East Central Reporter

City of Effingham Plan Commission met March 11.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Brian Hayes

Mark Thies

Clint Spruell

Cindy Vogel

Theresa Hillyer

Kevin Gouchenouer

MEMBERS ABSENT: Ken Wohltman

Michael McHugh

Brian Meyers

OTHERS PRESENT: Tracy Willenborg, City Attorney

Greg Koester, City Planner

Mitch Hardiek, Milano & Grunloh Engineers, LLC

Lauren Ozenkoski, Taylor Law Offices, P.C.

Erica Kessler, Kessler Reporting, Inc.

Greg Sapp, WXEF

Maria Adamick, Effingham Daily News

1. Quorum and Approval of February 11, 2025 Meeting Minutes: The March 11, 2025, City Plan Commission Meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. A quorum was present. On motion by Commissioner Thies, seconded by Commissioner Vogel, the minutes for the February 11, 2025, Plan Commission meeting were approved by unanimous vote, as presented.

2. Site Plan for South Central FS, 410 S. Willow Street, Effingham, Illinois:

Luke Thoele, City Engineer, presented the Site Plan for South Central FS, and recommended approval of the Site Plan, subject to the following:

1. Approval of site plan by IDOT; and,

2. Waiver of strict compliance of green space requirements.

On motion by Commissioner Spruell, seconded by Commissioner Gouchenouer, the Site Plan for South Central FS was approved by a 6 to 0 vote, as presented, subject to compliance with the above-referenced items regarding the Site Plan.

3. Public Hearing on Petition for Special Use Permit (9) to allow a public or government building in a Class M-1, Light Industrial District, 207 W. St. Anthony Avenue, Effingham, Illinois, filed by Petitioner, Effingham County and 5150 Ventures, LLC:

Kim Rhodes, Effingham County Coroner, appeared on behalf of Petitioner, Effingham County, to testify in support of the Petition. The Petitioner is requesting a special use permit to allow for the development of a public or government building in an M-1, Light Industrial District. Ms. Rhodes testified that the Coroner’s Office currently utilizes the morgue in St. Anthony Hospital for the needs of the County. Ms. Rhodes advised the morgue at St. Anthony only has space for three bodies. As a result of the lack of space, and the frequent need for additional space, the County is proposing to reconstruct the building on the Subject Property for use for the County Coroner’s Office and a morgue. Ms. Rhodes testified that the Subject Property is a great spot for the proposed use since it was recently remodeled, there is a drive-through garage area that will allow for more privacy when transporting bodies, and the property is handicap accessible. Ms. Rhodes testified that the Subject Property is surrounded by a warehouse, railroad tracks, a storage unit, a vacant lot, and a vacant house. Therefore, the proposed use will not negatively impact the surrounding uses. Ms. Rhodes testified that if the County is able to construct a morgue, they could assist other counties who also lack available morgue facilities. Ms. Rhodes further testified that if the County can hire a pathologist in the future, they would be able to set up an autopsy suite on the Subject Property.

In response to questioning by Chairman Hayes, Ms. Rhodes confirmed that the Subject Property was previously utilized by the pet feed store. In response to questioning by Chairman Hayes regarding the proposed morgue space, Ms. Rhodes advised that the County is proposing to develop a morgue for 12-15 corpses, as well as a freezer area to maintain corpses for longer periods of time. In response to questioning by Chairman Hayes regarding the timeframe that the morgue will be operational, Ms. Rhodes advised that after they close, they should get delivery of the cooler within 4-5 weeks.

No one appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition.

City Planner, Gregory Koester, appeared and testified. In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester testified that the Subject Property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial District, and is developed with a vacant commercial building. In response to additional questioning, Mr. Koester testified that the parcel of property to the north of the Subject Property is zoned R-3D, Multiple-Dwelling District and is improved with a single-family home that has been converted into apartments, while another parcel of property to the north of the Subject Property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial District and developed with self-storage units. Mr. Koester testified that the property to the south of the Subject Property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial District, and is developed with a storage warehouse for Probst Refrigeration and Heating. Mr. Koester testified that the property immediately to the east of the Subject Property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial District, and is developed with the Canadian National Railroad, with property further east being developed with a commercial building utilized by Fieldcrest Homes. Mr. Koester further testified that the property immediately to the west of the Subject Property is zoned R-3D, Multiple Dwelling District, and is an undeveloped lot, and properties to the southeast of the Subject Property are zoned M-1, Light Industrial District, and developed with single-family residential structures.

In response to questioning, Mr. Koester testified that the Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property for light industrial uses, and he is of the opinion that the requested special use is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. In response to additional questions, Mr. Koester testified that the present zoning is sufficient for development of a government building for use by the coroner’s office if a Special Use Permit is granted and further testified that he did not believe that the proposed special use and development of the property would be detrimental to and otherwise endanger the general welfare of the surrounding area.

The hearing was closed, and a discussion was conducted among the Commissioners in open session.

The Commissioners agreed that the proposed development of the Subject Property would be appropriate for the area and complied with the Comprehensive Plan.

After due consideration and the evidence presented, the Commissioners made the following findings and recommendations:

1. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: The property is developed with a vacant commercial/retail building.

2. EXISTING USE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE AREA: The parcel of property to the north of the Subject Property is improved with a single-family home that has been converted into apartments, while another parcel of property to the north of the Subject Property is developed with self-storage units. The property to the south of the Subject Property is developed with a storage warehouse for Probst Refrigeration and Heating. The property immediately to the east of the Subject Property is developed with the CNRR rail line, with property further east being developed with a commercial building utilized by Fieldcrest Homes. The property immediately to the west of the Subject Property is an undeveloped lot, and properties to the southeast of the Subject Property are developed with single-family residential structures.

