MR. RECH: Mr. Bond seconds. All in favor, signify by ... · Chairperson Tim Rech, followed by the...

The Lordstown Planning Commission met in regular session on December 14 2015, at 6:30 p.m. at the Lordstown Administration Building. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Tim Rech, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Roll call vote was taken.

In Attendance: Tim Rech, Chairperson Tony Schofer, Vice Chairperson Pamela Owens Arno Hill, Mayor Robert Bond, Council Member Paul Dutton, Solicitor Kellie Bordner, Planning and Zoning Administrator Denise Dugan, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator

Also Present: Jeffrey S. Smith, P.E., Senior Engineer, CT Consultants Christopher M. Kogelnik, P.E., Regional Manager, CT Consultants

William Siderewicz, P.E., President, Clean Energy Future, LLC Attorney Tom Schubert Lynn D. DeKrey, P.E., Senior Project Manager, Siemens Energy Bruna Ferreira, E.I., Civil Engineer, Siemens Energy Brian Kushner, Siemens Energy Andrew Cunningham, Construction Cost Mgr., Siemens Energy Matthew S. Pesci, CPG, Project Manager, Mannik Smith Group John Mansell, Council Member Karen Jones, Council Member Don Reider, Council Member Ron Radtka, Council Member Bruce Platt, Superintendent of Utilities Travis Eastham, Fire Chief Jody Stringer, Laborers Local 935 Tim Callion, Pipefitters Local 396 Mr. & Mrs. Dan Crouse Chuck Joseph Donna Schrader Carl E. Miller, Jr. Martin Jones Gary Luzadder Rick Albrecht Dan Cuckovich Florence Siglin MR. RECH: All right, thank you. Before I go into roll call, I would just like to remind

everybody here that this is a legal proceeding of sorts. We have a stenographer here

taking minutes for the record. So I ask that you keep any of your, you know, side

comments and so forth to a minimum so that she can hear what is being presented this

evening. Thank you for that.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MR. RECH: We have Reading and Approval of the Agenda. Is there a motion to

approve the agenda?

MAYOR HILL: So moved.

MR. RECH: Mayor Hill makes the second. Is there a second?

MR. BOND: I'll second.

MR. RECH: Mr. Bond seconds. All in favor, signify by saying "aye".

MS. OWENS: Aye.

MR. SCHOFER: Aye.

MAYOR HILL: Aye.

MR. RECH: Aye.

MR. BOND: Aye.

MR. RECH: Anybody opposed?

(WHEREAS, THERE WAS NO MEMBER OF THE BOARD IN OPPOSITION AND

PROCEEDINGS WERE AS FOLLOWS:)

(VOICE VOTE: 5, AYE; 0, NAY; 0, ABSTAINED.)

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MR. RECH: Okay. Next item we have is Approval of the Minutes of September 14th,

2015. Is there a motion to approve the minutes?

MS. OWENS: So moved.

MR. RECH: Mrs. Owens made that motion. Is there a second?

MAYOR HILL: Second.

MR. RECH: Mayor Hill makes a second. All those in favor of approving the minutes of

September 14th, please signify by saying "aye".

MS. OWENS: Aye.

MR. SCHOFER: Aye.

MAYOR HILL: Aye.

MR. RECH: Aye.

MR. BOND: Aye.

MR. RECH: Anybody opposed?

(WHEREAS, THERE WAS NO MEMBER OF THE BOARD IN OPPOSITION, AND


(VOICE VOTE: 5, AYE; 0, NAY; 0, ABSTAINED.)

PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT: MR. RECH: All right -- that passes. Moving on to Planning and Zoning Administrator's

Report?

MS. BORDNER: No report, Mr. Chairman.

SOLICITOR’S REPORT: MR. RECH: All right, thank you -- any Solicitor's Report this evening? SOLICITOR DUTTON: No report. CORRESPONDENCE: MR. RECH: Thank you, sir -- any correspondence? MS. DUGAN: We have two (2) letters that I believe Kellie is going to read into the record during the Site Plan Review.

NEW BUSINESS: 1. Site Plan Review for Clean Energy Future – Lordstown, LLC, Lordstown Energy Center. The Planning Commission followed this form that follows Section 1116.03 of The Planning & Zoning Code:

The Village of Lordstown SITE PLAN REVIEW

NAME: CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE - LORDSTOWN, LLC LORDSTOWN ENERGY CENTER

ADDRESS: Henn Parkway, Lordstown, Ohio Date of Planning Commission Meeting: December 14, 2015

(1) Total area in the development: 33.1 Acres (14.2 acres for actual facility and 18.9 acres for construction laydown). (2) Existing Zoning of the property: Industrial Property to the North: Industrial Property to the South: Industrial Property to the East: Industrial Property to the West: Industrial (3) Public and private right-of-way and easement lines located on or adjacent to the property: The site has a drainage easement for Lordstown Industrial Park in the southeast corner of property; a drainage easement between Lordstown Henn LLC and Henn Holdings in the southwest corner of property; an ingress egress easement across Lordstown Lions Club on the east side of the property; easements in favor of the Ohio Public Service along the roadways and on the north side of the property for Powerline Transmission Towers. List of easements for each of the properties are shown on ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey page 2. (4) Existing topography: The existing terrain of the site is undeveloped flat grassland with minor elevation changes ranging from 959 feet to 962 feet above sea level. (5) Proposed finished grade of the development: The area on which the Lordstown Energy Center will be built will be modified to have a rough finished grade at 960.5 feet above sea level. The LEC area will include grading and final landscaping consisting of areas of gravel and hydro-seed (grass). The construction laydown area will be graded and graveled for construction operations. (6) Location of existing buildings: Parcels that will be acquired for the project currently do not have any existing building. Location of proposed building: The facility will include four buildings; one guard house located at the power plant entrance off of Henn Parkway which is on the northeast side of the property; one steam turbine building and switchyard control building located in the north center of the site property; and one combined administration/control/warehouse building located at the southeast of the property. Uses of existing buildings: The site does not have any existing buildings. Uses of proposed buildings: One guard house will be located at the power plant entrance off of Henn Parkway and will serve for site security and access management. One steam turbine building will be built and will serve for maintenance and protection of the steam turbine and auxiliary equipment. One combined building for administration, controls and warehouse purposes including maintenance, storage, and control of the plant’s operations. Switchyard (site bus collector) control room which is used to control the equipment of the high voltage switchgear. Total number of buildings: Four distinct single-story buildings. Dimensions (Per Building): Guard house – 12 feet L x 12 feet W. Steam turbine building – 180 feet L x 114 feet W with an annex of 28 feet L x 70 feet W. Administration, controls and warehouse – 133 feet L x 44 feet W. Switchyard (site bus collector) control room – 40 feet L x 25 feet W. Heights: Guard house – 10 feet H. Steam turbine building – 90 feet H with an annex of 25 feet H. Administration, controls & warehouse – 22 feet H. Switchyard (site bus collector) control room – 25 feet H. Gross floor area: Guard House - 144 square feet. Steam Turbine Building - 22,480 square feet. Administration Building - 5852 sq. feet. Switchyard control room: 1000 square feet. Number of stories: Each building or structure to be single story In addition to these buildings, there will also be seven (7) permanent equipment enclosures on-site which will serve to protect sensitive plant equipment. These enclosures will include three (3) fuel gas compression enclosures each measuring 41 feet L x 20 feet W x 20 feet H; two (2) gas turbine enclosures each measuring 50 feet L x 45 feet W x 42 feet H; and two (2) lube oil enclosures each measuring 30 feet L x 11 feet W x 14 feet H.

The power plant will also have seventeen (17) equipment containers on site for storage and equipment protection purposes and these containers will range in size from 200 square feet to 1,120 square feet. 1. Water Treatment Center: 40L x 8W x 8.5H, 320 sq. ft.

2. Fire Water Pumps: 33L x 13W x 10H, 429 sq. ft. 3. Laboratory Container: 43L x 10.5W x 8.5H, 452 sq. ft. 4. Balance of Plant Power Control Center: 40L x 8W x 8H, 320 sq. ft. 5. Cooling Tower Power Control Center: 32L x 8W x 8H, 256 sq. ft. 6. Steam Turbine Power Control Center: 40L x 8W x 8H, 320 sq. ft. 7. Emergency Diesel Generator: 40L x 8W x 15H, 320 sq. ft. 8. Auxiliary Steam Generator: 56L x 20W x 30H, 1,120 sq. ft. 9. Sampling Container: 36L x 11W x 10H, 396 sq. ft. 10. Cooling Water Chemical Dosing Container: 20L x 10W x 8.5H, 200 sq. ft. 11. Ammonia Dosing Container: 36L x 11W x 8.5H, 396 sq. ft. 12. Gas Turbine Control Center: 50L x 12.4W x 10H, 620 sq. ft. 13. SFC/SEE Container: 30L x 14W x 10H, 420 sq. ft. 14. Medium Voltage Switchgear: 40L x 14W x10H, 560 sq. ft. 15. Gas Turbine Control Center: 50L x 12.4W x 10H, 620 sq. ft. 16. SFC/SEE Container: 30L x 14W x 10H, 420 sq. ft. 17. Medium Voltage Switchgear: 40L x 14W x 10H, 560 sq. ft. (7) Location and dimension of: Curb cuts: There are currently existing curbs spanning both sides along all of Henn Parkway. There are two entrances to the power plant off of Henn Parkway that will have two curb cuts for the site driveways of approximately 54 feet and 50 feet in length respectively. Driving lanes: The power plant will include a 20 foot wide asphalt roadway around its perimeter as well as single lane interior access roads. Some of the interior access roads will taper down to a minimum width of 12 feet. The north roadway inside the facility will be located at 11 feet distance at its closest point to the Henn Parkway road right of way. Off-street parking: There will be twenty-four paved parking spaces with one disability parking space (ADA compliant) on the property adjacent to the administrator building. The stall sizes are 18’ L x 9’ W and one parking space is ADA compliant measuring 18’ L x 12’ W. All parking spaces will be surfaced with asphalt and adequately drained. Loading areas: Concrete paved areas dedicated for chemical truck unloading will be on the site. There will be two concrete paved areas sloped for proper drainage located on the power plant. Angles of stalls: 90 degree angle Grades: The site will have a final elevation of 960.5 feet above sea level and additional 6 inches layer of gravel around the ring roads. The facility will include grading and landscaping consisting of areas of gravel and hydro-seed (grass). The site will be graded to have a 2% slope for water to drain into the storm water collection system. Surfacing materials: 6 inch layer of gravel round the foundations, and the swales and pond area will be hydro-seeded grass. The parking lot surfacing areas will be asphalt and concrete paved areas for chemical unloading areas. Drainage plans: During construction, storm water will be managed according to the requirements set forth by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency General Permit and will focus on minimizing the impact of surface water caused by erosion and sedimentation. All the storm water and dewatering during construction will be discharged to the existing storm sewer on Henn Parkway. After construction, EPA requirements will continue to be met by taking into consideration the changes in flow rates caused by site development. The storm water collection system will consist of swales and underground piping, and will discharge the storm water into a detention pond located on the southeast side of the project site for sediment control. Illumination of facilities: Entire facility will be illuminated with high-pressure sodium vapor lighting providing a yellowish hue at night. The preliminary lighting plan proposes the use of a total of 42 lighting poles. 34 poles are planned to be 30ft tall and 8 poles to be 40ft tall. The street light poles fixtures will be directed downwards to illuminate the area below them. (8) Sidewalks and other open areas: The site will have a sidewalk from the parking lot to the administration building with asphalt surface. The sidewalk will be approximately 250’ L x 4’ W. (9) Location of all walls, fences and buffers: Proposed landscaping will not include any berms at property lines; a waiver will be requested for required buffer area and earthen barrier; perimeter of the facility will have an 8 feet high chain-link fence topped with 3-strand barbed wire. The site fence is located at a 3 foot distance from the Henn Parkway road right of way.

