Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We will call the February meeting of the Shauny County Planning Commission to order. and have the announcement of the hearing procedures and make sure you're speaking into your microphone so that we're getting good recording as well.

Thank you for your attendance and participation. The purpose of the public hearing is to gather information from the public. All right. To help the commission formulate recommendations in order to ensure a fair and orderly meeting where everyone can participate, the commission requests that you act respectfully to everyone in attendance and follow the public hearing procedures. 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 will 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. The designation of a spokesperson for groups sharing a common point of view is encouraged. All comments and questions will be directed to the chair from the podium and not to the applicant, staff, or audience. When the hearing is closed, additional public comments are not permitted.

We'll have roll call. Dan Brian here. Terry Robinson here. Chad Ghart here. Myinter here. Janette Johnson present. Josephus here. With six members present. Thank you. Um, communications from public to staff.

We received um letters regarding the solar uh regulations. Um, however, those emails or the letters were compiled and emailed to you all this morning. Um, we did have several of them that we weren't able to email. Um, they had links to videos, so those were not um provided. Have there any been any exparte communications by members of the commission for the for either any of the cases? Yeah.

The uh I did receive an email um mentioning the meeting tonight and encouraging uh patrons to attend. Has there been is there a Declaration of conflict of interest by members of the commission. Okay. The first item on our agenda is election of officers. So I will entertain um a nomination for chairperson. I would nominate Chad as chair. Are there any other nominations?

I would second that. Thank you. All in favor of Chad becoming the new chairperson, you want to call the role. Janette Johnson, yes. Myron, yes. Chad Ghart, yes. Brian, yes. Yes. Terry Robinson. Yes. Vote in favor. Chad Ghart is now the chair. You can pass the torch. Great. I'll I'll I will take a nomination for vice chair.

I'd like to make a nomination myself for Rosa to be the vice chair. I would second Rosa as vice chair. Any other nominations? Terry Robinson, yes. Dan Brian, yes. Rosa Kasus, yes. Yes. Chad Gert, yes. Janette Johnson, yes. Vote in favor. Rosa Kasus will be vice chair.

Next item on the agenda is zoning and subdivision items. Number one, Shauny County, Kansas, requesting to amend the district zoning classification for multiple parcels along Northwest Topeka Boulevard and Northwest 39th Street from C2 to RR1 and M2 in Soldier Township.

Thank you. Harm Perez, planning and zoning administrator. Um, today's case is uh the first item is Z2601 Shauny County, Kansas. The requested action is to amend the district zoning classification for multiple parcels along Northwest Topeka Boulevard and Northwest 39th Street from C2 to RR1 and also M2 in Soldier Township. Here we have the general location um of the site and it's identified by the blue star. Um some brief history. Uh so there are homes on some of the the majority of the parcels. Uh the homes in the northwest Topeka Boulevard and Northwest 39th Street area were developed and occupied as residents starting in the 1950s. The properties were zoned at that time C1 and um under C1 residential use was allowed. When Shauny County adopted its current zoning regulations in June of 1992, the former C1 district was converted to C2, which is not allowed residential use. As a result, existing homes became legal non-conforming uses under the county regulations. This has created challenges for owners related to use recognition, financing, valuation, and market marketability. The proposed downzoning seeks to restore consistency by aligning zoning with the area's longestablished residential character. While no single golden factor is controlling all factors were considered in the writing of the staff report. Um the character of the neighborhood that the subject area is located within the city of Topeka's three-mile ETJ and has been developed primarily with residential use since the 1950s. Properties along Northwest Topeka Boulevard and Northwest 39th Street contain single family residences um with

additional lowdensity residential agriculture and also undeveloped land in the surrounding areas. Two, the zoning use of nearby properties. Although the subject parcels are currently zoned under less restrictive commercial classifications as a result of historic zoning conversions, the actual land use has remained residential. Nearby properties are used for residential, agricultural, and vacant purposes. The proposed downzoning to RR1 and M2 will align the zoning with existing land uses and reduce conflicts between zoning regulations and development patterns. Three, sustainability of the property for uses to which it is restricted. Under the current C2 zoning, residential use is not allowed. As a result, the existing homes are legal non-conforming uses. The C2 classification is not suitable for how the properties are actually used and it limits the owner's availabil availability to finance and market their homes. Four, extent to which the change may negatively impact surrounding properties. The downzoning is not expected to negatively affect adjacent properties and will improve neighborhood compatibility. Five, length of time the property has remained vacant as zone. The parcels have been used for residential purposes since the 1950s due to the zoning changes approximately 30 plus years ago. The homes became legal non-conforming under C2 zoning. Um the land has not functioned as commercial property during this time. Six relative gain to the public health, safety, and welfare versus hardship to land owners. Keeping the C2 zoning provides little public benefit because the area is already residential in character. In contrast, property owners have faced real hardships due to limited lending options and legal nonconformity. The proposed resoning promotes public welfare by supporting the neighborhood integrity

and ensuring regulatory consistency. Number seven, recommendations of professional staff. The action supports the long-term planning objectives and promotes zoning classifications that accurately reflect existing development patterns. Eight, conformance with the comprehensive plan. The proposal is consistent with Shauny County's comprehensive plan, which supports residential development in established neighborhoods and emphasizes zoning that reflects actual land use and protects community character. Um, as you can see, here's a picture of the historical map um when it was zone C1, which allowed uh residential use. And then here we have the vicinity map. Um we contacted the property owners and we did not receive any responses. And then um here it just shows uh which areas we would be converting. Um we have three sections converting to from C2 to R R1. And then we have the top right corner which is uh converted to or wanting to convert it to C2 uh to M2. Staff recommends approval of the request as submitted subject to the following motion. The Shauny County Planning Commission finds that the request satisfies the golden factors and recommends approval of the request. And that concludes this item.

I would um I want to make a couple of comments. Can you go back to So on this map, the one that we're recommending convert to M2 already has multifamily um forplexes on it. there's two forplexes and so we're not trying to um recommend adding forplexes or adding multifamily. It's just trying to get it to what it actually represents right now. And the remainder of the properties all have homes, residential homes on them. So I thought there was something else I was gonna Oh. Um so the way that this resoning works, this is a little bit different than a case where someone comes in and applies and makes a request because it is something that the county is initiating. Um it actually falls under a different statute that allows for a downzoning to happen such as this where we do multiple at one time. And so um one of the differences in the case is that we don't send a thousand foot notification letters. The statute just requires that you send notification to the properties that are impacted by the resoning case. So the two things that I wanted to point out

you and don't forget the four minutes for public comment once y uh I guess we heard from the applicant on this case. So, is there anyone here to speak uh for or against this? And we will limit comment to four minutes if anyone wants to come up that wants to speak in favor.

We we'll get to that one in a second. Anyone want to speak in opposition? And if you can if you want to speak and comment on a matter, we need you to come to the podium and state your name and address. Okay. Any questions from the commission on it? So, actually this is just chaining changing the zoning to how the properties are currently being used. Correct. To our understanding. Yeah.

Yes. And the applicant's not here. We are the applicant. The applicant. Okay. I missed that. Sorry. Yeah. Yep. That's We are the That's why I said we've already heard from that. And so So none of none of you want to speak in regards to in favor of or in opposition or you just wanted to say that you were in opposition to? Okay. Okay. No other comments. Do you want to come to the podium and tell us why you think it's a bad move? I Well, can you stay right there and state your name and your address and then

335 Northwest 39 Street? I can talk a little louder. We can hand him a microphone. Yeah. Got one. I'm not a speaker. Sure. I understand. Yeah. I I just don't like what's going on. Your opposition. Go ahead. Yeah. I I don't feel it's fair.

We've lived with this zoning for how many years, you know, and it's got along just fine and it's zon commercial. Why would we want to downgrade and go to a cheaper zoning for property prices, you know? So, and they could always get a special use permit probably to build a house if they had to because that's what they done for mine when they built it. I didn't have it built, but years ago they did.