3. PRESENT ZONING IN THE AREA: The Subject Property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial District. A parcel of property to the north of the Subject Property is zoned R-3D, Multiple-Dwelling District, while another parcel of property to the north of the Subject Property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial District. The properties to the south and east of the Subject Property are zoned M-1, Light Industrial District. The property immediately to the west of the Subject Property is zoned R-3D, Multiple Dwelling District, and properties to the southeast of the Subject Property are zoned M-1, Light Industrial District.

4. SUITABILITY OF PRESENT ZONING: The present zoning is sufficient for development of a government building if a Special Use Permit is granted.

5. EFFECT ON GENERAL WELFARE: The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the Special Use will not be detrimental to and otherwise endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, development and general welfare of the surrounding area.

6. EFFECT ON SURROUNDING PROPERTY: If the proposed Special Use is granted, the Commission finds that there will not be injury to the use and enjoyment of the surrounding property.

7. CONFORMITY TO REGULATIONS: The Special Use does conform to the regulations of the City of Effingham and the Special Use does conform to the Comprehensive Plan.

On motion by Commissioner Vogel, seconded by Commissioner Hillyer, by a 6 to 0 vote, the Plan Commission recommended that the City Council grant the Petition for Special Use Permit as presented.

4. Public Hearing on Petition for Special Use Permit (43) to allow a Solar Energy System in a Class NU, Non-Urban District, and for Special Use Permit (46) to allow a cryptocurrency mine or data center in a Class NU, Non-Urban District, 15244 E. 1700th Avenue, Effingham, Illinois, filed by Petitioner, IAG Investments LLC,:

City Attorney, Tracy Willenborg, advised the Commission that the Petitioner is proposing to develop the Subject Property with two types of uses, both of which will require Special Use Permit. The first special use, is under Paragraph 43, which allows a Solar Energy System in a NU Non-Urban District, M-1 Light Industrial District, or M-2 Heavy Industrial District. The regulations provide that before permitting a Small Solar Energy System with a Solar Collector Surface area greater than 100,000 square feet or a Large Solar Energy System in a NU Non-Urban District, M-1 Light Industrial District, or M-2 Heavy Industrial District, the requirements as set forth in Article 23A-3, Large Solar Energy Systems shall be met. Mr. Koester provided the pertinent language, as contained in Article 23A-3, as part of the packet for the meeting. The requirements contained in Article 23A-3 are in addition to the factors that should be established for the issuance of a special use permit. Furthermore, the Petitioner is also seeking a Special Use Permit pursuant to Paragraph 46, which allows a cryptocurrency mine or data center. There are also specific requirements that must be met before a Special Use Permit for a cryptocurrency mine or data center can be granted. This information was also included as part of the packet for the meeting.

Peyton Childress appeared on behalf of Petitioner, IAG Investments, to testify in support of the Petition. The Petitioner is proposing to develop a two-megawatt, behind the meter, ground-mounted solar array system, which is accessory to the proposed data center to be built on site. The Subject Property is located north of the City of Effingham, within the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction. Ms. Childress testified that the Subject Property is comprised of two parcels and access to the Subject Property would be off of County Road 1700 North. Ms. Childress advised that the Subject Property is currently zoned NU, Non-Urban District, and they are seeking the Special Use Permits to facilitate the solar array, as well as the 30’ x 60’ single-story data center. Per Ms. Childress, the data center is planned to have three (3) 9’ x 20’ parking spaces and a multi-use loading area.

Ms. Childress testified that in order to ensure the safety and security of both the data center and the solar installation, the array will be fully enclosed by an eight-foot chain link fence. The Petitioner also partners with Pheasants Forever, who create a mix consisting of native pollinator and native habitat friendly plants. This mix is planted between each of the solar arrays. Ms. Childress further testified that they maintain manicured turf grass around the electrical boxes, around the fencing, and around the data center. Ms. Childress stated that their goal is to ensure that the site remains environmentally responsible and undisturbed to wildlife in between the life of the arrays.

Ms. Childress testified that BTB, Boy Tom Boy Energy Solutions, will be handling the construction of the proposed solar energy system and data center. They expect to hire up to 10 local workers, for a period of 8 to 14 months to assist with the construction. Furthermore, they plan to hire two full-time permanent employees and two part-time permanent employees for ongoing operations of the solar array and the data center. Ms. Childress testified that the total investment of this project is estimated to be approximately around $7 million.

In response to questioning by City Attorney, Tracy Willenborg, Ms. Childress confirmed that the Petitioner submitted an application with the City. Ms. Childress requested that the application be included as part of the record.

Commissioner Thies inquired whether the required sound study had been completed and submitted to the City. Ms. Childress confirmed that the sound study was completed and submitted to Greg Koester.

In response to questioning by Commissioner Thies regarding the size of the solar panels, Ms. Childress did not have information on the specific dimensions but pointed to the site plan attached to the Petition. Ms. Childress advised that each row is 38 feet wide. In response to additional questions, Ms. Childress advised that the solar array system would cover approximately 80% of the 10-acre tract.

In response to questioning by Commissioner Thies regarding the intended use for the electricity generated from the solar array system, Ms. Childress advised that the majority of the electricity generated from the solar array system would be used to power the cryptocurrency and data mining, but if there is any excess, it would be sent back to the grid.

In response to questioning by Commissioner Thies regarding the operation and staffing of the solar array system and the cryptocurrency mine or data center, Ms. Childress advised that the facility will be in operation 24 hours a day, the facility will not be staffed 24 hours a day. The facility can be monitored off-site, but they will employ someone locally if there are any minor issues at the facility.

