Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We'll call the meeting to order and thank you all for attending this evening. As you know, we have two items on the agenda and we'll be using the hearing procedure.

Okay. Is it on now? We will be uh using the same hearing procedure for both items and I will read the um order. The chairperson will call the public hearing item. The land use and development department will present the staff recommendation. Commissioners may ask questions of staff. There'll be a presentation by the applicant or representatives. Commissioners may ask questions of the applicant. The chairperson will open the public hearing. The chairperson will call for public comments from persons in support of the items followed by persons in opposition to the item. The applicant will have the chance for rebuttal comments. The chairperson will close the public hearing. Commissioners may ask questions, have discussion, and take action. Speakers must speak from the podium and state their name and address for the record. The chairperson reserves the right to establish a time limit for all speakers to ensure that everyone can speak. We will uh have a 4minut time limit this evening. All um comments should be and questions directed to the chair from the podium and not to the applicant, staff or to the audience. When the hearing is closed, additional public comments are not com permitted. We'll have roll call.

Janette Johnson, present. Rosa Kasos here. Chad Ghart here. My Linwer. Dan Brian here. Terry Robinson here. With five members present, there is a forum.

Thank you. Have there been communications from the public to the staff? um emails were sent to to you all the planning commissioners um Friday uh with communications that we received up until uh Friday morning. And then we went ahead and we printed all the emails and communication that we received from Friday um afternoon until end of business day today. So that's part of your packet.

Thank you. I would also just as a side note point out that just recall that this has been an ongoing process and so any other communications that we've given you historically including any prior to the moratorum those after the moratorum any of those can be taken into consideration as well as a part of this entire process. Thank you. Um, is there any conflict of interest by members of the commission? I guess I forgot to ask if there were any exparte communications by members of the commission.

I did receive a text message from a friend um did not share one side or the other, but just wanted more time to do uh her own personal research and she was sick and couldn't attend the meeting tonight. Any others? All right. Thank you. Then we will

street and northwest 62nd Street in Grove Township. Um the parcel size one is 2.73 uh acres and the other one is 7000 acres. Um here is the general location of the sites by the uh marked by the blue star. The proposal would reduce the parcel located at um2020 Northwest 62nd Street and combine a portion of that um with the adjacent parcel along Northwest 62nd Street, resulting in a 1.46 acre lot containing the existing residence with the remainder land reserved for agricultural use. Since the combined property does not meet the plat exemption criteria for minimum acreage, a subdivision plat is required to establish a compliant and buildable legal lot. And here is the picture of both lots. Here's the preliminary plat and the final plat. Um staff recommends approval of the preliminary and final plat of the Hatel Ranch subdivision subject to the following conditions. One, execution of an additional dedication of 25 ft of rideway along Northwest 62nd Street for a total of 45 ft as required by the Shauny County Public Works Department. And two, no building permit shall be issued until the additional dedication of rideaway has been executed. That concludes this item.

Do the commissioners have any questions of staff? If not, then would the applicant like to make a presentation?

I'm not sure what all you would like me to say other than everything. she just showed you this what we intend to do with the property is uh just keep it with natural grass. Um yeah, [laughter] that's it. So, yeah. All right. Do the commissioners have any questions of the applicant? All right. Thank you. All righty. Thank you.

We'll open the public hearing. Uh there are any public comments from persons in support of the plat other than the applicant? Any persons in opposition to the pro approval of the plan? And I guess we will close the public hearing and uh commissioners. Do you have any questions of anyone or you ready to make a decision? I make a motion that we Approve the preliminary and final plat of the Hatel Ranch subject to the two conditions listed. I second.

Thank you. Roll call. Rosa, yes. Dan Brian, yes. Chad Ghart, yes. Janette Johnson, yes. Terry Robinson, yes. Marlin. with a unanimous vote in favor. The planning commission recommends approval of the subdivision and it will be considered by the board of county commissioners on Thursday, February 12th. No, not No, remember this. It's a plat. Yep. Sorry. [laughter] We do things different with the plat. So, there are some additional steps that they have to take before it goes to the board of county commissioners. So, once they get that submitted to us, then it will go to the BCC.

All right. Thank you. We'll move to item number two, consideration of Shauny County solar energy conversion system regulations. Did you want to staff want to make some comments first?

Yes, I do have a presentation first. Um, so just for the purpose of putting it all on the record and for everybody that's here today, I wanted to do a little timeline of how we got where we're at. Um, in 2022, we had two solar farm conditional use permit applications come in front of the planning commission. Uh, the applicants were local energy companies and the the solar farms were about 10 to 15 acres each. Um it was felt that there was a lack of specific direction to follow for the consideration and approval of those conditional use permits and there had been some concern by both the the planning commission and the board of county commissioners are on what were appropriate conditions. Um there were some issues that we dealt with in regards to setbacks and how close residential houses were. there were some concerns with the location along a fairly major highway and glare and so we spent some time considering how to put implement the conditional use permit and eventually those were approved um in I believe May and June of 2022. As such, at that time there was some discussion um about moving forward with regulations and and deciding what it is that could dictate and how we would move forward. And so the planning commission did discuss that and then at that time actually considered a moratorum. Uh we wanted to move that forward and the board of county commissioners elected to not do that at the time and you know said just go ahead and move forward with considering regulations and let's see where that takes us. So that leads us to 2023 where we did a lot of research and review of um a lot of things. I researched regulations not only in Kansas but in nearby areas, made contact with other counties and jurisdictions. I

got information from a whole lot of people. Um we did legal research on county rights to not only moratoriums but bans. We sat through continuing legal education um topics. We did a lot of research. Um we had speakers come to planning commission meetings. Um and that was not only in favor of but against and giving us information on wind and solar. So then leading through the rest of 2023, the planning commission decided at that point to do a community survey and decide to see what the community really felt about wind and solar. So we did that from September to October of 2023. We also continued doing research and had speakers continue to to come to our meetings. Um in December 2023, it was decided that the planning commission was recommending that we consider a moratorum. So then at that point we moved forward in 2024 with writing staff reports and um additional research. Now, I will say that this mentions just the one-year moratorum, but at the same time, we were looking at wind and so a ban was also being considered at that time. So, this was a mix of both wind and solar altogether, but I'm mostly notating the the commentary towards solar since that's what's up today. Um, we did additional research, wrote staff reports, um, worked with our legal counsel on the hows and wise. We scheduled the public hearing for the planning commission at Great Overland Station in May of 2024. Um, we did have a good amount of attendance at that, listened to public comment, and the planning commission made a vote to recommend the one-year moratorum. Um, at that time, it moved forward to the board of county commissioners where we had another public hearing and there was an approval of the one-year moratorum at the board of county

commissioners. Now, I'm going to notate that that was only for solar, what we call solar farms. So, solar energy conversion systems. Any sort of personal solar was not included in that. And so, if a person wanted to put solar on their own home or on their own business, they were absolutely allowed to do so. This was just going to continue to look at what is a solar energy conversion system. How big do we want it to be? Where would we want it to be placed? What kind of other regulations would we want to put onto it? So the moratorium applied to anything other than personal solar. Um, so then we got to 2025 and we've absolutely put a lot of work and planning commission, I appreciate all the time and effort you've put into where we're at today. Um, we began in February with work session and discussion on the next steps for what we were going to do, how how we were going to look at it, what that would look like for us over the next year. We discussed when the moratorum was going to end and when we hoped that regulations would be in front of not only you but the board of county commissioners. I would say that as we worked through things we we've pretty well met our deadline for ourselves. Um the moratorum did end midsummer but we continued to move forward with the regulations and we are where we're at here today. So then we had work sessions in March, April, and May discussing what it was that the regulations should look like. We spent a lot of time looking at other counties regulations. We sent those out to all of the planning commissioners. They read through items. They looked at what it was that they liked, they didn't like, what they felt was important for Shauny County. Um, and then taking the history and the information that we had learned as we were preparing for that moratorum, we started drafting our first set of regulations. So in June, we considered the first draft. We reviewed it. We

