Mr. Steimel, Chairman of the Planning and Regulations Committee, called the meeting to order. Following a role call and a welcome to the new members, he noted all Committee members were present.

Prior to commencing into the meeting, he took a moment to speak in tribute to the prior chair, Mr. Hutchinson, and his many long years of service on the Committee and County Board.

Mr. Steimel took a moment to review the process the Committee follows with respect to reviewing the proposed zoning actions and noted for the benefit of the new members and the audience at large that discussion is limited to Committee members. Committee members may address questions, if they wish, to individuals who have spoken at the public hearings for the actions.

Mr. Miller reported that the property in question is located on the south side of Cherry Road and east of Southwood Subdivision in Genoa Township. The proposal is to rezone the entire 16.85-acre property, which includes the house at 30500 Southwood Drive, from A-1, Agricultural District to R-1, Residential District, and then to sell 14.57 acres of the property to the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel for the construction of a new church. The petitioners would retain ownership of the house on 2.28 acres. The requested Special Use Permit would allow Foursquare Gospel to construct and operate the proposed church on the remaining 14.5 acres, since churches are a Special Use in the R-1 District.

The required public hearing was conducted on December 12, 2002 by DeKalb County Hearing Officer Ron Klein. At the hearing, the petitioners presented exhibits that showed how the 14.5 acre site would be developed as a church property, including a church, a pastor’s residence, parking lots, stormwater detention areas and recreational facilities. The project would be constructed in phases over the space of five years. Testimony was given as to the existing condition of the subject property and the uses of the surrounding land. The petitioners explained that Cherry Road would be widened from 12 feet to 16 feet to accommodate church traffic. The site would be engineered and graded to address drainage. Staff noted that the subject property is designated on the County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Plan for Medium Density Residential development.

Two members of the public spoke in favor of the request, and four in opposition. Those in opposition cited concerns that Cherry Road would not be adequate to handle traffic associated with the church, that stormwater runoff would be excess and detrimental to surrounding properties, and that the church would harm the value of adjoining and nearby residential properties.

The Hearing Officer has forwarded his report and recommends approval of the Zoning Map Amendment and Special Use with conditions. Conditions include that Cherry Road be made wider than 16 feet, and that the site be carefully engineered to minimize the negative impacts of stormwater runoff from the site after construction. Staff has contacted the Public Works Director for the City of Genoa, who indicated no objection to the street being widened to 18 feet (the area available is 24 feet wide). An 18-foot wide road would accommodate two, nine-foot-wide lanes and three feet on each side for shoulders.

The Hearing Officer also highlighted the issues related to the stormwater drainage. Mr. Miller noted that the petitioner is not required to fix any existing water problems, but they cannot make it worse. The site must me carefully engineered to assure that the rate or location of stormwater run off is not increased.

Mr. Steimel asked if any of the Committee members had questions for Mr. Miller. Mr. MacMurdo asked what recommendations Mr. Miller would have regarding conditions the Committee could consider to assure that the future construction would not worsen the drainage issues. Mr. Miller responded that a reiteration of the regulations that would apply anyway as to Site Development Plans and the standards for stormwater management and run-off rates contained therein. A completed Site Development Plan reviewed and approved by the County Engineer should be adequate to cover the concerns prior to beginning construction.

Mr. Simonson asked what is the current planned use for the acreage? Mr. Miller noted that the Comprehensive Plan shows residential development. A Church is a Special Use in a residential district and is considered a compatible use. Mr. Simonson then asked if they would be hooking up to city water and sewer. Mr. Miller noted that they will be on city water, but will have a septic field as there is no sanitary sewer in this area.

Ms. Vary asked about the construction of the sanctuary identified as the third phase of the project, and the fact that they state that they hope to build that within five years, but would there be a problem if they needed more time to complete that phase. Mr. Miller noted that staff had recommended that it may be appropriate to only approve Phase 1 and 2 tonight and have the petitioner return to address Phase 3 when they are more sure of when it will occur. The petitioner, Paster Freund, responded that they had no difficulty with returning to address Phase 3 when the finances are more secure and they are ready for completion of the sanctuary.

Mr. Steimel asked if they would have to come back for a full Special Use permit. Mr. Miller indicated that past actions support that approach.