Okay. Thank you. Anybody? Sharon Douly and ours is 400 Northwest 39th. My question is, would that decrease our value a lot by changing the zoning? If we wanted to sell, would that would we not get as much for our property? Correct. Thank you both.

Question or comment from the commission. The staff I have a question. Do you staff feel like this would affect property values?

Honestly, I don't know that we can have that recommendation right now. Um, we did not receive comment from anybody prior to tonight. So, we didn't know one way or the other what uh the public or the the property owners were going to feel. Um, we had had contact over the last couple of years from people who've had issues either getting an appraisal on their property when they purchased or getting insurance. Um, and so we took those items under consideration when we were making this recommendation. Um it it might be something that we can uh investigate and get a little more information by reaching out to some people and getting input um if we wanted to defer action of it um for another meeting and see if we can get some additional information and have the people who live on these properties contact us outside of this meeting and talk to us a little bit about what's going on at the properties. What's the zoning around it?

Is it all single family? It's RR1. All right. Yes. All the green. Yeah. You can see up north a little bit is the PUD. Is that Tar Water? The PUD would be Tar Waters. Yeah. And I'm not sure the M2 on the right what that is. But um other than that, yeah, all the light green is RR. I think Do they own? I don't know what they're for yet. How did How did it end up if this was a historical zoning change and this little island in red got left behind and everything else around it got

it? Well, it didn't. So, the way that I've been able to to trace it back historically was, and this is taking you back to the origination of zoning in Shaunie County. Um, so back in the day there were a couple of different ways we looked at it and one was the ring of the three mile around the city of Topeka and then anything outside of the ring of the three mile. Um, in essence everything outside of the the the ring of the three mile was RA and they zoned everything inside that ring R1. Um, at the same time they found four or five corners such as this and they said, "Oh, look, here's a good place to put some commercial businesses except for there were no commercial businesses in any of those spots. They just were predicting an area where they thought commercial might grow." And so we have several of these throughout Shaunie County. It just so happens that some of the others are actually being used commercially. And this one has historically remained uh residential. So this was done in the 50s where they zoned at C1, but at that time most of the houses that are there now were built in the early 1900s. Um you know prior to 1950s, some of them after, but not all of them.

When was the multif family built? Um that was built in the early 2000s. Then we allowed it on I'm not exactly sure how that happened. I can't explain that. We weren't here then. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not exactly sure how the justification of that was. Struck me as odd. Yeah.

Yeah. And like the the gentleman mentioned, um, one of the houses that he owns that's a rental, um, was he said was done under a special use permit, which probably made sense at the time because we had zoning regulations put in in 1953, 1956, 68 or 66,88, 92. And so when that happened, there may have been an allowance for a special use permit to allow that house to be built even in the C2. But when or in the C1, I apologize, but even at the time that C1 was in existence, when this went into play originally, residential use was an allowable use in C1. And as of today's regulations, the only place where you have the residential use is if it's a residentialzoned property. So, you can't live in industrial, you can't live in um office and institutional, you can't live in commercial um unless it's grandfathered such as these.

If one of these houses, say fire, tornado, burned down, we wouldn't allow under the regulations, we should not allow them to rebuild. Correct. That's what I thought. And it's similar to there's major areas

well there's areas there's major areas of industrial use like along lower silver lake road along north northwest 25th where you see houses um say for instance where HME is located that's all industrial and there's a few houses in there and that recently within the last couple of years became a very big deal as well because they own a house in an I1 or an I2 area and when they purchased it they had to acknowledge that they wouldn't be able to rebuild if something happened. And and it it the the issue becomes with the appraisals and with the insurance and what happens if something happens to that house. The the banks are a little bit hesitant to loan on those situations.

At this time, the property is valued at the residential rate and not at any commercial rate. Typically, the appraiser assesses um or puts the use based on the actual use of the property, not the zoning. They don't just look at the zoning and say, "Oh, it says commercial. It's a commercial property." They look at the actual use of the property. So, I cannot tell you that all of them are residential, but my assumption is is that they are probably being uh assessed residentially. And I I suggested to the the owners that are here that they go look and see how they're being assessed on their appraiser site, but I assume residential. Is there any other property like this? I know you said there's some other C1 or C2 that is currently being used as commercial that was like this. Have we done this to any other residential? We not in any time frame that I'm aware of. There was actually when I was still with the county counselor's office, there was an area that zoned industrial where the the property owners came to us and asked to downzone from industrial to residential to avoid this same thing from happening. and they had been zoned industrial for many years just like this and probably since the 60s and chose to come in and ask to be reszoned so that this was not an issue for them. But not a county initiated one though. I would say the 60s, it's probably been since the 60s, maybe the 80s since we've done any sort of countywide resoning. How many cases did you have where the property owners came to you and said this is a I have an issue with my financing or how how many individual cases of of that did you have and how

were those resolved? We've had two or three that I'm aware of. Um, the first was the appraiser contacted us and was having issues appraising the the property and um, I don't I I know that the people ended up closing on the house. I'm not sure how they rectified that with the appraisal or the bank. I don't know if they had to find a different appraiser to appraise it properly or if they ended up getting a different price for the property because of that. Um, the other one that I'm aware of was an insurance thing and that person had to get uh insurance for commercial

commercial insurance for their house. And then we had another um person that reached out to us um mid last year. She was having issues getting financing. So, um, that was I'm not sure what happened, but she was trying to sell and she was trying to refinance because whenever she bought the house, she took out a commercial loan and, um, she was trying to get a better interest rate and so she was trying to work through that. So, she was being forced to do a commercial loan, right,

on a residential property because of the zoning. Well, as a residential realtor, having the zoning change will make it easier for you to sell your property should you need to do that or want to do that. Now, as far as you would might you you might want to seek the advice of a commercial realtor to see if there is any interest that they have are aware of in some um commercial buyer. I don't know. That's not my expertise. As long as it stays on commercial. Yeah.

Go ahead.

How did it turn out that they all property? turn out that zon we don't know how they picked the the lines for this. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, you're saying that your property is it's not two properties. It's one full uh the one that one there. It's one. Yeah. I don't know how they picked the property. Yeah. Yeah. So, you have a single parcel that is dual zone. Dual zoned, which shouldn't be a thing, right? Period. Yeah.

Because you can't do two different things on the property. You couldn't put a house on one side and a business on the other. It's one or the other.

Can I ask how long have you lived at that 400 address? And how long have you lived at your address? 25.

25. And you knew at the time that it was a commercial, that it was zoned commercial. My response to that would be while I respectfully understand why they may want to sell a property as commercial, um we're trying to make it consistent so that we're not spot zoning and so we don't have a commercial business located right next to a residential house. So, my opinion is is that it needs to be one way or the other. Um, and what happens is when houses get destroyed, the way that the regulations read is that you're supposed to then bring them into conformance with the current regulations, which is why we don't allow people to rebuild because then at that stage, what we should be doing is encouraging a commercial business to go in. And so, you know, if they if their argument is is that they would prefer to, you know, have it commercial because then they could sell it commercial, well, then that causes an influx to their neighbors who don't necessarily want that to happen. And so if that was to happen, so 3819 address um there they could right now they could potentially sell it as a commercial with all of the other houses remaining and so there would be a business there and then we may hear later, well I don't

want this business being next door in between two homes. Correct. Mr. Chairman, I move that we uh approve the uh downgrade of to RR1 for these properties. Is there a second? I second that. We have a motion and second to approve the downgraded zoning. Roll call. Janette Johnson

approve. Yes. Terry Robinson. Yes. Chad Ghart. No. Yes. Dan Brian. Yes. Lang. Yes. Motion passes. sir. So, this will actually now um go on to the board of county commissioners and so that meeting will be on Thursday, March 12th.

So, March 12th. So, this is a recommendation for approval of this resoning. And so well the the board of county commissioners is the one who has to officially make that decision. So if you know who your commissioner is, you can definitely reach out to them and talk to them and you can um come to the commission meeting. If you want to reach out to us tomorrow, we can get you the details to make sure that you're aware of where that's going to be. Okay. Right.