discussed it. There were a lot of comments from the planning commissioners on what they liked and what they didn't like, things that they wanted to add, um things that they wanted to change. And so then in July and August of 2025, we spent time doing the amendments and the changes to those drafts. In October of 2025, we held a town hall meeting here in this room on the draft regulations and invited the public to come out and make public comment. Um, in November of 2025, we had discussion about the town hall meeting and made a couple of minor changes and set the final draft, which is what is in front of you here today. Then in December 2025, we had a discussion regarding the public hearing, where it would be held, when it would be held, and whether or not we wanted it to go ahead and be held here in uh in January. And that brings us to where we are at today. So all of the things that were considered when um putting the these regulations together um it's a an insurmountable amount of work research and compilation of all the things that have happened since I would say 2022 because that gave us a great deal of experience and what it's like to consider a solar regulation or solar farm in front of the the planning commissioners. Not all the planning commissioners are the same as were those who heard those conditional use permits, but we've shared and continued to share all of the same information all along. So, we've taken all the research, public hearings, public comments, presentations, and discussions that have been had to date. Um, we gathered regulations from surrounding counties and states, whether they were approved, denied, or pending. We read, reviewed, and discussed those in detail. We considered why those regulations may or may not work for Shauny County. We also considered the Shauny County comprehensive plan. What did it tell us? Where does it think that development should or shouldn't occur? What are the

things that it thinks that we should do in regards to development within Shauny County? We also considered the land density of Shauny County, which is really a main factor in what it is that we're hearing today. Um, and you will see the maps. There's a map up on the wall here behind you that shows the land density map as it sits today in terms of the size of parcels that are located and we will have there were printed copies out but we will also have it up on the the screen here in just a minute. But that [snorts] that played a large part into the consideration of where is it that solar farms could go or how big can they be. We also put a lot of consideration into the flood plane. Um Shauny County has a large amount of flood plane and we have to take that into consideration and protect the areas that are in the flood plane so that it helps protect other citizens of Shauny County. Um and so that land density map actually also has an overlay of the flood plane as well on top of it. Um we also talked about the airports. We have at least two major well we have two airports here and then we have several what I would consider private airports. So there are there is a lot of airspace. Um in the original moratorium and ban that we discussed we did reach out to the airport authority and we talked to them about wind and solar. They were much more concerned about wind than they were solar but we still have to take the airspace into consideration. And so that is notated in this reg set of regulations whereby if a proposal is in front of us, they do have to converse with the airport if it's necessary, if it's within that specific area. Um we also took into consideration urban growth areas. Uh the city of Topeka has a very specific urban growth area out outlay that they have where they anticipate growth will happen over the

next 40 years. And so one of the things that we put into these regulations is that if we have a solar farm going near a city or within an urban growth area or within a certain distance, then the applicant needs to reach out to that city and get input and comment from them and then the planning department or the planning commission will as well. Um we also considered issues that we encountered with the two solar farm conditional use permits in 22. We have issues that came up that were very specifically argued and so we had to take those into consideration. We sent out um these regulations for input from the fire districts and got comments back from them. We also sent them out to all of the various Shauny County departments and in particular got comments back from environmental health and the public works department. We sent them to the city of Topeka as well as other cities and townships within Shauny County and did get comment back from them as well. We had um well I not necessarily the planning commission but I had um meetings and discussions agreement. I actually both because we participate in a an association for the county planning and zoning officials and those include zoning officials throughout the state of Kansas. Um many of whom have gone through this exact same process who've encountered these exact same situations. So we've had discussions with them. We've had the pros and cons. We've had how did your specific situation go? um I was invited to a Kansas climate and energy roundtable workg group and do a presentation and discussion with them. So that was also a part of this and then also I've had contact with the Kansas Department of Water Resources and the flood plane management staff there as a part of the flood plane management part of it and had you know asked them some questions about solar within the flood plane areas of Shauny County. Um, I don't know if there were other things that the planning commissioners can think of that we did as we prepared for

this, but I think that that is a pretty well-rounded situation. Um, what we have here is the land density and floodway map. And I'm actually going to go up and approach the map so that I can point out a few things. What may be a little bit harder to see in the thatched areas are all of the flood planes that's located within Shauny County. And so what you can see is we have a great deal of density. The red and orange are quite small parcels. Those are three acres or less or 3 to 10 acres. And then once you get to the yellow, you're getting to 40 and 60 acres. What you can see is the dark green is 320 acres. And then um the mint green after that is 200 to 20 and then the 160 is a lighter green. So what you can see is we've got a lot of density throughout Shauny County and that was a primary reason when we were looking at the wind and solar when we did the ban on wind and then a moratorium on solar. This is what we were looking at. Where is it in Shaunie County that a 1500 acre or a 2,000 acre or a 20 acre solar farm can go? And while you can piece together bits and pieces of acres from different property owners to make bigger parcels, what you're going to encounter is the the more likelihood of running into flood plane, the more likelihood of running into additional residential parcels, highways, roads, um, easements, all of the things that are going to play a part in this big, dense, urbanized county versus when you're in a county that has widespread areas of farm ground. So I just wanted to point this out because this is one of the important maps that we looked at. Um so then I will have the regulations pulled up. These have been posted on our website

off and on over the last year as we've updated them. Um the planning commission has considered these and helped line item and redline these over the last year. uh these are the ones that they've seen and this was the draft that they were comfortable moving forward with as the proposed regulations and so unless there are specific questions from the planning commissioners I would recommend that at this time we move to the public hearing I think you covered that very well thank you Joanie so we will open the public hearing and we'll call for public comments from persons in support of the regulations followed by persons in oppos opposition to them. Remember to go to the podium and sign in and state your name and your address.

I would also recommend that um well, you don't need to line up by any means, but as one person is finishing, the next person go ahead and go sign up so that we're not waiting for people to sign in as we're sitting here. If you want to move the signin sheet to the table right behind you, you can. We pre-sign. Oh, perfect. [snorts] [clears throat]

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Paul Post. My address is 21101 Southwest [clears throat] 2nd Street here in Topeka. I'm a retired lawyer and I'm currently vice president of the uh Topeka and Shaunie County League of Women Voters and the League has done some considerable amount of study uh on this exact topic and in fact we have talked to a couple of other uh county administrators about the work that they have done in their counties specifically Johnson County and Douglas County. Now my house is like I say at 21101 Southwest 2nd and it was built in 1880 by Mr. George Pedabone Bates who was a prominent businessman in Topeka. If you go down and look at Topeka blueprint at 6th and Jackson up at the top of that building you'll see Bates 1902 he built that building and he built my house which is located couple blocks west of the Pawwin area and it was built before there was a Pawan area. I purchased the house in 1980, so it was 100 years old then and I'm working on the second century of living in that home. About 12 years ago, I decided to put solar panels on my roof. I did that and the next month my utility bill was cut in half and has been that way ever since. So I have more than paid for those solar panels by the reduction of electric bills that I have excuse [clears throat] me in I have incurred in the last 12 years. What you can do with that on a larger scale on an industrial scale is to allow those savings to be realized by persons

who perhaps cannot afford to put solar on their roofs. tenants who do not have the opportunity to do that but yet through industrial solar farms they're able to realize the benefits of solar power. Now I suggest to you there was discussion uh by uh Miss Vani about the density of Shaunie County. We talked to the county administrator, as I said, for Douglas and for Johnson County, and I suggest to you that Johnson County is considerably more urban than Shaunie County. Yet in Johnson County, the uh allowance is for a 1500 acre solar farm in that county. Douglas County decided on a thousand acres. And I would suggest to you that Douglas County uh urban density is similar to that that we find here in Shaune County. So I would ask the commission to either not approve this ordinance at this time until further study can be done on the appropriate size of a solar farm. And I further suggest to you that a 240 acre limitation will essentially result in a ban on solar energy in Shaune County because developers are not going to be interested in putting the money in for that small of a uh of a development. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you for your consideration. favor,

which is not heard from my comment. We we had asked for those who were speak in favor of the regulations first. That's what I So, is there anyone that would speak in favor of the regulations? If not, then we'll continue with those that are against the regulations. All right. So in favor of these regulations would mean that you support the regulations as they are written.

No. [laughter] Does that mean unless uh someone goes before the board of county commissioners and requests more acreage? That's that is part of the regulation. All right, then those against.

Hi there. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your service to our community. Really appreciate that. Uh I think that we want to keep the door open. I think we want to make it easy to access solar opportunities um which provide uh economic vitality and growth among so many other things. Um I'm asking you to vote no uh so that we can continue to have the opportunity and the ability to evaluate on a case-bycase situation to determine what fits Shauny County and what doesn't. Um, just keeping the door open to being able to do that allows us still to say no to it if we don't if it doesn't fit. Um, anyway, thank you.