Mr. Lyle then spoke to the storm water issue. He opened by distributing an aerial photo to assist the Committee members in identifying the specific placement of the project. He used this to illustrate the point that he felt strongly that there should not be a problem with the drainage from his experiences. Mr. Steimel noted that for purposes of the motion, the road width requirement should be specified at 18 feet as agreed on by the Public Works Director and that the Site Plan should specify the detention basins. Mr. Lyle asked Pastor Freund if they intended to hook into the water main running beneath the area. Pastor Freund indicated that they did. Mr. Lyle clarified that there is a nearby area, Briody Way, that is all residential but has its own wells and septic.

Mr. Steimel asked Mr. Miller to confirm that it had been the staff recommendation to approve Phase 1 and 2 and hold off on Phase 3. Mr. Miller indicated that was correct. Mrs. Allen asked Mr. Miller if he believed the road widening and the addressing of the storm water concerns would satisfy the concerns of those opposed to the project. Mr. Lyle noted that he believed there really was only one person in opposition, that the four who spoke were more just concerned. Mr. Steimel than asked Mr. Bill Lorence, County Engineer, to make a comment. Mr. Lorence recommended that engineering for the entire site be a part of Phase 1 so that all of the drainage issues are considered at Phase 1 and that the roadway be the first thing done to facilitate adequate access to the site. Mr. Miller noted that the petitioner has already indicated that the mass grading for the site would be a part of Phase 1. Mr. Steimel noted that the expansion of the roadway as the first part of the project to be completed should be added as a condition. At this time, he asked if anyone would like to make a motion on approving Phases 1 and 2 of the project with conditions.

Mr. Miller noted that this will now go before the County Board on February 19, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. at the Legislative Center.

Mr. Miller reported that Sycamore Township, owner of 535 and 545 Brickville Road, has filed a petition for a Map Amendment to rezone the subject properties from the MXD, Mixed Use Development District to the B-1, Business District, with a Special Use Permit to accommodate government buildings. The subject property is located approximately 2,000 feet south of Maplewood Drive in Sycamore Township, and contain the existing Township office and garage. The Township has acquired the lot immediately to the south of the Township garage, and seeks to construct a salt shed on that site. Government buildings are a Special Use in the B-1 District.

The required public hearing was conducted on December 12, 2002 by DeKalb County Hearing Officer Ron Klein. At the hearing, the petitioner stated that he agreed with the recommendations of County staff regarding conditions that might accompany approval of the Special Use. No members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition. The Hearing Officer has forwarded his report, and recommends approval of the Zoning Map Amendment and Special Use with conditions.

Finally, the petitioner is requesting a waiver of the $525 application fee for the Zoning Map Amendment and Special Use Permit application. Committee policy in the past has been to waive the fee for other taxing bodies. This would have to be done by a separate motion and would not be forwarded to the County Board.

Mr. Steimel called for questions. Mrs. Dubin asked if the petitioner intended to keep their old shed on the site. Mr. Miller asked David Witheft, petitioner’s attorney, to respond to that. Mr. Witheft responded that the shed will be kept up temporarily until the new structure is built. Their intention is to then destroy the old shed. He and Mr. Miller went on to note that the proposed work will greatly clean up the paving and parking of the site. Mr. Simonson asked if the storage of the salt will be on a concrete platform. Mr. Miller responded that was true. Mr. Steimel then called for any further discussion or a motion.

Mr. Steimel then called for a motion on the issue of waiving the fee for the Special Use Permit.

Mr. Steimel began by thanking Hearing Officer David Dockus for his handling of the Public Hearing process. There was a December 19 hearing at the Farm Bureau that lasted four hours, and a January 9 hearing that lasted five hours. He noted for the record that this Committee and the County Board take this issue very seriously and recognize the effect it has on people on both sides, and that it is a very difficult decision to make. However, he wanted to respond to a comment that he had heard expressed, and wanted to state emphatically that this process is in no way a "rubber stamp." The County Board is anxious to continue tackling the issue and move on. That stated, he asked Mr. Miller to present his report.