In response to questioning by Commissioner Thies and City Attorney Willenborg regarding whether Petitioner has any other similar facilities in operation in other locations, Ms. Childress testified that they were just approved to develop a similar project in Logan County, they are building a facility outside of Lincoln, they have three more projects seeking approval within Lincoln, they have a facility in Villa Grove, and projects in Danville, Champaign, Arcola, Vandalia, Lawrenceville, Macomb, Shiloh, etc. Ms. Childress further testified that they have almost 22 similar facilities in operation.

In response to questioning by Commissioner Thies regarding the reason for seeking to develop a facility on the Subject Property, Ms. Childress advised that the property is appropriate for this type of development because it is not near much residential development, they were able to find a willing seller, the Subject Property is near an electric substation, and the property is outside the corporate limits of the City.

Commissioner Thies inquired whether the development will negatively impact the fainting goats that are located on the property to the east of the Subject Property. Mr. Childress responded that she did not think the facility would have any impact since the facility is approximately 800 feet from the other property. Per Ms. Childress, the results of the sound study found that none of the noise generating equipment to be located on the Subject Property will have any effect on the other property.

In response to questioning by Commissioner Thies regarding the bond and decommissioning requirements, Ms. Childress advised that the bond would provide financial assurance of compliance with the decommissioning plan. The developer and the City work together to come to an agreement on the requirements of the letter of credit or surety bond to ensure compliance with the decommissioning requirements when the facility is no longer in operation.

In response to questioning by Chairman Hayes regarding whether the Petitioner will maintain ownership of the facility after it is constructed, Ms. Childress confirmed that the Petitioner does continue ownership after it is constructed.

In response to questioning by Chairman Hayes regarding the “life expectancy” for these types of facilities and decommissioning the facility, Ms. Childress advised that there is a 20 to 25 year warranty on the solar panels. The decommission plan usually provides for a 20 year operation for the facility. Ms. Childress advised that the data center is usually not part of the decommissioning plan, but they can do so if necessary. The data center is essentially just a shed that houses the data mining equipment. Ms. Childress advised that when they decommission the site, they will return the property to the use it was before the solar array system was developed, which is agricultural land. The mix of plants created by Pheasants Forever help with keeping the land between the arrays undisturbed, as well as creates a natural wildlife and pollinator friendly habitat. They do not put gravel, concrete, or similar material underneath the solar array rows.

In response to questioning by Chairman Hayes regarding the future disposal of the solar arrays, Ms. Childress testified that the equipment is recycled. Ms. Childress advised that the product is a photovoltaic unit, which is essentially tiny glass collectors inside larger glass, that can all be recycled after the system is decommissioned.

In response to questioning by Chairman Hayes regarding the data center, Ms. Childress advised that it the facility will look like a pole barn or machine shed. Most people won’t have any idea that cryptocurrency or data mining is even taking place within the facility. The machine shed will have a solar array built around it and it is fenced in. Most of these sites will have arborvitae trees planted so that in a few years most people will not be able to see the facility.

In response to questioning by Chairman Hayes regarding the noise that will be generated from the data center, Ms. Childress advised that the noise is generated from the on-site battery generator system, but all of the noise generating equipment will be housed within the data center.

In response to questioning by Commissioner Thies regarding the cooling system for the data center, Ms. Childress advised that it is not huge fans, the equipment is actually cooled by a liquid. The miner equipment sits in these trough-like things with the liquid substance around the equipment to cool the equipment.

In response to questioning by Commissioner Thies regarding the closest location of a similar facility, Ms. Childress advised that they have a facility on the north side of Champaign at 57 and Market, which is currently being constructed. The closest facility in operation, which is near residential uses, is the facility in Villa Grove.

City Planner Greg Koester inquired about the status of the submittal of the sound study since he was not aware it had been submitted to the City. Ms. Childress advised that while she thought it had been previously submitted to the City, it had not been submitted yet. She would make sure that it is was promptly submitted.

City Planner Greg Koester further inquired whether the facility would require a hook-up from the City’s water supply system. Ms. Childress responded that the facility will not require a hookup to a water utility. The system is cooled by a different liquid.

No one appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition.

City Planner, Gregory Koester, appeared and testified. In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester testified that the Subject Property is zoned NU, Non-Urban District, and is grass land that was previously used for a parking area for the Mid America Funfest.

In response to additional questions, Mr. Koester testified that the present zoning is sufficient for development of a solar energy system and cryptocurrency mine or data center if a Special Use Permit is granted.

Mr. Koester further testified that all of the property surrounding the Subject Property is zoned NU, Non-Urban District. The property to the north of the Subject Property is a grass area, the properties to the south and east are agricultural farmland, and the property to the west is additional grass areas, the canopy for the stage area, and the Effingham Equity buildings.

In response to questioning, Mr. Koester testified that the Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property for commercial and he is of the opinion that the requested special use is more or less in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan.