Can you state your name, please?

Kelly Major Kurt. Good evening. My name is Vicki Arnette and I live at 1110 Southwest Medford in Topeka. I am co-chair of the League Women Voters of Topeka Shauny County Climate Committee and we would like to thank the planning commission and the department for their work on the issue of regulating solar in Shauny County. The league adopted a position on climate and energy in April of 2024 which states in part, "The league supports the development of energy sources which allow for the reduction of the use of fossil fuels." In June of 2024, the league supported the Shauny County Board of Commissioners when they tasked the planning commission with developing largecale solar installation regulations. The league has followed the process throughout the proposed regulations before you tonight are simply not large scale solar installations. Large scale solar regulations require far more acreage than 240 acres, more flexible setback requirements, and battery storage is a component of the project. It's not apparent to the league or the public when or based on what information the charge from the board of commissioners was changed to develop regulations of community scale solar rather than largecale solar. The feedback we received when we talked with

the planning department was that there was no room for larger acreage projects in Shauny County. And I must say that when we looked at a Uh when we had this conversation, the map that we looked at was from 2016. So I'm I'm kind of digressing because this is the first time the league has seen this particular map. Um so without hearing from solar experts in a public available work session which includes maps current maps that allow the public to visualize the larger impact of large scale or any size solar. Uh we believe that your work is not complete yet. The league recommends that you continue to work on these regulations and have public discussion in order to increase the size of acreage, decrease the size of setbacks, and look at battery storage regulations. Although the planning commission has clearly attempted to follow the Kansas Open Meetings Act, complex complex issues require a higher standard of transparency. We encourage the commission to continue to work on the regulations and hold these public sessions uh with invited experts uh in order to educate continue to educate yourself and the public about I do thank you for your work. Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Mark Galbbert. I live here in Topeka and um I appreciate um all the work you've done on these draft solar regulations, but um I won't repeat what others have said, but um I too would encourage you to take another look at these regulations and to consider amending them to allow for much more acreage of true solar scale uh solar energy development. um to include battery storage because battery storage increases among other things increases the capacity of a solar energy project uh without taking up a whole lot of additional acreage um and also um to allow for more flexible setbacks um um you know I'm just um I I appreciate um previous commenters um noting that Douglas County and Johnson County also I would assume uh as they they are as urban probably as Shauni County but found a way to include to allow for largescale solar development and their regulations as well as battery storage. Uh, you know, I'm just afraid that if we don't make those kinds of amendments, as has been suggested already, that we won't we won't attract a developer to come here and take a look at Shaunie County to see if it's if in their minds it's possible to put together u enough acres for a truly utility scale solar project. Um, and I think that would be a shame because there's a lot uh to be said for solar development. Um, It's util this utility scale. It's going to mean bringing lots of money to our county that might result in some additional

tax revenue for our local governments here. U you know, new jobs, um additional um new source of of income for land owners who agree to lease their acres to a developer. Uh just a lot to be said for it, including clean energy. So, um um I'll disclose by saying I I hope you'll consider u making amendments. I hope you'll consider additional public hearings uh including um that will include testimony from solar experts maybe from people from Douglas and and Johnson County. Um so we can all have a chance to listen and decide help decide if large scale project. Our projects are appropriate for Shauny County. Uh, thank you again. I already signed in. My name is Don Taylor. I am a professional engineer. I did submit written comments. Um, they had some carefully thought through points in it. Some of the things in the regulations as currently written are vagaries and as to what it is. Oh, I missed. Um, I live at 2021 Northeast 31st Street in Chai County. I don't live in the city. Um, one of the problems is you use words that aren't defined. What is community scale? What is utility scale? Is there a number where one becomes from one size to another size? Those kinds of specifics are useful for anybody who thinks they want to have any sort of a development. Um that is one of

the the things in reading through the whole document things that are not carefully defined so that someone could understand the distinction. Um those kind of things need to be addressed. Um, I did in my written comment specifically address the idea that if you're going to have something that is utility scale, you must apply through the Southwest Power Pool for a generation interconnection agreement. And that is an entirely different process. That study process is about 390 days long just to get one approved. And I put that in my written comments, but that is a critical piece. If you're going to have a utility scale, I don't know what what community scale means. Okay, the definitions are are problematic. And then I did put in an example of I want to myself own operate an agravalttaic system and the setbacks conflict with each other on some ways. So regulations are good. These regulations I believe could use some more work before they become a final approvable document. Thank you. Hi. Uh, my name is Jonathan Smith. Uh, I want to start by saying that I appreciate all of you taking the time to consider the several positives and negatives of various policies. Um, I've watched all of your meetings so far, so I know how difficult it's been at times to keep your eyes from glazing over at all the uh, particulars and specified uh, policy choices. Uh, so again, thank you for taking on this challenge. I know it's been a quite a long one. Uh I would

like to express a few concerns that I may have that may have been overlooked over the course of these discussions. Uh 240 acres is far too small of an acreage allowance that may unintentionally discourage any meaningful investment in Shauny County um from utility scale solar project developers. A few examples, uh Hancock County, Maine, 100 megawatt power plant sitting on 700 acres. Calhoun County, Michigan has 360 megawatt solar plant sitting on 1,700 acres. Uh Crawford County, Ohio, 117 megawatt on 917 acres. Filmore County, 45 megawatt and 470 acres. Geronimo Power Plant or Gerono Power is a company that's built dozens of solar power facilities. Um they almost always start at least at 40 or 50 megawws. Um, from there they only go up 100 megawatts, 150 megawatts, and just about half of them have battery storage on them. Um, just under half, and I'll touch on that later. Um, using quickhand math, it's usually about 7 acres per megawatt for solar uh, generation. Uh, which would mean that most projects feasibly start at about 280 acres. Uh, meaning we are cutting Shauny County off at the ankles when it comes to solar power generation investment here. Uh, let's talk about battery storage. Uh there's been quite a lot of misinformation and borderline fear-mongering around battery storage when it comes to the likelihood of battery storage fires. Um I'd be lying if I said that it was impossible for fires to happen. But after reviewing some of the recent comments at previous planning commission meetings, some of those comments were referencing a battery storage fire at a battery storage plant in California that was not an on-site facility. uh it was some kind of makeshift battery storage plant in a warehouse uh well warehouse type facility that was built into an old gas plant. Uh modern battery storage typically comes with multiple redundancies, warning systems and fire mitigation technologies built into the battery storage housings. Sunrow,

SunSync, NAMCU, and even US-based company Seammens have already showcased various flagship products that highlight their advanced fire mitigation technologies that align with modern National Fire Protection Association recommendations for battery storage. Battery storage fires are objectively more common in electric vehicles actually based on the fact that the electric vehicles drive all over the country on various road conditions, driving over curbs, getting into accidents, etc. Um, and with there being several hundred, if not thousands of EVs here in Shauny County, has anyone even heard of a runaway fire on an EV here in Shauny County, or even two, um, stationary energy conversion systems simply do not have to account for the innumerable amount of variables that an EV battery pack does. And yet, those fires themselves are rare. Let's talk about setbacks. Largely, the conversion, the con conversation has been based on potential for fire and how they may endanger neighboring properties. Um, I've already discussed how incredibly rare fires are in modern systems. Audible vibrations of solar battery systems came up as a concern. Modern systems create unmitigated noise of about 50 dibels at 50 m, which is about 150 ft. That's with no sound mitigation. It should be noted 50 dibels is about equal to a quiet conversation or the hum of a refrigerator. Um, this would likely be uh dealt with in a cup, whether it's trees, hills, etc. Um, in my opinion, we should greatly reduce these setbacks so that each product can have more breathing room. We should allow battery storage that is in compliance with modern National Fire Protection Association guidelines. And we should outright remove the cap on solar farm acorage. Let developers and private land owners make deals based on their own personal businesses and preferences through the cup process. Thanks. My name is Margaret Kar and we live at 1966 East 100 Road even though that's halfway between Topeka and Lawrence. I grew up in Topeka. I graduated from Topeka High

and I have lived in Topeka. So I'm still come a Latasha County and one argument that I've heard against solar farms is that it takes valuable agricultural land out of production. I don't know if you're aware of the exciting field of agics. There are places in the country where the solar farms working with the local farmer and land owner, the value of their land and agricultural products has been enhanced because of the advantages of some of the solar panels. The shading allows like specialty crops to be grown, various vegetables that don't do so well out in the hot Kansas sun. There's talk about like grazing of sheep of goats couldn't have cattle or horses but you know freerange chickens there are a lot of agravaics you know get get on board with that there are a lot of examples right now that are working and so then the land owner would not only have be subsidized for you know leasing their land to the energy company they could make extra money with some of these other agic options and it good. It's good for business. It's good for taxes. It's good for the farmer. Um, future is solar. So, I urge you to get on board with it. Thank you.