Okay. So, if you guys don't want to stay for the solar, then we have other solar people that were going to come back in. Thank you. to shuffle back. Yeah.

Were there others, Vicki? Were there others out there planning to come back in? Okay. Is the sound not up on the TV or

Oh, okay. Item number two on the agenda is solar energy conversion systems. Joanie.

Okay. So, we are back um for the followup on our solar regulation conversion system um public hearing. If you recall, we were here um on January 12 and at that time heard from me in regards to the regulations and then heard comments um in favor of and against the the the regulations. And so at that time the planning commission did move to defer any action um until today's date so that you had time to think things through um ask questions and then if you wish to make any um modifications or explanations or do anything else. So, what I have here today is I did um make a few changes to the regulations that we can go through now and I have a couple of proposed changes or considerations that you might think about. Um and then if at that time if any of you have any proposed as well if you want to make those motions so that we know what it is that we're looking at so that then we have public comment in regards to any of those potential motions. Okay. So um the first thing that I did was I went through and I updated the regulations to our new department. Um, one gentleman nicely pointed out that I still referenced the planning department throughout and I just hadn't even bothered to go through and make that change. Um, the planning department no longer exists. We are the land use and development department and so I did make that change throughout the entire um, set of regulations. Um, okay. So, the other thing that I have here, and this is something that we

spent quite a bit of time talking about, but this is battery energy storage systems. Um, so originally the the line on here stated that they would be prohibited at this time and the thought was that we would put it in here as a prohibition right now and then we would spend some time looking at battery energy storage systems later and then if it's approved come back and and consider it. Um, we did hear a lot of public comment about this and the benefit that battery storage could have as a part of a solar system. And I will admit that um I've spent some time looking into things including attending um a lunch and learn meeting this last month with uh a gentleman who works for a company who does training of firefighters and um you know on specifically for battery energy storage and how to put them into place safely. Um and so he spent a lot of time talking with both Kyle and I about that. And one of the things that has come up several times is the fact that you could allow a battery storage building or facility as a part of this so long as it is installed pursuant to the most recent um NFPA855 standards. Um those standards are literally the standards for the installation of energy storage systems. So that's the entire system or the entire standard is all about this energy storage. And I've heard from several um who I would deem experts in the area say that this is all you really need to have to reference um what you need for safe installation of a battery storage system. Um and there's the the concept of not reinventing the wheel. So, if you

don't reinvent the wheel and you reference these, then this would be a good place to start. Um, what I didn't add on here and what I did have noted on my paper is that maybe we could also put a clause that says unless it's more strictly regulated herein, meaning if we had any sort of regulations within our solar regulations that the NFAP can't override that. So, whatever is the strictest, it's either the NFA um NF NFPA or our own regulations, whichever is strictest. So, um that would be something that could be added. Um, another thing that was discussed with the county councelor and I was adding or modifying the variance or waiver clause. Um, the way that this read originally, it made it sound like the only one who could request that waiver was the applicant. So, we re rewrote this so that it could be done by the recommendation of the planning commission, um the board of county commissioners, or an applicant um asking to wave or vary one of those minimum requirements and that those could be considered and then the board of county commissioners could approve that upon a finding that it is consistent with the purpose and intent of the regulations and in the best interest of Shaunie County. Um, we also enhanced the uh decommissioning and reclamation portion just to add a clause that states that the decommission reclamation plan must demonstrate that it is consistent with federal, state, and local laws and regulations as well

as industry standards so that we make sure that the plan itself self is a good plan. And we did something similar with the fire plan. If they're required to provide a fire plan, then they would also have to demonstrate that it meets federal, state, local laws um and is consistent with industry standards. The last thing that I did was I added the definitions that were originally considered with the moratorum. Um, that was kind of confusing for people when they saw words within these regulations, but those were defined in a different document. So, I felt like it was important to go ahead and copy and paste those into this section. And so these are just copied literally word for word from the original resolution for the moratorum. And that concludes my recommended changes. Um obviously these are not ones that you have considered or approved before. So any one of you could recommend that they not move forward. Um but I did want to put these out there as options for discussion. And if you had questions for me,

questions for gentlemen. I have a question. Uh the number 12 bord of county commissioners paragraph. Uhhuh.

Uh variance or waiver is consistent with the purpose and intent of these regulations. So, if an applicant shows up and asks for a variance of, let's just say, of a setback, we have a setback that's 500 ft. They ask for a variance of 250 ft. How does someone determine if that is consistent with the purpose and intent of these regulations? My argument to that would be that anytime we do a conditional use permit and you look at the golden factors and you make considerations, as long as you are hearing it in the light that you normally would a case um and you're not just arbitrarily making a decision that you're looking through and looking at each one of it would be case by case. You know, why is it that this one is different? um do we ask the applicant to provide the details of why this one should be different and then you compare it to the rest of the regulations and how it's applied and it would be up to the board to make that finding.

I have second question under F uh the following items are required to be submitted in each case. F you added uh decommissioning reclamation will be consistent with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Do we know if the feds, the state I mean, we're working on it locally here. I mean, do the feds and the state have a set of decommissioning plans for solar? Not that I'm aware of at this time. It doesn't mean that they won't in the future.

So, it leaves it open to that. Yeah, I think that there are probably industry standards that we could look to. So, that may be more of a key at this point in time, but it we we wouldn't want to have to come back and amend things, but if there are federal or state laws that are put into place at at any point in time, this would keep it consistent. My my question would be is then number 12 would then give us the f flexibility that these folks are looking for in regards to setbacks the acreage and other regulations then they they they would they would have there would be an opportunity to have flexibility. that's what you're really trying to accomplish with 12.

I'm sure they would beg to differ. Um I feel I that was my argument from the get-go when the discussion of acreage and setbacks came up is that we do have this clause um in in times of of those situations where it could come up. I think that they would argue that it still prevents people from coming to the table if they have to go through the fight of trying to get that variance or waiver. Thank you.

What to make the cases easier to hear though, but say we did want to adjust an acreage or a setback to get it closer to what we would think is ideal because we wouldn't want to have a 240 minimum and someone is asking for a waiver for 1,500. That could I don't know that just seems like that' be it it would cause a lot of difficulties in in justifying that because if we regulate we think 240 is the right answer. I I just I'd have to think about how that would look and as you're applying the golden factors to it to Are you suggesting that it makes it more difficult if you have this variance and waiver option because it

I like the the the waiver option. I'm just looking at uh some of the testimony we heard. Let's just let's just say uh we have a discussion we raise the acreage up to a thousand. Then someone comes in ask for a waiver for a 1,200 acre farm. Okay, that that's a little more palatable. Goes down a little easier. If it's a 240 limit and they ask for a 1,200,

that's a bigger pill to swallow as a variance or a change to what regulations are. So ideally, and I'm sure we're going to hear more testimony first today, but before we get discussing, but um it would be ideal, I think, if we can get on board as a group of if if we like what we have, we don't like what we have, but get as close to what we think would be reasonable at the at the upper end. But I think we have testimony first before we um I think that honestly the testimony should be in response to whatever recommendations that or motions that you're making. Um unless you

No, I think that's that's fair. I And Dan, I think legally I don't know the microphone toward you. Legally I don't know that it would make make a difference to have that big of a waiver or variance. Sorry. I don't know that it would make a difference. I do think it is a reference point, right? If you're a developer, you're trying to gauge where you guys are at and where the BCC is at. Does that make sense? I think that's their argument and it's a reasonable one. It's just if you're a developer wanting to gauge where is Shauny County at on these issues, that's sort of your landmark until somebody tries and either gains approval or gets rejected. If that makes sense.

Yes. So, just as a point of clarification here, procedurally, you would like us to continue to discuss changes to these regulations that the commission may want to make and then you would like to hear potentially a motion from us before any public comment. Yes. So, typically the way that you you could go ahead and Kyle, maybe you should input here. I don't want to make this wrong. I think that they should discuss potential changes. Yes. And then do you think they need to do a motion and a second prior to having public hearing or wait till after the public hearing to make their motion and second?