In response to questions regarding whether the proposed solar energy system complies with the City regulations, Mr. Koester confirmed that the applicable regulations are contained within Section 23-A of the City Code, which includes the requirements for large solar energy systems. In response to questioning, Mr. Koester confirmed that the application complied with the use regulations contained in Paragraph a) 1 of Section 23- A of the City Code, that the proposed system is a ground-mounted system, as required in Paragraph a) 2 of Section 23-A of the City Code, that the site will be enclosed with a chain link fence in compliance with Paragraph a) 3 of Section 23-A of the City Code, that the property and facility meet the acreage, setback, and height requirements contained in Paragraph a) 4 of Section 23-A of the City Code, and that the buffering requirements contained in Paragraph a) 5 of Section 23-A of the City Code do not apply. Mr. Koester confirmed that Paragraph a) 6 of Section 23-A of the City Code requires that the system be installed in accordance with manufacturer specifications and applicable codes and regulations pertaining to solar energy systems. Mr. Koester further confirmed that the Petitioner’s plan for the equipment necessary for the regulation, storage and control of electricity complies with Paragraph a) 7 of Section 23-A of the City Code. Mr. Koester confirmed that Paragraph a) 8 of Section 23-A of the City Code requires Petitioner to comply with certain regulations concerning cleaning chemicals and solvents. And that Paragraph a) 9 of Section 23-A of the City Code would require the Petitioner to obtain a revised or amended special use permit if they change equipment or increase electricity capacity in the future. Furthermore, Mr. Koester confirmed that Paragraphs a) 9 and a) 10 of Section 23-A of the City Code contain regulations concerning decommissioning and removal of the facility and bonding requirements to ensure proper decommissioning of the facility. In response to additional questions, Mr. Koester confirmed that the Petitioner did comply with the site plan requirements contained in Paragraph b) of Section 23-A of the City Code. Mr. Koester further confirmed that the requirements contained in Paragraph b) of Section 23-A of the City Code would require that the Petitioner obtain certain permits and certificates subsequent to the issuance of a special use permit but prior to commencing construction on the solar energy system. Mr. Koester testified that the Petitioner has been working with Teutopolis Fire Protection District to address the safety review and requirements contained in Paragraph c) 4 of Section 23-A of the City Code. Mr. Koester advised that Paragraph d) of Section 23-A of the City Code requires certain record drawings and certificates to be filed with the City upon completion and installation of the system.

With regard to the solar energy system, Mr. Koester presented the site plan to the Plan Commission. Mr. Koester testified that actual solar array system is just over 202,000 square feet and covers a significant portion of the property. Mr. Koester advised that the City would require a drainage study as part of the site plan. Mr. Koester advised that he is aware that the Petitioner is working on the drainage study, but it has not been submitted to the City yet. If the Commission recommends the City Council grant the request for a special use permit for a solar energy system, City staff would request that the recommendation be subject to the submittal of a drainage study and the construction of any improvements as approved by the City Engineer.

Turning to the Petition for Special Use Permit pursuant to Paragraph 46, which allows a cryptocurrency mine or data center, Mr. Koester confirmed that Paragraph 46 contains additional requirements for the issuance of a special use permit. In addition to the standard special use permit factors, the Commission and the City Council has to satisfy itself that the special use permit will not be injurious to the use or other property in the immediate vicinity, the property values will not be substantially impaired, the center will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding properties, and that the center is the highest and best use of the property. Mr. Koester further confirmed that adequate capacity for electric power supply lines, substations, sufficient water supply, noise pollution controls, safety and security measures will also be considered as part of the determining factors for a special use permit when it pertains to this type of use.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester confirmed that a site plan was submitted as required by paragraph 46 (a). Mr. Koester presented the site plan for the proposed cryptocurrency mine or data center. Mr. Koester advised that the site plan complies with the applicable site plan requirements, except for the required drainage study. Mr. Koester further advised that the Petitioner’s proposed development complies with the other applicable requirements contained in paragraph 46, provided, however, that the required noise study has also not been submitted to the City.

In response to questioning by Commissioner Thies and Chairman Hayes regarding the bonding requirements, Mr. Koester advised that if the special use permit is granted for the solar energy system, the Petitioner will be required to provide the actual decommissioning plan, as well as a bond or cash deposit for the full costs of the decommissioning. This bond or cash deposit has to continuously be in place and may be evaluated on a periodic basis to ensure that the amount is sufficient to cover the full cost of decommissioning. The Petitioner will be required to notify the City before the bond or other surety is set to expire so that it will be renewed. These bonding and decommissioning requirements are not just required by the City but are also part of the requirements through the Department of Agriculture.

In response to questioning by Commissioner Thies regarding the possibility of negatively impacting future development around these types of uses, Mr. Koester advised that if there is a trend of residential uses being developed that way in the future, the solar energy system could be detrimental to the growth of residential uses north of 1700th Avenue, However, north of 1700th Avenue is in the current Future Land Use Map as commercial. This could change in the new Comprehensive Plan that is underway. These residential uses, however, do require water and sanitary sewer and with the new Comprehensive Plan, the City is looking at areas for future residential adjacent to existing sanitary sewer and water. The Subject Property cannot be served by sanitary sewer right now and the City would have to make an investment in a lift station to bring sewer to the area.

The hearing was closed, and a discussion was conducted among the Commissioners in open session.

Chairman Hayes expressed concerns with a few requirements that had not been met by the Petitioner including the noise study and responses to whether the electric utility company has adequate capacity to accept additional power. Chairman Hayes advised that the best way to proceed would be to continue the public hearing to offer the Petitioner an opportunity to supply the necessary information. The Commissioners concurred with the suggestion to continue the public hearing.

On motion by Commissioner Thies, seconded by Commissioner Hillyer, the public hearing was continued, by a 6 to 0 vote, to allow the Petitioner to submit the additional information and reports.

5. Public Hearing on Petition to Rezone/Tower Use Permit, 400 JCAN Drive, Effingham, Illinois, filed by Petitioner, Harmoni Towers, LLC, Owner, Wakefield Rentals, LLC, and proposed Tenant, PI Tower Development:

The Petitioner requests that the Subject Property be granted a Tower Use Permit pursuant to Article 24A of the Municipal Code of the City of Effingham, Illinois, to allow a Wireless Communication Facility in Overlay District #2. After requisite notice, the Commission held a public hearing on March 11, 2025, at 6:00 o'clock P.M., in the council chambers, Effingham City Hall, at 201 East Jefferson Avenue, Effingham, Illinois.