Hello, I am Tad Kremar. I also live at 1966 E100 Road. Mailing address is actually La Compton, but we live right on the edge, western edge of Douglas County. I used to work in Diga for many years and were very active in Shauny County. I am thrilled to see that you are considering regulations to let Shaunie County reap the benefits of clean, efficient, jobcreating solar energy. Kansas depends heavily right now on importing coal from out of state. Let's move away from that dependence by allowing people to harness the sun's energy at all levels, individual, community, and utility scale. More solar energy will mean more jobs and lower energy costs for Shauny County. It could also help some family farms survive by leasing some of their land to solar projects for much much needed income. Um I do recommend three modifications. Uh some people have I'll be very brief on that. They've already been mentioned but raise the 240 acre limit. Due to economies of scale, large projects can produce solar energy at lower cost, helping to lower our energy costs. Uh, a reasonable limit would be 1,500 to 2,000 acres if you have if you need one at all. Um, please allow battery storage. Uh, this makes solar more reliable because power can be provided from the batteries even when the sun isn't shining. Uh and finally lower the 500 ft residential structure setback which is much higher than the norm and would eliminate many good solar sites from consideration. But again, thank you for moving forward with this project. This is a I hope it comes to a final product which we can which will benefit everyone in Shauny County. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Lesie Prrentice and my address is 4420 Southeast 37th Street in Topeka. I've lived in Shauny County for over 45 years and I support solar energy. I read your draft regulations and I fear that your restrictions will effectively ban its development for us. In support of utility solar, I'm going to state facts gathered from research. First, dangerous climate change and pollution from burning fossil fuels are serious threats to human life. This is the overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence that has only grown more vast and certain over the past 60 years. It can be read in scientific articles, federal laws, and government agency findings. Second, demand for electricity is growing for reasons including our need for adequate cooling and heating in the extremes of climate change along with the boom in AI facilities. That demand is far beyond what existing electric companies can supply. Third, we Shauny countians deserve affordable electricity, but the cost of electricity is rising, especially where new expensive fossil fuel plants are the electric company's only profered solution. Electricity from solar power is cheaper than gas powered plants. All places, including our county, will eventually transition to more electricity from solar and wind power. Texas and California have built most of our country's utility scale so solar installations. As a result, they have cheaper, more reliable energy to meet

their large needs. Fourth, development of solar power is a real economic opportunity for our state and for our county. Utility solar can clearly benefit our farmers and other land owners who can receive lease money for the use of their property. Kansas is fortunate to have more sunny days than 90% of the states. We also have much flat terrain. Shauny County is the capital county of our wonderful state. Douglas, Johnson and Sedick counties have already developed enabling regist uh regulations. KU researchers created the Kansas energy transition atlas and that was very recently. Maybe you got on that site because you can see what other counties you can look at their regulations and they found that the different approaches were either enabling or blocking and that most Kansas counties recognize utility solar development as an economic improvement opportunity. Fifth, our land owners have a constitutional right to develop their property as they choose under proven safe conditions. Finally, Canary Media, that's a reputable clean energy journal, recently discussed concerns about battery storage fires. They noted that batteries are necessary at utility social or utility so solar installations, and they're the cheapest, fastest way to get more energy onto grids. They can store up and send massive amounts of electricity for use at cost-effective times. New much safer batteries have been rapidly produced and have proven effective. California has also strengthened their battery safety standards for solar installations by statewide law. Good federal standards on fire prevention and electric

installation also exist. I I really thank you very much. Your presentation and the comments here have shown that utility solar is a very complicated and rapidly changing subject. I'm going to ask you to please don't settle for blocked and please formulate enabling regulations. And I close by saying I make this plea on behalf of my productive children and wonderful grandchildren and those of my dear friends here and those of everyone here and everyone everywhere. Thank you. I'm Cooper Melvin, 604 Northwest Half Moon Court. Um, I think everybody touched pretty heavy on battery storage, which it is very critical to the grid. It's one thing we got to have for outages. It's just something we got to look forward. I think just upping the standards of safety on that is is a simple fix. and FPA 855 UL 9540 um are all simple things. A couple other things I'd like to touch on um to see if pilot agreements were ever talked about ensuring that all the tax revenue is going to go back to schools and emergency response. Um, PLA's is another thing I think we should look at to ensure that all that tax money is also staying here and it's all local workforce and it's not out of town contractors continuing to come in and utilize that tax break and leave. And those are just a few things I had. Thank you. Hello. Can you hear me? Okay. Hi

everyone. Zach Ptor. I'm the proud chapter director for the Sierra Club. We're an environmental organization. We have uh about 4,000 members across the state. Many more tens of thousands of supporters that take action with us. Right here in Shaunie County, we have 270 dues paying members and uh 513 supporters. We didn't invite them all here tonight because uh we need a little more space, but I'm proud to represent them. Uh and uh we're uh care about the environment. We care about the future. Uh I was I was thinking about some of the comments uh earlier. I'm uh also being being a director, a proud new dad. Uh I got a one-mony yearear-old at home and so I'm thinking about the future in my own hands and uh the need for society at large to transition to a clean energy uh future uh without as much pollution uh into our air into the atmosphere and doesn't use as much water which we're going to need a lot more uh uh reserves of water in the future. Um, you know, I was thinking about it'd be a on this sunny morning, sunny day, it'd be a great day to testify on some solar regulations in Shaunie County. And, uh, to that end, I want to say thank you for your hard work. I'll say from our standpoint, it shows looking through all the regulation um, and a number of time. Uh you you know you've you've put in soil erosion plan uh a water um and soil testing, environmental assessment, traffic glare prevention study, pilot and the compensation as far as the taxes go, fire safety plan and uh decommissioning financial insurance. Uh the list goes on. So you've done a great job in thinking about how your regulations can uh hold true to your values and protecting uh Shauny County

residents. Um, you know, with all that said, I I had to just object just on a couple of typos really. And that's the uh acreage limit says 240. I thought sure it'd be 640 acre limit or a,040. So, uh, that's why I've object um, you know, as we work to support regulations in Douglas County, and we did support them, it it ended up at a thousand acre limit. Um, and that's something we felt comfortable because we wanted to raise the standards. We wanted to uh allow the green projects and solar to come in but making sure they were green to the environment and and good for the people as well. This is just too small. Especially think about the two-mile setback from another project. If you look at the map, if if someone these are voluntary agreements, wanted to have it on their own land and took up 240 acres, then the neighbor who also wanted to have a solar farm within that two- mile setback couldn't have their own project. So, you got to do a couple different things. You either got to decrease the buffer to let the neighbors get involved or you increase the acreage. Uh, so I I would say 640 might not be a bad compromise here on the acreage, but you think about it probably should go up a little bit more. These are voluntary agreements on people's own land, private property rights, and so, uh, let's allow people to maximize the opportunity for solar, keeps us warm, helps plants grow. Why not take advantage of it, uh, for the economic benefit of your of the private land owner, but also, uh, for Shaunie County? Um, you know, solar is a stepping stone to get other businesses to come in, too. They want to have clean energy and be green as well. So, make sure you're not shutting the door on solar. Let's let solar shine in Shaunie County. Why don't we air on the size a little bit higher acreage and then uh we can take a look at the conditional use permit and see the actual support for