I don't know that. I think the the motion and the second would make it clear what you guys are wanting them to comment on. Sorry. The motion and the second would make things clear what you guys are wanting to speak wanting them to speak on. So, you would make a motion in a second and allow public comment before taking a vote on each item or on the regulations as a whole. I I would do all of the discussion and then make motions holistically. Yeah. Holistically. Yeah.

Well, I feel like we're going to be a little bit in an auction here, so I'm going to start the bidding at 750 acres. I make I make a motion that we raise to 750 acres. That would be uh number three. So I would second that. So how many acres? 750. Yes. So do I hear a thousand? So we have Terry, don't make it confusing. So we've we've heard a motion and a second for 750. If you guys want to discuss now, please do that.

I looked around. I'm sure all of us left this meeting looking around at what is going on in the rest of Kansas and we we were a little heavy-handed I I feel and we were restricting it too much but 750 doesn't even seem like it's the right number from what I'm looking at because most of these others are at least the 1,200 and I think up to 2500 and I can't I'm getting them all mixed in my head now but um I would say 12 even if we did 1500 that would be just over like six 240 acre blocks if someone could tie those together. I don't know if Shauny County has the ability to a developer could get that much land put together, but um I I would say 1500 feels like it would attract people to at least investigate Shauny County as an option for developing this. Now recognize that you have a motion and a second on the table. So you can discuss all of this and then if someone wants to make a if you're making a friendly amendment then that would have to happen or we'd have to vote on the 750. But again, we're I think that the way that we're doing this, we want to try and instead of necessarily making 10 different motions, have your discussions and talk about what you're getting to so that then at the very end you can make a good motion uh solidly.

Yeah. So the planning commission discussed back and forth and tried to agree amongst the are there six of us. Yeah. That we think it's 750 or a thousand. But at this point we have a motion and a second. So are we having a public hearing now on more discussion? Yeah. Do we have more discussion on more discuss? Let's have more discussion. Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. This isn't We're not open to public. We're not open to public comment yet. Let us continue to discuss up here and and we'll hit that point, commissioners.

Well, I think with the the waiver clause, it doesn't prohibit anybody that wants to do 1,200 if supposing we made it 750 or we made it a,000 or or we made it 1,200. If somebody wants 1,500, it doesn't prohibit them from asking and submitting a a you know a plan. That's my two cents for me with the 750. If someone said, I want to do an additional 750, then you're just like, okay, that you know, yes or no. Um, and it seems easier to double or triple at the 750 is the only reason why. I mean, I was thinking 640, so 750 sounds fine to me. Um, but I can understand if you think that a thousand would be okay, but also thinking that someone's going to probably someone will want to double that and then you're at the 2,000 and that, you know, and then at that point, are we going to bargain with them and go, "Uh, 2,000 might be too much. Let's go with 1500." And then they're going to turn it down. Then I feel like we're really at an auction.

When you're saying double it, double the uh acreage. Yeah. Well, we also have a regulation that they could double it and put two together because they have the two mile, right, separation, but I think that they could ask depending on where the parcels are. I guess that they could then ask Oh, like trying to Okay, I'm looking to make it so that it's one if that makes sense. Yeah. So, I'm just assuming you said double.

Sorry. In my Yeah, layman's terms for me. Uh but so I don't know. I I thought 750 or then someone could say well 750 or a,000 sounds great in my mind and then asking for more would be dependent on what everyone else decided at that time at the table. 750 or a thousand would still put us on the lowest end in northeast Kansas. At least the regulations I can find people have posted on websites. I mean, I I don't know if that I can't look in the mind of a solar developer. Does that make them hesitant to try to push for a waiver if they can go to another county and they already have a 1500 limit set and they don't have to go for a waiver that could or could not get denied? I I'm just trying to keep it competitive,

right? Looking at the notes that I I brought my notes from everybody speaking last time though. Um you know everyone had said the 240 was too small, Douglas County was a thousand and Johnson County was 1,500 is what is what I had written. So Jackson I think was 20 my paper fell in the mud so I can't read it as well. I don't know if I have Jackson on here.

I don't think Jackson County is a is a good comparison for Shauny County because it's much more wide open, not not as developed as Shauny County. So, yeah. And like I said, I think a developer would have a pretty hard time piecing together that much land of willing land owner. I mean, I'm not saying it's not possible, but yeah, Jackson, those ones that surround us, they are a lot less densely populated. Well, and I remember looking at the map and I had gone back to look at the map. We didn't have that much land to be able to even

We do have them placed over here. So the first one on the left is the one from 2016 and then the one on the right is from last month. So a majority of the the dark green parcels that you see, those are the ones that are the largest. Um really where you can see that's changed at all or the most is up here. This little area has changed from here. For the most part, everything else looks pretty consistent with what it was.

And so the dark green is 320 acres or more individually owned 320 acres parcels, right? And there may be several 320 side by side. Yeah. But each parcel of Yeah. Yeah. Other comment from the commission on the acreage.

What What's the What's the exact number that we landed on? Well, we have a motion and a second on 750. Okay. a couple of different options. The motion could be withdrawn or you and you can just keep discussing um as you move forward with other discussions and recommendations and do one larger motion at the end or you could make a modified motion. Yeah, I was gonna say Terry could just amend his motion to adopt all of the other changes. Does that make sense?

Your motion, your motion for 750 could still stand and you would just amend your motion to include the rest of the changes noted in the document.

So, so my understanding is is Everything else that we've looked at in red would be adopted plus a move to move in adding 750 acres if you're wanting if you're wanting to adopt the changes clerical changes are going to be made regardless. Um but any of the other changes if you're wanting to adopt those then yes you could include amend your motion to include those changes as well. or if there are other changes that anybody had to re

if we're broadening the motion or we're thinking about it. Um on that battery storage um I would definitely be in support. You said you were going to do an either or whichever strictest I would definitely want that language added in. Okay. So a certain pro procedurally here though Terry has to amend this motion if we're before you can vote on it. Before we do anything, Terry would have to amend it or we sit where we're at right now with a motion and a second for 750. I I'm not comfortable amending the motion. I will withdraw the motion if the second would be willing to withdraw the second. I would withdraw. Okay, that's covered now. Get

Okay, so you guys can continue to discuss all of the things that you want to discuss now without a motion on the table. No pressure. So what what language then can we add it? Is there there's no way to add it?

Right. So I was going to recommend battery storage maybe considered if I can read my handwriting. Okay. So what I added is that um the battery storage energy battery energy storage systems as anertinent facility to a solar energy project may be considered as a part of the project if installed pursuant to the most current version of NFPA855 which is the National Fire Protection Association, the standard for the installation of stationary energy storage systems unless more strictly regulated herein or by other Shaunie County regulation. Um the current version is 2026 just to let you know. Yeah. Yeah. The most current version. And this is only speaking to battery storage as a part of solar farms, not as independent facilities. Okay. We can still discuss those at a

different meeting to decide how to move forward. And Jody, with with the language that is on here, if somebody wanted to do the setback, that could also be put forth before us. Not acorage, but the setback could also be changed if an applicant wanted to. The way that this reads, um, you're talking about number 12, they could request, they could it may vary or wave the minimum requirements set forth in these regulations. So, any any minimum requirement that we have set, they could ask to wave or vary.

Okay? Because that was another topic of discussion was the 500 setback needed to be smaller and I could see if the person that's making the request for the permit to if they lived in the house, they might not care if it was 200 feet away from their residence. But if it is a solar um installation that is next to someone else that is not a part of it, they're not going to want it any closer than 500 ft. I would move that we accept um adopt these regulations with the uh change that the project shall um not exceed 1,000 acres. I would second that

motion in a second. Discussion from the commission. Think we would move to public hearing now? Yes. Okay. Um and make sure and limit comment to only the changes. They don't need to come back in and tell us everything we've already heard. We've already heard it.

