Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Ready to call to order. Call waiting to order. You want to do roll call for back up, please? I would. Brian Denma here. Christine F here. Monica Mchugh here. Emirita Key excused absent. The Gerlock excused absence. Tom Stewart excused absence. And Mike Y

probably try to get on by Zoom if we needed it. Um with that being done, uh we'll uh everybody have a chance to look at the minutes from the November 17th meeting. There's no corrections or any discussion. Entertain a motion to approve. Motion to approve. Motion by Monica. Second by second. Second by Chris. All in favor say I.

I. Anybody oppose. Motion carries. Uh next order business. The way it looks is we will start on again our work session on the high density blah blah blah whatever it's you're calling it. the acronym. That's for now. You never know. It might change. CM. I can't remember what CM is for. Computing. Computing. Okay. So, Becca, computing or crypto? Because this has got the ordinance got crypto in it. Data processing crypto mining. Yeah. So,

so does that need to be changed to computing? Instead of crypto, it's data processing and crypto mining facilities. Yes. But it looks like within the draft. So if you look, oh, it doesn't have page numbers after like section 4 application and review process. Overall of review process, it's application for highdensity computing facilities, but we have it as crypto mining facilities on the first page. Well, she's got in Yeah, when she's got fat parenthesis, data processing and crypto orders,

right? But then if you go here, section section three, high density computing facilities and then section four, it's high density computing facilities. So, we probably need to pick one or the other. Um, what is it in the definitions? Uh, high density computing facility. So, but does that include data processing and crypto mining in the definition? The document includes facilities commonly referred to as data centers, crypto mining, cryptocurrency mining operations or similar computing intensive uses whether primary or accessory invention.

So, you could leave it the way it is without them, right? Well, what I'm getting at is that if you look at how it's written in the sections, so if you look at section three, high density computing facilities. So, do we want um is it all where it says the HPC? Does it all say I didn't see computing? So, it's not consistent. Yeah. Cuz like when you look at the very first page, the ordinance, it has the data processing and crypto mining and parenthesis and then in the rest of the places it doesn't. Yeah. Yeah. So, one or the other. Yeah. Yeah, Jeff. Okay,

that's what I'm getting. Thank you. There we go. Okay. Thanks.

Yeah. HDCF Gota. Okay. Um so at our November 17th work session, the commission provided direction on many core sections of the draft. Stamp incorporated that feedback and also completed the remaining sections or we have now have the remaining sections that we did not have time to discuss that night. So um what changed since the last meeting? Cooling systems now require air cooled or closed loop. Structural standards are added. Sanitary systems are deferred to the health department authority and the board of adjustment approval terminology is clarified. So we now have to discuss road use and infrastructure agreement, decommissioning and abandonment, enforcement and penalties and miscellaneous provision. So we can probably first start off with the discussion topic that has not been included in the draft and that is whether the commission wants to address the CSR scores or pine agricultural land more explicitly. And we can refer to the handout for that.

and we can see where we want to include it also. So, agricultural resource considerations. In reviewing proposed HDCFs, the county recognizes the importance of preserving productive agricultural land as a long-term resource. Accordingly, the location of an HDCF on land classified as prime or highly productive agricultural ground may be considered as part of the overall sighting evaluation, particularly where alternative sites with lower agricultural value are available. Well, I was the one that brought this up to Becca. I just um had a real problem with using high don't like to say high quality farm ground. That's that doesn't sound like very productive farm ground. And even if it's not productive, it's good, you know, and Jackson County pasture ground is very valuable.

Okay. So, um I just I I have an issue with taking good ground out of production. Put one of these facilities on or put a lot of things on to tell you the truth. But yeah, take a I mean,

we see we see way too much good farm ground being taken under production for a lot of stuff that shouldn't be I don't disagree. But on the other hand, when you have farmers who are looking at their farm plans and and having a um income, how can you tell them to know when it's their own land? I mean, I wouldn't put one on mine, but if you've got, you know, a beginning farmer that's out there that's trying to buy ground and they can put one there to help their cash flow, that's my concern.

Well, they're not going to own the ground at that point. Nobody's going to put a data center on ground they don't own. So, somebody would had to sold that land already. Well, we're writing a data center ordinance. That really isn't true because one I looked at in western Iowa, the guy was leasing the ground to was it was in our organs were requiring foundations. Yeah, I understand that. So, it's it's probably different. I'm just saying that's that was the case there and that person was making a lot of money on it. Way way more than he would by renting it out.

Well, that's just I mean that's just it because I get it. We don't want to lose it. Um, but you know, 30 years ago, if we'd had an opportunity like this to put something like this on our farm ground for a cash flow incentive, we'd have done it in a heartbeat. Today, not so much. But, you know, I'm not so sure it's that much different 30 years ago than it would have been, you know,

make going to make the kind of money they're talking about. And and the other thing is we are restricting them other ways, not just because of you know um quality of the ground that they have. But the way she's written it up here, it doesn't say you cannot use it. It's just that goes into the form formula. Consider this. So I like that. And although it's already prohibited in A1,

so maybe it's already excluding some, but it would help. Well, it is supposed to reszone it, but we saw that it was high CSR. We're not reszoning it. Yes. Just give more check boxes. Yeah. But is that a guarantee that we're not resing it just because of the IC? Well, depends on who's sitting here that night, I think. Yeah. Yeah. You're not going anywhere. Okay.

