requires the facility owner or operator to repair damaged county roads associated with the project, allows the county to require a bond, letter of credit, or escrow, requires security equal to 130% of estimated road-related costs, and permit the county to use the security if required, repairs are not completed. Farm Bureau's comment appears to be substantially addressed. However, a cross-reference could make the connection between the road repair obligation and the financial assurance requirement clearer. So the proposed direction is to add an internal cross reference stating that road repair obligations are secured by the road related financial assurance required elsewhere in the origin.

Okay.

As long as the county engineer, I think he should be the one to approve that.

And again, from what I said earlier, this is language that is similar to the windmill or the wind ordinances, which keeps us consistent. So that's good. Yes.

It is on his task list, too. and just make sure that it would comply to, if he needs to add anything else, then he knows he's more than welcome to. Number six, the applicant developer or option holder acknowledgement issue. The current draft requires a resorted acknowledgement addressing property owner and facility owner operator responsibility successor obligations, transfers, and the county's enforcement authority. Farm Bureau noted that the party seeking zoning approval may be a developer, applicant, option holder, or project-specific limited liability company rather than the eventual facility operator. Requiring the applicant or developer to participate in the acknowledgement could help prevent a gap in responsibility during project development or transfer. The precise legal language should be reviewed by the county attorney, but the proposed direction is to require the applicant, developer, or option holder to execute the acknowledgement when that party is different from the property owner or facility operator.

Didn't we have something like this in the ZIM program?

I believe so. Yeah, so I think we need to...

look at it the same way we did with the wind turbine.

I agree. I don't remember that part being on there, but it could be.

I think we did, because we had this discussion on the wind turbines. They would be built, and then they've been handed off to other.

The thing is. The successors in interest. Check it out and see if we've got something. And if we do, try to map it up. Otherwise, you know, that is a problem with a lot of these projects, whether it's data centers, windmills, whatever, is there's an option holder waiting in the wings to take over once the project's done. Right.

Yeah.

Setbacks, participating parcels, and waivers. The current draft requires 1,000 feet from occupied structures and cemeteries, 500 feet from non-participating property lines, 500 feet from wells, and 1,000 feet from mapped census hook areas. Since the last work session, staff has received additional comments concerning whether the principal setback should instead be measured from the property line of a non-participating parcel, Jackson County Farm Bureau recommends a 1,000-foot property line setback, partly because livestock and other agricultural activities may occur in pastures, open lots, or seasonal locations that are not protected by an occupied structure setback. A 1,320-foot setback has also been suggested. That distance equals one-quarter mile and is used or proposed in some other jurisdictions, although it is not a uniform county standard. Here are the list of questions for Commission discussion. And also the direction that could be given tonight. The Commission does not necessarily need to select the final distance tonight. It could direct staff to retain property length at backs as part of the ordinance, narrow the alternatives to 1,013.20 feet, develop a recorded waiver process, evaluate how each alternative would affect potential sites in Jackson County and return with comparison information and county attorney review. Because setbacks are a basic land use policy rather than a rapidly changing technical standard, staff recommends discussing the general approach tonight. The commission may select a preferred approach or direct staff to further evaluate a limited number of alternatives during the moratorium extension period.

I'm concerned if we attempt to change the setbacks just because the wind turbines go straight up, the buildings do not. And did you ever get a chance to look at the data center or the server farm over in Monticello?

I have driven by it. Yeah. Yeah. You'd never know it was there.

Yeah, that's not what's getting built today.

Yeah, that is true.

I mean, that suffice back in the day, but what they're building today is not like I want to make a property lines is my opinion.

I would agree. I would agree with that as well. Thank you.

No other discussion?

I think the waiver, though, should be allowed because I think we did that in the turbine, didn't we?

Sure. Is the property owner willing to give a waiver, whether that's for financial or because of a good neighbor? I have no trouble with them giving a waiver. Protect the people that don't want

to give a waiver. If we're going to do waivers, would you guys be willing to go with the 1,320 feet project that's still going on? They're just going to have to have waivers.

I say no or a staff review because I think that's too far.

And it says right here we don't have to decide tonight. So I would like a review of that as well. I would like to see what you come up with on the longer distances.

And should we consider, even if you do a waiver, like a minimum distance? Like, we don't want it 100 foot from the property line. Can we do a minimum, or do we not worry about that if we want to sign an agreement?

If they sign an agreement. As long as it meets the other, you know. Yeah, if they sign an agreement, I think, yeah.