(10) Location, size, height and orientation of all signs: Appropriate traffic control signage will be placed along the roadways inside the facility area. Additional signage unknown at this time. (11) Location of all existing and proposed streets and highways: The LEC will be located with frontage on Henn Parkway running east & west. (12) All existing and proposed water and sanitary sewer lines indicating pipe sizes, types and grades: There will be underground piping for access to municipal potable water from the existing water main on Henn Parkway to the guard house, administration building, and cooling tower basin to the existing sanitary sewer located on Henn Parkway. The proposed potable water piping will be HDPE, Schedule: SDR11 with sizes ranging from 6 inches to 8 inches. The sewage water piping will also be HDPE, Schedule: SDR11 with sizes ranging from 2 inches to 16 inches. Reinforced concrete piping will be used for storm water drainage with sizes ranging from 6 inches to 28 inches (13) The schedule of phasing of the project: The total duration for the project will be 28 months beginning in February of 2016 and ending in June 2018. The project will be made up of several phases beginning with the engineering and procurement phase that will last eight months. Simultaneously the manufacturing of necessary equipment will begin and will be delivered as needed to the project site. The site mobilization, land development, and foundation construction activities will commence in February 2016 and last until March 2017. The final phases of mechanical construction, commission and testing are targeted to begin August 2016 and will run to the end of the project, scheduled for June 2018. (14) All existing and proposed front setbacks: The proposed project will have a front setback of approximately 30 feet from the existing road right of way to the closest structure (Guard House). The second closest structures are the Collector Bus Yard and Cooling Tower with 52 feet and 58 feet respectively to the existing road right of way. Rear setbacks: The administration building located in the backyard will extend approximately 9 feet from the existing property line. Side yard setbacks: The setback on the east side of the property is 70 feet from the property line. On the west side, the setback to the Guardhouse is 15 feet. (15) Other information required by the Planning Commission: [1104.05(d)] Lot Frontage: Clean Energy Future-Lordstown (CEF-L), via Siemens Energy’s Site Plan application, will be seeking a “conditional approval”. One such condition is that the parcels noted in the Site Plan have yet to be combined, subdivided, and re-platted, as shown in the Site Plan. The parcels noted in this application will be formally created at the time the LEC Project is financed. A waiver is required for the creation of Lot 6 (construction laydown lot) which will have a proposed 156.44 feet of frontage. [1105.31] Vehicular Access Points: A waiver as required per section 1105.31 for the project to include two driveways of approximately 54 feet and 50 feet in width respectively. [1105.32] Off-street parking: A waiver to exempt the project from including a minimum of 1 parking space per employee in the largest working shift, it is anticipated there will be up to 30 employees and a total of 24 parking spaces. Waiver is also requested to exempt the project to plant at least one tree per eight parking spaces as required per section 1105.32. [1163.02] Off-street parking size and access: A waiver to exempt the project from including a minimum of 200 square feet (10’ x 20’ minimum) for each off-street parking space. The proposed stall sizes for the project are 9’ x 18’ and one parking space is ADA compliant measuring 12’ x 18’. [1107.05] Landscaping: The project does not include any berms and plantings for screening along the road frontage and parking lots landscaping. A waiver is being requested to exempt the project from including a landscaped buffer area and parking lot landscaping as per sections 1105.32, 1107.06 and 1107.07. [1137.01] Setback and Height Requirements: A waiver to exempt the project from including a 100-foot minimum setback for the front yard from the road right of way and a 75-foot minimum for the rear yard from the property line as well as a 50 foot minimum for the west side yard of the property. As per section 1137.01, it is understood that the maximum height permitted for buildings is 100 feet and this project does not include any occupied buildings that will exceed this restriction. However, the proposed project does include structures that are greater than 100 feet. If the height requirement in section 1137.01 is applicable to non-occupied structures, then a waiver will be requested for the Heat

Recovery Steam Generator, which is 120 feet high, and its Stack, which is 160 feet high and the collector bus structure which is 140 feet high. (16) Prior approval of water mains and appurtenances by the BPA: The Preliminary Planning Evaluation Form (PPE) pertaining to the water mains and appurtenances for the project was submitted separately to the Village of Lordstown Superintendent of Utilities on October 9, 2015 for review and approval.

MR. RECH: All right. New Business then is Conditional Approval -- Site Plan Review for Clean Energy, LLC -- Lordstown, LLC. I'll turn this over to Kellie to start the process. MS. BORDNER: What I will do is I'll read through the Site Plan Review for Clean

Energy Future - Lordstown, LLC, Lordstown Energy Center, to be located on Henn

Parkway, here in the Village of Lordstown. If we just go right down the Site Plan Review

form:

1. Total area in the development: 33.1 Acres (14.2 acres for actual facility and 18.9

acres for construction laydown.)

2. Existing Zoning of the property: Industrial. To the north, is Industrial; to the south,

Industrial; to the east, Industrial; to the west, Industrial.

3. The public and private right-of-way and easement lines located on or adjacent

to the property: The site has a drainage easement for Lordstown Industrial Park in the

southeast corner of the property; a drainage easement between Lordstown Henn, LLC

and Henn Holdings in the southwest corner of the property; an ingress and egress

easement across Lordstown Lions Club on the east side of the property; easements in

favor of the Ohio Public Service along the roadways and on the north side of the

property for Powerline Transmission Towers; and then there is a list of easements for

each of the properties that we discussed -- are shown on the ALTA/ACSM Land Title

Survey page two (2). That was provided as one of the attachments -- a part of the Site

Plan Review, the drawings and such that were provided by Clean Energy.

4. Existing typography: The existing terrain of the site is undeveloped flat grassland

with minor elevation changes ranging from 959 feet to 962 feet above sea level.

5. Proposed finished grade of the development: The area on which the Lordstown

Energy Center will be built will be modified to have a rough, finished grade at 960.5 feet

above sea level. The LEC area will include grading and final landscaping consisting of

areas of gravel and hydro-seed, which is grass. The construction laydown area will be

graded and graveled for construction operations.

6. Location of existing buildings: Parcels that will be acquired for the project

currently do not have any existing building.

Location of proposed buildings: The facility will include four (4) buildings; one (1)

guard house located at the power plant entrance off of Henn Parkway, which is on the

northeast side of the property; one (1) steam turbine building and switchyard control

building located in the north center of the site property, and one (1) combined

administration/control/warehouse building located at the southeast of the property.

Uses of existing buildings: The site does not have any existing buildings.

Uses of proposed buildings: One (1) guard house -- the one (1) guard house will be

located at the power plant entrance off of Henn Parkway, and will serve for site security

and access management. One steam turbine building will be built and will serve for

maintenance and protection of the steam turbine and auxiliary equipment. One (1)

combined building for administration, controls and warehouse purposes will include

maintenance, storage, and the control of the plant's operations. Switchyard, which is a

site bus collector control room, which is used to control the equipment of the high

voltage switch gear.

Total number of buildings: There are four (4) distinct single-story buildings.

Dimensions (Per Building): We have the guard house at 12 feet long -- 12 feet in

length by 12 feet wide. Steam turbine building at 180 feet long by 114 feet wide, with an

annex of 28 feet long by 70 feet wide. The administration controls and warehouse at

133 feet long by 144 feet (sic) wide. The switchyard, which is again the site bus control

-- or collector control room is at 140 feet long by 25 feet wide.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: That's 40 feet.

MS. BORDNER: 40 feet, sorry -- 40 feet long by 25 feet wide.

The heights: The guard house is 10 feet high. The steam turbine building is 90 feet

high, with an annex of 25 feet high. The administration, controls and warehouse is 22

feet high. The switchyard, which is the site bus collector control room, is 25 feet high.

The gross floor area: The guard house is 144 square feet. Teamster -- steam turbine

building, 22,480 square feet; administration building, 5,852 square feet; the switchyard

control room, 1,000 square feet.

Number of stories: Each building or structure is to be a single story.

In addition to these buildings, there will also be seven (7) permanent equipment

enclosures on site, which will serve to protect sensitive plant equipment. These

enclosures will include three (3) fuel gas compression enclosures each measuring 41

feet long by 20 feet wide by 20 feet high; two (2) gas turbine enclosures, each

measuring 50 feet long.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Thirty feet (30') -- oh, never mind.

MS. BORDNER: Fifty feet (50') long by 45 feet wide by 42 feet high; and two (2) lube oil

enclosures each measuring 30 feet long by 11 feet wide by 14 feet high.

The power plant will also have seventeen (17) equipment containers on site for storage

and equipment protection purposes, and these containers will range in size from 200

square feet to 1,120 square feet.

First, we have a Water Treatment Center that will be 40 long by 8 wide by 8.5 high.

That gives a total of 320 square feet.

There will be Fire Water Pumps -- will be 33 feet long, 13 wide, 10 feet high, 429 square

feet.

Laboratory Container -- 43 long, 10.5 wide, 8.5 high, 452 square feet.

Balance of the Power Plant Control Center -- 40 feet long, 8 wide, 8 high, 320 square

feet.

Cooling Tower Power Control Center: 32 long, 8 wide, 8 high, 256 square feet.

Steam Turbine Power Control Center: 40 feet long, 8 wide, 8 high, 320 square feet.

Emergency Diesel Generator: 40 feet long, 8 wide, 15 high, 320 square feet.

Auxiliary Steam Generator: 56 long, 20 wide, 30 high, 1,120 square feet.

Sampling container: 36 long, 11 wide, 10 high, 396 square feet.

Cooling Water Chemical Dosing Container: 20 long, 10 wide, 8.5 high, 200 square feet.

Ammonia Dosing Container: 36 long, 11 wide, 8.5 high, 396 square feet.

Gas Turbine Control Center: 50 foot long, 12.4 wide, 10 high, 620 square feet.

SFC/SEE Container: 30 long by 14 wide by 10 high, 420 square feet.

Medium Voltage switchgear: 40 long by 14 wide by 10 high, 560 square feet.

Gas Turbine Control Center: 50 long by 12.4 wide by 10 foot, 620 square feet.

SFC/SEE Container: 30 foot long by 14 wide by 10 high, 420 square feet.

Medium Voltage Switchgear: 40 long by 14 wide by 10 high, 560 square feet.

7. The location and dimensions of things like the curb cuts. There are currently

existing curbs spanning both sides along all of Henn Parkway. There are two (2)

entrances to the power plant off Henn Parkway that will have two (2) curb cuts for the

site driveways of approximately 54 feet and 50 feet in length respectfully.

Driving lanes: The power plant will include a 20 foot wide asphalt roadway around its

perimeter as well as single lane interior access roads. Some of the interior access

roads will taper down to a minimum width of 12 feet. The north roadway inside the

facility will be located at 11 feet distance at its closest point to the Henn Parkway Road

right of way.

Off-street parking: There will be 24 paved parking spaces with one (1) disability

parking space (ADA Compliant) on the property, adjacent to the administration building.

The stalls are 18 feet long by 9 feet wide, and one (1) parking space is ADA Compliant

measuring 18 feet long by 12 feet wide. All parking spaces will be surfaced with asphalt

and adequately drained.

Loading areas: Concrete paved areas dedicated for chemical truck unloading will be on

site. There will be two (2) concrete paved areas sloped for proper drainage located on

the power plant.

Our note here for everyone was that we were unsure how many structures will have off-

street loading or unloading berths. Section 1163.05 states that each berth shall be not

less than 12 feet in width, 25 feet in length, and 14 feet in height. One (1) loading space

for each 8,000 square feet or fraction thereof of gross floor area or as may be required

by the Planning Commission.

Angles of stalls: 90-degree angle.

Grades: The site will have a final elevation of 960.5 feet above sea level and additional

six inch (6") layer of gravel around the ring roads. The facility will include grading and

landscaping consisting of areas of gravel and hydro-seed, which is grass. The site will

be graded to have a two percent (2%) slope for water to drain into the storm water

collection system.

Surfacing materials: Six-inch (6") layer of gravel around the foundations and the

swales and the pond area will be hydro-seeded grass. The parking lot surfacing areas

will be asphalt and concrete paved areas for chemical unloading areas.

Drainage plans: During construction, storm water will be managed according to the

requirements set forth by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency General Permit,

and will focus on minimizing the impact of surface water caused by erosion and

sedimentation. All the storm water and dewatering during construction will be

discharged into the existing storm sewer on Henn Parkway. After construction, EPA

requirements will continue to be met by taking into consideration the changes in flow

rates caused by site development. The storm water collection system will consist of

swales and underground piping, will discharge into the storm water into a detention

pond located on the southeast side of the project site for sediment control.

Illumination of facilities: Entire facility will be illuminated with high-pressure sodium

vapor lighting providing a yellowish hue at night. The preliminary lighting plan proposes

the use of a total of 42 lighting poles -- 34 poles are planned to be 30-foot tall, and 8

poles are planned to be 40-foot tall. The street lighting poles fixtures will be directed

downwards to illuminate the area below them.