the the project on a case- by case basis. So, uh thank you for all your good work. Uh keep keep it up. Hang in there. Thank you. Hi, my name is Emily Wolf. I'm a lifelong Canen and lead the Kansas Local Power Network. Um, where we are a group of organizations advocating for smart, reliable, affordable energy. Um, several of the wonderful speakers today mentioned a few things I was going to say, but I wanted to add one thing which I'm sure this is a fact you've heard at some point, but unfortunately Kansas is one of the sunniest states in the US and has notoriously flat landscape. But unfortunately, we rank 41st out of all the states in um our utilities being powered by solar. Fortunately though, there is a solar boom. There's in the news, as you can probably Google, renewable energy solar in Kansas, several projects will pop up that are in the way. And I definitely Zach mentioned, we don't want Sha Shauny County to lose out on those opportunities. And to speak to um the jobs aspect, um a great resource I love is clean energy jobs Midwest. And they estimate estimate nearly 27,000 jobs in Kansas are related to clean energy, energy efficiency, um electric vehicles or other related fields. And they estimate about 1500 of those jobs alone are in Shaunie County. And as the grid, you know, requires more demand, power, things people said, data centers, you know, we need these employees to be ready. Um, and finally, um, I'm a lifelong resident of KCK and we are currently considering um, they are not me personally, but the, um, commission and utility, uh, battery energy stores project and we actually have, um, an open house tomorrow. The developers hosting at 5:30 p.m. I can share more info. I know it's a little dry for you. Um, but our network is engaged on that process and as a result, we've really challenged the developer to be more creative with their community benefits dollars, how they're used to have a real

impact. They've also offered to increase the amount if needed. And originally, the developer did not plan to use a union workforce, which as someone mentioned, probably result in outside contractors, but we're in the final stages of them committing to use um um IBW local 124. And so, I think it's, you know, um benefit of welcoming the developer and you can work, you know, not a good developer, you don't want those, but there are good ones out there like we've experienced um who it's been working really well alongside the community in our group. But if you want more info about that, please let me know. Thank you. Oops. We have one more here.

Um, my name is Richard Johnson. I live at 3536 Northwest Huxman Road. Uh, I'm opposed. Uh, solar. Uh, Rodney Dangerfield said he was nine years old before he found out that Alpo wasn't a child's meal. 12 counties in Kansas see the green energy as dog food. Jackson County and Douglas County still have litigations going on in regards to the solar that's going on in their areas. 100 solar companies have gone bankrupt. Who cleans up after that? Who gets rid of those solar areas once these places go bankrupt and they're no longer being effective? I still have the weed patch over there by my house where we have a solar array. I reported it in the last meeting that we had and I sent the email like you suggested and the grass is still there. Now, it's not going to catch a whole lot of places on fire at this point because the corn fields have all been cut down. But the big concern is the particulate matter and everything else that comes from those. Even if it's you know in larger areas where people have much larger acreage with a lot of field once that gets started it goes. And the two main reasons fire start is because of poor maintenance which I can show you over there at my place. I even sent you a picture. And then the other side of that is heat and humidity. And Kansas has a lot of heat and humidity panels. They talk about so many acres to provide a kilowatt or a megawatt of electricity. That's in premium time. Once the temperature gets over 77 degrees, the amount of energy it produces drops considerably. We have a third of the year in and basically clouds. There's not a good time for that type of thing. Um solar is dying. I mean, we've lost a hund 100 different companies in regards to this, but it's a progression that has

taken place. We started out in western Kansas where there's little opposition. We put in solar farms out there where there's no transmission lines. So, then we get to add transmission lines, $4 million a mile. Then we get in farther and we go, well, now we need to have gas power generators. They're putting one in. They've got it approved. They've got one approved now for nuclear. So that's telling you that the solar is not working at this point. Um the other side of that is um it's more money, more money, more money. And um it the sites just keep adding to it. And if we cut down on the coal plants that we have and then we add a chip plant in Witchah, we add a data center somewhere up along the Kansas border, we're going to put in a a Chief's stadium. That's a lot of drain. We have eight pro processing ethanol plants and they have dehydrators and that is run by gas and electricity. So we're sucking a lot of energy in that place. And I got to thinking blackouts. How many people have had a blackout? I mean I've had electricity off of my house but it hadn't do anything with lack of energy. It's the lines are down. We put 30% of our electricity that we produce here to other places. the transmission lines that they want to pass out is going to go to Missouri. It's going to go to Oklahoma. That's not helping us any. Our population is losing. Kansas has lost over 6,000 people in the last eight or nine years. Topeka alone loses 72% a year. So, we have plenty of electricity in regards to that. Um the solar just isn't working. And we're seeing that now. We have other places. Tennessee's got a nuclear plant that's getting ready to go on. Three Mile Island, they activated another one. The big solar project that they had out there that was a showcase in California is shut down and they've put a billion

dollars into their nuclear generator out there. Um, so I'm totally opposed to adding any more to to this situation because it's just not working. The other things are coming in and obviously government, federal government has taken away the subsidies. Thank you for your time. My name is Katherine Hamilton. I live here in Topeka at 2255 Southwest Westport Square. I'm a Sierra Club member. I'm retired. I worked with United Way and a number of agencies like Kansas Children's Service League as a social worker. I was very impressed by how hard your staff has worked to research this issue. It is complex and clearly they've made safety a number one priority, which it has to be. As the gentleman spoke before, there are some hazards. What if property isn't kept up and becomes a fire hazard? What if, you know, they go bankrupt and there's an expense involved with taking it down? I understand your work is sometimes tedious, always challenging and a great service to all of us. He also brought up the point that we are losing our population in Topeka, in the city at least, and that the demand for energy is growing nationwide. Our governor has the wisdom to talk about all the options. She wants to encourage nuclear as well as all the other possible sources of energy because any community that has a future has got

to invest in sustainable energy as well as traditional energy. I hope that our planning commission considers safety and the future, considers financial aspects and commercial needs as well as individuals who are frightened by change. I hope all of you will give serious thought to the three points we're trying to make that on a commercial scale for a utility company to even consider Shauny County as an investment they have to have at least a thousand acres. They have to have setbacks that are more reasonable and they have to have the option of battery power. I realize you've given this already a lot of time, a lot of thought, a lot of effort, but I hope you'll put it on pause because this is such an important issue and obviously to many, many residents, many more than are here tonight. And that you can find a safe way for batteries to operate, not just ban them. And what might be more reasonable space for a solar array? Thank you for your hard work and I'm sorry this may extend it even further. Good luck to you.

Hi, I'm Diane Denham and rural northern Osage County just very close to Shauny County line. I have just get closer to the mic.

Okay. I have worked in um Shauny County for years and years and years and years more than I want to count. Okay. So, just a reminder that 1,22 petitions with a combined total of over 31,72 acres owned were submitted against having industrial solar in the county. Um, I think overall your um proposed regulations are pretty good. We just have a couple of concerns and those are with the setback and the battery storage. Okay. Other the the 240 acres. I think that's that's fine. Um now here's something from go solarf floridate.org July of 2024. What is a safe distance to live from a solar farm? In general, solar farms are required to be built at least 1.86 miles from residential areas. It is recommended to live at least 1,640 ft from largecale farms and 656 feet from small scale. Now, the county regulations show 500 ft from residents. For example, Jackson County has 1,320 ft. It's still close, but it's better. um 50 feet from the property line. Jackson County has 300 feet. Okay, so think about this. What if your house and property and a huge solar fire was coming your way? Would you be concerned that it was so close? I know I would. What if your um here's another one from Business Insurance magazine. Fire is a major hidden danger for solar farms. Fire Trace International said, "Fire

risks cannot be totally engineered out. As a result of fire, wind, and hail potential exposures, insurance companies will likely start increasing rates or just dropping insurance for properties boarding or near solar fields. What would happen if the county allows a solar farm and the insurance company cancels the non-participating land and homeowners insurance? Who is responsible for that? What are they going to do? Okay, just for an example, Eagle Point Solar Farm in Oregon October 24 had two fires within two months. Both were caused by overheated electronic panels that failed and then subsequently dropped molten electronics into the grass. So, um the draft regulations dated June 25 stated battery storage systems are prohibited. Um, we see that you added at this time on the later version and would like to request that that that be taken back out because battery storage systems can catch fire and can't be put out once they go up in flames. The area must be evacuated until it burns out. As the battery burns, it releases many toxic chemicals that end up in the environment and in our groundwater. Once these toxic chemicals get into the groundwater and our aquafer, they destroy our wells and drinking water. In January of 2025, the Moss Landing, California best fire, over a thousand residents were evacuated. The toxic smoke plume traveled 27 miles and there was a threemile runoff into streams and waterways resulting in setback recommendations for best sighting. And you know, of course, that's the storage minimum of 30 miles

from people, schools, hospitals, farms, wetlands based on the 27 mile plume and three mile runoff. So, thank you for listening. Um, I did email um a list of the uh farms or excuse me, the solar fires from um 24 and 25. Did you all receive those? If not, I have copies. Everyone has that. There were like 30 34 reported in 24 and 25. So, if you have any questions, I'm glad to answer those. Okay. Thank you.