Okay, this is one thing I hadn't thought about before.

Well, on this, when somebody signs a waiver, you know, if they're willing to, you know, for whatever reason, I'm okay with them, you know, taking whatever, you know, they agree to. It doesn't have to meet our standards if they're willing to sign a waiver. But on the other hand, if they're unwilling to sign a waiver, I am looking at a longer distance, you know, because I think, you know, The people that don't want it are going to want to be as far away as possible. The people that were willing to sign a waiver for whatever reason, you know, probably financial, we shouldn't hamstring them if they're willing to, you know, to sign a waiver and get a financial immune out of it. That's my thinking.

I would just add as long as them signing the waiver does not affect the distance to a very close property owner.

Yeah, they're signing the waiver, can't infringe on Another property. Yeah. Correct. Correct.

And it's perpetual. Yeah. It's there forever.

Mm-hmm. Yeah, that's.

So the next landowner has to look at it, too. Well, they have to be made clear. Right.

And that's why it would be built there. Right? Yeah. Oh, thank you.

Yeah, possibly, but yeah, being built at the time, sold it quickly to get out of it.

Yeah. Well, then, yeah, recorded. Okay. Administrative and non-substantive drafting corrections. The suggested corrections can be made. These include spelling out technical acronyms at first use and defining recurring acronyms and technical terms. Some of that was referred in the Farm Bureau.

Had we not? Yeah, I think that was a good suggestion that like if we use a kilowatt hour and some of the government agencies that we put down, we should probably maybe even have those into definitions. I don't think they were. Okay. Well, if they're not in there, they probably could have been.

Yeah.

I can't remember what that word was. Like NFPA and ANSI and things like that. I don't even know what ANSI stands for. I don't know what it means, but I don't know.

Thank you.

I don't know what the letters mean, but I know what they stand for.

Yeah, and if you've never had foods, still plug foods, they have an NC standard.

I've never got a standard for foods, so.

Andrew, my son Andrew, has 12.

Okay, so that went, everything was covered with the Farm Bureau Um, the informational note regarding the draft HDCF moratorium extension, a draft 12-month extension of the temporary moratorium on HDCF, HDCF identity computing facilities has been included in the packet for transparency and awareness. DAP previously communicated with commissioners individually regarding the reasoning for requesting a longer extension period. including the amount of ordinance work remaining in the need for adequate time to complete review of this type of land use. After review with the county attorney's office, the recommendation is to proceed with a 12-month extension rather than an 18-month extension. The draft moratorium extension is anticipated to be presented to the Board of Supervisors on July 28, 2026. This item is being provided to the Commission for transparency and awareness only. It is not scheduled for Commission discussion, recommendation or action at the July 20th, 2023 meeting because it was not on the agenda.

Okay.

Yeah, the agenda.

And after the agenda, one quick thing.

Yes.

On page nine of the ordinance, which is under C Wells, we did look at that distance and it says 500 feet. So we'll need to have that match up to the satellite.

Well.

You might think I'm not right. If you had to be, say, 1,000 or 1,320 feet from the property land, you couldn't have, well, 500 feet from the property land. Could you?

Yeah, you could. I guess you could.

Yep, that's right. You're right.

Okay.

Any other thoughts?

Okay, the next thing on the agenda is from the staff for the next meeting and other updates.

Next meeting, August 17th, 7 p.m. Also at the next meeting, we can discuss, since it's not on the agenda, we can discuss the time change.

Oh, for fall?

Yeah. Which won't change anymore?

Well, you know, savings time is not going to change the way I understand it, right? They passed that. They voted on it. They voted. The Senate hasn't voted. It's not passed. Okay, it's not passed yet. Okay.

Not that I'm worried.

I will sit back in the day and I will pick it up. Okay.

Well, I... The article I read made it sound like it was going to be a done deal, maybe this. Yeah, it did.

and we're at 7 p.m. until November meeting. So we have time to say, yeah.

Okay.

So the next item is any other thing from the commissioner at all? Next thing is anything from the public? You're allowed to speak for three minutes on anything that was not on the agenda tonight. Talk about identity, getting facilities. So you think that included the same? Not right now. Anybody on there at all?

Mary, do you have anything?

No, I don't.

Ryan, do you have anything?

Apparently not. No. Next item I'll I entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved.

I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. Thank you, Mary.

Thank you, Mary.

Thank you all for coming.

You're welcome. Have a good evening. You too.