Mr. Miller reported that FPL Energy Illinois Wind, LLC, has filed an application for a Special Use Permit to establish a wind farm. The request has been filed in accordance with the requirements of Section 9.01.B.2 of the DeKalb County Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction and operation of a wind farm consisting of up to 136 turbines located in both Lee and DeKalb Counties. In DeKalb, a maximum of 77 of the 213-foot-tall towers, with three 125-foot-long blades each, would be constructed on several properties, extending as far north as Gurler Road, as far east as Shabbona Road, and as far south as Shabbona Grove Road. The subject properties are zoned A-1, Agricultural District.

As noted by Mr. Steimel, The required public hearing on the requested Special Use Permit was opened on December 19, 2002 by DeKalb County Hearing Officer Dave Dockus. After four hours of testimony, the hearing was continued to January 9, 2003, when an additional five hours of testimony and evidence was presented. Both hearings were attended by approximately 180 persons and attendance sheets have been included in the Committee packet. The petitioner presented the project, which would to be constructed in two phases in DeKalb County, including providing details on the type, heights and setbacks of the wind towers, the possible economic benefits, possible impacts on surrounding property values, and compliance with the criteria for granting a Special Use. The petitioners proposed a list of 26 possible conditions to help assure negative impacts are avoided. The petitioners also responded to many questions dealing with such issues such as impact to the value of adjoining and nearby properties, "shadow flicker," ice throw, danger to migratory birds, creation of and disruption to electro-magnetic fields and signals, the need for wind-generated electricity, etc. Several members of the public spoke in favor of the project. Many more spoke in opposition, citing concerns over the possible reduction in property values, disruption in the rural character and appearance of the area, concern that the wind farm would curtail or encourage future development of the area, and disagreeing with the petitioner’s answers to questions raised about the project.

Among the issues raised by attorneys representing opponents of the project were two assertions about the Special Use application failing to meet the requirements of the DeKalb County Zoning Ordinance. One concerned the assertion that a separate Special Use application should have been required for each property where a turbine would be located, or perhaps for each separate turbine, rather than one application for the entire project. Mr. Miller stated that staff disagrees with this interpretation. He explained that there is no regulation in the Zoning Ordinance that states that a Special Use Permit must be limited to a single property, or that each property where a Special Use may take place must have a separate application. Further, there are specific Special Uses that would be expected to cross several properties, such as new rights-of-way across farm land for utilities (high-tension electric lines or underground gas lines), where requiring a separate Special Use Permit would be administratively impractical. Other Special Uses, such as quarries, might be expected to involve several adjoining but separate properties, but requiring separate Special Use Permit application for each property would be redundant and perhaps prevent a holistic evaluation of the project. Finally, requiring separate Special Use Permits for a single project would not serve to make the public or County Board more informed or better armed to make a decision. It would, in fact, be an excessive waste of County resources and time and an exercise in procedure for procedure’s sake.

A second objection was that staff had accepted the application from FPL for a Special Use Permit without requiring a Natural Resource Inventory Report from the DeKalb County Soil and Water Conservation District. Under normal circumstances, such a Report is required to be part of the application. Mr. Miller explained that he had determined that application of the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (L.E.S.A.) tool, which is the heart of the Natural Resources Report, was impractical if not impossible in the case of the 77-unit project. L.E.S.A. anticipates a single use on a single property. The evaluation criteria contained in the process includes such considerations as the adequacy of the specific soils on the property for agriculture, the distance of the proposed structures from nearby towns, the condition of adjacent roads, the trend of development within five miles of the specific site, etc. Applying such criteria to 77 different sites would yield a range of scores, which then would have to be averaged or weighted in some manner. Such an average would be of little practical value. Given that the small area taken out of agricultural production by each turbine (less than ½ acre per site) would leave the vast majority of each property in agricultural use, and that the intent of the L.E.S.A. system is to evaluate the viability of properties for agricultural uses, the value of the Report to the decision-making process is low. Mr. Miller noted that he relied upon his authority to interpret, construe and apply the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to determine that an application to the Soil and Water Conservation District would not be needed for this petition.

The Hearing Officer has submitted his Report of Findings of Fact, and recommends approval of the project. The recommendation includes the 26 conditions supplied by the petitioner, plus additional conditions agreed to by the petitioner at the public hearing. The Staff Report on the project and the petitioner’s application has previously been distributed to the County Board members. The petitioner has also agreed to additional conditions and restrictions of the scope of the project that will be discussed tonight.