Not going to be here that much. tell you that I'm old enough to be done with this. I just think we should should have that ability to preserve our good crop crop or good pasture ground. We need restricted just like I know how valuable pasture ground is for people also. Okay. and I can write get something written up and include it in next month's draft for review.

Yeah, I don't I don't know what the numbers are if we have to set a guideline as to what the CS CSR and CSR two numbers need to be. Yeah, I don't know. And I can do some research and see if that's been included in other county ordinances. Okay. and kind of at least start from there. Let's start with my language. You've got to journ.

I think the other thing we've got to keep in mind, and I know it's probably never going to happen be, you got to learn to get to the point where you never say never, is we're talking small operations here now. But what if we end up with some big company that wants to come in somewhere and put something big here and they're using up 80 acres or 40 acres, then it's quite a bit of different story. And I know we can sit here and say that, but you going to be here 40 years from now?

Probably not. But but my concern with this is you know when you're looking at restricting this I because you if you go back so we've been married almost 38 years when you go back and look at what we produced 38 years ago. You had you were planting corn on 38 inch rows.

Every stock had five years of corn on it. And if you got 150 bushel the acre, it was great. Today, you look at that and you're drilling corn in, you know, you're sitting on extremely low or, you know, extremely narrow rows. Each stock has one ear of corn. And if you get below 250 bushels the acre, um, you got a poor crop. So, it's great to restrict this now, but we're able to produce more bushels per acre today than what we were 40 years ago. So, what's going to change in 40 years?

More crop crop ground. So, if you take a lot of production,

but look at what we've been able to do. the what you've been able to do for the amount of ground and at some point it's not going to work though. I I don't disagree. I don't disagree on that. But what are you willing to tell people who own that ground what they can do with it? That's my concern with this because we want to have something that we've got some regulation on, but we also don't want to restrict people because they own their ground. And are you going to tell somebody who's got 400 acres that the middle 40 they can't do anything with even though they're half a mile from neighbors? That that's my concern.

But then we just do that with the window ordinance. Tell they can't do it. That's why I said some of the same things in the wind or I mean we are not I'm not saying the ordinance is I'm not going one way or the other wind ordinance. It's just my aren't we kind of sitting there isn't that what zoning is kind of about. we are. But the but the other part of it is when you've got I mean I come from places where farmers are have five and 6,000 acres that they're farming. I know that around

good flat. We don't have that around here. It's different. It's a different if it's a different situation. It's not, you know, flat no livestock. You can watch your dog run away for three days type of land is what we have here. But on the other hand, how much are we willing to tell land owners what we're going to restrict on their farm? But this is only like a part of the formula. So it's not like I mean it's a consideration. It's not like an outright no. Yeah. Like how it's who draws the formula. Like you said, who's sitting here? Mhm. I don't like it, but I'm only one person.

I know that. Well, and when I get it written up and included in next month's draft, then we can have it. Yeah. Got it again. Yes. Wouldn't be any fun if we didn't have anybody who No, I I understand. We got to look at both Paul sides. I agree with that.

Okay.

So, moving on then we can start where we left off. That's road use and infrastructure. And I also then brought the I did bring the wind turbine ordinance. Um I do have the road use and infrastructure written. And then maybe to keep it similar and consistent, we can kind of keep it with the when

I would think it should be pretty similar. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. If not identical. Yeah. I think that Yeah. I don't know why was all independent but yeah. We had lots of discussion with that part too. There was Yeah. doing a base look at it beforehand. Do you remember that? And um Jaden the engineering's office had also looked at it. Right. So we will use the consistency with that.

Section 15 with the decommissioning and abandonment. which can is also a topic that is a wind turbine topic. I don't know how similar they can be with deconditioning maybe fairly similar with abandonment. And we do have a decommissioning plan. Prior to permit approval, the applicant shall submit a decommissioning plan prepared and sealed by a licensed professional engineer. The plan must include a step-by-step step sequence for dismantling, removal, recycling, and disposal of all equipment, foundations, wiring, conduits, and impervious surf surfaces. Estimated cost of decommissioning and site restoration excluding salvage value. Identification of responsible parties and contractors. Erosion control. Grading and reveation methods and the re restoration of pre-development topography and replacement of top soil. And this is part of the I know we put this into the wind ordinance and this is part of the thing that I had with that is that that should be something that is in the contract contract with the landowner because yes, we should require this. However, there's only so much we can do because if the contract has more written in it or less written in it,

the zoning still can't override that contract. And we do have fee responsibility. And do we want to use the specific word contract or does C cover all that? Well, wouldn't that mean regardless of the contract, if it doesn't if the company or the operator doesn't clean it up, the land owner is like whoever said, "Hey, you can put that on my land. They're responsible."