Good evening. [clears throat] My name is Clinton Lamot. I live at 7321 Southwest Davis Road. That's in that southwest corner of the county. We are a land owner. We have cattle operation. And I can appreciate a lot of the comments that have been made by quite a few of the folks. It's they're against what you have proposed because they want more acres in that proposal. I've heard several of them make great praises of your time spent researching this and I can appreciate that too. And my assumption is because I'm assuming because I've been to all these meetings that you folks have looked at the 240 acres or less as being the ideal amount of acres for Shauny County. They've also stated that you've spent many many hours researching this. So my assumption is is that you made a wise decision at limiting it to 240 acres. Some of the questions that I have [clears throat] there again I have not been to all these meetings. I haven't done a bunch of research on this. The questions that I have is out of the folks that have spoke here tonight, I don't need any answers, but if you want to address me after the meeting, that would be fine. How many of these

folks spoke tonight have more than 20 acres? The majority of them sounds to me like lives in within the city limits of Topeka. I understand the concerns of the electricity cost. Trust me, I know. But instead of jumping to this project, maybe they should get on the bandwagon and jump on the current electricity companies. I appreciate a comment or two made by this electricity may not even stay here. So, you're making a choice to make it cheaper supposedly for somebody else on across several states. I would also like to ask them folks how many times they've seen their electricity bill go down. Now, the one gentleman said his went basically in half. That's because he purchased his own solar system. And hey, I'm not against that at all. Purchase your own. Put it on your own property. Few other things that I had here. What are we going to do with the old batteries? Nobody's said a thing about that. What are we going to do when these power plants or these solar plants have worn out? Who's responsible for the cleanup? Is there going to be eminent domain possible for these companies? Um the other thing at 15, well, one gentleman said let's uh let's try to get it at 640 acres.

I don't know if anybody in this room can tell me who owns 600 plus acres, let alone 1500 acres. I highly doubt that there's anybody in this room besides myself that fit within that border. Thank you very much for your time. Um, good evening. My name is Robert Riley. I live at 2424 Southwest 26 Drive in Topeka. Um, I grew up out in northern Shauny County on over 20 acres and I think this is a project that um is worth considering. Um, I recognize like many members or citizens here have, um, you guys have been really diligent and careful on this and I appreciate the considerations to soil erosion, flood plane. Um, a lot of things here are important. Um, I know all of us know big hard complicated projects can't be perfect no matter how hard we try. So, I think there's always room to evaluate and refine and make better. I mean, that's what makes a lot of us great and hardworking is when something doesn't work or a part of it, we refine it and we make it better. And I think we can do that to these plans. I appreciate that you've addressed um the financial assurance and making sure that there is a way to clean this up when it needs to remove. You know, they've brought up a good point that we absolutely need to address it and you guys have. I've read that in the regulations and um I I appreciate that. Um I I see the map. I I think the map is a great visualization

on parcel size. Um by by my look and count, there's 10 or 15 sites at least that are over 200 uh sorry 460 acres over there. There there's several that are over 800 and over a thousand. I haven't heard the logical reason to exclude them from being able to do the project if they have the setbacks just because there's not that many of them. I don't see the logic to say that's where we need to stop. Isn't that what the conditional use permit process is about? Or the fact that people don't even have that size of land. I mean, it'll self filter if there's so few of those. So, I'm I'm hearing there's not that many, so we won't allow it. Can we reflect on that a minute? I mean, that I I the logic in that like that's a I think that's a fallacy to say that that's where we should stop because there's not a lot. I just think that there's only a few ideal cases to go over that and I just don't see the reason to stop there. I I I think that's one big key sticking point. I mean, people are coming up in opposition, but I think on the most part, they like what you put together. Um I just think we need to reflect on on um that part. And I I think this is such a great opportunity for people that don't own their own property. Not everybody has the opportunity, like Mr. coast to own their home and put solar panels on it and reduce um not only their energy cost but their foot their environmental footprint. Um I think we need a diversification of energy. This is one tool in the tool belt. I mean one kind can fail or have a problem and I think it's foolish not to be a leader in this space. Um all too often Shauny County and Topeka seems to forget that it's the

capital city of this state and that we're here to you know be leaders. I encourage you to lead in this space and, you know, consider increasing the size. And I I think with safety and modern um regulations and battery technology, we can have safe battery on-site storage. And I appreciate you guys at least still considering that element because I think it's crucial to um you know, make it so we can store it and use it later and not just when it's sunny outside. So, thank you. Well, we thank you all for being here and speaking to us this evening. Is there

We should probably make a call to make sure that Okay. Do I need somebody to walk out? You're a grown man. No one's stopping you. I'll If you miss something, we'll take just a couple minutes here to make sure that there's no one out there. Is there a planning department? [laughter]

No, there's no planning department. There's a land use and development department. as a as of two weeks ago. Well, I mean almost exactly two weeks ago.

It just makes it all the more exciting. [laughter] You never know all the moving parts. They're all good out there. Okay, perfect. Thank you, Chad. All right, thank you. Thank you all. And we will now uh close the hearing and um commissioners, do you have any questions of anyone or want to take any action? Question of Joanie. Uh what are you looking for tonight? What are our options? Do we have to take an action? Uh would an action be to and obviously we could vote to approve these as they sit or deny these as they sit. Other action would be to revisit

revisit. Yep. So uh this was a public hearing and so you do move forward with some sort of motion tonight.

Um that motion can be to approve as recommended. It can be to deny as recommended. Um, if you would move to to deny it as recommended, I would ask that you make comments on if it's a flatout denial, we're just not going to accept it, or if you have specific reasons that you want to revisit. Um, the other option would be to defer action and direct my office to look into other items or make other considerations. And you can either go ahead and set a new date in the future that we would reconsider these or you could leave it open-ended and we would just do a new publication and mail out um email etc to those who have requested or you can make amendments right here and now and still vote to move forward. You really have your your options are endless.

Sky's the limit. So we could have another we could have another work session. Yeah. If you if you would want to what I would recommend at that point is that you make a motion to defer action since we did have a public hearing. So make a motion to defer action and allow the planning commission additional time for work sessions.

Shall we wait till Terry gets back? Yeah. [laughter] Yeah, I I would I would I'm just talking to you guys now, but I would rather I'd like to take some time kind of reflect on everything we heard tonight from both sides and roll it around a little bit. That was a lot of information back and forth.

If you wouldn't mind, uh me making a couple of comments in response to a few things that were brought up uh through the public comment. No, please. Um, one of the, you know, one of the things that came up frequently was the battery storage. And if you recall, planning commission, we did add at this time because battery storage, while it may be beneficial to a solar energy conversion system. Um, battery storage can be done in association with solar or wind or other projects, but they can also be done as standalone projects as well. And if you recall, we discussed the fact that we wanted to to talk about battery more as a standalone issue versus rolling it into the solar issue so that we're able to make decisions about solar and then you can look at battery on a separate topic. Um I don't want it to appear as though we're trying to put a ban out there on battery because that's not what this is attempting to do. This is attempting to say we're not going to look at it at this time because we really need more information and we were trying to concentrate on one topic versus two. Um there was also a comment that we were tasked with writing regulations for utility scale um uh farms and that's incorrect. We weren't tasked with writing any specific type of regulations other than considering solar regulations um and solar farms as a whole. Um we were tasked with looking at it and making a decision on whether solar was right for Shaunie County or not and then if so what that would look like. There was no push by the BCC in regards to any size. And so that's what you all have been tasked with with and what you've been doing. The moratorum that was signed by the BCC is quite clear on that. There's no size indicated on that. Um the last

thing that I would point out was there was a comment that there are definitions missing within those regulations. Um those definitions aren't missing, they actually are located in former regulations that were approved, which would be the moratorum for today. We defined well the moratorium for solar prior to today. We defined within there what utility scale meant for Shaunie County and what uh community scale meant, what each of those meant and those regulations were adopted and made a part of our zoning regulations. And so we didn't redefine those items within here because we will keep them as a part of the definitions that we've already looked at and considered. And to answer the question about was there a number associated with those and that the answer is no. We weren't looking specifically at a number size to define what is utility scale or community scale. It's a use. You know, how is it going to be used? Is it being used to sell back to the grid? Is it being used to the benefit of a community area? Is it being used to benefit a personal house or a personal business? So, those definitions are there. They're just not laid out in these regulations because we'd already discussed and approved those previously.