Mr. Steimel asked if any of the Committee members had questions. Mr. Sands noted that he would like to hear from FPL regarding what changes to the project they are proposing. Mr. Steimel recognized Dirk Andreas from FPL. Mr. Andreas reported that one of the questions/concerns that had been raised at the end of the hearing was to bring forward a smaller project. A revision to the scope of the project was presented to the Lee County Board to constrain the project to not more than 34 turbines in either county, and not more than 60 turbines totally, with the area of the project not to extend south of Hermann Road. This keeps the wind farm north of the Village of Lee. The Lee County Board approved their portion of the revised project on Tuesday, January 21, 2003. The same revision was offered to DeKalb County. Mr. Andreas then distributed a paper noting major concessions by FPL since this process began in October. He noted that the project also will not extend east of Wilrett Road in DeKalb County.

To address the shadow flicker concerns, the petitioners have agreed to work with the homeowners affected and to shut down the turbines during the times they may be causing the effect. Light baffles to help shield lights on the towers will be installed, provided such baffles are approved for use by the FAA. Concerns regarding ice throws will be addressed by installing ice sensors which will shut down the turbines if icing occurs on any tower within 750 feet of a residence or road. Another concern related to decommissioning and the responsibility of the individual landowners to take these down. FPL has agreed to a decommissioning security, in the form of a bond or letter-of-credit, which will be maintained for the life of the project. This would assure that the County would be reimbursed for the costs to take the towers down to ground level if such became necessary.

The largest concern related to the possible impact on surrounding property values. To address the concern, FPL agreed to create a "property value protection program." Mr. Andreas stated that this has not been done on any other wind farm project. The proposal is that all houses that are not part of the project which abut the wind farm on two sides would be assessed, and the value of that house would be guaranteed if the owner decides to sell. Adjusting for fluctuations in market, if the house cannot be sold for it’s appraised value, FPL would pay the difference or purchase the house. The project would run for five years from the construction of the towers.

Mr. Andreas explained that there was some discussion about the project not extending south of McGirr Road in DeKalb County. He stated that FPL is proposing Hermann Road as the boundary in order to include a property owner who has been a strong advocate of the project. In balance, the area of the northeast corner of the plan has been eliminated to assist in mitigating the concerns of local ham radio operator. No turbines had been planned for that area, but the adjustment assures that will remain the case.

Mark Gershon, attorney for FPL, then distributed the revised conditions as presented by Mr. Andreas. The ice throw condition was not included, but would be placed in the final document. Mr. Steimel noted that the Committee would appreciate the document, but that there would still be questions on the details of the points presented.

Mr. Steimel asked about the shadow flicker programming. Mr. Andreas responded that it would be automatic. Mr. Simonson questioned the documented statement that shadow flicker generally resolves itself within a two-minute period. Mr. Andreas noted that each turbine will be specifically programmed when the turbines are sited. Mr. Gershon also noted that the condition is not limited to a specific time frame and will be handled individually. Mr. Steimel added that he understood there were 13 to 15 homes potentially effected by the shadow flicker. Mr. Andreas noted that was over the full 77 turbine size project.

Mr. Andreas took a moment to point out that while they have committed to the smaller 30 to 34 project size, the current plan shows approximately 50 potential sites. This is to illustrate the range of where the 30 to 34 could be placed and the final placement will be dependent on the establishment of final land owner agreements. Mrs. Dubin asked if any agreements are in place at this time. Mr. Andreas noted that they have only preliminary agreements, final agreements will not be in place until the County grants approval of the Special Use Permit.

Mr. Sands addressed another shadow flicker concern regarding the requirement that a home owner file a "verified complaint." He asked FPL to define what a home owner would be required to do. Mr. Gershon responded that the requirement simply means that those who feel they are having this problem must identify themselves to the company so the company can set up the sensors appropriately.