City Attorney, Tracy Willenborg, advised that the Petitioner had previously requested a tower use permit for the Subject Property. To assist the Commission in its review, Attorney Willenborg provided a synopsis of the applicable regulations relative to the Petition, which is a request to allow a Wireless Communication Facility in Overlay District #2. Attorney Willenborg advised that there are three district designations under the applicable regulations and provided a brief explanation of each district. The regulations for requests to place a facility in District #2 are different than properties in either District #1 or District #3. Referring only to those regulations applicable to District #2, Attorney Willenborg advised that the regulations provide that the Plan Commission may deny a Tower Use Permit Application requesting a Tower Use Permit in District #2, or may impose additional conditions and restrictions, as it deems necessary to reduce or minimize any adverse effects or otherwise enhance the compatibility of the Wireless Communications Facility on surrounding property in accordance with the purposes and intent of the Ordinance. City Attorney Willenborg advised the Plan Commission, that per Article 24A, the Commission may deny the Tower Use Permit (“TUP”) Application or may impose such additional conditions and restrictions on the TUP only after making the findings that: (1) the Wireless Communication Facilities “WCF” would result in significant adverse visual impact, adverse aesthetic impact, adverse impact on property values on the surrounding neighborhood, or make a finding that they have not complied with the standards stated in Section 24A; and, (2) the Plan Commission must also find that the denial, or additional conditions or restrictions, are based upon the purposes and goals of the Article 24. The purpose and goals are specifically provided in Section 24A-1.

City Attorney Willenborg further advised the Commission that the provisions of Section 24-8B of the Code establish the standards for Wireless Communications Facilities sought to be established within District #2. Furthermore, the application must show compliance with collocation requirements provided for in Section 24A-9 of the Code.

Dennis Paul with Donlan Realty Advisors appeared on behalf of Petitioner, PIL Tower Development and Verizon Wireless, to testify in support of the Petition. Mr. Paul advised that Dolan Realty Advisors are site location consultants for the wireless industry.

Mr. Paul advised the Commission that a study from the PEW Research Center shows that 98% of all adult Americans own a cell phone and provided a breakdown of ownership for various age ranges. Mr. Paul advised that since the public hearing on the Petitioner’s prior request for a tower use permit on the Subject property, they have upgraded the proposed landscaping and fencing to meet the requirements in the City’s code.

Mr. Paul testified that the Petitioner is proposing to build a 100-foot tower, which is the maximum height allowed by the applicable regulations. Mr. Paul advised that the client wanted to construct a 125 foot tower. Mr. Paul testified that the engineered drawings detail that the proposed tower will be built to the TIA H code, which is in excess of the F code required by the City’s regulations. Furthermore, the proposed tower will be designed to carry not only the initial tenant, Verizon Wireless, but three additional carriers on the tower.

Mr. Paul provided testimony regarding the Overlay District #1 sites, which are City owned or City approved sites or towers that already exist. Mr. Paul identified five District #1 sites and advised that none of these sites meet the needs of his client. Mr. Paul testified that District #1 Site No. 1 is 6/10’s of a mile from a tower already occupied by Verizon Wireless and 1.9 miles away from the center of the area where they need to build a tower. Site No. 2 is 1.8 miles from the center of the area where they need to build a tower and is near an existing Verizon tower. Site No. 3 is the City’s maintenance plant, which is 6/10’s of a mile away from the search area. Mr. Paul advised that Site No. 3 is in the general area sites that Verizon already occupies and is 3.39 miles from another existing Verizon tower. Site No. 4 is the City’s water treatment plant, which is 1.9 miles away from the defined search area. Mr. Paul advised that this site was previously investigated by Verizon and was rejected. Mr. Paul further advised that Site No. 4 is in an area covered by another existing Verizon tower that is on Highway 40 southwest of town. Site No. 5 is at the Old Fire Station No. 2. This site is downtown and Verizon is already located on a tower a few blocks from this site. Per Mr. Paul, none of the District #1 overlay sites meet the needs of his client.

Mr. Paul thereafter provided testimony regarding the Overlay District #3. Mr. Paul pointed to photographs of various District #3 sites and advised that none of them are suitable for use by his client. Mr. Paul testified that these sites are either too close to existing Verizon towers, or they are unsuitable in terms of strength. Mr. Paul advised that these sites include guide towers that are designed for a couple of wireless omni antennas at the top and do not meet the criteria that is required for a wireless tower under the City’s regulations, as well as under guidelines from the FAA, the FCC, and Verizon Wireless itself. Mr. Paul further identified certain pylon signs, which are included, as part of the District #3 sites. Mr. Paul testified that these signs are not properly designed to meet the standards required of wireless towers and are too short. Mr. Paul advised that there are no buildings within the area they are looking at for the proposed tower that are high enough for the Verizon facilities. Mr. Paul advised that most buildings are under 40 to 50 feet, which is nowhere near the 100 feet they are accepting, but not really happy with. Additionally, if a tower is placed on a building, they can only be 20 feet in height.

Mr. Paul advised that the Subject Property is back from the street and would be less observable by drivers in the area. Mr. Paul advised the Commission that they need to place a tower in the area of the Subject Property because of the business generators that are near the area. Mr. Paul testified that there are hotels, motels, restaurants, schools, etc. in the area. Mr. Paul testified that they need to be in the area because it is near I-57 and I-70 , which carries approximately 44,000 cars a day northbound and 44,000 cars a day southbound. Mr. Paul testified that the RF justification letter has been updated since the prior public hearing to depict where coverage areas are located and where there are holes in the coverage areas. Mr. Paul further advised that there was a map depicting coverage from existing towers.

City Attorney Willenborg inquired whether the Petitioner had any reports or studies showing coverage from the District #1 sites. In response, Mr. Paul advised that they have the Verizon Wireless produced map and acquiesced that the rendering does not depict or identify the District #1 sites. Mr. Paul advised that the requested information is proprietary information.