[snorts] Thank you. So Terry, before you came back in, what was discussed is what are your options for moving forward tonight? And really the the options are endless. You can move to approve, you can move to deny. Um you can move to defer action and ask for additional work sessions. Um you can ask to or make a motion to amend something tonight. um that you know the the options are endless based on what you wish to do. Is it possible to ask some of the folks that spoke questions? Um I think if yeah just like with any public hearing if you have specific questions that you would like to ask that's appropriate.

Sure. I would like if Donald Taylor since he's a PE to come up. First [snorts] of all, uh thank you all [clears throat] for being here and uh and it was it's quite informative and and I appreciate the fact that that you've uh I know it's a it can be an emotional issue, but you've contained that, right? And uh we've had meetings here where emotions have not been contained very well. Uh I uh I also want to I also want to thank you for the fact that you know this is what democracy is uh and and I appreciate that very much. Uh I am uh not adverse to solar. Uh but I as you listen to or look at what we've written, [snorts] you need to understand that our fiduciary responsibility is really to the county uh and everyone in the county. We tried to take into uh account not just some of the things that have been discussed here, but what is the geography and the and the topology of our u of our uh county. And with that, I'm going to ask uh you sir, since you you are a an engineer.

I am. Yeah. Electrical engineer. Uh I worked for almost 40 years for the company formerly known as Kansas Power and Light. I officially retired with the merger that created Evergy.

Right. and I I appreciate all the things that you wrote. I wasn't able to read all of it in a short period of time, but I I glanced through it and and I want to ask you uh a couple of questions. Um one is u is as you uh think about solar and the future of solar uh how do you see uh the technology in solar advancing? With this in mind, okay, we put in solar panels of this generation that's available now. What's going to be available in 20 years? And how different do you think that's going to look? The efficiencies are increasing. So the the energy production and efficiencies are getting higher and higher with some new technologies. Uh some of them are so new that all of the windows in your house could be solar panels. They're transparent. Um so that kind of technology, new solar panels have built onto the backsides of them micro inverters. They don't put out DC, they put out AC power, and you daisy chain them together, collect it all together like that. Those actually exist now, but they're getting better and better. So would you say that the possibility in the future of the 240 250 acres might be big enough in the future based on the increased technologies

for what you know for for someone to have a a commercial grade

technology today I can get about four or five megawws per acre and so if you do some arithmetic you can get an awful lot of power out of 240 acres. Is that enough for a utility scale? Who's building it and who's buying it is part of the question on that. Okay. The second question I have and Mr. Smith uh I talked about battery storage and and in the conversations that he's heard as as he's listened in, most a lot of those voices were mine. I'm very concerned about the safety of battery storage and certainly there will be a continued technology change in battery uh and the ability for storage. What do you see in regards to battery storage in the future? Well, battery well there's there's old battery storage and there's new battery storage. One of the things I put in my written comments is in every high voltage transmission substation in Shaune County today, there's already battery storage. You just can't see it. Um, inside of a lot of the substations, there's a control building. Inside the control building, there's battery storage. What is it? Racks. huge racks of lead acid batteries because they can be kept maintained very well. They don't tend to catch fire. Um we've never had one in the almost 40 years I worked for the utility. We never had a battery fire in one of our substations and those are there. So in the as I wrote in the case of a complete blackout, heaven forbid, the battery system control runs all of the protective control systems. That's how those get to operate safely and effectively. New like lithium ion or sodium ion or

some battery technology I haven't even heard of yet. They exist. Do they have some problems? Yeah. You see the the videos of lithium ion battery um blocks, you know, it's catching fire in the guy's pocket. Yes, some of those are problematic. Old technology batteries, they don't seem to do that. Do I know what's going to happen in the future? Nope. I have no idea. The last commissioning would be it all goes away. By the time it by the time decommissioning happens, you won't know it had ever been there. The panels are gone. The supports are gone. All of it is taken out. The buildings are gone. It's back to what it was before.

Where does all of that stuff go?

A lot of it goes into recycling. All of the metal support structures. I reprocess all of that. Can you reprocess solar panels? That's kind of iffy depending on who you talk to. And how do you reprocess them? I don't I guess you dismantle them all, get the frames off of them. I don't know how they handle the recycling the recycling that's my quotes on the solar panel the solar cells themselves. I'm not sure I know how that works. Okay. The other uh concern that I had and and have voiced as we've been working through these this process is vegetation. I'm going to look through the Sierra Club again. Um, one of my, you know, one of the things that I keep thinking about is as I'm out in Shauny County driving along, how many, and you're right, there are areas that are flat, but they're not flat flat. I took up bike bicycling for a while and I thought it'd be great because Kansas is flat. I found out real quick [laughter] that it wasn't. Uh, and I haven't bought an electric bike, but if I'm going to bike again, that's what I'm going to do. Uh, and it'll have a battery in it. Uh, is is the removal of vegetation and the maintain maintenance of vegetation like trees. Uh, I'm not I'm I'm not I like trees. Uh, and I hate to see large acreages of trees taken out to provide battery storage. So when we wrote these when we were looking at all this and we were looking at the size we were trying to fit it for for Shauny County uh it's its geography its topography and uh I understand completely your idea and and please I'm

not against solar whatsoever. In fact I would tell you if I didn't have a wife that was picky about what the roof of her house looked like. I have a beautiful south uh roof that would support solar panels and it would be on there, but she's very picky about the roof line. So, no. Uh we don't have it. But I with that being said, uh you don't think there's any chance that anybody at to at our certain size and setbacks will would attempt to put in any kind of a commercial project. I have no idea of who is eyeballing possible places to do um utility scale. Utility scale and community scale have different models. Community scale is a particular problem. If we build it to sell to our neighborhood, now you have a different legal problem because selling electricity at retail comes under completely different jurisdictions. When you sell when you sell electricity at retail, you have a whole different issue that comes up out on Arrowhead Road is the KCC and they kind of get fussy about selling electricity at retail. Utility scale projects I'm selling at wholesale to some like utility. Free state is here in Shny County. Evergy of course is here in Shauny County to to those kinds of things.

Mr. Taylor, thank you so much for being grilled for a little bit. Appreciate it. [snorts] And I I again, I want to just say uh I hear you. I understand where you're coming from. Uh and uh and I would certainly take it into consideration. Uh we have worked very hard and we have tried to scale this for uh Shauny County not with the idea of of hampering uh solar but actually the way which we might be able to use it in our county. Thank you so much.

All right. Well, with the uh I'll just say with the intention of uh giving us time to reflect on everything we've heard tonight, I would move to defer action until we can reflect on this, then take it up in another work session next month. Is there a second to that? I would second that. Thank you, Rosa. call the role. Do you want discussion on that? Any discussion?

You know, I don't know if it's necessarily discussion on that specific motion, but uh you know, I guess it could be related. I'd make comment that uh I was going to make comment, but sorry, he jumped into the motion. You're I thought you were giving me to make a motion on it. You can still We'll take it in the discussion

portion here. you know, I'm a planning commissioner that is got a lot of faith in our conditional use process. Um, you know, that is already in place for us. And, you know, as we work through these, you know, I don't know if five acres is right or 50 acres is right or 5,000 acres is right. And, you know, as other projects come before us, you know, somebody wants to build a hog farm or someone you wants to put in a building, you know, you have that in front of you. You know, you have their plan in front of you and you have something specific uh to review. Uh you know who it's potentially going to affect um or not affect. So I get you know I guess my comment to it is we have done a lot of work and research and have sat through these and I think the intent of that was so planning commissioners you know that aren't us in the future have a framework uh of something to look at so they don't have to spend potentially the amount of time that we've spent. Same with the board of county commissioners. uh you know there's been research done uh you know to help guide to help guide them you know I myself am not in favor of just a hardline set of regulations you know I'm I'm more in favor of what I you know we have some other things that we operate like this in the county of a set of guidelines you know we set up guidelines there's something to look at hey you know you should take a look at a pilot you should take a look at a bond you should take a look at recclamation soil run, you know, set those aside so we have a framework to look at. But I guess my main comment is I like our conditional use process, you know, conditional use permit process.