Mr. Steimel asked FPL to address the decommissioning security issue in greater detail. Mr. Gershon started by noting that this issue had begun with the question of what would occur if the project were started and then stopped. FPL is required by the conditions to remove the towers. However, in the event that FPL does not meet its obligation, and the property owner should choose not to remove the tower, FPL has agreed to posting a decommissioning bond with the County that would cover the cost to remove the towers. He explained that it has been FPL’s experience that the scrap value has covered the cost to the homeowner of removing the towers, and that the contracts allow the home owner to access the value of the scrap to offset their removal. However, FPL has agreed to post a bond or letter of credit, whatever the County will accept, that will assure the costs for removal will be covered. Mr. Steimel asked what the dollar amount would be. Mr. Gershon, said it would be handled like other securities to the County for roadway improvement etc. FPL would provide to appropriate County personnel evidence as to the cost to decommission, and staff and State’s Attorney’s office and financial people would finalize the appropriate number.

Mr. Sands asked about why the decommissioning responsibility had changed from removing the towers above and below ground, to just removal to ground level. Mr. Gershon responded that in the interests of addressing this, the only way to undertake this extraordinary security was to address the primary visual concern. Each farmer will have the choice to leave the platform or not.

Mr. Slack asked if the agreement would transfer to future owners of the project. Mr. Gershon responded that anyone operating this project would have to comply. Typical terms require 30, 60 or 90 days notice prior to terminating security, allowing time to either negotiate new terms or to trigger the tower removal.

Mr. Simonson asked to speak several issues. He began by reminding the Committee that three conditions of approval of the special use relate to the project not altering the essential character of the area, that the size and location of the objects will not dominate the surrounding landscape, and that the project be visually compatible with the current permitted uses of the property. While acknowledging that all of these are primarily subjective issues, he feels the extensive feedback he has received from those in the area indicates a mostly negative outlook and highly indicative of their belief that their quality of life will be lessened by the project. He urged the Committee to use quality of life in their considerations of the project.

Mr. Steimel asked for additional information on the property value protection program. Mr. Andreas noted that it is somewhat similar in practice to a corporate relocation process. The company they have contacted to set up and administer the proposed program was a former affiliate of Prudential. The concept is that there is a baseline value set for the property today and a baseline value for a comparable one to allow for market fluctuation. Then the program would guarantee the selling price of the home based on market value of the home, if the home does not sell in a fixed period of time, the program would take possession of the home and sell it themselves. Alternately, if the home owner sold the home for a lower amount, the program would make up the difference.

Mr. Sands indicated that the current criteria limiting participation to homes with two adjacent property lines was not acceptable to him. Mr. Andreas noted that the current anticipated cost of the program over five years is approximately $500,000. Expansion the program to include more houses would be financially prohibitive. Mr. Sands asked if they could consider including all houses within ½ mile of a tower as an alternate identifier. Mr. Andreas indicated that the costs of expansion would likely be prohibitive.

Mrs. Dubin asked how many more homes would this mean for the program. Mr. Sands offered that it might be no more than ten additional houses, and Mr. Andreas indicated that he believed it might be more than ten but did not have a specific figure. Mr. Sands noted that if FPL really believed strongly that there will not be erosion of property values, then this small expansion should not be a problem.

Ms. Vary asked to clarify the anticipated $500,000 administrative costs. Mr. Andreas indicated that a third-party administrator must do all of the inspections and assessments, and then continue the administration for the five-year period of the program. This would include at least two full-time persons employed throughout the life of the program.

Mr. Sands felt that many people in the area would likely not elect to participate, thus reducing the costs, and even if all did participate that he felt the costs quoted were high. Mr. MacMurdo asked if Mr. Sands had any data to support his contention that the costs were high. Mr. Sands said he did not, that it just seemed high for the number of homes that would likely sell in the next five years under the program. Mr. Andreas asked if Mr. Sands would consider having a program wherein there would be just a set number of homes, and the program then limited by participation. Mr. Sands said "no". Mr. Sands then asked if a Board member, Joe Wiegand from the audience could speak briefly. Mr. Steimel approved and gave Mr. Wiegand the floor.

Mr. Wiegand supported Mr. Sands statement that impact on property value has been established as a quantitative issue. He noted that one local real estate professional had given testimony to that effect and that the owners have a tangible reason to fear that they will have a difficulty time recouping the value of their properties at the time of a sale. While he recognized that as a prototype program this is likely to have higher costs than a more established one. However, he disputed FPL’s statement that it was reasonable to assume these costs at over $11,000 per unit. There were discussions of ways that the County might support a property value protection program. He noted that these ideas might be taken up tonight or might be considered if the process were slowed down to consider all relevant issues. He closed by saying that he felt that the only way this petition would meet the test of not negatively impacting property values would be to include all individuals within a half mile radius of the towers within the homeowner protection guidelines.