City Attorney Willenborg inquired whether the Petitioner had any reports or studies showing coverage from the District #3 sites. In response, Mr. Paul testified that they do not produce coverage maps for towers that they do not own and that they are not looking to use because the sites are already in an area covered by existing towers. Mr. Paul advised that the documentation provided show coverage in areas where these district sites are around and an explanation of why none of them are usable.

In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Paul confirmed that the maps provided do not identify the District #1 or District #3 sites.

City Attorney Willenborg inquired whether the Petitioner had any reports to support testimony that they studied certain sites and that they were not up to standards, including the pylon signs. Mr. Paul testified that they do not have to do that. Mr. Paul advised that the pylon signs only require an engineer to report that they support what is being placed on the sign and none of these signs meet the standards of TIA H. In response to further questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Paul confirmed that they did not perform any studies on the pylon signs to support statements that they were not up to standards, but all but two were too short for the proposed wireless facilities.

In response to questioning by Chairman Hayes regarding the proposed tower facilities, Mr. Paul testified that the tower is a platform with anywhere between three and nine antennas and radio equipment. Mr. Paul advised that the information on the proposed facility is included in the Petitioner’s application. The application was made a part of the record.

The packet of documents that was provided to the Commission on the day of the public hearing as made a part of the record.

In response to questioning by Chairman Hayes regarding existing Verizon towers in the area, Mr. Paul advised that Verizon has a total of 6 towers in the Effingham area. In response to additional questioning by Chairman Hayes, Mr. Paul advised that each of these towers are built to the standards required for collocation.

In response to questioning by Chairman Hayes, Mr. Paul testified that Verizon just has locations on the existing towers and Harmoni/PI Tower does not own any towers in the area. Mr. Paul advised that wireless phone providers, like Verizon, do not hardly build towers anymore. The wireless phone providers now have tower companies build towers and then their businesses lease space on the towers. Per Mr. Paul, Verizon will not own the proposed tower, PI Tower will own the tower and will actively seek more tenants to be placed on the tower, in addition to Verizon.

In response to questioning by the Commission regarding spacing between towers, Mr. Paul testified that in the old days of analog, towers were 10 miles apart, but no one had cell phones and the towers could cover the amount of traffic. As more cell phones were needed, it resulted in an overload of the equipment on towers, which requires towers to be built closer together. Mr. Paul testified that technology moved from analog to digital and the digital signal does not carry nearly as far. Mr. Paul testified that in major metropolitan areas, towers are six to eight blocks apart because of the density of population. In more rural areas, towers are a mile to two miles apart, and in the country they can be three to four miles apart. Mr. Paul testified that in residential and metropolitan areas, towers can be a half a mile apart.

Chairman Hayes inquired whether there are towers every three miles apart on the interstate. In response, Mr. Paul advised that it depends on the amount of traffic on the highway and the number of residences in the area.

Mr. Paul testified that regarding distancing between towers, there is a thing called a small cell that is being developed in Chicago, New York, etc. These small cell facilities are two blocks apart because there are only a couple of antennas on them, and they can only handle a limited number of calls.

In response to questioning by Chairman Hayes regarding the manner in which the maps, provided by the Petitioner as part of Petitioner’s Exhibit 2, were generated and what information is utilized to generate the map, Mr. Paul responded that the RF engineers produce the maps.

Chairman Hayes expressed concerns with the maps provided.

Commissioner Thies inquired about whether there was lack of coverage around the Subject Property. Commissioner Thies mentioned that he parked at the Hardee’s parking lot, which is right by the Subject Property, and he had four bars on his phone. Mr. Paul responded that the coverage is based on usage in the area at the time. Mr. Paul advised that there is a difference between coverage when standing in a parking lot versus in-building coverage, which would be more like two bars. Mr. Paul advised that if a person were to be in a hotel, the coverage might be down to one bar. Mr. Paul expressed concerns with coverage in the area of the Subject Property if there was a school shooter situation.

Commissioner Thies inquired whether the proposed tower would serve the schools. In response, Mr. Paul advised that the tower would cover all of the traffic generators detailed in Petitioner’s Exhibit 2.

Mr. Paul advised that they did look at other properties in the area of the Subject Property, including Sacred Heart Church. Mr. Paul advised that the Church property does not work because the majority of the property is zoned residential. The northeast corner of the property is zoned B-2, but it is right up on the street. Mr. Paul stated that no one wants a tower right up on the street. Mr. Paul advised that the Subject Property is set back a couple of hundred feet from the street. Mr. Paul advised that the area around the proposed tower will be eventually developed and the base of the tower will be hidden.

In response to questioning by the Commission regarding the grove of trees on the Subject Property, Mr. Paul advised that those trees were already removed because it was a nuisance area with drug use and all kinds of unsavory activities.

Mr. Paul closed his testimony by advising that the proposed facility meets all FAA and FCT requirements, as well as the requirements of the City code.

No one appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition.

