[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6473714,"mediaKeyId","5743918-90055d6b56e50d63dd19cffb70461b57","parentId",5743918,"title","Linn County planners debate draft battery energy storage rules, direct staff to revise several provisions","audioSeconds",2588,"startMs",2597000,"endMs",8338,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5743918-90055d6b56e50d63dd19cffb70461b57&start=2597&end=8","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5743918-90055d6b56e50d63dd19cffb70461b57/thumbnail_2597000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6473714/Linn-County/Kansas/Linn-County-planners-debate-draft-battery-energy-storage-rules-direct-staff-to-revise-several-provisions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6473714-d0bf37a62d210d9cdb10657e3b498f7f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770736957&Signature=egZ0TgY4uTGLsMSxp8pm-ncJsLncJkGCVUAROB9P1c6KX3CtilUhIvtCwla7s1U5t419uXDbXSds1bZLFnRdx30Y90AhitTqd6MsdZj7GZa9yIEFJMS-yCZrnGPPLyAHBc2oxEf1-OD8Lrrz3dMnttN2eeRMb7x6AVpLorJDfxrihbb5VoJHRWwCSXzlTmpzdtC28wCkuT611auW0mUj3W7QekE6cySRAeZh97B6JYvFYWqT1ebSZayHZAsjnYpeNEMpLdhFS5BlGFydcvcz8h-qSHCp4UAsS62mGRB0hogGj8tedvPzq6oXJ757VOnr3vzMEFVIdxZAbPFh2taqJA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Linn County Kansas","date","2025-09-10T02:20:50Z","article","Linn County Planning Commissioners undertook a line‑by‑line review of a draft ordinance proposing regulations for battery energy storage systems (BESS), focusing on tier definitions, allowed zoning districts, permitting timeframes, decommissioning and public-safety provisions.

The discussion began when a commissioner introduced the draft and asked the group to resume at section 24‑501 and later moved through several sections (24‑509, 24‑507, 24‑510 and related items). The commission reviewed tier thresholds proposed in the draft: Tier 1 (under 81 kilowatts), Tier 2 (81–600 kilowatts) and Tier 3 (above 600 kilowatts). A staff speaker explained the research basis for treating multi‑unit battery installations as a single system when aggregate output falls within a tier.

Commissioners debated which zoning districts should allow Tier 2 systems and concluded, by consensus during the meeting, to remove \"Countryside\" from the list of districts eligible for Tier 2 facilities. A commissioner summarized that most past countryside parcels are less than 10 acres and therefore not suitable for larger Tier 2 installations; several commissioners expressed agreement: \"I think it should be taken off. Okay. Let's scratch countryside,\" a commissioner said. The draft retained Tier 2 allowance in agricultural, industrial and commercial districts, but the commission asked staff to refine the language and return revised ordinance text.

Permitting timeframes and conditions were another focus. The draft initially included a conditional-use permit duration of 15 years; after discussion commissioners agreed to shorten the maximum approved term to five years for periodic review. Similarly, commissioners changed the staff submittal and public-notice timetable: the draft language requiring application materials \"at least two weeks prior to the public hearing\" was revised in the meeting to a longer minimum notice — commissioners agreed on six weeks prior to the hearing to give neighbors and agencies sufficient time to review materials.

Other technical and safety items discussed:

- Decommissioning and restoration: Commissioners directed that decommissioning plans include soil sampling requirements (to be added to the draft), regrading and reseeding to the prior or agreed vegetation, and a bond to guarantee decommissioning work. The panel discussed minimum burial depths for underground electrical cables where they cross existing utilities; the group referenced a 3‑foot vertical/horizontal separation from other buried utilities for crossing situations, though typical direct burial depths for new underground cables were noted as about 18–24 inches.

- Fencing and screening: The commission reviewed Section 16‑9 (fencing) and a related screening section (16‑5). Members proposed raising the maximum chain‑link/fence height referenced in the draft from 7 feet to 8 feet where allowed, and required screening adjacent to residential zones to reach 6–8 feet with mature density standards for evergreens.

- Emergency response and placarding: Commissioners emphasized including an emergency‑response plan and on‑site placarding so local fire and emergency responders can identify hazards; training for volunteer emergency services was discussed as part of the final site plan requirements.

- Conditional approvals and bonds: Commissioners discussed bonds and noticed language requiring applicants to maintain decommissioning bonds for the duration of the project and to notify the county in the event an applicant cancels its bond. Staff and commissioners clarified that, if the county board finds an applicant in noncompliance, the county may call the bond.

Commissioners also instructed staff to better integrate construction management and building‑permit review items into the final development plan requirements (for example, moving building‑permit plan review references into the construction management section). The commission flagged outstanding issues — chiefly setbacks and noise limits — and assigned further research as a homework item before the next meeting. A staff member said the next draft should refine noise and setback provisions and include examples from neighboring counties.