Correct. Uh if you didn't hear Joanie, um we are looking for comment on the changes that have been made to these regulations since you saw them at the last meeting. So if you have, you know, comment to basically anything in red there that has been made to these regulations, uh we would ask for you to come forward and speak. We'll limit the time limit uh to four minutes per speaker. ask you to sign the registry when you come up and then uh state your name and address as you're addressing the board. My name is Donald Taylor. I'm a licensed professional engineer. I submitted comments in writing, so I assume you've seen all of those. Um I think this is a big step forward. One thing that would be an interesting clarification on this and it's actually a really important one is you say it's a thousand acres. What exactly does that mean? Inside the fence an improvement would be in the very definition itself of project and define it to be the acreage underneath the solar panels as opposed to this big area. If you think the solar panels are all going to be lined up right next to each other and cover a thousand acres, that's probably not how it's going to get built. If I do an agravtaic business, it's going to be sitting on like 2 meter stands and I'll have them rows like 2 meters apart. And so the acreage covered by solar panels would be an enhancement to what you claim to be the definition of a project area because the way it is currently written. I'm going to have this quilt and then I'm going to connect my little quilt pieces together from multiple pieces of property. That's in the

definition for project area. So clarifying that is the land covered by solar panels would be an improvement. Thank you. If there's multiple people that are going to speak, we can move the signup sheet away from the podium there so people can start to fill it out.

Yes. Hello. I am Tad Kremar. I live very close to the edge of Shauny County in Douglas County and I am thrilled that you're considering regulations to allow Shauny County to reap the benefits of clean, efficient, inexpensive solar energy. There are just a couple things uh about the revised regulations. I'm glad there was some revisions, but just a couple other things that are needed to allow the uh regulations to allow beneficial solar projects in the best interest of the citizens of Shauny County. Uh my main concern is the project size limit. There really is no purpose served by limiting project size. The larger the project, the greater the economies of scale and the lower the electricity costs generally by the the bigger projects. A very large project will usually produce the cheapest electricity and its size just its plain size doesn't cause any harm. Uh, also the relative lack of large land parcels in Shauny County is no reason to limit the project size because a large project, as you've said, could be created by leasing from multiple adjoining land owners, even if a large project is difficult to achieve. Uh, that's no reason to prohibit it. I mean, if a developer can get a lot of people together to make a large project that then they should be allowed to do that un unless there's some harm that that's going to cause and I don't see why it would be harmful to have a a large efficient project producing cheap electricity. Uh so I I would recommend no size limit at all. But if there is a size limit, I'd say I understand that you need for most of the really large efficient utility scale projects, 2,000

acres would be advisable to allow that. Um, also uh to facilitate joiner projects, uh, some changes should be made to the setback regulations. Just a few words here and there that I put in my written statement. uh I emailed January 24. Uh basically the setback should not apply to land owners who agree to lease some of their property for a solar project because they should be allowed to determine and agree to the setbacks from their own residents and from their property line. This is important to avoid unnecessary restrictions that can make it difficult to create a large project site by combining adjacent properties. Uh so I think those would be the main main things that would be needed to really make these regulations the kind of regulations you need to attract good solar projects to the benefit of the citizens of Shauny County. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

So good evening. I'm Vicki. Can you hear me? Okay. Yeah. Pull it down just a little bit. Yeah. Okay. Is that good? Yeah. Yeah.

All right. Um, my name is Vicky Arnett. I live at 1110 Southwest Medford in Topeka. Uh, I'm testifying tonight for what I believe is the fifth time regarding solar ordinance. Uh, on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Topeka and Shauny County. Um, we support the solar development of solar. Uh, and we do have concerns with the amendment as it currently stands. Um, I do want to say this is a large step forward in terms of considering a thousand acre amendment to this ordinance. Um because our information is really that largecale developers often have to approach 15 to 20 land owners and get them all to agree. Um and it need not be a contiguous uh acreage to comprise one project. Um therefore we think that you need to reconsider the setback requirement and we recommend lowering it to 250 ft from residential property. Johnson County has residential setback of 250 ft in their solar ordinance and we all know that Johnson County is much more residentially dense than Shaune County. I think it's a wonderful step forward that you all have reconsidered battery storage on site as well as the fact that you're going to reconsider um what I understand would be regulating battery storage as battery storage standalone projects in the future. uh

because just as a note uh battery storage serves to strengthen the grid with all kinds of all the sources of power generation coal um wind in addition to solar. Um so with that I I think we're making good progress and I would thank you for your service.

Thank you. Good evening, Mark Galbreth, 1230 Southwest College here in Topeka. I do think we've made progress tonight and I want to thank you for that. Um, definitely progress with in terms of the number of acreage and with the battery storage. Um, I too though think we ought to allow for a larger project if um if land owners in Shaune County and a developer can get together and find 1500 acres, 2,000 acres um and come to agreement on that and that probably would include multiple property owners. But if they can come together and work out that kind of an arrangement, I I think we ought to let them try to do that. But is this a big step forward? I really appreciate that. Um I I do think um you might want to reconsider the two-mile distance between projects because there may be a number of property owners involved in any project. And that two-m limit um you know might be a problem and um might prohibit a project. Um and I'm not sure exactly what's gained by having that in the regulations. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioner. I'm Zach Pastor. I'm the chapter director for the Sierra Club. We have 270 dues paying members in Shaunie County and over 500 that take action with us. Thank you for allowing us to speak tonight and thank you for the changes you made on the uh regulations. We appreciate what the inclusion accommodation of battery energy storage systems. So, we'd support that. We'd also uh support your interest in a greater acreage area uh to thousand acres. Um we we think that could be expanded. Mind you, that Johnson County solar regulations provide over 2,000 acres for the full project area. Uh Douglas County is 1,000 acres for the the area underneath the panels. And so the gentleman's point about are you talking about the full project area or just the area underneath the panels uh Douglas County has a permit for 159 megawatt solar farm on 1100 acres of area with the buffer but six about 700 acres of of solar underneath those panels. uh about 120 uh megawws is right now the average size of a of utility scale solar across the country. So that's important. Um 120 uh megawws uh use you know roughly a thousand some acres. So uh that's important distinction for for the project here. As was pointed out, if you have a two-mile buffer strip between the areas, which is the next regulation down in your provisions, that's going to mean fewer uh potential projects within the county that land owners are raising their hand to say, "I want to be a part of this." If you have a two- mile setback from uh some land owners that want to get involved and and max out that acreage cap, then you're not able to site another uh solar farm right next to it, even when you have willing property

owners uh trying to put up their land uh for the benefit of the county here. So, um I would just offer those comments to all that. I I would encourage you to take a look at Berkeley National Lab, the energy lab that has an updated um uh information statistics about utility scale solar in America. uh they've added that uh utility scale solar grew by 56% in 2024 and that actually it was uh I want to say uh I have to revisit it myself but solar represented some neighborhood of like 60some percent of all the new generation across the country. Okay. So, it is a growing opportunity for people across America, but could be a growing opportunity for uh folks in Shauny County if you have kind of a right-size system for developers to be able to take a look at it and be interested. So, uh yep, I think that thousand acres uh could be expanded potentially to be a little more accommodating and then you take a look when the permit application comes up if it passes the test for what feels right uh for your needs here in Shauny County. So, um, thank you for your time and your attention. I hope we can get these passed with the, uh, the changes and, uh, thank you for all your hard work.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Paul Post. I'm currently the vice president of the Topeka and Shauny County League of Women Voters. I reside at 21101 Southwest 2nd Street here in Topeka and have lived there now for 46 years. Uh, and you may recall from my testimony last time, I'm the guy who put solar on my roof back in 2014. So, I know a little bit about at least residential solar. Uh, I I want to commend you for expanding the acreage to a thousand. Uh, I would like you to think though in terms of a developer. If you're a developer and you see that u Shaunie County has a thousand acre limit, but Johnson County has a 2,000 acre limit, you may be more likely to think, well, maybe we should rather than have to jump through all the hoops, maybe we should just apply over in Johnson County since we know that they're a little bit more accommodating to our needs. I'd also like to bring to your attention, and this is new from u our last meeting, uh in Bourbon County, Fort Scott, uh rather small county. We've talked about Douglas County, we've talked about Johnson County, but Bourbon County uh just inked a deal with Tennyson Creek Solar for 300 megawws of renewable electricity that includes a battery storage component. Now, I searched uh rather significantly, spent some time trying to find out how many acres they actually applied for. They didn't put that in the uh this is a press release or a news article from the uh it's online from the um Fort Scott Business Daily and and so you could see there what I'm talking about. But 300 megawws is probably in excess of 2,000 acres there in Bourbon County, Fort Scott. And of interest uh