So, that's probably one that I would have the county attorney look at as well, maybe. Yeah. Yeah, above our favorite. I I would agree. Do other counties have something similar as well?

That I would check on. Did you take a look at Clinton Countyy's ordinance? They passed it. I did. Um, but that was like right after they passed it, so I haven't. Got a copy here that was not the final ones, so I can't say for sure.

We have Jones. I haven't been able to see where Jones actually passed theirs, but I have Clinton Jones and there's only like two others, I think. So, they not much to go off of. Yeah, everybody is right now in the same Who's that use for this pinpoint that you can use somebody's um those Clinton. Okay. So, it's just a compilation. No, Delaware doesn't have one yet.

Um, and Cedar does not have one. Lynn is has a very I mean, Lynn is working on theirs, but they haven't taken it to commission yet. So, I've got Sar, but I don't know for sure it's the final version. Feel like the for the in the decommission. Yeah. Look at

Clint decommissioning and abandonment. look at all the counties that have something passed and it's one that I would also um run past county attorney just to make sure um

yeah that's a good one to get all the language correct strong. Moving on to 16, enforcement and penalty. Another responsibility category, operational compliance. The operator is responsible for meeting all performance standards in this ordinance, including noise, vibration, water use, waste management, fire safety, and testing requirements. Land use and restoration. The land owner is responsible for compliance related to land use authorization, zoning conditions, and site restoration in the event of operator default or abandonment. Shared liability. The owner and operator may be held jointly and sub severally liable for failure to decommission the facility, restore the site, or pay for county incurred abatement costs.

Did we have that go through the attorney as well? just because with the liability is that something in their contract. And so, um, if it's being restored, I mean, can we force that issue if we don't own the property, right?

That's my concern. I don't want the county being sued over an ordinance like this. And that's my and because we had that discussion a lot on the wind turbines and so I think we really need to clarify that yes after we have gone through all the sections I have gotten everything cleaned up. Yep. And I was gonna Yeah. have the county attorney give it a look through because I'm not sure as the zoning commission we can force that. Yeah.

Yeah. There I will definitely point that out to them. Moving on to the violations and procedures. When the zoning administrator determines a violation has occurred, a written notice of vi a written notice of violation shall be issued to the operator and copied to the land owner of record. The notice shall specify the nature of the violation required corrective action and time frame for compliance. Failure to comply within the specified time frame may result in progressive enforcement, including but not limited to civil citations and fines per county code. Suspension or revocation of the board of adjustment permit, temporary shutdown order for any facility posing an imminent threat to public health or safety, and initiation of civil abatement or nuisance action under Iowa code section 657 or county code chapter 11. Um, that also does remind me in this where it says board of adjustment permit. Um, since we're changing it from special exception to conditional use permit, I just have it as a general board of adjustment permit in here until it becomes conditional use permit. That's why the little bit of variable language in that abatement and cost recovery. If the operator fails to remedy a violation or to complete decommissioning, the county may enter the property to perform necessary abatement or site restoration. All reasonable abatement costs incurred by the county shall be recoverable from

the operator and/or landowner, including through the decommissioning bond, letter of credit, or lean under Iowa code section 331.384. I find it interesting when I talk to Elizabeth at the health department, the counties that she used to work in and um she did a lot of nuisance violations and she would tell if they the county would go in and clean things up. So then when I put this in I was like it happens. So continuing violations. Each day of violation remains uncorrected shall constitute a separate offense. Civil penalties penalties may be assessed per day of continuing violation as established in the county schedule of fines and fees. Coordination with other authorities. Nothing in this section precludes referral to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, State Fire Marshall, or other regulatory agencies for matters within their jurisdiction. I think that's a pretty good section that it just kind of ties a lot of

Yeah. the rest of the sections together a little bit. The miscellaneous provisions non-transferability permits issued under this ordinance are non-transferable without prior county approval. I think at one time there the one in Delaware County started with company one company and now has a different owner.

And that's possible because that happens a lot with the wind as well. Did we put that in the window? I'm not even gonna ask that now. I don't remember either. Um I'll do but that I mean that something that should be pointed out to any of the companies that are doing this. Um that I think it also is a good feature in this ordinance is that it can be reviewed and redone. will probably be re re reviewed and redone every three years just like technology it's coming fast and then change

conflict of regulations where a conflict exists between this ordinance and any other applicable regulation the more restrictive standard shall govern. Now on this one, can we say that if this because the state typically rules over county and city? Is that how that works? And um I think we also talked about this, didn't we? I think so too because can we be more restrictive than the state if the state decides to do something? I'm not sure we can. Right. So, we need to check on that, too.

I I I just can't remember. Or at least put something on there. Only the state would be the one that could be. Yeah. I'm not I'm not sure we can. And the reason I remember this is because of the brewhaha with all the um concealed carry permitting um and how they couldn't be more restrictive. So check on that one. Yeah.

Deferability in any section clause or provision of this ordinance is declared. If any section clause or provision of this ordinance is declared invalid or uncon unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Period. Yeah.