No final ordinance vote was taken; the commission requested a revised draft that implements the agreed changes (remove countryside from Tier 2, conditional‑use permit term reduced to five years, public‑notice period increased to six weeks, soil‑sampling language inserted in decommissioning provisions, and clarified burial/separation distances for underground cables) and to return with recommended setback and noise language for further consideration.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Linn County Kansas Zoning Live Meeting 09.09.25","oneSentenceSummary","Linn County Planning Commissioners undertook a line‑by‑line review of a draft ordinance proposing regulations for battery energy storage systems (BESS), focusing on tier definitions, allowed zoning districts, permitting timeframes, decommissioning and public-safety provisions.","taxTitle","Linn County, Kansas","taxId",64338,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6473719,"Linn County planning panel tables request to rezone 2.69-acre parcel for house sale",1889,508000,2397000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5743918-90055d6b56e50d63dd19cffb70461b57&start=508&end=2397","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5743918-90055d6b56e50d63dd19cffb70461b57/thumbnail_508000.jpg","/articles/6473719/Linn-County/Kansas/Linn-County-planning-panel-tables-request-to-rezone-269-acre-parcel-for-house-sale","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6473719-f0d8c7124d886c9bf7449539589918d3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770736957&Signature=W2IPMe6MfcpFfX0DsiAkLneNOHJAlMGia~QQMIDywTxorIU12lCZZIZ4CybCtKPFb-rNCb8ZA37CiKnvG3-Ue4mKUmGG~E~a9klLQ~0LZgssd4WPYMQS0VyNZbjqN1iRa8BR8zN8HPUAfS7astb~4uWuoz0r9mIZGqDnEevBhrDP~5TOT9OKLmPo70uq0q9OnzZ6VXhvvg--1RNX8mtBU~z6ShwXIoKp8wWjzKLhyzMC2-Xlant4w2dIPkft2S63M1ClNQQ3WRA7B90hj1~aC6FqNfME3g9asawIJA3oeEUwiVEY2tAHrNzunN2GB-gd6aNtSbY3t0LLISRoaL4x1A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Linn County Planning Commission on an application to rezone a 2.69-acre lot around an existing house from agricultural to residential on a parcel south of the old airstrip on Reid Road tabled the matter after public comment and discussion.

Staff presented the case as a lot split: the applicant proposes to create a 2.69-acre parcel containing an existing house and to keep the remaining roughly 67.45 acres in agricultural zoning. A staff speaker said the proposed R-1 residential zoning \"conforms to the character of the neighborhood by providing a combined usage,\" that the property \"is suitable for permitted use of the proposed R-1 residential zoning\" and that the change would not create additional infrastructure needs.

The decision matters because county zoning rules include a 10-acre minimum for single-family dwellings in agricultural districts. Jan Longenecker, a resident who spoke during public comment, argued the application was \"an attempted end run around that requirement,\" saying allowing the rezoning would set precedent and open agricultural tracts to many small residential splits. Longenecker cited the county zoning regulations (Article 5, Section 5.201.A and Section 5.701) that specify a 10-acre minimum for dwellings in the A district.

Wayne Madison, identified in the hearing as the property owner, described the proposal as a straightforward sale of the house and the immediate yard to buyers who cannot afford the entire farm. Madison said the 2.69 acres surrounds the house, is fenced, contains existing structures and that the productive hay ground would remain in the larger agricultural parcel. Madison told the commission the lot was surveyed and that sanitation rules requiring two acres or more for septic were met on the proposed parcel.

Other public commenters echoed concerns about precedent. Nathan Howard, also a local property owner, said allowing the rezoning would encourage subsequent splits and reduce contiguous agricultural acreage. Commissioners asked staff to confirm which sections of the zoning code applied and whether adopting the proposed R-1 zoning on a sub‑10‑acre parcel would effectively remove the agricultural restrictions that the 10‑acre rule was intended to protect.

After discussion, a motion to approve as submitted failed to proceed because it lacked a second. A later motion to table the application was made, seconded, and carried by voice vote; the transcript does not record the names of the mover or seconder. The commission requested additional information and maps and asked staff to clarify the relationship between Sections 5.201.A and 5.701 of the Linn County Zoning Regulations before the matter returns for decision.

The commission closed public participation on the item after additional speakers and moved on to other agenda items. The applicant was told staff would follow up by phone to discuss next steps.

Votes at a glance

- Rezoning/lot split (2.69 acres around an existing house): Motion to table — outcome: tabled by voice vote; mover and seconder not specified in the hearing record.

","The Linn County Planning Commission postponed action on a request to rezone 2.69 acres around an existing house from agricultural to residential after public comment raised concerns about precedent, density and consistency with county zoning rules.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Linn County planners debate draft battery energy storage rules, direct staff to revise several provisions

Linn County planning panel tables request to rezone 2.69-acre parcel for house sale