in that article is also the fact that they're predicting uh this is a 30-year project and it it also included decommissioning requirements. so that the developer will be responsible for paying for those decommissioning requirements at the end of the 30-year period of time when the uh when when the solar project is dismantled essentially. But during this 30-year period of time, they're anticipating $94.4 million in tax revenue to Bourbon County. And so that's over $3 million a year in additional tax revenues to the county. And so that's I think an important consideration that I haven't heard really much discussion about. But being welcoming to solar developers who are going to uh develop a large scale industrial solar project to then uh be able to pay this type of tax to the county when of course the county is always looking for new sources of revenue. I think that's an important consideration. So, I thank you for uh considering the expansion to a thousand acres, but I would uh ask you to maybe consider even more than that. Uh the 2,000 acre limit, if it if you want to call it a limit, might be appropriate. And I think it was uh Commissioner Ghart who last month said, "Why do we even need an ordinance? We already have the tool of the conditional use permit." And so you're going to be looking at these projects anyway when they come in and so you have that regulatory tool available to you. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you. My name is Justine Grieve. I'm at 2424 Southwest 26th Drive in Topeka. I just have a couple things I wanted to say. one, I was thrilled to see that you've allowed for battery storage. Um, I really appreciate that you, the staff, went out and did some work to learn more about that and the necessity of it and um, get assurance that it's not as big of a concern as as perhaps it was initially thought to be. Um, so I really appreciate that. I appreciate that you're considering raising the size limit to 1,000 acres. Um, I don't feel like I fully understand what the concern is with going larger. Um, I feel like we're, you know, you said this is kind of like a auction bidding here and I I want to know why, like what the fear is, I guess. So, if if you do limit the size to a thousand acres or something under, you know, 2,000 or whatever, I would just love to hear your reasoning for that and um what the justification is, what the benefit to Shauny County is to keep to keep that smaller, what we're trying to protect ourselves from, I guess, by raising the limit. So, thank you very much.

Thank you. My name is Leslie and I live at 4020 Street in Wow, you really messed up my comments and I thank you very much for the changes you are making. It's just it's really good. I do want to say that Can you turn the microphone down towards you?

I'm short. I do want to say that when you put in the paragraph that allows exceptions, uh to me that's just going to make a developer go, well, what grounds are there exceptions based on? And I think why not just up the limit and then if you don't like, you know, what they're doing, you can uh have, you know, look at that and tell them they need to make changes. it. I think procedurally just, you know, kind of giving a blank we're going to, you know, that we're, you can ask for an exception is not a good way to actually have a procedure. You're going to you're going to end up having to do things that you wouldn't have to do. You know, if you had 2,000 and uh then you wouldn't have to do those things. You wouldn't have to look at exceptions. And then I also uh wanted to say thank you so much on the battery. I have some testimony from a developer that I was going to read. Um, and he was really dead set against the batteries because that gives the intermittent use of power which increases, you know, um, what you can make off of of electricity and uh, you use it at the prime at the prime times you use your cheaper electricity. So, I'm glad you did that. Um, I do you want me to read his testimony? It also has something to do with another part of your regulations that he found. I'll tell you his last line is um

Can you speak into the microphone?

I'm sorry. I'm very sorry. Um he felt like this was upon reading these regulations, it seems the message the county wants to send to renewable developers is buzz off. And we want solar energy. We want that economic development. We want that tax increase, you know, and I know you all realize that we need that. So, I don't have to read his testimony, but I will if you're interested. But you you've killed you've there's just the one the one other thing that he the decommissioning and reclam reclamation plan. He didn't like that. uh he said that how are they going to know where solar panel disposal technology will be in 30 to 35 years when the system is decommissioned and then you require 110% of decom decommissioning cost to be a set aside in an escrow account and then three bids for that and they say that he says that requirement would make economics of a utility scale solar system difficult and also what company in their right mind would provide a bid for decommissioning work 35 years in the future. So I think you could you know get some of the detail out of that and and like has been suggested you know um just kind of look at it like a zoning permit. Uh but I do I think the raising the the size of the farms is a really good idea because you can create that energy for um you know to make more money and have less like the scale scale of whatever it is economics. Uh I think that's true. Uh plus you waste the land that you've leased. you're wasting that land that a developer is leased if you make these setbacks in these two 200 you know 500

feet u things where you can't set up something so okay see I would have done better if I could have said what I've written out but thank you oh my goodness thank you for giving us a voice and thank you for your great Anyone else?

You can. Yeah, that's fine. Is this right? Is this the one I'm supposed to be moving or is it this one? That's good.

Okay. Sorry. Good evening. My name is Kathleen McMahon and I live on 120 acres in Jackson County close to a little town called Dillia. Just a mile north of Dillia, Next wants to build a large-scale industrial solar power plant which if built will be the second largest in the United States. This Florida based c florida Florida based company flaunted the idea of big money to absentee loan land owners while never telling the actual residents that a huge industrial solar power plant would be installed around their homes and farms. And to make matters worse, one nonparticipating land owner was told by a Next Air rep that it didn't matter what you wanted, it was coming anyway. At last month's meeting, there was a comment on the decommissioning of solar panels and a mention of recycling. Solar panels have been around since 1954. And after 72 years, surprisingly, no one is recycling the panels. Even if that technology existed is far too costly. Those spent panels will be shipped off to a third world country where they will have to deal with our chemical laden trash. Kansas can be incredibly windy, especially during the spring pasture burning season. It's a busy time for firefighters like my husband due to the increased call volume of controlled burns that suddenly are out of control. A few years back, we had a fire start just north of Highway 24 around Rosville that blazed so fast that the volunteer firefighters with the help of farmers back burning barely kept the fire away from the city of Dillia. Luckily, homes were safely evacuated and the wildfire was finally stopped just west of our little town. I have a big concern for out of control wildfires that spread fast and cannot be contained. And once the solar panels are engulfed in flames, there's nothing to do but wait until it stops burning. No one is putting water on electrical panels. You just let it burn. On the topic of battery storage, I'm strongly suggesting that you do not allow any battery storage whatsoever. Those batteries are toxic and the people and the animals that will be downwind from any fire won't be compensated for

the damage caused by the chemical laden smoke that will burn for days, if not weeks. Please do not allow battery storage to be part of the conditional use permit. Another item that should really be considered more would be the setbacks. Where I live in Jackson County, the majority of the people who sign leases don't even live in the county or even in the state of Kansas. Why should non-participating landlords be forced to suffer the constant humming of inverters because they are too close to their homes and property lines? No one wants to be surrounded by miles of solar panels and inverters. So careful consideration for non-participing land owners who are losing the value of their homes is a must. The industrial solar power plant ma model is obsolete. In our case, we are told by Next Era that the 5,000 acres will generate 500 megawws. It won't. Out of the box, the solar panels panels are at best 25% efficient, which means at peak daylight hours, it is really only 125 megawatts on a 5,000 plus acres. To compare, Jeff Energy Center has a building with three stacks that is only on 123 acres. Each stack produces a maximum of 750 megawatts per stack. All three stacks together produce 2250 megawatts of power. That's 247 reliable constant power. Solar cannot come close to that kind of power. 3 to 5% is all that the renewables will ever contribute to the grid. All of this is to say, please take your time. Consider those that will be forced to live around an industrial power plant. Consider firefighters that will be needed if this is placed in a rural agricultural area. And if you want, go to the Jackson County Commissioner's website. There you will see the solar regs that our planning board is working on at the moment. Thank you.