And then the periodic review. The county may review and update this ordinance at least once every three years to ensure continued alignment with state and federal regulations and to address emerging technologies. And then this was just another thing kind of like we put in the zoning ordinance to when codes change it will change. Yeah. Did you want to revisit any of the first sections of the group? You should read that while section three, Tom wanted to add um may generate continuous operational noise and may utilize ruling system. So I added the group may instead of just leaving it general. Um section four applicants instead of strongly encouraged for the pre-application conference they are shall meet with the zoning administrator, county engineer and environmental.

Also the courtesy notices are now supplemental nail mailed notice. So they're in addition to the published notice then they are also being mailed by regular mail to all property owners within one mile. Um they got cleaned up quite a bit with the um the zoning commission shall conduct a public hearing and issue a recommendation to the board of supervisors. The board is super if that's a if a resoning is needing needed. So, see T got cleaned up if if there was a reasonzoning that needed or if um or if it was going to board of adjustment the setbacks we change that to a,000 ft from any occupied structure or cemetery managed in accordance with section I'm going to also check and make sure that I did follow that correctly with my sections 5C and intended to support compliance with the noise DN standards of section six, but whichever section of our standard is um and occupied structure,

the definition of that setbacks. Did we change that on the sink hole of 500 feet? Did we have didn't we have 1,000 feet on the um wind turbines? under five minutes.

I I think it was two on Linda. I think we did 15 or um thousand,000 and 1500. It was the same thing for the livestock building. So I think whatever we did were

the following setbacks and separation requirements shall apply to all SEWAX and meteorological towers property lines. The setback from any neighboring property line shall be no less than 2,000. that owners of property closer than 2,000 may voluntarily agree voluntarily agree by a written waiver recorded with Jackson County Recorder which describes the burden property and advises all subsequent owners of the property of the allowed property line setbacks closer than 2000. But we have public rightway and then communication and electrical line. We did something on sink holes too. That's something wild.

Yeah. Water quality water.

See shall not be built within 1,000 foot of a known match sensitive area. That's it. So I think we need to be the same. Yeah. on that. Okay. Change number three to thousand. So occupying structure

any building or structure designed for or regularly used by humans or livestock for habitation, employment, assembly or education, worship or shelter, whether permanent or seasonal. That pretty much hit everything. I think so. Definitely. We had Yeah, we had lots of discussion. I think it covers everything. Yes. I think we beat that one around the bush. Uhhuh.

Four ways than one question. This one's got 500 ft from the property lines and I know we're a lot longer on the wind ordinance. They're two different things. Would it be worth thinking about to you know keep that at 500 feet but lower the noise limit? I think on the sink holes we need to we need to keep that consistent. Well, we are keep I'm talking the number two number two.

Oh l if we left that at 500 because it's a different animal than a wind turbine but lowered our noise on it because that's the main concern on these things too that this is right. So, we've got it at 50 right now. Maybe consider dropping that if we're going to leave it if we're going to leave it close. Are you talking about the decimal level? Yeah. If we're going to leave it at 500 ft, that makes sense. Do you have because you could go from the wind turb, oh, we're going to go 2,000 ft. But, I mean, this isn't 614t tall,

right? Yes. But the main concern is noise. So if we left that at 500 but lower the noise limit. I'm not sure what a good number is. Yeah. I was just going to say, do you have a good number or Well, I've got, you know, I hear things and I'm got some in mind. You know, 40 is something that was being kicked around on what I was hearing. I can do some research on that. But that's at least that's a good number to look at to drive it from 50 to 40. But is that one of those arbitrary ones that it get us in trouble? Nobody's I don't know how we would get in trouble if nobody's even somebody's measuring it. I mean,

but yeah, because nobody's going to sue us that hey, your limit's too low. Well, that's the rule. We set the rule before you came in. Well, but that's a that was one of our big concerns with wind is that what's the arbitrary number? because obviously hearing protection is required at 80. Um, and 50 isn't really very loud at all. Well, they kept saying 50 dB is like a quiet conversation. Well, I don't want a quiet conversation outside of my bedroom window every night. So, that's why I think 50 is too high.

But that's your number. Somebody else might be okay with it. I mean, if you ever listen to cats balling after they've been weaned, it it's much higher than that. And so in my backyard, I know about it. And so, yeah, you fed a few, but you haven't had 200 of them. Right. My family is farmers. I I I don't. It's That's why I'm saying it's arbitrary. I'm not disagreeing. Well, if if that number is arbitrary, then everything in here is arbitrary.