8. Sidewalks and other open areas: The site will have a sidewalk from the parking lot

to the administration building with asphalt surface. The sidewalk will be approximately

200 feet (sic.) long by 4 feet wide

9. The location of all walls, fences and buffers: Proposed landscaping will not

include any berms at property lines; a waiver will be requested for required buffer area

and earthen barrier; perimeter of the facility will have an 8-foot high chain-link fence

topped with 3-strand barbed wire. The site fence is located at a 3 foot distance from the

Henn Parkway Road right-of-way.

10 Location, size, height and orientation of all signs: Appropriate traffic control

signage will be placed along the roadways inside the facility area. Additional signage

unknown at this time.

11. Location of all existing and proposed streets and highways: The LEC will be

located with frontage on Henn Parkway running east and west.

12. All existing and proposed water and sanitary sewer lines indicating pipe sizes,

types and grades: There will be underground piping for access to municipal potable

water from the existing water -- the existing waste -- I'm not sure -- the existing water

main on Henn Parkway to the guard house, administration building and cooling tower

basin to the existing sanitary sewer located on Henn Parkway. The proposed potable

water piping will be HDPE, Schedule: SDR11 with sizes ranging from 6 inches to eight

(8) inches. The sewage water piping will also be HDPE, Schedule SDR11 with sizes

ranging from 2 inches to 16 inches. Reinforced concrete piping will be used for storm

water drainage with sizes ranging from 6 inches to 28 inches.

13. The schedule of the phasing of the project: The total duration for the project will

be 28 months beginning in February of 2016, and ending in June of 2018. The project

will be made up of several phases beginning with the engineering and procurement

phase that will last eight (8) months. Simultaneously, the manufacturing of necessary

equipment will begin and will be delivered, as needed, to the project site. The site

mobilization, land development, and foundation construction activities will commence in

February, 2016, and will last until March, 2017. The final stages (sic.) of mechanical

construction, commission and testing are targeted to begin August, 2016, and will run to

the end of the project, scheduled for June, 2018.

14. All existing and proposed front setbacks: The proposed project will have a front

setback of approximately 30 feet from the existing road right-of-way, to the closest

structure, which is the Guard House. The second closest structures are the Collector

Bus Yard and Cooling Tower, with 52 feet and 58 feet, respectfully, to the existing road

right-of-way.

Rear setbacks: The administration building located in the backyard will extend

approximately 9 feet from the existing property line.

Side yard setbacks: The setback on the east side of the property is 70 feet from the

property line. On the west side, the setback to the Guard House is 15 feet.

15. Other information required by the Planning Commission: This is where they will

discuss, in particular, the waivers that they're looking for.

First off, they have cited [1104.05(d)], regarding Lot Frontage: Clean Energy Future-

Lordstown (CEF-L) via Siemens Energy's Site Plan application, will be seeking a

"conditional approval". One such condition is that the parcels noted in the Site Plan

have yet to be combined, subdivided and replatted as shown in the site plan. The

parcels noted in this application will be formally created at the time the LEC Project is

financed. A waiver is required for the creation of Lot 6, which is the construction

laydown lot, which will have a proposed 156.44 feet of frontage.

Section [1105.31] Vehicular Access Points: A waiver, as required per Section 1105.31,

for the project to include two (2) driveways of approximately 54 feet and 50 feet in width,

respectively.

[1105.32] Off-street parking: A waiver to exempt the project from including a minimum

of one (1) parking space per employee in the largest working shift. It is anticipated that

there will be up to 30 employees and a total of 24 parking spaces. The waiver is also

requested to exempt the project to plant at least one (1) tree per eight (8) parking

spaces as required pursuant to Section 1105.32.

[1163.02] Off-street parking size and access: A waiver to exempt the project from

including a minimum of 200 square feet, 10 foot by 20 foot minimum, for each off-street

parking space. The proposed stalls for the project are 9 foot by 18 foot, and one (1)

space is ADA Compliant, measuring 12 foot by 18 foot.

[1107.05] Landscaping: The project does not include any berms and plantings for

screening along the road frontage and parking lot landscaping. A waiver is being

requested to exempt the project from including a landscaping buffer area, and parking

lot landscaping as per Sections 1105.32, 1107.06 and 1107.07.

Section [1137.01] Setback and Height Requirements: A waiver to exempt the project

from including a 100-foot minimum setback for the front yard from the road right-of-way,

and a 75-foot minimum for the rear yard from the property line as well as a 50 foot

minimum for the west side of the property. As per Section 1137.01, it is understood that

the maximum height permitted for buildings is 100 feet, and this project does not include

any occupied buildings that will exceed this restriction. However, the proposed project

does include structures that are greater than 100 feet. If the height requirement in

Section 1137.01 is applicable to non-occupied structures, then a waiver will be

requested for the Heat Recovery Steam Generator, which is 120 feet high, and its

Stack, which is 160 feet high, and the Collector Bus Structure, which is 140 feet high.

16. Prior approval of water mains and appurtenances by the BPA: The Preliminary

Planning Evaluation Form, which is the PPE, pertaining to the water mains and

appurtenances for the project was submitted separately to the Village of Lordstown,

Superintendent of Utilities on October, 9, 2015, for review and approval.

That would lead us to a piece of correspondence --

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Well, let me -- just for the record, are all of the attachments --

were all of the attachments submitted? Because "M" and "N", there's a notation,

"updated" -- do you want to explain that -- what that means?

MS. BORDNER: All of the attachments that are listed have been submitted.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: "A" through "N"?

MS. BORDNER: Yes, sir -- and then last Friday, we got a new updated attachment "M"

-- List of Project Structures; and a new updated attachment "N", General Arrangement

Setbacks.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Okay.

MS. BORDNER: And you all should have those.

MR. RECH: All right.

MS. BORDNER: Okay, so that would take me, then, to an October 20th 2015,

correspondence directed to Mr. William Siderewicz.

MS. DUGAN: It's the yellow one if that helps.

MS. BORDNER: President, Clean Energy Future - Lordstown, LLC. This is regarding

the procedure that we are endeavoring upon this evening, and it states as follows:

"Dear Mr. Siderewicz:

You have asked whether the Village Planning Commission could "conditionally" approve

a site plan for the plant. In short, the answer is Yes! The difficulty with this request is

that it is based on conditions on the ground that do not currently exist -- for example,

property lines and plat configurations. In that respect, a conditional approval would be

speculative and certainly based on the presumption that you would be able to have the

actual conditions correspond to the assumptions that you made when the site plan was

proposed. Before the Zoning Inspector could issue a final permit, the conditions or

assumptions underlying the site plan would have to be met. The site plan application

would need to detail exactly what those conditions and assumptions are. For example,

if the site plan was based on certain parcels being combined, replatted, and then

divided, then those steps would have to happen before Kellie Bordner could sign the

final permit. That may include having to obtain variances from the Board of Zoning

Appeals, such as for those situations that could not be addressed through the site plan

review process.

The difficulty with this process is that if the conditions on the ground or the assumptions

change, then the conditional site plan approved by the Planning Commission would

need to be reopened. Miss Bordner could only sign a permit if the final design matches

the conditional site plan. She'd go down the checklist of assumptions that were

submitted as part of the application, to make sure that they all happened.

It is our understanding that there are a number of underlying issues that have yet to be

resolved on your end, and that there are a number of possibilities. Please know that the

Village is willing to take the time to work with you to keep this project moving, but the

Village is still bound by its Ordinances. Any variations in the site plan would probably

necessitate another review by the Planning Commission. A conditional approval is not

a final approval so there should not be any ground breaking until that happens.

Moreover, your lenders may not accept a "conditional site plan approval". There is also

a cost associated with the Site Plan Review process -- for example, engineering review

costs.

If you should have any questions, please contact the undersigned or Matthew G.

Vansuch of our firm.

Very truly yours, Paul M. Dutton."

MS. BORDNER: And then with regards to permitting, I've asked a question as to how

we could permit -- whether it could be something that was done as an entire process or

if we had to permit each structure? And in response to my question, we have a

November 24th, 2015, correspondence directed to my attention regarding approval for

Clean Energy Futures-Lordstown, LLC Site Plan, and it states as follows:

"Dear Miss Bordner:

Your department and the Village Engineer are in the process of reviewing the proposed

site plan for the Clean Energy Futures-Lordstown, LLC power plant. CEF has indicated

that the total square footage for the entire site is approximately 598,000 thousand

square feet. This consists of four main buildings, seven permanent equipment

structures (sic.) and seventeen equipment containers, the latter of which are of various

sizes. In reviewing these plans, you have asked whether you, depending on the

Planning Commission's recommendation, can approve the entire project on one permit

or whether each building must be separately permitted. The answer is yes, assuming

the Planning Commission has approved the site plan, you may issue a single permit for

the entire project. Doing this will not change the amount that CEF will have to pay for

the Zoning Permit, since that is calculated by the project's total square footage.

If CEF wants to change the site plan in any way, whether by adding buildings or

structures or moving them around on the site, then it will have to seek a new permit for

each building. In our words, the Village is issuing a permit for the project as it is

intended to be built and will cover those structures that are identified on the site plan

and specified in the accompanying description; and any changes after the approval, will

require a new approval through the Planning Commission, or once the zoning permit is

issued, a new permit for each new structure.

The site plan and description must be sufficiently detailed to enable you and the Village

Engineer to adequately review them to determine what, if any, variances or waivers

would be needed. For example, CEF has stated that the equipment containers are of

various sizes, but each is greater than 100 square feet. You still need to know the

height of each structure, since the Village has a height requirement.

We hope that this opinion responds to your inquiry. If you have any additional

questions, please call the undersigned or Matthew Vansuch of our firm.

Very truly yours, Paul M. Dutton."

MR. RECH: All right. Thank you, Kellie. Do you want to go straight into this?

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Ask Clean Energy group --

MR. RECH: Okay.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: -- if they have anything to supplement or explain?

MR. RECH: Okay, good deal. Mr. -- is it Siderewicz?

MR. SIDEREWICZ: Siderewicz.

MR. RECH: Okay.

MR. SIDEREWICZ: I would say --

MR. RECH: Would you please step to the microphone, sir, and introduce yourself,

again, to us?

MR. SIDEREWICZ: Oh, sure.

MR. RECH: It's been a while.

MR. SIDEREWICZ: No problem. Bill Siderewicz from Clean Energy Future- Lordstown.

To the extent there could be additional comments regarding what has already been

read into the record, I would defer to Siemens Energy, who is going to be the EPC

contractor, and one of their many representatives here tonight may want to add to

what's already been said if necessary.

So with that, I'll turn it over to Siemens Energy, and they can comment on what's been

submitted.

MR. DEKREY: My name is Lynn DeKrey. I'm with Siemens Energy. I'm the General

Project Manager for this project. I think everything has been written -- the stuff that

we've been working with Kellie on, and we're in agreement with what was said here.

MR. RECH: Okay -- thank you, sir.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: How about the blue section -- has that been resolved? How

many structures will have off-street loading or unloading berths? Has that been --

MR. DEKREY: I think we have somebody who can talk about that if you want.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Okay. I just raised it because it was left as a question.

MR. DEKREY: Right -- I agree.

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Good evening. Good evening, my name is Andrew Cunningham,

with Siemens Energy out of Orlando. I appreciate you coming here tonight.

To answer that question -- so this whole plan will have two (2) main entrances, as we

talked about earlier, off Henn Parkway -- so there will be no true off-street loading or

unloading. This is not a manufacturing facility by any means, so we will have deliveries.

With that said, I will have two (2) or three (3) main areas that will have deliveries a few

times a month.

Number one (1), is the ammonia unloading area, which will have a designated area,

again, on-site for that; the chemical unloading area for unloading chemicals to the

Cooling Tower. We have an area for that, and then we have the Admin/Control

Warehouse building where we have a bay for that; and all of these will be, again, on the

site for the Clean Energy plant.

So with that, we don't have -- you know, this is not a manufacturing plant that will

require daily delivery with a lot of trucks in and out.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: So you're not seeking a waiver for any of that?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: No, because we don't think that it needs that requirement, so --

any other questions?

(WHEREAS, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION,

AND PROCEEDINGS WERE AS FOLLOWS:)

MR. RECH: Okay. Mr. Platt, would you like to step up? How are you, sir?

MR. PLATT: I'm fine, thank you.

MR. RECH: Part of the record that we received this evening is a letter from the Water

Pollution Control Department addressed to you.

MR. PLATT: Yes, from the City of Warren.

MR. RECH: Okay. Can you comment on this, please.

MR. PLATT: It's basically the City of Warren --

MR. RECH: Identify yourself, please.

MR. PLATT: Bruce Platt, 1952 Salt Springs Road. I'm the Lordstown Village

Superintendent of Utilities.