Thank you.

Diane Denn northern Oage. Um and my concern regards the fires and the setbacks and I'll explain to you why. Um, a recent report by Fire Trace International found that the solar industry is potentially underestimating the risk of fire at solar farms particularly or partially due to shortage of data as many of those fires have been reported as other rather than solar related. Their report titled hidden danger why solar farm fire risk could be greater than you think. in reports that solar farm fires are seeing a sharp rise at this time. Business Insurance magazine states, "To be clear, fire risk is present across all utility scale high voltage renewable energy from wind to solar to battery storage systems. Fire risks cannot be totally engineered out. With additional solar energy, the number of fire occurrences will only increase. In our work, we have seen solar farm fires result in losses which encompass the entire solar farm with the potential to spread and endanger surrounding communities. 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 bordering or near solar fields. So, think about this. What if a huge solar farm fire was coming toward your house and property? Would you be concerned that it is so close with the current setbacks? And then who will pay for fire or other damages from the solar farm to the non-participating land owner if their insurance is canceled because of the solar farm. Now, here's a couple

of just quick examples. Eagle Point Solar Farm in Oregon had two fires within two months in 2024. Both were caused by overheated electronic panels that dropped molten electronics into the dry grass. Battery storage fires are extremely serious. They can burn for days, smolder for weeks, produce toxic gases and smoke plumes that extend for many, many miles. One in California went 27 miles. And of course, everybody had to be evacuated. They cause numerous health issues such as breathing issues, exposure to cyanide, lithium, cobalt, nickel, magnes, PFAs, which are the forever chemicals in the water. In addition to damaging crops and animal health, you can be sure that the 1,22 residents with a combined total of 31,072 acres who signed petitions against industrial solar in this county are concerned about the fire danger. In addition to the possibility of having their insurance cancelled because of the solar farm and reduce property values since no one wants to live near an industrial solar complex. So for the above safety reasons and more, we would like to suggest setbacks of 1,640 ft from residents and this comes from go solarf floridastate.org. Additionally, 500 feet from property lines, 600 feet from other structures. And even with those setbacks, they could still be in a danger zone in case of solar farm fire. So, thank you very much for listening. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I do that. My name is Richard Johnson. I live at 3536 Northwest Tuxman Road, Silver Lake, Kansas. Um, 750 acres. That's a square mile. I would say go back to 240 like we started with with the last. Imagine living in the residential area or in a county out there and you have this nice pristine farm that you have and the neighbors next door die and they send or will that property to a kid that lives someplace in California or New York who doesn't want to have anything to do with it and he turns around and makes it an entire solar farm. That's an eyesight. But it's also going to affect my land because my property value is going to go down and the site is going to be horrible, especially when you put in the battery aspect of it. Um, I'm going to go back to just the fact that there are fires that occur at solar farms and we can't get an accurate number because some places listed as the other. It's insi they don't signify the fact that it was a solar farm or a battery farm. Uh, that's being change, but nonetheless it occurs. The small sites um they don't pollute a lot uh considered significance. The real issue is when the battery farms catch fire, which has already been talked about in regards to pollution. I won't repeat what you said, but I will look at it this way. Um electric vehicle to put a fire out for electric vehicle takes a minimum of 2,500 gallons. A gasoline car is 1,100. And that's from a fire chief that I talked to. The big concern that we have here is that solar farm or the battery farms take somewhere around 50,000 gallons to suppress it. 50,000 gallons. So a lot of sites have made it mandatory that you have 10,000 gallons of water on site. So the problem we have with the rural

areas is they have a little bit of equipment to do a little bit of fighting, but they're going to rely on top and then the hazmat's going to have to come out because of all of the particulate matters, the organic and inorganic materials that go into the to the air. The other issue is insurance. If you have a fire and it bleeds over into my property and we can't get it cleaned up, who pays for that? you does it come out of your pocket, your home insurance, they're going to change it, you know, and so we run into a lot of problems like that, but the fire is definitely an issue. Um, the acreage is definitely an issue because there are people who are passing away and they're donating this land to a relative that doesn't care and uh again, we start eroding everything there. The solar aspect of this has been a Ponzi scheme from the beginning, promising a lot of stuff. our our electricity isn't going down, our values are going to go up. Wand dot is getting hit right now with a huge battery farm back up because wind and solar doesn't work. It doesn't keep a constant thing. And I don't have any connections of where I can find if my little solar farm that's over here behind my house, how much it actually puts out, if it's putting anything out at all. You know, how how do we differentiate from that? And weather has an effect on all solar. gets too hot, doesn't produce, gets too cloudy, doesn't produce. And those are things that we need to consider on this. So 240 acres is is, as far as I'm concerned, too much. But going up to a,000 or 2,000, I that's ridiculous in my opinion.

Thank you.

All right. Test. Okay. My name is Jackson Woods. I live at 1195 Southwest Mulane in Topeka. Um I want to respond to some of the commentary that we just had. First of all, the primary components in solar panels are aluminum, very recyclable as we recycle our cans, glass, also very recyclable, and there is silicon, but that is also something that we can reuse. Uh so I don't think it's fair to say that solar panels are not recyclable. batteries as well. They can be recycled. Uh especially lithium. Uh there are developing technologies that you can basically crush it up, turn it into a paste, and then turn it back into a new battery once you uh refresh the chemical process that that involves. Um I understand the concerns about fire, but those are relatively rare and one-time events. When I think about all the burning that's happening at a coal power plant or a gas power plant, when you have solar, you set it up, you get that energy, and it's once you have that initial investment, it's free, quote unquote, but it's definitely lower cost than having to bring in uh train cars of coal uh or tankers full of gas for whatever power plant. this is the more sustainable way and cost-effective way to generate power for our communities. Um, I understand the noise concern thing and I understand there's a reason for the setbacks. I'm wondering if we can instead have regulations that specify specific pieces of equipment need to have a certain setback rather than saying everything in the project area has to be a certain number of feet. because I understand there are some equipment pieces that are louder. If we can say, oh, if it's 500 feet for inverters or whatever other equipment,

but otherwise it's 250 ft, these solar panels are not making as much energy as other parts of that development. Um, and then I want to say that accommodating solar energy developments in Shauny County is a reason for people to stay in Shaune County. Um, especially people my age. I think I'm looking at the room and I'm the youngest one here. Um, so and I'm a Washurn graduate and I do want to stay here in Shauny County and knowing that my electricity that I use at work, at home comes from solar developments makes me feel better about living here and contributing to the economy in my own way. Thank you. Thank you.

Uh, good evening everyone. My name is Shemica King Sims. I'm president of Historic Oldtown Neighborhood Improvement Association, which is in central Topeka. Um, I'm still kind of getting caught up on all the things because there's a lot between the city and the county to um keep us all busy as advocates. The thing that I wanted to just kind of draw the through line perhaps, um, because my neighborhood is so old, uh, we have a lot of lots that have underground kind of oil, um, from points of time where there were gas stations and a bunch of like um, uh, auto places that were, you know, you take your car to fix things. And what that has done is that has um slowed down the ability to turn over property because we need to get those uh tankers out of the ground um at least according to KDH guidelines and that's a very expensive process. So as I'm listening to the you know conversation around battery and putting it into the ground my thought is as you know gas and oil were at one point the you know the power dour now we're moving to solar. What is that going to look like when it's no longer solar or we have something else that replaces it and people are looking for ways to safely get it out of the ground and can't do it because it's cost prohibitive. So, I'm just I'm not discouraging I'm not discouraging. I'm just saying there are long-term ramifications that I don't think that um we can honestly say it's one way or the other at this time. It's just something that we need to be mindful of because