But I'm not disagreeing with you, but when you start lowering it, this is where we got into the discussion with the wind turbine is that we had to be really careful because there were counties that were being sued for the no use ordinance. I think it was somewhere out in western Iowa. Um, and so we had to be cognizant of that as well. So, were they successful lawsuits? I think one of them was. had already issued permits

with with um Mid American was able to do it, was able to sue them um and came out ahead on that. So that was the big discussion on that. So do we leave it do we increase the distance instead and leave it at 50? That might be a better option than keeping it at 500 and lowering the decibb. What would be the difference? Attorneys,

I just think it's better to have a strong ordinance now. It's a lot easier to go the other direction than it is to accompanies here and then when we realize we screwed up and I just have watched this whole thing the long county for the past two years of the wind ordinance because they had a weak ordinance in place and tried to change it. Yeah. And then they really screwed things up and they've got a problem now. Well, this is Jackson County. So we're So we're Jackson County. So this is

this is very different than Clinton County. Clinton County is flat. We're not. So I think we would be better off with more feet than the lower decimals. And the reason I say that is because the train is very different here in Jackson County than what it is in I mean you can use that as a general term. There's flat ground in Jackson County. I don't I don't

I mean we can I don't disagree with that but some guy some guys some people are owning flat ground in Jackson County that they should be able to you know you want to go back to they should be able to do what they want with their ground before you know that you don't want to take high quality ground out but it's you're restricting them from doing something with their ground if you extended a distance So it's kind of a but we did that with the wind. We had this we had this same discussion with the wind. Do you remember?

I I wasn't in favor of going that long. But that but it's how it passed. So that's why democracy works. Representative Republic, whatever you call it. It's democracy. No, it's not that. the for in the sew decibel level shall not exceed 50 dva as measured from the property line of any nonparticipating personal and that's what I'm getting at is that I don't think we should be I think we would be more arbitrary if we did the did a different level in this than what we did in the wind ordinance

that these are noisier than Are they? I don't know. Yeah. Yeah. That depends. Some people say the wind turbines are are noisier than day. Yeah. Now, if you stand right next to the AC, it probably depends on the company. It depends on the cooling system. That's why that's why I'm getting a I think we should kind of keep it very similar. You know, maybe maybe do it from the property line, you know, 50 dB um from the property line. I mean, this that's what it's worth.

That's what we got. That's what that's what we've got. So, yeah, noise is something that engineering and money can can fix most of the time on something like they'll solve the problem. And I don't and I don't disagree with that. So if you were increasing the distance, what would you increase it? Because right now we got 1,000 ft from occupied structures and 500 ft from property lines. And what do we have in the wind? I'm sorry.

FT that was also because of the height I think because that falls. Was it that we did that because of the fall zone? Mhm. Well, it's just partially I mean 2,000 ft is way further away than anything's going to land when it's only 600 ft tall. So we're talking 2 and a half times height.

Why don't you do some research on some comparisons? Yes. I think I'm talking two different things here from setbacks and noise. Are you doing the setbacks because of the noise? Are you doing the setbacks because of some other reason? Well, the sinkhole that is more

I understand that. Yeah, I get that. I I don't I don't have an issue with with that. whatever it needs to be. I'm I'm thinking it probably should be probably be more than 5 million, but I don't know much about sink holes. So, I don't know how far away you need to be for to worry about whether water is or ground you're messing up your groundwater something like from from sinkhole. I can depends on where you are down. Some people are going to be down. I will research that. There's your task.

Yes, I still think it will be better getting prepared for this meeting. That was a doozy. Um, and Um, how often do they need to measure the noise? startup and never again or the wind because we had that discussion too.

Evaluated every three years when the sound analysis is that where it would be yeah it's uh D and and 12. So yeah, every 3 years is shall be completed every 3 years by a professional certified, but it's CE. So we put something in there that it could be checked more often if there was say they had an issue with a varian neighbors are, you know, complaining about a noise that could trigger overdue. That

you could put that in, but then is that going to become a chronic issue? Um section six B have to be doing it every two or three months. So I complain about noise that means something because of I understand that through years and something bad could happen. Yeah I understand that but how do you how do you right how do you govern it or control it? Each person only gets so many point so many fouls.

Yeah. Um B3 monitoring enforcement. The county may require baseline noise measurements before construction and post operation testing after commencement or in response to complaints. So the may the may part of that discretion if you know it's just a a crime.

That's probably better language. start.

Yeah, my thought. that it's probably something like that. Yeah, after becoming fully operational I like it better than testing after. Just wondering if you have fully in that sentence and they didn't ever start up their last Right. That's true. And they said and it never triggered the sound.

That's a thought. But they have a year to become with the permit. But they could have the one last fan that doesn't shut that off because we're not fully operational yet. Then if they don't do it within a year, it just doesn't become on board. Well, they're still running. They're just not running at capacity. It's true. Or their fans at capacity. You say before construction and testing after commencement of full operation. Well, because that's a bad sense. Notify the zoning office.

Yeah. Something And um and first bullet point I'm sure is not the word is after startup. But then again, like Brian said, at startup, they might not keep what you're running. You'd have to say like full full operational. And how do we know that?

When they push the big red button. When they push the big red button, then they're on. Then they're on. you know, they might only have one unit and be considered operational, but then tell the county that they're not. So, it's or that they are operational. It's very subjective. Yeah, exactly. Say that they are fully operational when there might only be one going. Well, why are we saying may instead of shall on that shall require baseline noise measurements before construction? We shall see and the baseline one. Yeah, I can see that

the baseline and after they start operation or response to complaints. Yeah, I think of Shelby. I don't know the one. But then you add the crank the crank clause. Yeah. Then you everybody if they complain every two weeks then they have to I know you got to have a crank clause.