City Planner, Gregory Koester, appeared and testified that the Subject Property is zoned B-5, Highway Commercial District, and is developed with the Diesel Doctor facility. The property to the north of the Subject Property is zoned B-5, Highway Commercial District, and is developed with Hardee’s. The property to the southwest of the Subject Property is zoned B-5, Highway Commercial District, and is developed part of the Effingham Truck Sales facilities. The property to the southeast of the Subject Property is zoned R-1, Single-family residence district, is owned by the Diocese of Springfield-Sacred Heart Church, and is agricultural land. Property to the east along Fayette is zoned B-2, General Commercial District, and developed with the Effingham Event Center. The property to the west of the Subject Property is zoned B-5, Highway Commercial District, and is unimproved. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for commercial uses.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester confirmed that the requirements for locating a tower on a District #2 site are contained within Article 24A of the City Code. Mr. Koester further confirmed that the purpose for the regulations are included within Section 24A-1 of the Code, which includes to provide a range of locations in various zoning districts, encourage the location of these facilities onto existing structures to reduce the number of new communication towers, encourage collocation and site sharing of new and existing facilities, control the type of tower facility constructed when towers are permitted, establish adequate development and design criteria to enhance ability of providers to provide service to community quickly, effectively, and efficiently, protect residential and historic preservation areas from the uncontrolled development of these facilities by requiring reasonable siting conditions, promote the use of suitable sites for the location, ensure the harmonious, orderly and efficient growth and development of the city, stabilize the economy through the continued use of Effingham's public resources, provide overlay districts in which zoning laws permit the development of the facilities which are consistent with law, provide performance standards addressing the siting of these facilities and streamline and expedite the permitting procedures to affect compliance with law.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester confirmed that the Petitioner is requesting to place a tower within District #2, which is any property that is non-residential property not within District #1 or District #3. Mr. Koester further confirmed that the requirements for District #2 are generally included in Paragraph B of Section 24-8 of the City Code.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg regarding whether the Petitioner’s application complies with the “Height standards” set forth in Paragraph B 1, Mr. Koester testified that the application and proposed tower does comply with the height standards.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg regarding whether the Petitioner’s application complies with the “Setback standards” set forth in Paragraph B 2, Mr. Koester confirmed that the application and proposed tower does comply with the setback standards.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg regarding whether the Petitioner’s application complies with the “Landscaping and screening” requirements set forth in Paragraph B 3, Mr. Koester testified that the application and proposed development does comply with these requirements.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg regarding whether the Petitioner’s application complies with the “lighting” requirements set forth in Paragraph B 4, Mr. Koester advised that the application and proposed development does comply with these requirements.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg regarding whether the Petitioner’s application complies with the signage requirements set forth in Paragraph B 5, Mr. Koester testified that the application and proposed development does comply with these requirements.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg regarding whether the Petitioner’s application complies with the security fencing and other security feature requirements set forth in Paragraph B 6, Mr. Koester advised that the application and proposed development does comply with these requirements.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg regarding whether the Petitioner provided evidence that the facility will be in compliance with the FCC standards set forth in Paragraph B 7, Mr. Koester confirmed that the evidence was provided.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg regarding whether the Petitioner’s application complies with the structural integrity requirements set forth in Paragraph B 8, Mr. Koester testified that he believes that the facility exceeds the requirements.

City Attorney Willenborg inquired whether the Petitioner’s application complies with the “demonstration of inadequacy of District #1 and District #3 locations” requirements set forth in Paragraph B 9. In response, Mr. Koester testified that the Petitioner has provided information and Mr. Paul provided testimony that maybe one structure could possibly collocate on, but it is not in an ideal area. Furthermore, Mr. Koester advised that Mr. Paul was correct in the testimony.

In response to an inquiry from City Attorney Willenborg whether Mr. Koester has been provided any reports of coverage areas from each of the District #1 and District #3 sites that the Petitioner is requesting for Verizon, Mr. Koester responded that he has not been provided that information from the Petitioner. Mr. Koester advised that the map provided depicts current coverage for Verizon, proposed coverage and study area.

City Attorney Willenborg advised that Paragraph B 10 requires the applicant to provide substantial evidence demonstrating that the applicant has made a good faith reasonable effort to comply with the co-location requirements, but despite such effort has been unable to comply with that article. In response to questioning whether Mr. Koester participated in any communications with the owners of either of the District #1 or District #3 sites regarding whether or not the proposed facilities could be co-located on those existing sites, Mr. Koester testified that he did not.

In response to an inquiry from City Attorney Willenborg regarding whether any information, other than what was provided at the public hearing, was submitted by the Petitioner regarding efforts to demonstrate that they made a good faith reasonable effort to collocate as required by Article 24A-9, Mr. Koester advised that he did review the original submission by the Petitioner and requested that they provide additional information. Per Mr. Koester, the additional information was provided the day of the public hearing and was distributed to the Commission at the time of the meeting. This packet was made part of the record. This information consisted of the traffic generators, the Pew Research Center on mobile phone ownership over time, and a synopsis of the various pylon signs in the area, as well as the buildings in the area. Mr. Koester further testified that the packet included pictures of existing towers in the area that were looked at by the Petitioner and statements whether or not they could support the cellular array, as well as notes if the site is in an area already covered by existing Verizon towers or cellular arrays on towers by Verizon.

In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester testified that he did not participate in any communications regarding District #3 possible collocation sites and the only information on the possible collocation for the sites was the packet provided by the Petitioner on the day of the public hearing.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester advised that the Petitioner did comply with the collocation requirements set forth in Section 9 of the regulations. More specifically, the collocation requirements set forth in the regulations require, as a condition precedent to the issuance and continuation of a Tower Use Permit for District #2, the Petitioner provide information that they will allow collocation of at least three other TUP applicants and further agree to reasonably accommodate the future collocation of at least three antenna arrays, WCF’s or attached WCF’s. Mr. Koester confirmed that the Petitioner complied with the collocation requirements set forth in Section 9 of the regulations.

Mr. Koester identified a map provided by the Petitioner that he has marked up. This map was made a part of the record. Mr. Koester advised that he circled Verizon B, which is the tower to the west, the star on the map is the Subject Property, Verizon A is the existing tower in the middle of town. Mr. Koester advised that the site identified by the number three is the water maintenance garage located in District #1, and the site identified by the number five is the central tower in District No. 1. Verizon E is on West Route 40. The APC tower is down south of the tri-level. Verizon C is behind Braunecker’s. Identified by the number one is the South water tower, and the site identified by the number four is the water treatment plant. This map was prepared by Greg to help identify the existing sites for Verizon in relation to the District #1 sites. In response to questioning, Mr. Koester confirmed that Verizon is not on the site identified by number three, that there is no tower located on that site, and that site could be available for a tower. In response to questioning whether Mr. Koester has been provided with a coverage map from Verizon depicting possible coverage in the area of the site identified by number three, Mr. Koester advised that he has not seen a coverage map. Mr. Koester further confirmed that he has not seen a coverage map for the site identified by the number four on the map. In response to additional questioning by the Commission, Mr. Koester advised that the City’s water maintenance garage is located on the site identified by number three. In response to questioning regarding why no one requests to place a tower on the sites identified as number three and number four on the map, Mr. Koester stated “that’s a good question”. In response to additional questioning on this topic, Mr. Koester testified that Mr. Paul testified that these properties may be too close to other towers. Mr. Koester confirmed, however, that he has not seen any coverage maps to support this testimony.