Uh, and and I like to review projects using that. That was my discussion. [laughter] I appreciate that. I think one of the reasons why I would like to look a little bit deeper is um the maps that the group used before was the 2016 map and the map that we have is Joanie what what year 206 25 I mean based on our understanding it's from last week.

Okay. So I think when we were when we were putting all of this together, we were looking at that map, our current map, uh most current map and and making those decisions. Um and over the last nine years there has been a lot of change and a lot of growth and um and so that would be the only reason one of the main reasons why I would want to just look at that a little bit closer to see what was looked at before and where we are now. Not that I don't, you know, mistrust anyone. Um, but for some reason at some point there was this greater uh acreage that was part of the plan. And I know that probably has changed. I get that. But I'm just curious of the overlay of that. And so I I would like to just see that so that I could say I did my due diligence to make sure that it was um that you know I think that we're doing the right thing but I want to make sure that I can say yeah I really feel like we looked at everything and whether that's bringing a couple of people back to look at that with us so that you know you can understand why we made that 240 was right 240. Thank you. I was like, it wasn't 420. I just want to make get my numbers right. Uh why we made that 240 decision um because I I think that that's a that was a really big thing that we tasked on um when we looked at that map. So I am curious just to see what that looked like. And I know the gentleman in the back um I can't remember your name. I know I wrote it down, but um you know, you had mentioned, was it Robert? Um you had mentioned, you know, just because we had this map that um we shouldn't, you

know, uh take away from the possibilities of the larger acreage that we have. And so I kind I just really would like to see that visually for me a little bit. Um but I do I I you know just as you said I I do believe that we are doing our due diligence and um have a lot of things in place um to make sure that we are moving forward with you know great decisions. Um I think we all are in favor of um solar energy and and but I do want to make sure that we are I just for me I just would rather look at that. So long story short

thank you. I would I'd like to chime in. I I think the only and I'm [clears throat] not willing to make an a motion at this time as far as size. U but after listening to these folks uh who who I think have spent some time uh maybe look at the size again. My question is is if we change this, does it go back to public comment or does or do we just make the the the decision at the next work meeting?

Um you so right here today you've heard public comment and that's been closed. Um you want to have another meeting next month. I wouldn't call it a work session. I would probably just call it another action item. And so if you wanted make a motion to approve something next month. You could without waiting then another month to have further um you don't have to accept additional public comment or you can accept public comment on like we've done in some other historical specific zoning cases where we only allow public comment on the new changes. So you don't hear everything over again. You just hear it specific to the things that you've changed.

Yeah. I I would just like to say that I'd be more interested in next time as an action item spend more time talking about the size. I mean, the idea of having public comment is to take consideration in what they're saying. Correct. So, absolutely. And so, I I would find that that would be uh appropriate at this time.

So, I would challenge each of you then um you haven't voted yet, but I would challenge you then to come prepared to discuss a specific size. Um, I'm not going to bring a recommendation because we've got that out there. So, if you have specific changes you would want to make, then you know next month when you're discussing that, you would make those motions next month. So, think about that as you're considering all of the public comment. And if um, you know, Rosa wants to see maps, we can. So I the map that we had before was 2016 or 2019 something of that. The numbers you were given were updated as of the time that we were considering it. We just didn't have the map printed out. So in terms of the size of the various parcels and acreage that we had that was all accurate as of I mean 23 24 whenever we were first considering that. And then this was from today. Um, and I don't want you to forget that we also looked at like the native stone pathways and airport facilities. And so, think back to the comprehensive plan. And if you need to spend some time looking at the comprehensive plan um, over the next month as well because there are maps in there. That comprehensive plan is um, on our website and so you can go look at the various maps on there and see how those are aligned as well. So J, I guess I have a question. Are we postponing or deferring to next meeting or we definitely

are you postponing to next meeting? Dan, your motion was to um have have a work session next have a work session next month. So you move to defer action and have a work session next month. If you don't like the word work session, I think we'll be able to make amendments and vote it next month. Okay. So you action to the February planning commission meeting. Okay. So can you make go ahead and make an amended motion and then we can have Okay. So I I move to amend my original motion to defer action until the February meeting. Okay. I don't think there was a second to the first. Oh, you did second. Yeah. So I would second that.

Okay. Because I don't want to have to do the amendment and then [laughter] vote on it twice. So, all right. Shall we call the role unless there's further discussion? Janette Johnson, yes. Terry Robinson, yes. Chad Ghart, yes. Rosa, yes. Dan Brian, yes. Um with a unanimous vote in favor, uh the planning commission will defer action until February meeting.

And so for everybody who is here tonight, the February meeting is uh the second Monday of the month. So February 9 at 6 p.m. Yep. So, back here February 9 at 6 p.m. And we do have other items that will be heard that night. So, it could be a long meeting. Be prepared.

Um, it would be with with the actual item. Yeah. And I would I don't know. We need to discuss it now, but I would prefer any change that we make at next meeting. That would be the only thing if we do have public comment at all. That would that Yeah, I don't know if we can if we need to put that on the books now, but [snorts]

that's why we have lawyers. [laughter] Sometimes when you're lucky, you have more than one. I'm supposed to. She's a lawyer. Oh, is she? I didn't know that. I think that's going to be the intent is Yes. If there are any changes that are going to be proposed, then we would accept public on those changes on the changes. Okay. I'm supposed to ask if there's any public comment on non-aggenda planning and zoning items or discussion of planning related issues.

Don't hate me. Um, okay. So, we next month we'll need to have a vote on chair and vice chair for the commission. Yes, it's already January.

I know. And so, um, be thinking of what you want to do in terms of that, um, to make a motion on both a chair and a vice chair. We have another item that we haven't published notice on yet. It's it's a county initiated item to reszone a small portion of area that is currently zoned C2 that's all residential. And so we're trying to help um correct some problems with the zoning in that area because everybody that lives there, if they have insurance issue or when they sell their house, there's been some problems with the appraiser appraisals on that. Um or if the house were to be destroyed, then there's problems with rebuilding because of the zoning. And so we were looking at doing a little area resoning. Um that is an a county initiated. It's not an item that's been submitted by a specific person. And so because this is going to defer until next month, we may or may not hear that item. We'll discuss that in our office tomorrow and decide what we're going to do. But that may be a topic next month. It could draw some people because I think how many property owners are there?

10 to 12. Yeah, I think like 10 to 12 property owners are affected by it. could be a full meeting next month. It could be. Yeah. So, it may be that it's better to wait on that. And do we have anything else that's been? I don't think so. So, that was the only other item. So, um I think that at this point probably best case scenario would be we reconsider the solar and then we wait on the other item until March.

Okay. I think that's it. I mean, I want to remind everybody we're now the land use and development department. [laughter] Actually, I have a couple of things. Land use and development. The planning sno US email still works. So, if you send an email there, we get it. Um, the county is converting our websites, our email, all of that from us to.gov. So, all of our old us, so like all of our email addresses currently are us. They are going to convert them to.gov, but when they do so, the US will still work. Well, what happened was when we created the land use and development website, they they've created the email as ludvsnco.gov, but because it was not already a US address, if you send it to us, it won't go through. And so that was on the website as us versus.gov. And so some people had sent emails and had realized that they weren't going through. We've corrected that. But if you get a bounce back that it didn't go through, try try again to one of the other email addresses. They are all still there and we're, you know, we've we've received everything that we can tell um so far. Um also, board of county commission meetings have been moved back to Thursdays. So, they had been moved to Mondays this year, but now we're moving them back to Thursdays. So, it doesn't affect you guys, but it does affect the cases we hear. So, instead of coming on on a Monday, they will now come back on on a Thursday. um that won't affect this right away. So solar once we hear it in February, then in March it would go in on a Thursday date. So just those couple of notes. Anyways, that's it.

All right. If there's no further business, we're adjourned.