Yeah, you got to have something there. Um, can we just include more testing after after for the first year? And how do we know that they're not going to not completely give all of the information to us? Well, I'm guessing there's Well, you have like an Does it say a third party? Yeah, it's an independent. All testing must be performed by an independent acoustical engineer qualified. So they got they got to be compliance.

But that doesn't say they have to report it to us though. It just says some third party has to do it. They could have you know talking about promotion. Well talking about the guy checking out at Casey's to come do it and then they don't tell you what it you know it is anyway. Um, if we added more testing throughout the first year, they're not going to run less for the first year just to avoid noise testing. Or are they? Or are they? And they know when people are showing up and they shut stuff out. That's just the while they're there. That's what I'm getting at. And

I'm not I'm not trying to make these companies bad look bad. I mean, things can happen. verify, trust, but verify. So, we definitely need to leave the in response to complaints in there. Yes, that it's got to be in there somehow, but I we just can't say that they got they shall do it every time they get a complaint. Can we have shall and then a separate thing for responding to complaints?

That probably makes more sense somewhere. Yeah. Where we can require it. Where we can require it in response to complaints and you know who the cranks are in the county at the administrator's discretion. At the admin administrator that Yeah, that's good. Okay. and throwing back. She makes the big bucks. I mean, really go measure the DBA. That makes that's that puts a lot of responsibility on you for that though.

That's why it's at her discretion. If you've got, you know, I know, but it's what is it? But they can if you leave it to the administrator's discretion. It's not only it's not only Becca, it could be, you know, no I she's not going to be here forever. But girl, but if you have that in there, then we're not saying every complaint because you're going to have that one person who's going to complain as soon as it's turned on and there's one unit and you can barely hear it. So maybe you investigate the first couple of times and then you're like, "This guy's a crank, right?" Yeah. So similar to a nuisance company.

Exactly. That's that's what I'm getting at. So that's where that's where I think we need to look at it. And then also similar to administrative discretion because then you kind of No. Yeah. Right. some preliminary investigations already will take place because then if you get a new person that really you know that you've never had a complaint from before that kind of gives you a heads up that hey we need to check this out. Yeah. More than likely that's probably not going to happen that way because you're gonna get complaints from the people that live closest to it.

Yeah. But if you've got somebody who never probably not gonna be able to build a new house next, right? If they did, it's they shouldn't have they shouldn't complain. It's like building like building next to the airport. Yeah. Yeah. Or next to the railroad track. Yeah. Or a haunt building or livestock building or something like that. Yeah. Thank you for not having me. Oh, I have a story for you about this when they leave here. She doesn't like our neighbors.

No, actually, she was concerned about our neighbors and chemicals floating that way. Hot tub. The chemicals. Oh, that's right. Yes. And the lenses.

Okay. So, it's section four that got cleaned up with the um what zoning commission was responsible for than what the board of adjustments is responsible for. So, if there's no if it doesn't need to be reszoned, then it just goes directly to the board of adjustments. So, all that sequence of events was kind of then spelled out a little bit better in section with the complete completeness and review timeline. So it just gives the applicant all the um steps that will take place once they submit the application. And then it gives just the extended timeline for um the whole entire process and not just with the um review with the board of health, zoning administrator and the county engine. some of the setbacks to the wind energy at the end of section five. And six section six

that is where we change the decimals from 55 to 50 link systems and water use. So we changed it with the topics of discussion from last time. Section eight is where we changed it to have it be adjustable with the county health department. Now I need to start with um to make it a little safer for the first responders.

What is under a materially reducing service quality? What's the definitionally? How broad is that? It sounds very broad. If you just take that word out without reducing. Yeah, just take it. Yeah. section 9

because I'm not hearing good things about electrical consumption and the impact on residential customers. So yeah, taking out material could be material that it's slowing things down. Yeah. Well, that's what they're How much is it how much is it reducing? How much is it increasing our costs? That's Yes, it's broad. Yeah,

it's much better without it. and my cons. Yeah. I mean, is that even something that falls within the zoning board scope? Probably not. So, I'm not sure that's something we can really It doesn't have anything to do with land use. That's my concern with that.

You mean like that whole uh section? Well, we really don't have any regulatory authority over, you know, material reducing service quality and re reliability for for existing customers. That's not under the zoning board. word land use that does not fall under land use. That's that's why I'm saying I'm not sure that you're right, Mike. I'm not sure that that I think the only thing that we can do.

I mean, can we even require that? I think you're right. I'm not sure we can even mean I'd like to, but I'm not sure. I'm not sure we can. That really does not fall under what the zoning commission does. I'm not sure that you're right. I I'm not sure section. You're going to blame us if there's a problem.

Maybe the C the might be able to stay in there. Why why are we requiring or testing a backup power system that doesn't have anything to do with land use or land use? So the noise that's yeah some of see but the noise standards the I mean the noise standard yes but the electrical grid that really has nothing to do with the zoning board on that

and routine routine testing of backup power system shall be conducted in a manner that minimizes offsite noise impact. I'm not sure we can require that. I think you're right Mike. I'm not sure that section 10 even belongs in here. The only thing with C is if you've heard backup generators when they do their testing on them, they go from zero to full throttle in just a few seconds and they're usually some of them don't travel. But wouldn't that be covered under the noise?