In response to questioning by Commissioner Thies, Mr. Koester confirmed that there is no tower on the site identified by the number three. Mr. Koester testified that District 1 sites include City owned properties that are more commercial or industrial in nature that could possibly be developed with a tower. Mr. Koester advised that none of the District #1 sites have a tower on them, with the exception of the site identified by the number five.

In response to questioning by Chairman Hayes, Mr. Koester confirmed that if the Petitioner chose to locate on a pre-existing site, a public hearing would not be required. Mr. Koeser further testified that they would just have to submit the facility plans to the building official.

In response to questioning about sites in District #2, Mr. Koester testified that District #2 sites are commercial areas that are not zoned residential. The towers identified as Verizon D and Verizon E are outside the City limits. Per Mr. Koester, the City did approve a District #2 site for the tower located near Pyramid Marble & Granite, which is depicted as a yellow thumbtack on City Exhibit 1. Per Mr. Koester, Verizon A is a tower that was developed before the City adopted regulations on the location of towers. Mr. Koester advised that there is also a tower on Keller Drive that is located outside the City limits and further advised the Commission that City authority relative to siting of towers stops at the corporate limits of the City and does not extend to the extra-territorial zoning area.

Mr. Koester advised the Commission that the tower on Outer Belt West is within the City limits and is now considered a District #3 site, like the one by Pyramid Marble.

In response to questioning by Chairman Hayes regarding the relationship between Verizon and the tower company, Mr. Koester stated that Mr. Paul testified that Verizon would be a tenant and would locate on the tower if it is built. Mr. Koester testified that if the tower use permit is approved for the Subject Property, the Subject Property would then be deemed a District #3 site.

In response to questioning by Commissioner Thies regarding the timing since the last District #2 site was approved, Mr. Koester could not remember, but believed it was between 5 to 10 years ago.

Commissioner Hayes questioned whether the Petitioner satisfied every requirement necessary to eliminate all other locations.

City Attorney Willenborg advised that the Petitioner has the burden to show that locations in District #1 and District #3 will not provide for functionally equivalent service. The Petitioner also has the burden to provide substantial evidence demonstrating that the applicant has made good faith reasonable effort to comply with the co-location requirements, but that despite such effort, has been unable to comply.

Commissioner Hayes questioned whether the Petitioner has met that burden. Commissioner Hayes further inquired whether the Petitioner could provide additional information to allow a more informed decision. The Commissioners made statements about the coverage and related information that they believe is necessary in order to consider a tower use permit. Chairman Hayes advised that it is his understanding that it is the Petitioner’s responsibility show proof.

City Attorney Willenborg stated that while Mr. Paul may be limited in providing the requested information based on what has been provided to him, the Commission has been provided with the coverage maps in a prior tower request. The provision of that information during a prior public hearing is unfortunately impacting Mr. Paul and his position that the requested information is proprietary. Similar information has been provided before and that requested information did help establish whether or not those additional tower sites, those in District #1 and District #3, were not appropriate and met the requirements in the Article 24A regarding district two locations.

The members of the Commission questioned the number of towers that would be sufficient to serve the coverage needs. Several commissioners concurred that the intent of the ordinance and the request for information is necessary to ensure that the City does not look like a pincushion or become oversaturated.

In response to questioning by Commissioner Vogel regarding whether additional tower sites are being added as part of the City’s current update of the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Koester advised that tower siting is not currently in the Comprehensive Plan. That is something that the City could look at and may be a discussion that that the carriers would need to be involved in. The goal is to not have the City look like a pin cushion, but there should be facilities available to serve the coverage necessary for the community.

Chairman Hayes advised that it is his position that the Petitioner has not met the requirements to disqualify other locations.

The hearing was closed, and a discussion was conducted among the Commissioners in open session.

The Commissioners concurred that they would like to see better coverage maps and why other sites will not work.

The Commissioners concurred that the recommendation for denial is based on the Petitioner’s failure to comply with the standards contained in Section 8B, which applies to District #2 sites. Furthermore, the Commissioners concurred that the Petitioner failed to comply with the purposes and goals of the ordinance, which, in part, seeks to limit tower sites and why there is a need to place a tower in a District #2 location.

The Commissioners also discussed the possibility of continuing the hearing to allow the Petitioner additional time to provide the requested information.

On motion by Commissioner Thies, seconded by Commissioner Gouchenouer, and approved by a 5 to 1 vote, the Plan Commission recommends that the City Council deny the Petition for Tower Use Permit and find that the Petitioner failed to comply with the standards stated in Paragraph B of Section 8 and failed to comply with the purposes and goals of the regulations.

5. Discussion Only: City of Effingham Comprehensive Plan Project Timeline: City Planner, Greg Koester, provided a report on the status of the update to the City of Effingham Comprehensive Plan.

6. Public Comment: None.

7. On motion by Commissioner Vogel, seconded by Commissioner Thies, the meeting was adjourned.

https://go.boarddocs.com/il/voeil/Board.nsf/files/DFEHY64AB946/$file/03-11-2025%20PC%20Minutes%20-%20Revised.pdf