Ms. Vary asked for a clarification of Mr. Wiegand’s statement that there was factual evidence of negative impact on property values. She asked if he meant the testimony of the one real estate agent or if there was something additional. Mr. Wiegand noted that he meant that testimony, but also the testimony of the homeowners who spoke as well as they would be the best judges of the issue. Ms. Vary asked whether that would more correctly be called their "perceptions". Mr. Wiegand went on to say that one homeowner has already said they had a sale fall through as a result of the proposed wind farm, so that should be considered factual. Ms. Vary noted that she still felt that the majority of the information was perceptual, not factual, and asked what had been placed in the record regarding the impact this type of project had on other areas. Mr. Weigand noted there was some evidence that one area had shown negative impact, but went on to say that such comparisons may not be useful due to the vast differences in population density between the areas where the towers have been previously placed and DeKalb.

Mr. Steimel noted that the bottom line is that we are really plowing new ground and all the comparisons presented in evidence just are not sufficiently similar to guarantee a predictable outcome. If the petitioner feels strongly that there will be no negative impact, they should not have strong objections to extending these protections to a reasonable range of those effected, despite whatever this may cost.

Mr. Slack noted that he felt he had heard of programs like this before, and asked if FPL could do some additional research to find a company with lower costs and therefore be able to expand the program. Mr. Andreas noted that, of course the company could do additional research, but reminded the Committee that the $500,000 was across a five year time frame of the program and represented all the costs that go into hiring third parties to handle and manage the inspection, paperwork and management of the properties before sale.

Mr. Simonson asked if there were any truth to the idea that FPL intended to build the towers, but then sell them to another company, and if so, how would they be able to guarantee that the conditions FPL was agreeing to would be carried forward. Mr. Andreas responded that FPL has never said it had any intention of selling the project and he had no idea where that idea had come from. Mr. Steimel noted that he understood that the agreements will be written to guarantee that any conditions will be honored through the life of the towers and that the Board would work with the State’s Attorney to assure that. He then went on to ask Mr. Andreas for clarification on the number of homes in the protection area. Mr. Andreas noted that he used the US GIS data and it may have not been fully current, but from what he could see was the potential for about 35 homes. Mr. Steimel asked what the numbers were in DeKalb County and Mr. Andreas noted that there were about 31, but that FPL had to look at numbers across both counties because they had agreed with Lee that anything given to DeKalb would be given to Lee as well. Mr. Steimel asked how many were in the surrounding area. Mr. Andreas noted that there were 41 additional across the two counties with 16 in DeKalb County specifically. Mr. Steimel noted that he felt it would be difficult to argue that these individuals would not be as effected as those in the identified protection area. Mr. Andreas noted that additional costs could kill the project.

Mr. Sands then asked if there could be a consensus of the Board on the issue in order to properly frame the condition needed. Mrs. Dubin asked if the Board elected to go to phase two of the project, would the same exact conditions be held in place? Mr. Gershon responded that if FPL returned to petition for phase two, the issue would be wide open again and conditions could stay, change etc.

Ms. Vary asked how, procedurally, a resolution would be handled to ask FPL to seek a lower cost protection program to expand the possible participation. She went on to make a statement indicating that perhaps it was an appropriate time for her to go on record as being a strong proponent of renewable energy and of options such as wind farms to more conventional energy sources.

Mr. MacMurdo asked if the Committee could not come to a final resolution tonight would the issue have to be tabled to a future meeting? Mr. Steimel asked if Mr. Miller might have any advice on the issue. Mr. Miller noted that a vaguely worded condition to "find something better" would likely be un-enforceable and the only way to deal with this would be to table the issue until the petitioner could do further research and return to the Committee.

Mr. Slack asked if it would be possible to move forward on other questions. Mr. Steimel indicated the Committee could move forward and would then return to the home owner protection issue. He went on to note that the petitioner had altered a condition related to possible impacts on existing drainage in the project area by agreeing that all underground lines would be trenched rather than plowed. This would allow any damage to drain tiles to be determined and fixed immediately. He asked that any tile repair be required to be completed within a two week time frame.