That letter from Mr. Haller, I believe, is just the statement on the City of Warren's part,

that the wastewater that would be generated by the facility -- the City of Warren would

be able to handle that -- the makeup of it, and treat it, and also the volume that is

expected from the facility.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Why don't you read it.

MR. RECH: Okay. I will go ahead and read this into record. This is a letter dated

December 8th, to Mr. L. Bruce Platt, Superintendent of Utilities, Lordstown Village, 1455

Salt Springs Road, Lordstown, Ohio, 44481 -- regards to the Lordstown Energy Center.

It says --

"Dear Mr. Platt:

This letter is to inform you that we have examined both the chemical composition and

the quantity of the wastewater anticipated from the new Lordstown Energy Center, and I

do not have any concerns about either one at this time. The wastewater generated

should primarily be a concentrated mixture of the potable water the new facility will

receive from the City of Warren, and the volume is anticipated to be approximately

700,000 gallons per day. If the composition and quantity are anywhere close to those

expected, the Warren facility will have no difficultly processing the additional load.

If you should have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate

to contact me at 330-841-2591, Extension 110.

Sincerely, Edward J. Haller, Director, Water Pollution Control."

MR. RECH: Did I accurately get that, Mr. Platt?

MR. PLATT: Yes. Any further questions?

MR. SCHOFER: Section twelve (12) here talks about the composition and size of the

water and sanitary sewers. You're familiar with all that, and okay with it?

MR. PLATT: We're working on it. Everything has to be upgraded from the waterline

that's going to service the facility. It's going to be serviced by two (2) distribution

systems. It will be the Lordstown 24-inch distribution -- along with the City of Warren is

going to be providing water, so they'll have a dual-source of water.

As far as the wastewater goes, the Village has two (2) force mains -- one (1) of which is

not being used at this time. So we're in the process of designing upgrades for our lift

stations, which are basically complete rebuilts, which the facility is going to bear the

expense of that, and it will utilize both of the force mains that are currently installed

there. So we're -- we're confident that we can service the facility with water and also

accept the wastewater, you know, from that so --

MR. SCHOFER: Thank you.

MR. PLATT: Anything else?

MS. OWENS: Are they, primarily, going to use Lordstown water -- or Warren as a

backup, or how is it --

MR. PLATT: It's probably going to be more like a 50/50-type situation because neither

source can supply all, and neither source can afford to sit there and have their lines set

stagnant, if you will, for -- until they need it. So we're going to try to supply it so half of

it, within reason, comes from the City of Warren -- which will be sold to Lordstown, and

Lordstown will be the billing agent.

So it's just like a General Motors' agreement, just like the agreement that we have with

Matalco, where the City of Warren provides the water, sells it to Lordstown. Lordstown,

in turn, bills the energy facility for that, you know.

MS. OWENS: Thank you, Bruce.

MR. PLATT: Uh-huh.

MR. RECH: In the diagram, Bruce -- and I forget which one of them -- which number it

was. It mentioned, like, a water tank. Is this, essentially, going to be similar to what,

like, GM has? Will they have their own water tank, per se, for their water needs?

MR. PLATT: No, I don't think -- are you going to have an elevated storage tank?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: No.

MR. DEKREY: It's not elevated. We will have a raw water storage tank, and the other

major water user will be the Cooling Tower. So the Cooling Tower will basically be

getting water from us. The hot water storage tank is where --

MR. PLATT: Are you able to get that?

COURT REPORTER: No, can you please --

(WHEREAS, THE WITNESS, LYNN DEKREY, THEN CAME FORWARD TO THE

MICROPHONE AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:)

MR. DEKREY: Okay, I'm sorry. We will have a raw water storage tank where the City

water will go to, and the other major user is the Cooling Tower; and so we'll be having

water going to the Cooling Tower basin -- covering blow down and evaporation that

comes off the Cooling Tower.

So there's two (2) spots so -- but the potable water will remain pressurized going to the

service area.

MR. RECH: Okay. That's my only question. Any other questions?



MR. RECH: Okay, thank you, Mr. Platt.

MR. PLATT: Sure.

MR. RECH: After this?

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Yes, just to connect where we are going. The applicant submits

the preliminary site plan. It's reviewed by the Zoning Administrator. There is

identification of what areas of the Zoning Ordinances and the Planning Codes need to

be addressed. The applicant identifies, as they have in the application, certain waivers

that may be required; and then the Planning -- the Zoning Administrator then allows our

engaged Engineer, CT Consultants, to review the proposal and the application and the

site plan; and he will now present, on behalf of CT, his reaction to it; and where,

hopefully, they all mesh together.

MR. RECH: Before we do that, one second.

MS. BORDNER: If I could please, can I -- I just wanted, since we had Mr. Platt, who's

our Utilities Superintendent up, and one of our other department heads -- I just wanted

to share that I had spoken with, also, Dale Grimm, who is our Street Commissioner.

The only concern that he had was the distance that the roadway and the perimeter

fence was going to be from the road right-of-way -- you know, from the center over to

the Lordstown Energy Center land, would be 30 feet. That would be included in the

right-of-way, from the center line of the road, over; and I believe that they have

answered, to our satisfaction, that both the interior roadway in the front and the

perimeter fence, that would then be on the outside of that, would be at least -- the

perimeter fence would be at least, if I recall correctly, three feet (3') from the road right-

of-way; therefore, if I understand correctly, thirty-three feet (33') from the center of the

roadway.

And so it would be out of the road right-of-way. I think that was Mr. Grimm's only

concern and something that he wanted to address, and I do believe that they have

addressed that.

I spoke, also, with --

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Well, do you want to acknowledge that that is accurate?

MS. FERREIRA: I'm Bruna Ferreira, with Siemens Energy, Civil Engineer. Yes -- the

fence will be three feet (3') from the right-of-way of Henn Parkway, which is thirty-three

feet (33') from the center line of the road.

MR. RECH: Thank you.

MS. BORDNER: I also sent an e-mail to Chief Milhoan -- Chief Brent Milhoan, who is

our Police Chief -- and asked him, after providing him with a copy of everything that was

also provided to the Planning Commission, if he had any current concerns with regards

to the project -- or safety concerns or anything of that nature?

He indicated to me that -- at this time at least, he has no issues or concerns. He did

suggest that I speak with Detective Chris Bordonaro because he had -- a couple of

weeks prior to, which would be about three (3) weeks now -- met with Mr. Joe Watson

from Siemens Energy, and they had gone over a safety plan.

Mr. Bordonaro indicated to me that they did, in fact, meet. Mr. Joe Watson and

Detective Chris Bordonaro -- and I believe other department heads, which is Fire Chief

Travis Eastham, met with them as well, and they went over everything, from A to Z, on a

safety plan.

And so Detective Bordonaro indicated that he had no concerns. Chief Milhoan had no

current concerns as well, and Fire Chief Eastham is here, and I'm sure he's going to

address that as well.

MR. RECH: Would you like to step up, please.

MR. EASTHAM: Yes, sir. Travis Eastham, Lordstown Fire Chief. We went over things.

We went over our equipment, what their needs were. I went over their blueprints. Right

now, I have, really, no concerns on anything on our side of it. Does anyone have any

questions or anything?



MR. RECH: Okay, thank you. Okay, so we covered that.

MS. BORDNER: Yes, sir -- thank you.

MR. RECH: Okay, thank you. We'll move on to Mr. Smith, then, from CT Consultants

and Mr. Kogelnik.

MR. SMITH: I'm Jeff Smith with CT Consultants, 20 Federal Street West, Youngstown,

Ohio.

MR. KOGELNIK: Chris Kogelnik, CT Consultants, same address -- 20 Federal Plaza

West, Youngstown, Ohio.

MR. SMITH: As Miss Bordner said, we did our plan review from the information that

was submitted, and I'll go ahead and read our memorandum verbatim.

Memorandum to Kellie Bordner, Planning and Zoning Administrator from Jeffrey S.

Smith, P.E., P.S., CPESC. Subject is Site Plan Review for Lordstown Energy Center.

Applicant: Clean Energy Future-Lordstown, LLC, CT Project #1204107. The date is

December 11, 2015.

CT Consultants has received and reviewed all the materials submitted by Siemens

Energy, Incorporated, to the Village of Lordstown for Site Plan Review.

First item is an electronic submission that was transmitted via e-mail Tuesday,

December 1st, 2015, containing a variety of narratives, drawings, maps, schedules,

schematics and other items that were presented to the Village in a non-standard format

for a typical land development plan submission.

Second item was a supplemental submission followed via e-mail on December 7th,

2015, containing some updated documents and drawings, but it did not contain a

singular site plan sheet that showed all of the requirements as outlined in Section

1115.04, to provide a comprehensive drawing for the Planning Commission to review.

In the interest of keeping the project schedule on course, CT has reviewed all of the

information presented by Siemens to date for code compliance and preliminary

technical review. It should be noted that a complete technical review at this juncture is

not possible given the fact that the Village has not yet received a complete set of

improvement plans, design calculations, reports or other technical information from the

Applicant to perform a complete review. CT can only review what has been presented

to date, and a full technical review will be necessary once those items are completed.

The detailed site plan review for code compliance is primarily limited to the

improvements proposed on the northern 14.2 acre parcel being developed, which is

identified as Lot 4-B. No development is proposed for the 18.9 acre parcel, known as

Lot 6, other than using it as a laydown area to support construction proposed on Lot 4-

B. Any future phase or plan development of Lot 6 will need to be considered under a

separate application.

The below comments reflect the current outstanding comments for code

compliance, and these are in the order of the Codified Ordinances of Lordstown.

Item number one (1.) Section [521.07] No person shall erect or maintain a barbed

wire fence which abuts or is adjacent to any public street or sidewalk. This subsection

(b) does not present -- excuse me. Subsection (b) does not prevent the placement and

use of not more than three (3) strands of barbed wire on top of a fence other than a

barbed wire fence, provided such strands are not less than seventy-two inches (72")

from the ground. A waiver will be required to allow placement of the fence as shown.

This, as we determine, is from the time -- after we wrote this, that the Planning and

Zoning Department no longer regulates fencing, as I understand it? So this first issue

becomes kind of a moot point.

Item number two (2.) Section [1103.01] The property is proposed to be subdivided

and/or consolidated to support the proposed development. The applicant is to refer to

the Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1103, for Minor Subdivision requirements.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: I would suggest, as we go through these, where you are going

to indicate that some future step or action must be completed -- that we defer to the

Applicant and their agent, Siemens, and to try to get into the record an estimated or

anticipated time period during which that item will be completed.

So we're on page two (2) here, item number two (2.) Did you want to re-read it again so

that everybody is on the same page?

MR. SMITH: Item number two (2.) Section [1103.01] The property is proposed to be

subdivided and/or consolidated to support the proposed development. The applicant is

to refer to Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1103 for Minor Subdivision

requirements.

Mr. Siderewicz, I'm not sure if you're able to answer as far as what your plans are for

the parcel configurations or speak about that?

MR. SIDEREWICZ: We have Tom Schubert here tonight --

COURT REPORTER: Your name, sir.

MR. SIDEREWICZ: Bill Siderewicz from Clean Energy Future of Lordstown. Tonight

we have with us Mr. Schubert -- Tom Schubert, who is an Attorney here in Warren, who

has been working with the Village on this issue of subdivision and recombining of plats;

and maybe it might be appropriate to have Tom Schubert speak to that issue.

MR. RECH: Would you introduce yourself, sir?

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: Attorney Tom Schubert. We are -- have, with the help of

Mannik and Smith, proposed several replattings of properties -- is what you're referring

to if I understand?

MR. SMITH: Yes.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: Yeah, we've shared them with Miss Bordner. They haven't

been submitted for replat yet, but they're underway, and I believe we could submit them

at any time, really. They're ready to be submitted.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Well, what we're trying to draw here is a time period. In our

words, are we talking about a month, six (6) months, a year? There may be a chicken

and the egg --

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: Yeah, we're talking -- no, we can. I wasn't aware that they

were ready to be submitted, but we can submit them this week. I mean we're not talking

months. We're talking a week.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: So we'll say by the end of the year?

MR. SIDEREWICZ: Yes.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: Oh, certainly -- certainly.

MR. SMITH: And then as far as that final plat configuration, we know exactly what we're

looking at using several different variations?

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: Do we what?

MR. SMITH: As far as the configuration of the lots, we've seen several different

variations on that. I wasn't sure if there's one that's been finalized?

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: Yeah, there's a final one.