these spaces are going to need to be to redeveloped at some point and at that point are we just passing the cost along to someone else. So, thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Good evening. My name is Clinton Lambot. I live at 7321 Southwest Davis Road, Auburn, Kansas. I'm a current member of the University of Hard Knox. I do not have a college degree and I'm not an attorney, but I think if you listen to both sides of this, you know, we I could go either way on it, you know. Um, but some of the items that that you're looking at is item on that item number 12. I think there's a lot of gray area in that. I mean, even that your current 240 acres, you could always do a waiver. My question is, who's going to control that waiver? Who has the control of that? And there I'm looking for an answer. Who controls that? The earlier in your earlier part of your meeting, the folks up here talking about the reasonzoning. I sit there and I listen to that and I think, you know, you had it one way and then you changed it to another way, but it sounds to me like you didn't abide by that other way. you know, they brought up, well, there was a house brought in, you know, and don't know how that happened, you know, or maybe a business coming. Don't know how that happened. There's no disrespect in this comment, but I'll tell you how

it happened. Right back here. So, if you've got enough money, if you know enough people, you can get about any of this changed around that you want. just uh in in my schooling square mile is 640 acres folks. It's not 700, it ain't 400. 640 acres. One of my concerns and you folks upping this up to a thousand acres, 2,000 acres, whatever. In the earlier meeting or the last meeting, I was hearing about the airports. Okay. Sounded like the airports had signed off on 240 acres, but is the airports signed off on a thousand acres? Have they signed off on 2,000 acres? Have they signed off on 5,000 acres, 10,000 acres? If these folks would like that, just some things to think about. Where's this power going to go? Folks are wanting cheaper energy. Hey, I do too. I would recommend that if you move forward with this at 240 acres, 10,000 acres, you make it to where that energy stays in Shauny County. That is how these folks' bills are going to get cheaper. Because don't be fooled, your energy costs are not going to go down. Not electrical, they are not going to go down. You can put a 50,000 acre farm out here. It's not going to change.

Um, nobody has said anything about transfer lines. Okay, you got these power plants or these these solar panels. How's that energy going to move around and are they going to do eminent domain for the transfer lines? Thank you very much. Thank you.

Hi, good evening. I am Vicki Lamot his other. I live at 7321 Southwest Davis Road, Auburn, Kansas. What I want to ask is basically what he asked the last. I know that you they can't come take my land for the panels. I'd have to say yes, but the battery stations and the transfer lines, they can come through my land and can they take it because I think I talked to you last time and I just wanted to know to me that should be part of that where they can't just come in and say, "Okay, we're going to go across your land and we're going to take that." I didn't want the panels. So, I'm asking you that question. Um, I do have neighbors down the road that have the panels on their house. They've had them there there for years and in their land. They benefit. They do benefit because it's theirs. But if you have these big solar farms, like he just said, it's going away. It's being bought out and it's not coming to help us here. Um, also I am a free state. That's my electric company. They put the big farm in there on Auburn Road and my bill has never once went down. Not one dime. It's only went up. So, thank you for your time.

Thank you. My name is Jan Davis. I live on South Topeka Avenue in Osage County, just just past the county line. I have researched green energy um for probably seven or eight years. And I've heard so much misinformation tonight. I just want to clarify some points. Um, I heard a comment that I'm I am not in favor of battery storage. I think they're dangerous. They are the most expensive form of electricity and they're only needed for wind and solar. You don't need them for coal. Someone said coal B because coal is consistent energy. It doesn't need battery storage which I think nationwide battery storage is equivalent to a a couple of hours available. Fires are very prevalent with that. I remember the first time researching during COVID, there was a fire in upstate New York and it was uh bad. It was really very bad. Um, in my estimation on on the number 12, the board of county commissioners, they already know they can change and send back to you anything that you send to them. So, I think that that comment could be stricken

completely because they count on you as the recommending body and but you'd send it to them knowing that they can make that change. um last weekend or weekend before last with the deep freeze that hit Texas. Um wind and solar produced negative energy. Wind and solar took ink, this is numbers, they took more energy from the grid than they produced. Um Larry Frink, chairman of BlackRock, who owns everything and has pushed the wind and solar said about three months ago, "We are done with wind and solar. They can they are inconsistent. They cannot provide us the power that we need going forward." And the somebody said good solar. I don't think there's such a thing as good solar. But um and one other comment about going to Berkeley Labs, which is a propaganda arm of the industry. So you will get a very slanted numbers if you go to Berkeley Labs. Um, I think that was it. Oh, on the I would like you to just strike number 12. I think that's redundant. But then also on number seven, I'm very disappointed to see you put in battery electric storage systems. I think they need to be

prohibited until you can get a little bit better idea of the safety of the requirements. All of these are going out in rural areas and the rural fire departments are volunteer. They don't have the capacity to fight these fires. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? With that, we'll close the public hearing portion. I believe it stands right now that we have a motion and a second to approve the regulations as presented with the one amendment of increasing the acreage from 240 to 1,000. Does that uh motion include the language on number seven of the batteries?

It does. It would Yeah, it would include all amendments that Joanie has made and the Yeah. And she added some language on the screen. It would include that as well. And then it would include a thousand acres. Is there further discussion from the commission? I have comment. I have some things I'd like to say and comment. First of all, thank you all very much for your participation.

Uh whenever you take on something of of this magnitude, uh it's always a bit daunting. When we started this over a year ago, I had no idea it was as daunting as it's turned out to be. But uh I would like to just explain just a little bit of where uh I think we need to be as a planning commission. First of all, anything we do is simply a uh we we send it on to the county. We the county commissioners actually vote on this can amend any of this to any of their satisfaction. So we're we're just an advisory board. So I think there's a couple of things that are important to understand here. First of all, I believe that any solar developer that wants to develop in Shauny County will approach us no matter what we have in our regulations. Uh I have developed land for uh housing in the past and I can tell you you always move forward until somebody says stop. Um and so I I don't think anything that we uh have here in our regulations is going is going to uh cause any developer to not consider Shauny County. I would love for uh a solar developer to consider Shauny County. We put some things in this in this uh in in in the regulations that I think are important because what they do is they require that developer to come

to us and provide us with information. Why that's important is because we're protecting the citizens of all of Shauny County. And I believe that these regulations do just that. They represent they they are they promote uh the solar in the best interest of all Shauny County citizens. Paragraph 12 is very important because I believe it gives us the flexibility and I'm going to assume that if we have a developer who wants to put in 1500 1500 acres of solar, you'll all be right back here with us giving us the same evidence. I'm kind of counting on that. All right. But I am in favor of this uh these regulations as we've written them for the very reasons I've given you and I certainly appreciate the fact that we are doing uh government the way I think it should be done and that's by the people and for the people. Thank you. Any other comment? I'll make comment. Um, you know, I said it last week. It was brought up again this week in some of the comments. You know, myself, I'm a fan of our conditional use permit process that we already have in place. Uh, I'm also a fan of all of the work that we have done on these regulations um, you know, over the course of the past year. So, you know, I don't want to set the regulations aside and not have these available for anyone else to see.

And I said it last week, you know, I'm more in favor of putting these together as a set of guidelines inside of our uh planning and zoning department uh for someone to look at as guidelines and then we regulate on a project basis. Um, I have a hard time regulating without someone presenting to me what they want to actually do. Any other comment? I think that would probably take us to a vote. Janette Johnson,

yes. Terry Robinson, yes. Chad Ghart, no. Yes. Dan Brian, yes.

Yes. With five votes in favor, the regulations are going to be recommended to the board of county commissioners on Thursday, March 12th. Thank you. Is there any public comment on non-aggenda planning and zoning items? We

we just voted on the amended uh regulations that were presented uh with the only amendment to those regulations other than how they were presented to change it to a thousand acres.

We will get the updates on to our website so you can re review them. Um it give us a few days to get them up and keep attention to our website as well, the lane use and development website. If for the intent will be that we'll send this to the board of county commissioners on March 12th. But if they tell me that it needs to be scheduled a different date, we will make sure and get that information out to you. I didn't see any public comment on non-aggenda items. Discussion of planning related issues. Joanie,

nothing. I would take a motion to adjurnn.