Mr. Sands asked if the setback from roads could be changed from the height of the tower plus 10%. He proposed that it be changed to at least 500 feet. Mr. Andreas agreed.

Ms. Vary asked about the adequacy of the existing power transmission lines. Mr. Andreas responded that they have capacity for 75 megawatts on the existing lines. Ms. Vary then asked about the sound issues and whether statement that the sound would be less than 45 decibels "at any home" meant outside or inside the home. Mr. Gershon responded that it meant outside the outside wall as per Illinois sound requirements. He went on to state that FPL would comply fully with all Illinois sound requirements. Her final question related to the type of turbine selected. Mr. Gershon noted that they had made a final selection of the type of turbine and the Committee had been given the specifics on the model.

Mr. Slack asked if it would be possible to have Margaret Whitwell, DeKalb County Assessor, make a few statements regarding how the towers would be assessed for taxing purposes. Mrs. Whitwell presented a sheet to the Committee on how she would approach the assessment of the towers. After a lengthy explanation of a possible assessment method, she said that it has been determined that 30% of the tower and turbines would be treated as "real property," and assuming a $7 assessment rate, each tower would generate approximately $10,500 per tower. This money would be distributed to all tax receiving bodies at different percentages, with the school district receiving the bulk.

Mr. Slack then asked Mr. Gershon about FPL’s status as a utility. Mr. Gershon explained that FPL was an "energy company," not a "public utility". Mr. Slack then asked if FPL would ever seek to avoid taxes by declaring the towers "pollution control devices". Mr. Gershon replied that FPL has agreed to make a commitment with Mrs. Whitwell and the County as to how the towers would be assessed and would not dispute the determination. They have discussed with the State’s Attorney what would and would not be an appropriate agreement to sign and they will sign whatever determined to be the appropriate document.

Mr. Sands asked about whether or not technological changes in the towers would require extensive retrofitting of equipment, and therefore future or continued heavy truck traffic and construction in the effected areas over the life of the towers. Mr. Andreas that standard practice is not to replace everything about the generators. He went on to note that conditions limit them putting in taller towers and that any future road effects would be repaired under the agreements they would make with the County.

Mr. Steimel asked if there were any further questions and if not, could the Committee return to the issue of expansion of the property value protection program. Mr. Sands stated that he felt the proposed expansion would only add about 10 to 15 more homes to the pool. Mr. Andreas responded that he felt there were more than 10 or 15 additional homes, but that he had a staff member reviewing the maps and trying to arrive at a more conclusive number. Mr. Steimel recommended a recess to give the petitioner time to establish that number.

After a 15 minute recess, Mr. Steimel called the Committee back to order. Mr. Sands asked if Mrs. Kathy Stelford, local wildlife advocate, could make a request. Mrs. Stelford asked if the petitioner would agree to prepare an on-going report to the County on avian mortality associated with the wind farm activity. Mr. Andreas replied that there would be no problem with that.

Mr. Steimel then asked if Mr. Andreas had finalized the number of additional homes associated with expanding the property value protection program to every home within a half mile of a turbine. Mr. Andreas responded that they had, and that after allowing for non-participation and other variables, they would agree to change the provision to the half-mile designation.

Mr. Steimel than asked if there were any further questions or whether anyone had a motion. Mr. Slack asked Mr. Miller to talk about the precedent that would be set by approval of this petition. His primary concern was that if FPL’s petition were to be approved, would that necessitate approval of every other wind farm project that might come before the County Board?

Mr. Miller stated that while a precedent would certainly be set, it would only be for projects with identical conditions and issues as we’ve dealt with here. An action of approval does not grant automatic approvals of other special use proposals, as each one is weighed on it’s own merits. Approval simply makes it more difficult for the Board to deny highly similar future proposals and requires more care in the future. Mr. Simonson stated that he felt that this precedent should be considered very strong and could lead to problems in protecting farmland in the future. Ms. Vary noted that from her perspective this was a process that was more protective and support of farmland preservation by providing additional income to farm families that could assist them in keeping their agricultural lifestyle viable. Mr. Steimel then called for a motion.