MR. SMITH: Okay.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: I can get that to you. I can get it to Mr. Dutton or --

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Well, you can give it directly to the Engineer.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: Yeah, sure.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: So there are two (2) questions here. One (1) is when the lots

will be subdivided or consolidated, and the answer was "by the end of the year"; and

then the second question is when will you have the final configurations of the lots,

correct?

MR. SMITH: Yes.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Is that by the end of the year?

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: Yes -- assuming that the site plan is approved, the replat

would coincide with the site plan, and they're ready to be presented now -- so we can

get those to you.


MR. RECH: Kellie, do you want to --

MS. BORDNER: If I may, I had a conversation with Attorney Dutton earlier today about

this very issue because, you know, we were trying to figure out something that we could

do to make it easier on, you know, both the staff here at the Village and on the staff and

Attorney Schubert with Clean Energy; and so our question was -- to Attorney Dutton

was, can we simply do everything with regards to the parcel configuration on Henn

Parkway as one (1) major replat?

In our words, you know, it is our understanding that, you know, the parcels are not in the

name of Clean Energy at this time; and so in order to consolidate or subdivide, it must

be in the name of the property owner in order for the property owner to come into my

office and engage in a consolidation or subdivision or anything of that nature; but

because this is in a platted area, we were trying to determine whether we could just do

one (1) big replat the way that it was, you know, going to end up -- to look at the end

and call it a day and come to the Planning Commission and ask the Planning

Commission to approve that replat; and as I discussed with Attorney Dutton, we came

to understand that that was not something that was possible to do, so --

SOLICITOR DUTTON: -- unless and until they have control over every parcel.

MS. BORDNER: Correct.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Yes.

MS. BORDNER: But then we have discussed that there are certain sections of land

that are going to go to a neighbor, you know -- owned by a different person, and that

neighbor is also going to, then, give a portion of land back to Clean Energy. So those

things, they have to be -- those parcels would have to be combined. They would have

to be properly subdivided. There would have to be a survey map. There would have to

be legal descriptions describing each one of those steps, and those would have to be

approved separately; one -- you know, one after the other, in succession; and once all

of those things are done, then you could do the replat, and we would schedule a

meeting with the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission would have to approve that replat, but the replat could not be

accomplished, as I understand it, until such time as all the subdivisions and

consolidations are done. Mr. Dutton had explained to me that that is for purposes of the

Auditor's Office -- the Trumbull County Auditor's office for taxation purposes; and if I

understand correctly, you know, the Trumbull County Recorders needing a clean chain

of Title.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Well -- and to correct the tax maps. When we say "one at a

time" -- if you have control over all of the properties, it's simply a two-step process -- the

consolidation and then the replat; but we can't replat something on speculation that you

are going to purchase this property or you're going to subdivide it. If you don't have

control over it, we can only replat what you have control and ownership over; and a

purchase agreement is not sufficient control over the property. You actually have to

have Title.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: My understanding, early on, was that there was going to be -

- we were going to be able to submit our replat of all of these changes for a conditional

approval before we -- before we close -- because we intended to do the closing of the

purchase of all these lands and the replatting simultaneously.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Will you own all those properties?

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: We will then -- when we close. We'll close and replat

immediately.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: When you close with what -- on the purchase of the property?

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: Yes.

MAYOR HILL: All the properties are under contract right now.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: They're all under contract. They're ready --

SOLICITOR DUTTON: When they close, then they'll be consolidated in one (1) deed

under the replat, correct?


SOLICITOR DUTTON: Okay -- but if you haven't closed on them, then we don't have

control over all the properties.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: No, we don't -- but my understanding was we were going to

be able to submit, for pre-approval, the plats.

MR. SIDEREWICZ: Conditioned on.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: Conditioned on -- and then when we got that, we'd close,

and we would then file the deeds and the plats.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: We can look -- we can look at the replat, and you could have

the Engineer look at it and make sure all the boundaries connect and the lines.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: That's what we -- that's what we understood we were going

to be able to do.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: And we can say it looks good, and that there's no reason not to

approve it, but we can't give you --

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: I understand that.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: There's no such thing as a conditional approval on a replat.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: What's that?

SOLICITOR DUTTON: There's no such thing as a conditional. There's an advisory

opinion, but no such thing as conditional.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: Okay, all right. We'll call it advisory opinion, okay.


ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: And we can submit that --

MR. PESCI: -- whenever you want.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: Yeah, I'll get it to you shortly.

MS. BORDNER: But we would still have to have the subdivisions and the

consolidations that especially relate to those parcels that have portions being taken out

and given to the neighbors or -- and/or --

SOLICITOR DUTTON: And we want a finished -- we want a finished design.

MS. BORDNER: Right -- the design has to be finished.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: You'll have a -- we have a finished design, with legal

descriptions, on my desk.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Okay. There are some things that we can't do.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: I understand that. I understand you can't --

MS. BORDNER: And that can't be accomplished until the property is in their name

either, right?

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: All right. We'll get those to you for an advisory opinion.

MAYOR HILL: They have control, as far as the contract, of all the properties. There is

no properties which they don't have a contract on. They just have -- they want to be

able to -- correct me if I'm wrong, Tom -- they want to be able to know that they feel they

can get approval of that before they -- of what the end result will be -- before they close

on it?

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: That's correct. We don't want to spend a fortune for a bunch

of land we can't use.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: We can't give you an approval on land you don't own.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: Mr. Dutton, I understand it's advisory. I didn't ask for

approval -- an advisory.


ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: Thank you.

MR. RECH: Are we good with you guys?

MR. SMITH: Yeah, actually, I guess -- with all due respect, I guess what we're asking

for is what the final plat will look like because we've seen multiple variations of the --

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: I can show you that --

MR. SMITH: Okay.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: -- real soon.

MR. SMITH: Item number three (3.) Section [1103.03] When a proposed subdivision

of property results in a residual parcel consisting of the remaining land of the original

tract, said residual parcel shall comply with the requirements of the Village of Lordstown

Subdivision and Zoning Regulations or be combined with an existing adjoining tax

parcel in which the total of the combined parcels that are in compliance with these

regulations prior to the approval of the proposed subdivision. The proposed replat of

Lot 1-A shown on Attachment "L" must maintain side yard setback requirements

between the proposed parcel line and the existing building.

Primarily, what we're talking about is that front corner lot that they're proposing to take

some of the land from, there's nothing in our drawings that shows where that building is

and what the resulting setback is going to be from that line. So we're just looking to get

clarification to make sure that those meet the setback requirements for that code

regulation.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: Setback from where?

MR. SMITH: From the proposed property line that's coming in from the corner parcel.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: Okay -- okay, you need a drawing?

MR. SMITH: Yes, a drawing or I guess a statement would probably suffice -- preferably,

a drawing.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: But that will be shown on the final plat.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: Plat won't show a drawing for the building.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Right -- no, it won't cite the building; but the site plan -- it can be

shown or illustrated on the site plan.

(WHEREAS, MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE WERE SPEAKING; AND MR. SMITH,

AT THE MICROPHONE WAS INAUDIBLE. THE COURT REPORTER ASKED FOR

THE TESTIMONY TO BE REPEATED, AND PROCEEDINGS WERE AS FOLLOWS:

MR. SMITH: I was just -- we were just talking about that the existing building can be

shown, as a dimension, on the site plan -- just add the existing building to the site plan.

Any further comment on that -- Item Number three (3.)?



MR. SMITH: Item number four (4.) Section [1103.10(c)(18)] Show building setback

lines with dimensions along the perimeter of the subject parcel to generate the building

envelope on the site plan.

This is just simply to show the limits of where the building can be with regard to the

setbacks on the parcel -- on the resulting parcel.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Can that be shown on the site plan?

MR. SMITH: That can be shown on the site plan, yes.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: So these are all additions to the site plan?

MR. SMITH: Yes -- a lot of them are.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: And they've agreed to incorporate this?

MR. SMITH: These are all the requirements that I assume you have on the next version

of the site plan.

MAYOR HILL: You gentlemen from Siemens -- anybody from Siemens have any

questions here, you know, feel free to, you know --

MR. DEKREY: We were debating the time it would take to do this. I think an early -- an

early January date is a feasible date on that.

MAYOR HILL: Okay.

MR. SMITH: Item number five (5.) Section [1103.10(d)] Supplementary Information

to be supplied on the site plan in addition to the requirements of Section 1103.10(c) a.

For industrial development, the location, dimensions, and approximate grade of

proposed parking and loading areas, pedestrian walks, streets, and points of vehicular

ingress and egress to the development.

In this particular item, the item of concern is the grades of the proposed parking and

loading areas.

Item b. The Developer shall submit an affidavit from the Department of Natural

Resources concerning endangered and/or protected species within the area of the

proposed project.

Item c. The developer shall furnish to the Village a confirmation of the wetland

delineation from the United States Army Corp of Engineers, and approval from the

Corps of Engineers for wetland impacts and any wetland mitigation plan to support the

development of this project.

Item d. The Planning Administrator or authorized staff representative may request the

inclusion of additional items deemed pertinent to further evaluate the project's merit in

accordance with these Regulations.

With that said --

MAYOR HILL: Now I don't know if this would be the right time -- do you want to bring in

as well -- actually, that's for across the street. Do you want to bring in about Western

Reserve Land Conservancy?

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: Well, as to what they're referring to, there is a permit that

was issued prior to him, okay -- which is transferable and in the existence for this

particular area, and I can provide you with a copy of that permit.

MR. SMITH: That's all I'm asking for.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: Yeah, it's all permitted.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: But this refers to the site plan.

MR. SMITH: Yes.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: And Tom, you're not preparing the site plan, are you? They're

preparing the site plan?


SOLICITOR DUTTON: Siemens?


SOLICITOR DUTTON: Okay, so this is supplemental information to the site plan. So

the operative question here is -- how much time will you need to modify the site plan to

include these items? You said by January of next year for items three (3) and four (4).

So are we going to use January as a date?

MAYOR HILL: I believe that letter has already been issued; am I correct?

MR. SIDEREWICZ: I can speak -- this is Bill Siderewicz from Clean Energy Future,

Lordstown.

The original property owner, Henn, had applied to the Army Corp of Engineers to get an

approval to fill a wetland on the property that exists there today where the current

energy plant is to be built. Since the intended use is now an energy facility and not a

warehouse, the Army Corp has asked that we modify that particular permit through a

new submittal.

That submittal has been made. It's basically been approved. It's waiting one last minor,

administrative feature. It's being managed through the Army Corp of Engineers' office in

Pittsburgh. We would anticipate that we would have their final approval of the

amended, original permit in probably another couple weeks. So to -- just to make life

simple, we'll also call that January 1st, that we would be in a position to provide the

amended approval of the Army Corp of Engineer to fill the wetland, which is on the

property where the power plant will be built.

Just to be clear, what's being asked for by the Village and its consultants is also being

asked for by those who would finance the energy plant. So just as you have

requirements for this kind of information, rest assured that this plant can't be built or

financed without that particular certificate or piece of paper.

So we'll be doing it for our own cause because we have to finance the project. We'll

provide it to the Village's consultant and the Village so that it can be added to the

submittal of the site plan. So not an unreasonable request, and we're already working

on it for other reasons.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: And to clarify, at the end of this meeting, they're going to be

asked to vote on a conditional site plan -- preliminary site plan approval. These become

the conditions.

MR. SIDEREWICZ: Yes, we understood that.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: And we're just looking for a date in the future as to when these

conditions, arguably, might be satisfied.

MR. DEKREY: And if I could add to Mr. Siderewicz's comments here, I kind of view this

as -- and I'm Lynn DeKrey with Siemens -- I kind of view this as four (4) questions:

Question "a." was the slopes and the grades of the streets and stuff; and we've actually

got the slopes on the drawings that you've got, but we can get you the actual elevation

changes. So that's physical to the site.

The Corp of Engineers and the DNR things, I think you already put into OPSB, plus

what you talked about what you're doing for the bank.

MR. SIDEREWICZ: Yes.

MR. DEKREY: So you've got that covered; and then I guess "d." -- I don't know that

there's an action that either you or I can take on now. I think that falls back to here,

right?

MR. SMITH: Yeah, I think - I mean this falls back to, you know, basically, as one of the

requirements of the authorized staff. They reserve, if anything comes up, then, they --

MR. DEKREY: From the perspective of "a", I think we can include that for the January

-- with this other information that we're giving, and then I'll let you guys talk to "b." and

"c".

MR. SMITH: Okay. Next item is item number six (6.) [1105.31] Vehicular Access

Points. Item a. Industrial driveway widths shall range from 20 feet to 40 feet.