Yeah, that that would be covered under the noise. Yeah. Doesn't the noise just specify the actual units? We just make sure that noise section covers backup generators. Some of those are pretty quiet. It depends on the sound suppression system, right? Pretty loud ones and pretty quiet ones.

Yeah. I'm not sure that fits, right? Thank you question attorney. Yeah, I I don't I don't think we can being a zoning board.

I don't think it fits. Um

I don't either, but I'm not county attorney. What did we do? you talking about? Yeah, I was looking for

the only thing I can see is in section and yeah codes and standards but that I think it's more about how everything is is wired for safety not right I shouldn't say safety but compliance with the left is supposed to be

and and that's what I'm looking at like with 10 I was just looking for that too because it seemed like we had that discussion but then did it get taken out it it did get taken out because of the problem that it's not a zoning issue and I don't think we can um require all of that section 10. Yeah. Fire emergency and safety. Yeah. I think like with the containment,

but Um and um emergency contact information that we required the contact information which I think we can do but as far as like the emergency plans and things like that. I don't think we can require that. And I think that's something that we did take to the county attorney and they said, "No, you can't really dictate that." If I remember correctly. Um,

yeah, that's something to go back a little bit too because we had a huge discussion on that as well. Yeah. I know. And I think we we had a lot of this in there and then when we

then we really could not require it and had to take it out. I will double check. Now with the Is that something the county engineer can require and or not? Because I know when we looked at putting our new address sign up, we got our we got our street number, but because of the way the EMS map is drawn,

technically we fall under Lamont, but we're on a level C road. So the closest way from Lean you'd have to cross through Zingle and we were trying to figure it out for mail as well. Oh right.

So but across the road from us it's still listed as Wingle. The map is really goofy. So we talked to Jaden. Jaden had to talk with all of the EMS groups in Jackson County and the postal service to keep our addresses wingle instead of a lot. So, what I'm getting at with the emergency response, who controls that in the county and is that something that can be required through another department and not the zoning is what I'm getting at.

So, I'm not sure the zoning is the place that it needs to reside, right? But is it something in the county engineers office that can be controlled or what was that? Where does that follow? Where do where does that flow? Right. We're all volunteer organizations. It's just programmed in the system. That address is programmed into going. I know that. But who who kind of controls that? shows how regulates you mean whether who's going to respond or or your tax dollars or

No, what I'm talking about is if you got a business out in the middle of nowhere. So, um what is it out who moved what out by Belleview? It's south. It's on Highway 52 now. I can't remember what it was. It was north of Belleview before it was sold and it was moved to south of Bellev and I can't even think what the business name is. I can drive right there to it but I remember what it is. Are there any I think it's a mechanics or something I don't remember. Is there something in their zoning? It's not in their zoning,

but is there something that the county requires them to have with the fire suppression and things like that? If there's not, I don't think we can include it in here. So, we've got fire suppression in the wind ordinance. I think we should have it here also. But I'm and I realize that, but I'm I think I'm not sure we can require it as my is my We did. I know we I know we did it for for that and But I'm wondering about like with the emergency response plans and things like that. Yes, we required it on for the for the fire suppression.

I'm not sure we should have section. I agree that we did it. I think it's I think it's wise. But walking through and looking at some of these things, should we have done it? And legally, can we do it? I don't know. That's And like I said, is there some other place within the county structure that can require it?

Right. Um, so yeah, what that was like a mechanic. You said that one. Yeah. And I can't Yeah. And I can't I think that's what they do. I'll have to ask my husband. Um there's an I can drive right there almost like a condition like to supply some type of but to

I don't think I don't think there's any restrictions on county coming in and saying you have to have this or you have to have that meaning the county cities are that way the county, but I'm not sure that resides or should reside with the zoning because No, I agree. I'm guessing there's probably nothing about anything. Yeah. Can Yes. So, can they who can somebody else to the city? Yeah.

Well, if he does, he's kind of picking out one business that he's doing it to and not anybody else. That's what I'm getting at here with the data centers. This is one type of business that we're requiring all of this, but we're not requiring it. We're not requiring it of other places that can also have more combustible materials since we don't do building permanently zoning. So, right that kind of if it was a building. Part of the thing is the nature of a fire data center is going to be different than a machine shed down.

I'm not talking about a machine shed. We've also got fertilizer facilities too. We've got one out. We have a fertilizer ordinance. If they asked us to write one, could we related? This is the problem. That's a related. It's very different than businesses like this. They asked us to write a a data center ordinance. I think this is good to have in I'm not sure that we can legally do it though because of the purpose of the zoning. That's what I'm getting at. We need to check because if we can't legally do it, is there another office in the county that can require it,

right? Because if we start putting this in for particular types of businesses when we're zoning them like an industrial location, we have other industrial locations throughout the county that we do not require it in. So, what attorney is going to pick this up and sue us? Because guess what? You're not requiring this industrial location that has more chemicals involved in it than the data set. We will definitely look into it. You think we can put bits and pieces up in there? Yeah,

that's just my concern and I and like I said, I know we put it in the wind ordinance. Um,

yeah, it's probably same question there. Exactly. So we want to check on the legality and if it's not legal, what other governmental entity can enforce it or implement it? Right. If in section 11 we added the word uh e-waste electronic waste. to change.