Driveways shown appear to exceed 50 feet in width. A waiver will be required.

I think I'll just stop at the letters at this point -- just to make sure that we're addressing

one (1) issue at a time.

MS. BORDNER: If I may, Mr. Chairman?

MR. RECH: Yes, ma'am.

MS. BORDNER: I just wanted to let you know that Street Commissioner Dale Grimm

and I went out to the proposed site, and we decided to measure one of the driveways

that was over there already to Magna Seating, and we just wanted to let you know that

that one is already 60 feet in width -- so certainly would be in keeping with common

place over in that area to not be much concerned with a driveway that exceeds 50 feet

in length. That one is already 60 feet.

MR. RECH: 50 feet in width?

MS. BORDNER: 50 feet in width, uh-huh.

MR. RECH: Gotcha, okay -- but as we go through this, we should take care of these,

item by item, as we come upon an item that it says -- a waiver.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Right, I -- and so that the waivers do not fall through the cracks,

why don't you vote on this waiver now as a conditional waiver based upon the ultimate

granting of the conditional, preliminary site plan.

MAYOR HILL: Sure -- do you want to make a motion?

MR. RECH: Sure.

MAYOR HILL: I'll make a motion that we grant a waiver of 1105.31, Vehicular

Access Points, to allow the driveway to be in excess of fifty foot (50') in width.

MR. RECH: Okay.

MR. SCHOFER: Conditional.

MAYOR HILL: Conditional -- everything will be conditional this evening.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Condition on ultimate granting of the conditional site plan.

MR. RECH: All right. I have a motion. Is there a second to that motion?

MR. SCHOFER: I'll second that.

MR. RECH: Mr. Schofer seconds. Any additional discussion?

(WHEREAS, THERE WERE NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION, AND


MR. RECH: Okay, hearing none -- can we have roll call on this, please.

MS. DUGAN: Yes -- Arno Hill?

MAYOR HILL: Yes.

MS. DUGAN: Pamela Owens?

MS. OWENS: Yes.

MS. DUGAN: Robert Bond?

MR. BOND: Yes.

MS. DUGAN: Tony Schofer?

MR. SCHOFER: Yes.

MS. DUGAN: Tim Rech?

MR. RECH: Yes.

(ROLL CALL VOTE: 5, AYE; 0, NAY; 0, ABSTAINED.)

MR. RECH: Okay, that passes. Item six (6.) is addressed. That was -- I'm sorry that

was, what, six (6.) "a". Okay, let's flip the page, and go on to item six (6.) "b", please.

MR. SMITH: Item number six (6.) "b." Section [1105.31] under Vehicular Access

Points -- Industrial driveway entrances shall have turn radii ranging from 25 feet to 50

feet. No dimensions are shown on the plans, but it is suspected that the curb returns at

the entrance do not meet the requirement for the minimum radius. A waiver may be

required -- a waiver will be required.

And again, some of this information, if you provide on the site plan -- but again, just

looking at it, doesn't look like it meets the requirement.

MR. DEKREY: So if you look at the way it comes in, and we talked about this in the plot

plan to make sure that we're meeting fire codes and stuff (INAUDIBLE) --

(WHEREAS, MR. DEKREY WAS SPEAKING FROM THE AUDIENCE AND

INAUDIBLE.)

COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. I can't hear.

MR. DEKREY: I'm sorry. We had talked about this when we were developing the plot

plan. So the long radiuses are over -- all over 25 feet. So you do have a short radius

where you come off of Henn Parkway and can conceivably try and turn -- make a U-

turn.

MR. SMITH: Right, yeah -- if you look at the diagram here, this is the area of concern

is, you know; and again, this is so close here, but with the fence being here --

MR. DEKREY: Right.

MR. SMITH: -- for the fire protection or anything else is, you know -- you just have a

really tiny radius at these because there's no setback for this road.

MR. DEKREY: You can always envision that you can come around this way if you go --

you can come in this way --

(WHEREAS, MR. DEKREY IS SPEAKING INTO THE DIAGRAM WITH HIS BACK TO

THE COURT REPORTER.)

COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. I can't hear.

MR. RECH: Lynn, speak up.

MR. DEKREY: I'm sorry. So the issue that Chris is talking -- or Jeff is talking about

here is that there's two (2) radiuses. So you've got a long radius that comes in on a

normal turn, and if you were to come in from the east side --

FROM THE FLOOR: East.

MR. DEKREY: -- east, and try to make this turn, that's a very narrow radius, but that's

not a radius that was intended to be functional.

So you've got -- you've got a long radius on this entry, and you have a long radius on

this entry, and then you have two (2) short radiuses. So access is available either this

way or this way to the entire site. You'll never get a 50-foot radius on this site -- on

those short radiuses.

MAYOR HILL: I do believe that the reason this was being addressed is for fire

equipment and access there, and I know the Fire Chief has looked at that, and he felt

that there was not an issue there because he wouldn't come in that way.

MR. DEKREY: My last time, I spent a lot of time with the Fire Chief. So that's why I

made sure the layout was --

MS. BORDNER: If I may, just following up to what you said, Mayor, I had talked to

Travis as well, and he indicated that if -- he asked about the size of their trucks, I

believe, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not sure to whom he addressed that question; but

Travis indicated to me that he asked about the size of the trucks and had received the

size of those trucks, and he said, "My fire trucks are smaller than that. If your trucks can

get, you know, turned around and get through that radius, we'll be fine as well."

MR. DEKREY: So we did -- we did text back to Orlando, and they did confirm that

these long radiuses are 30-feet radiuses. So each of these entries has a 30-foot radius,

and -- a shorter radius as pointed out. So it was intended to provide access to the

entire site the way the roads are laid out.

MR. SMITH: It's under -- said that it's a code compliance issue, so that will require a

waiver.

MR. RECH: Okay. So we still need a -- to make a waiver, then?

MAYOR HILL: I'll make a motion that we grant a waiver for the turning radiuses,

which are two (2), and they were less than the required for safety purposes;

however, the Fire Chief has said that there would be no issue there. So I'll make a

motion that we grant a waiver on that -- radiuses.

MR. RECH: Okay, Mayor Hill has made a motion. Is there a second to that?

MR. SCHOFER: Yeah, I'll second that.

MR. RECH: All right, Mr. Schofer has made a second. Any additional discussion?

MR. BOND: Yes. So you're saying when they come down from Tod Avenue, they will

be coming from the west -- the road dead-ends; and the first turn they come to, they'll

be able to make --

MR. DEKREY: Right. So if you -- if you're coming in --

MR. BOND: -- on either driveway?

MR. DEKREY: If you're coming from 45 --

MR. BOND: Right.

MR. DEKREY: -- down Henn, if you come in this way, you'll be able to make it; and you

can come in this way, you'll be able to make it. If you want to get to this road, you'll

have to come through here and come back around.

MR. BOND: Run that by me once more, please?

MR. DEKREY: So if you're coming from 45 down Henn Avenue, and you turn right

here, this is a 30-foot radius.

MR. BOND: Okay.

MR. DEKREY: So -- and actually, on this one, you can zigzag in. You can come this

way and go that way. So you can get your 30 foot, and takes you out here -- or you can

come in to this one -- or to the cul-de-sac, here, and that's a 30-foot radius -- so you can

come in. So you get in on either end to get -- to come to the end of Henn Avenue and

make a turn, this is a short radius.

MR. BOND: Okay.

MR. DEKREY: This is, like, a 10-foot radius right here. So if you came in all the way to

here, you would have to come around to the plant, back up to get to the fire in this area;

and then you also have an alternate route down on the south side.

MR. RECH: Okay.

MR. SCHOFER: Once again, we're approving this conditionally on the final site plan,

correct?


MR. RECH: Yes.

MR. SMITH: I do have a follow-up question about the access on that cul-de-sac. Okay,

you're going to have fencing along the front, and you have your guard house here,

correct?

MR. DEKREY: Uh-huh.

MR. SMITH: And you have the fence around the perimeter site. There's no guard? Is

this going to be a gate -- just a locked gate here?

MR. DEKREY: A locked gate.

MR. RECH: Any questions?



MR. RECH: Okay, we have a motion before us. Can we have roll call on that, please?

MS. DUGAN: Yes -- Pamela Owens?

MS. OWENS: Yes.


MR. BOND: Yes.


MR. SCHOFER: Yes.


MR. RECH: Yes.

MS. DUGAN: Arno Hill?

MAYOR HILL: Yes.


MR. RECH: Okay, that conditional waiver is accepted. Moving on to item "c." please,

gentleman.

MR. SMITH: Item "c." is a recommendation -- Driveway entrance as proposed at

the cul-de-sac bulb is not recommended for efficient traffic flow, particularly as it

relates to the adjacent business's driveway location.

That may or may not go away depending on how the final plat configurations or lots are

coordinated or whatever; but, again, it's kind of twisting around and entering back into

the site. So it's kind of related to that same issue.


MR. SMITH: Item number seven (7.) Section [1105.32] and [1163.02], which

addresses Off-Street Parking Requirements.

Item "a":Each off-street parking space shall have an area of not less than 200 square

feet, 10 foot by 20-foot minimum. Parking spaces for the physically handicapped shall

measure 12 feet in width. Attachment "E" lists 23 parking stalls to have dimensions of

18 feet by 9 feet, and the handicapped stalls of 18 feet by 12 feet. A waiver is -- well,

I'm sorry -- a waiver will be required.

MS. FERREIRA: Bruna Ferreira -- so the reason that we have the 18' by 9' is that this

is our standard design; and because we have this radius here, we couldn't extend the

parking all the way to the corner, and since we are planning the future expansion of the

plant, and there will be a building over here, we're leaving the space for the parking. So

that's why we have 18' by 9'. We cannot accommodate a larger dimension than that.

MR. RECH: Okay, thank you. How many permanent employees will the facility have?

MR. DEKREY: I believe there's -- I believe there's thirty (30), and it's a two-shift

operation.

MR. KUSHNER: Brian Kushner -- Siemens Energy, Orlando.

COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry -- what was your name, again?

MR. KUSHNER: Brian Kushner -- K-U-S-H-N-E-R -- Siemens Energy, Orlando. They

anticipated that the site will have an operating crew of somewhere between 22 to 28

personnel.

MR. SCHOFER: Is that at one time?

MR. KUSHNER: Correct -- while in operation.

MAYOR HILL: No, how many per -- maximum per shift, Brian?

MR. KUSHNER: That question -- I don't know the answer to at this moment.

MAYOR HILL: The other one -- what he's telling you by 22/28, Tony, I believe is how

many people the plant will employ.

MR. KUSHNER: It will employ under operation.

MR. SCHOFER: Between two (2) shifts?

MR. KUSHNER: Or three (3) shifts.

MR. SCHOFER: Or three (3) shifts.

MR. RECH: 24 hours.

MR. KUSHNER: It's a 24 hour -- most likely, it will be two (2) or three (3) shifts. I'm not

sure which.

MR. SCHOFER: But you don't anticipate all 28 to 30 people being there all at one time?

MR. KUSHNER: No, sir.

MR. SIDEREWICZ: No.

MR. RECH: Okay.

MR. SMITH: Can we get a clarification. I wasn't quite sure about the variances about

the widths on the parking of 9' by 18', as opposed to 10' by 20'?

MR. SCHOFER: They don't have room.

MS. FERREIRA: We don't have the room.

MR. KOGELNIK: So you were just trying to max out a distance -- Chris Kogelnik, CT

Consultants -- so you were just trying to max out your distance for the available space?

MR. DEKREY: The owner had requested that we accommodate that many spaces, and

so that was -- that was the method that we used to accommodate that space. So the

request for the 22 -- what do we have, 23 spaces here --

MS. FERREIRA: Twenty-four (24).

MR. DEKREY: -- was based on a request from the owner's engineer, and our standard

in a plant like this is about 10 or 12 spaces, which is adequate for operating this kind of

plant. We've made these plants other places.

MS. OWENS: Did I understand you correctly when you said that you have put them all

onto the east side of the facility because of future expansion?

MS. FERREIRA: There will be a second building -- another building in the -- and there

might be another project, maybe, so we are just planning ahead if in case.

MR. DEKREY: And we should, maybe, let Mr. Siderewicz talk about that.

MS. FERREIRA: Yes.

MS. OWENS: So the reason they were put here is because there could be possible

future expansion? That's why they --

MR. DEKREY: To maximize that potential.

MS. OWENS: -- they didn't have enough space?

MR. KUSHNER: That is correct. If we went up to 20' foot depth, it would be limiting the

potential for future expansion if that happens. We're limiting it down to 18' foot, like,

instead of 20', which is why the variance.

MS. OWENS: So if the expansion happens, then these parking spaces would still

exist?

MR. KUSHNER: Yes -- yes, correct.

MR. SCHOFER: And you would address additional employees for the expansion with

additional parking lots.

MR. KUSHNER: Yeah, there would be another building to the east and to the right of

that existing building for future expansion if that happens.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: And the waiver is for -- not the number of parking spaces, but

the --

MR. SCHOFER: The width.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: -- the dimensions of each parking space.

MAYOR HILL: If you roll that in -- because if you look at "b." also, it talks about 30

employees per shift, and that is not correct, also.

MR. SMITH: That was taken from the application, itself -- so something is not

consistent.

MR. SCHOFER: All right -- so once again, any waiver we make is conditional based on

the final site plan review, okay.

MR. RECH: Correct.

MR. SCHOFER: Okay.

MR. RECH: Okay. Do we want to address this with a waiver?

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Why don't you cover "b." and "c." because it all has to do with

the parking lot.


SOLICITOR DUTTON: And then vote on the three (3) waivers.

MR. RECH: Gotcha.

MS. OWENS: But we haven't discussed it.

MR. RECH: Oh, he's going to -- all right, Mr. Smith, go ahead and go through "b.",

please.

MR. SMITH: Item "b." is Off-Street Parking Requirements, Table 8, Section --

either [1105.32] or [1163.02]: lists the requirement of one (1) space per employee in

the largest working shift. The information in the Site Plan Review application states that

there will be up to 30 employees per shift; therefore, a waiver will be required.

MR. SCHOFER: And we're saying that's just not correct.

MAYOR HILL: That is not correct.

MS. OWENS: They're saying it's not correct.

MR. SCHOFER: Yeah.

MR. DEKREY: There's not going to be -- I have to speak to Mr. Siderewicz, but I don't

think he's intending to employ that many people.

MR. SIDEREWICZ: Bill Siderewicz, from Clean Energy Future of Lordstown.

There seems to be a little bit of confusion here, so I'll just take a moment to explain what

I believe will be the case, and we can modify our filing accordingly.

Our current thinking is that we will have anywhere from 21 to 24 employees, full-time, at

the energy facility. This plant runs 24/7. We will likely have two (2) shifts, and so a

reasonable split would probably be on the order of 12 or 13 individuals on one (1) shift,

and the remainder of that number on a second shift.

So at any given one -- at any given time, the number of spaces here are almost double

what will be required by any shift of employees. So although the size of each space is a

little bit smaller than what is typical within the Village, we will have almost twice as many

spaces as required by all full-time employees.

So as far as our correction and modification to the site plan will be a little bit more clear

as to what we're saying because it's obviously confused ourselves and you. So we'll

take care of that.


MR. SMITH: So the request with the fewer number of spaces needed, can you then go

to the standard parking stall potentially?

COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. I did not hear what you said?

MR. SMITH: With the savings in the number of parking stalls, can you then revert back

to the standard parking stall configuration for geometry, 10' by 20'?

MR. SIDEREWICZ: Bill Siderewicz, again -- I don't think we're too concerned about the

size. We could have fewer spaces with larger individual sizes; but then again, if we

wanted to host a high school visitation, who want to come and explore what's going on

at the plant -- by limiting the number of spaces, we've reduced the number of individuals

who might come.

So we can't tell the Village how many and what size, but that's really up to the Village to

decide. We'd be more than happy to comply. If you want fewer spaces, but each one

bigger, we can do that as well; but I thought there was a minimum number of spaces

that was the primary goal, and the size of each space was a secondary issue. So we

would look to your guidance as what you prefer.

We can take the quantity of land, square footage, and make as many as you'd like at

specific dimensions. It's certainly not there to meet the employee's needs. It was really

to accommodate visitors who might want to come by and see what's going on at the

facility.

MR. SMITH: Well, once we figure out how many employees are going to be on the

shift, that really is what dictates, per the code, how many spaces you have.

MR. SIDEREWICZ: Okay.

MR. SMITH: So if you only need -- I mean, if you want additional spaces, obviously,

that's a pretty good reason that you have. That's not for us to say -- we're just adhering

to what the code says.

MR. SIDEREWICZ: Okay.

MR. SMITH: And you will have to go to the Planning Commission.

MR. RECH: Okay item "c." please.

MR. SMITH: Item "c." Parking lots containing ten (10) or more spaces shall be

planted with at least one tree per eight (8) spaces; and again, with that being the

code, a waiver will be required.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Are there no trees?

MR. SMITH: I don't believe there are any trees, but I'm not sure if that would interfere

with the operations that are taking place there.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: This would require three (3) trees.

MR. BOND: Yes.

MR. SMITH: Yes.

MR. RECH: Okay, all right -- so we've discussed "a.", "b.", and "c." -- is there additional

discussion on this?

MR. BOND: Yeah, I don't see why you can't find room for a little tree?

MR. SIDEREWICZ: I'm sure we can.

MR. BOND: Yell, I would think so. I mean, it breaks up the industrial-type thing, and it's

a good idea.

MR. KOGELNIK: We recognize that this is an industrial site. We get it, but we also

have to point out -- part of our job is to point out the code, and let the Planning

Commission decide.

MR. RECH: Where is -- I'm sorry, where is the location of this tree supposed to be -- at

the front of the space or in between on the side or -- I'm confused about that?

MR. SMITH: I think this was a code that was -- that was probably geared more towards

commercial development. You have a parking field, you know; but unfortunately, there's

no discrepancy given in the code, and that's just one of the requirements for industrial

parking space.

MR. RECH: Gotcha -- okay.

MAYOR HILL: Also, another thing -- basically, it's not part of the Site Plan Review, but

the land on the north side of Henn Parkway, I believe, will never be developed. A lot of

that is in a protected wetland area. There's a lot of trees over there which can bleed

over to ours.

So I would have no problem making a motion that we grant the parking stalls of 9' by 18'

for regular cars, and 12 by 18' for handicap; and also the amount of --

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Why don't you take them one at time in case someone wants to

vote "no" on the trees.

MAYOR HILL: Okay -- okay, there you go. All right, my motion is to grant 9' by 18'

and 12' by 18' for parking spaces.

MR. RECH: All right. So Mayor Hill is making a motion on item seven (7.) a. -- is there

a second on that?


MR. RECH: Mr. Schofer seconds -- any additional discussion?

(WHEREAS, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION


MR. RECH: Hearing none -- roll call on that, please.

MS. DUGAN: Yes, sir -- Robert Bond?

MR. BOND: Yes.


MR. SCHOFER: Yes.


MR. RECH: Yes.


MAYOR HILL: Yes.


MS. OWENS: Yes.


MR. RECH: All right. Thank you. That passes -- and we're on to seven (7.) "b." --

which is Off-Street Parking.

MAYOR HILL: I believe that the application -- and we've been told from CT, is thirty

(30) employees per shift.

MR. SCHOFER: That's just wrong.

MAYOR HILL: That's just wrong -- and do we still have to make a waiver if that's

wrong?

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Well, if you correct it on the site plan, then no waiver is

required, correct?

MS. BORDNER: Uh-huh.

MR. SCHOFER: Correct.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: So if they agree to correct it on the site plan --

MAYOR HILL: So we don't need a waiver for that -- and the third one is three (3) trees,

due to the fact that the north side of Henn Parkway, from what I've been told, will not be

developed. I have no problem waiving the requirement for trees.

MR. RECH: Are you making that motion, Mayor?

MAYOR HILL: Yes.

MR. RECH: All right -- is there a second on that?

MS. OWENS: I'll second that.

MR. RECH: Okay, Mrs. Owens -- any additional discussion?

MR. BOND: I still got to say I would like to see some trees there.

MR. RECH: All right -- thank you, Mr. Bond -- anybody else?



MR. RECH: Okay, could we have roll call on that, please?

MS. DUGAN: Yes -- Tony Schofer?

MR. SCHOFER: Yes.


MR. RECH: Yes.


MAYOR HILL: Yes.


MS. OWENS: Yes.


MR. BOND: No.


MR. RECH: All right, thank you. That also passes four to one (4-1) -- moving on to item

eight (8.), gentlemen.

MR. SMITH: Item number eight (8.) Section [1106.00-1106.03] Sanitary Sewers and

Water Distribution. No technical information has been presented at the time of this

review. Please refer to the section for general requirements.

And what we're looking for here is just the full water and sewer distribution -- I'm sorry --

sanitary sewer and water distribution; and again, we're given a generic sketch, but it's

not a true design; and we're looking for --

MR. DEKREY: And I think we need to get -- this is Lynn DeKrey with Siemens -- we

need to understand where the terminal point is and what the capacities are and that

design information.

All right. We need to have -- get the terminal point and the capacity information for the

sewers, and that's design information that's in work, and we don't have that yet today.

So that will be forthcoming, but not known today.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Thirty (30) days?

MR. DEKREY: I would think so, yes.

MR. SCHOFER: Is that the -- early January?

MR. DEKREY: No, probably going to be late, mid-January.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Say thirty (30) days.

MR. KOGELNIK: I just want to point out -- Chris Kogelnik with CT Consultants -- that

this is a collaborative effort between Siemens and the Village to understand those

parameters at the terminal point. It's extremely important that we get that understood

because at that point, we're conveying water to the new plant, and conveying

wastewater away from the site. So we have to begin there, and it will be important to

get to that point mid-January.

MR. RECH: All right, thank you.

MR. SIDEREWICZ: I'd like to add up one (1) more comment on that point. This is Bill

Siderewicz, Clean Energy Future - Lordstown. We wouldn't be here tonight talking

about this -- and having spent $10,000,000 or $15,000,000, to date, if we hadn't

examined this issue in excruciating detail from an engineering prospective, with the

assistance of CDM Smith, which is a water and wastewater consulting firm.

It would be a little bit foolish for any of us to be here to be talking about a $910,000,000

million dollar facility, when we hadn't looked at the water and wastewater characteristics

and quality and carrying capacity for the piping systems.

So just so that everyone doesn't walk away tonight and say -- "My God, we haven't

looked at how this plant interacts with the local community." We did this a half a year

ago, in excruciating detail, with the input and support of the Village and its consultants

by the use of our consultants, whose -- again, their specialty is water and wastewater

systems.

So I didn't want to leave the impression, with the Planning Commission here tonight,

that we somehow overlooked how our facility interacts with the local community. We

did this quite some time ago.

MR. DEKREY: I would agree with Bill on that statement.

MR. RECH: All right. Thank you.

MR. SMITH: Me, too.

MR. RECH: All right -- number nine (9.), please.

MR. SMITH: Item number nine (9.) Section [1106.06] Storm Water Management

and Drainage Systems. No technical information has been presented at the time of

this review. Please refer to this section for general requirements. Again, I believe that

falls under the same category that it's just part of the final review.

MR. DEKREY: That's correct. We just need details so we can finalize. As Bill stated,

we spent a lot of time looking at this. We've asked a lot of questions. We have a lot of

information.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: For the record, thirty (30) days?

MR. DEKREY: Yes.

MR. RECH: All right, thank you -- number ten (10), please.

MR. SMITH: Item number ten (10) Section [1107.02] Wetland Areas. Review of the

Wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the Pittsburgh District of the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers and/or the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. The Planning

Commission shall consider the recommendation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

and/or the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency on matters pertaining to the wetlands.

Evidence of said permits or other approvals shall be provided by the developer prior to

approval of improvement plans.

Again, we discussed this previously. We just need to get a copy of the documentation.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: We can provide you with a copy of the existing permit and

the amended permit in thirty (30) days.

MR. SMITH: Okay.

MR. SCHOFER: Thirty (30) days.

MR. RECH: All right, thank you -- number eleven (11.).

MR. SMITH: Item number eleven (11.) Section [1107.03] Soil Erosion and

Sediment Control. No technical information has been presented at this time to review.

Please refer to this section for general requirements.

Again, just like the other ones, it's just the next number down. So I assume that this will,

also, be part of the thirty (30) day --

MR. DEKREY: Is this the construction aspect or the operation aspect?

MR. SMITH: This is for the -- well, any activity involving land clearing (INAUDIBLE) --

COURT REPORTER: I can't hear you, sir.

MR. SMITH: Any land clearing will need to have an erosion sediment control plan in

place.