That's one we should check with the DNR on as well because I know um there are other regulations with that. So, we may need to see if there's already state rigs with the DNR with this.

Okay. Same thing with the timely removal of it and the documentations. I'm not sure we can require that either. That's something we need to look at the DNR on. greening fencing and lighting in section 12. We changed that to keep consistent with the electrical substation. Um added a operator's expense throughout. You did a picky thing here.

Yeah. Um under where you start with visual screening through the end of well most of that section you've got the bullet points that are not shaded in. Yeah. And and the rest of them are. So that's not picky. That's Sandra's not here, so I got to do it. Yes. Even today, I was looking at I and even now I'm looking at some of it and I'm like, "Oh, I think that formatting needs just a little bit." But someone said so hard to do.

Yes. when I change it and it changes everything. And so the exterior lighting on this too, we also we used to could still be there. There was an ordinance that was in place even before I got on this board and pro could have no I think Tom might have been on the board when it was about exterior lighting. We might already have something in the ordinance because there's some place over north of Belleview that I think when I got on the board they were talking about that didn't fit the lighting requirements. So, look, I I think we might I think we might have something there. That would be good to refresh a lot of

people's mind. I would guess if it happened when when Tom got on.

Ask Tom about it because I know we had something about lighting and interfering with neighbors and I kind of feel Yes, they did because I thought, who would have thought who would have thought that? Um, but there was something on Highway 52. Um, don't even remember what it was, but I remember Tom and uh um uh uh Kire uh Tim Ker discussing it like when I first got on the board. Marty's I remember that. No,

Marty's is in Debuke County, is it? Yes, it is. Okay. Could be. Yeah. Yeah, they're in. Yeah, they're in the there. But there was something out there. Was there a vote place or I I don't recall, but there was something about the lighting. So, I think we already have something on that. So, check that. Yeah. So, that we match.

Yeah. Good to even for homebased businesses to have that in the limelight. Yeah, there there was something there was something there. So, um yeah, I was not in on that one. Um structure the building mat colors consistent. Does that change any of that maintenance? added all costs for the operator responsibility. the structural standards from the handout last time. Permanent construction, prohibited structures, condition and maintenance. How come we added cargo and shipping containers?

Because some of them were using those prohibitive structures infrastructure,

concrete foundation. So yeah, it lists cargo or shipping, railroad cars, semi-truck trailers, mobile or temporary storage units, and then any other portable or non-permanent structure not designed for long-term building occupancy. Back to where we should be. in a good time.

We'll be looking forward to that. I think any other comments, questions, additions, topics to consider for next time. I'll have more next time I Oh, yes. And I'll do a lot of research and come back with updates. So, at least we've made it through it completely once now. That's big progress. That is in two meetings like eight months. Two months. Yeah. I think that's great. 18 months for the whole process for the first time. That is true. And I mean this we have something to to go off to reference. Yeah.

Oh yeah. And it's not as detailed. And it's not as detailed. So yes, it's it's super helpful to have that um basics covered. And next time we will have a reasonzoning though, but I'll might continue with the agenda. Okay. So do we have any items from the public? Do you have any any Okay. Okay. So, they're not supposed to be according according to it's not supposed to be about this matter, right? Now, it matters on the agenda, correct? I'll just tell you later. Okay. We will get that added. We will have public some public input. Yeah.

But I mean, I do I've been here enough times that I this is probably be helpful, but I'll tell you later. Um, do we have anything from any commissioners have anything want to bring up?

Becca, you have anything? Um, next meeting will be January I lost my agenda. 20th. Thank you. January 20th, um, 6 pm and we will have a resoning to start the meeting next. Okay. Wait. January 20th or 19th. We're going the Tuesdays. We're staying on Monday. Oh, wait. You know what? I might have been looking at 2025. Let's do January 19th. That sounds good. Yeah. Okay. It's already on my calendar. Perfect.

January 19th, 2026 at 6 p.m. Um, it's actually What are we saying? It's actually a major subdivision that we will have rule. I understand the supervisors approved the the ordinance, right? Supervisors have signed the ordinance. It will be published. The summary will be published um next week and then it is um going to goes into effect 30 days after publish date

date for the signs. Yes, the I've had quite a few people um stop in the office and talk about projects that they want to start in the spring. um Leisure Lake people and some Dresslers people and they've been pretty happy about the new zoning regulations for themselves. Did they know about the new changes or did you explain it to them? Okay. So, it makes it easier for them. Yeah. Yeah. They did not know about the changes. Okay. That's so we have nothing else. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved. Anybody second? Second. All in favor say I. I. I. Approved. Anybody opposed? Excuse me. Needs approved.