MR. DEKREY: So I'm engaging my general contractor now. This is something that will

come through him, and he's not -- you know, there's a series of events that have to

happen before I can release him and fund him. So this is probably -- this is thirty (30)

days.

MR. RECH: Thirty (30) days -- all right, thank you.

MR. DEKREY: You have to make that thirty-five (35) days, actually. That's -- I'm going

to struggle with this one.

MR. RECH: Thirty-five (35) days?

SOLICITOR DUTTON: How about forty (40) days?

MR. DEKREY: I was going to ask, but I thought you'd throw me out.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Forty (40) days.

MR. RECH: Merry Christmas -- there you go.

MR. RECH: All right number twelve (12.), please.

MR. SMITH: Item number twelve (12.) Section [1107.05] Landscaping Plan shall

be provided to include berms and plantings to provide screening along the Henn

Road frontage, and to provide for buffering and parking lot landscaping as per

Sections 1107.06 and 1107.07. A waiver will be required. Obviously, there's going to

be a fence and a road there.

MR. DEKREY: Do you need any information from me on this topic?

MR. SMITH: I don't think so. I think if you're seeking a waiver for --

MAYOR HILL: I'll make a motion for a waiver -- the landscaping plan for berms

and plantings -- and I'm making that motion based on the fact that Clean Energy

Futures, other than one (1) building at the end, which they have a great working

relationship with -- they are the only person who will be a property owner on that street,

and it's a dead-end street. So there will be nobody who would be affected by the lack of

berming or landscaping. So I'll make a motion we grant a waiver on that.

MR. RECH: All right. The Mayor has made a motion. Is there a second to that?


MR. RECH: Mr. Schofer seconds -- any discussion?



MR. RECH: Okay, hearing none -- can we have roll call, please.

MS. DUGAN: Yes -- Tim Rech?

MR. RECH: Yes.


MAYOR HILL: Yes.


MS. OWENS: Yes.


MR. BOND: Yes.


MR. SCHOFER: Yes.


MR. RECH: All right, thank you. That waiver is approved -- moving on to item thirteen

(13.), please.

MR. SMITH: Item number thirteen (13.) Section [1108.02] Construction

Improvement Plans and Specifications. Please refer to this section, particularly in

regard to format and content required for full technical review and approval by Village

officials prior to the commencement of any construction on the project site.

If I understand, I believe they're engaging a civil consultant group.

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes -- Andrew Cunningham, Siemens -- we are working with our

architect engineer to develop these as we speak. These will be provided, probably,

before we break ground -- before we start construction, anywhere from thirty (30) to

sixty days (60) days from now.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: How about forty (40)?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Forty (40) -- we'll shoot for forty (40); definitely before we break

ground for construction -- a work in progress.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: All right.

MR. DEKREY: This requirement -- just as a point of interest this requirement is also

needed for the OPSB report, so they'll be concurrent.

MR. RECH: Okay. All right, thank you -- item fourteen (14.)?

MR. SMITH: Item number fourteen (14.) Section [1115.04] Procedure and Site Plan

Requirements. Although the information submitted contains a majority of these items

on different plans, many of the plan sheets have conflicting information, such as

boundary and topographic features. A complete site plan showing all the pertinent

information and relationship to all site features, existing and proposed, has been

requested to provide the most benefit for the Planning Commission to consider this

development.

Just a little bit of background on this one. We've been given a whole -- I think about

thirty (30) different drawings, but none of them really have a consolidated drawing that

shows the setbacks, the proposed lines, the development -- and it's just flipping from

page to page; and again, with the inconsistencies on the land issue as well, it just

makes it very difficult for anybody to review those plans and just asking for a site plan

that shows everything.

MR. DEKREY: So you would like one (1) sheet of paper with everything on it?

MR. SMITH: Yes.

MS. FERREIRA: Topography, boundaries, surveys and everything?

MR. SMITH: Yes, with the setbacks and dimensions -- basically, the one -- the section

that's being referred to here, it has a whole list of eighteen (18) items that were sent, via

e-mail, a couple weeks ago -- and I'm just looking to see all that information on one

sheet.

MR. KOGELNIK: The facility -- the detailed facility doesn't need to be shown on that

sheet, too, just the measures or parameters for -- of what we're talking about regarding

the property, setback, and so forth.

MS. FERREIRA: Okay.

MR. KOGELNIK: All right.

MR. SMITH: We can give you some examples.

MS. FERREIRA: Yeah -- probably I would say forty (40) days for this.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Forty (40) days?

MR. SCHOFER: Forty (40) days.

MR. RECH: All right, thank you. Number fifteen (15.), please.

MR. SMITH: Item number fifteen (15) Section [1137.01] Setback requirements are

100-foot front yard 50-foot side yards and 75-foot rear yards. The site -- I'm sorry. The

site does not appear to meet these requirements. A waiver will be required for the

setbacks; and again, I believe they have a front setback of thirty (30).

MR. DEKREY: We had, in our package -- that included a drawing -- a drawing with a

list of setbacks in. Does that address the question here?

MR. SMITH: It does, but there's still going to be a waiver required because you're --

that would be up to the Planning Commission on that.

MR. RECH: Okay. Do we need to know what they are?

MAYOR HILL: Well, the only comment I have is, once again, this is the last property

owner on a dead-end street. Normally, if it would have been -- you know, in the past,

you would have had traffic going through there, and going to someplace else. Due to

the fact that we are rural, all of the setbacks -- you know me, personally -- you know, I

would like to see it; but due to the fact that it's going to a dead-end, there is residential

land at the very end of that for a buffer for those people, and they're going to be -- I

know the north side of the road is not going to have development, so I don't have a

problem with approving waivers for front, side, and rear setbacks.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: In order to make this more clear to someone who might read it,

what are the encroachments? In other words, what -- what are the setback

encroachments that you are approving? If it's not 100 feet, how many feet is it?

MR. SMITH: Yeah, for the -- this was taken right from the Site Plan Review sheet. The

existing -- I'm sorry -- the proposed project will have a front setback of approximately 30

feet from the existing road right-of-way, to the closest structure, which is the Guard

House; and then there's another structure -- which are the Collector Bus Yard and

Cooling Tower, with 52 feet and 58 feet respective front setback; and the requirement,

per Zoning, is 100, I believe.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: And what about the side yards?

MR. SMITH: The side yards -- the setback requirement is --

MS. BORDNER: -- 50 foot on the side.

MR. SMITH: -- 50 foot requirement, okay. So the setback that's on the east side is 70

feet, which obviously, meets the code; on the west side, the setback to the Guard

House is 15 feet, based on the plot configuration -- and then the rear setback that is

required is 75 feet, and what's being provided or proposed is 9 feet.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: 9 feet?

MR. SMITH: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHOFER: Mr. Dutton, do we have to worry about setting a precedent here?

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Every time you vote on something like this, you set a precedent,

but I doubt that there will ever be another precedent similar to this project.

MR. DEKREY: And the fact that the rear-yard area actually abuts to Mr. Siderewicz'

property already.

MR. SIDEREWICZ: Mr. Dutton, can I speak just for a minute? Bill Siderewicz from

Clean Energy Future -- about some of these dimensions because I'm sure there's lots of

puzzled faces and minds right now because we're talking in words, and sometimes

words and pictures don't match up unless there's a finger pointing to certain things.

We talked about -- we talked about these setbacks on the roads, and we talked about

the fact that the guardhouse is kind of close to Henn Parkway; and I can't remember the

exact dimension of the guardhouse, but it's this little dot right here.

MS. FERREIRA: 12' by 12'.

MR. SIDEREWICZ: So if this dimension right here is -- let's see. If this is 1,000 feet,

the Guard House setback is violating that setback over the course of 14 feet over 1,000

feet.

So if we said nothing about that, someone would say the whole plant is up close to the

road. We're talking about something that's smaller than my baby finger. So just to put

that in perspective.

We talked about the western side yard being 15 feet from the boundary, but what's not

mentioned here is that, as part of our replatting, this boundary for Clean Energy -- which

is on this, is now going to come out here. So it's now going to be multiple hundreds of

feet as opposed to 15 feet. So we want to put that in prospective.

The backyard, someone said -- "Oh, it's nine feet (9') away from the backyard

boundary." Well, the backyard boundary is 1,000 feet, almost, in terms of total depth.

The only participant or party who will be back here is an affiliate of this project because

we may build another energy facility back here.

We all look at setbacks saying -- who wants to be on top of a neighbor? The neighbor

is going to complain. So we set things back. As was mentioned by Mayor Hill, what's

not shown is a depth of about 900 feet, which when -- if you go out there today -- which

is covered by multiple thousands of trees that go from here, down to here, that are

being put into perpetual conservation.

So there can be no neighbor here to complain about how close we are. This property

right here, which was previously occupied by American Way Manufacturing -- this parcel

and the building will be owned by the owners of this land. So the only person who could

complain about a short setback, would be the same company that owns the plant.

So I just wanted to make it clear for everyone here, that we're not infringing on someone

else's vision, their rights, their anxieties -- because the only anxiety is the same

company that's coming right here.

So this company will have and preserve all this land in its name. It will own this

neighbor's land. It will own this land, and it will have another strip of land here.

So we pretty much have isolated ourselves over about 150 acres of land. So tonight we

talked about 30 acres, but we're really putting down a huge footprint that goes way over

-- off the scale of this map right here.

So although we're talking about what precedence that we're setting, this is a really

unique case where the setbacks are affected by an affiliate of the person or the party

proposing the project; and as Mr. Dutton mentioned, this is an unusual project.

It should be about $910 million dollars of value. It will bring to the community -- to the

Village, something -- I think we capitulated $35 million dollars to the Village over the first

30 years; and when we hit peak production, we will have 400 construction workers and

provide about 1.6 million man hours of union labor right at this site as well as keeping

the Village school system whole through contributions that we'll be making.

So this is not your average McDonald's that we're talking about, but I wanted to put it all

in one (1) big package so we can appreciate what we're talking about relative to scale.

MR. RECH: Okay, thank you. All right -- back to fifteen (15). Does anybody want to

propose a waiver for that?

MS. OWENS: I'll propose it -- but how would you want it to be worded though, the

frontage of lot footage, width?

SOLICITOR DUTTON: It would be to waive the requirements of 1137.01 --

MS. OWENS: .01, yes.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: -- to conform to the dimensions shown on the site plan.

MS. OWENS: Okay.

MR. RECH: Mrs. Owens making that motion?

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Mrs. Owens made that motion.

MS. OWENS: I made that motion.


MR. RECH: Are you seconding? I thought I heard you say something. Any other

discussion?

MR. BOND: Yes -- are they putting these 30 feet, 15 foot and 9 foot -- don't they have

to be put here?

MR. RECH: Not according to what Mr. Dutton just said. He referred to the section of

the code.

MR. BOND: It could be made much closer yet, couldn't it?


MS. OWENS: But like he said, it's going to make a difference.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: You have the ability to waive all of these requirements --

MR. BOND: Right.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: -- down to zero; and that's, essentially, what this is.

MR. BOND: Uh-huh, okay. It's waiving them all -- okay.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Because if you -- if you put the rear yard one at 15 feet, and

let's assume it came in at 14 feet, 6 inches -- technically, they're in violation. I mean this

is -- this is, you know, an unusual situation that -- whereby, the setback requirements

really don't protect anyone.

MAYOR HILL: And that is the reason we have setback requirements is to project the

adjoining and abutting property owners, who happen to be the same company which is

asking for the waiver -- so he doesn't want the protection.

MR. SIDEREWICZ: Basically, yes.

MR. RECH: Okay, all right. So I have a motion and a second -- any other discussion?

We're clear on it?

(WHEREAS, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION,


MR. RECH: Okay, can we have roll call on that, please, then.

MS. DUGAN: Sure -- Arno?

MAYOR HILL: Yes.


MS. OWENS: Yes.


MR. BOND: Yes.


MR. SCHOFER: Yes.


MR. RECH: Yes.


MR. RECH: Okay, thank you -- moving on to item sixteen (16.).

MR. SMITH: Item number sixteen (16.) Section [1137.01] Lot Frontage and Lot

Width. The proposed Lot 6 shown on the Replat of Lots 1-A and 4-A on Attachment "L"

or "K" -- I'm not sure what it is now -- does not meet the minimum required frontage

width of 300 feet required in an Industrial District. It is shown to be 156.44 feet wide;

therefore, a waiver will be required prior to approval of this lot configuration.

And is that right here? This is Appendix "K" -- Attachment "K". So you have Lot 4-B,

which is the subject parcel; and the remainder parcel, after all the magic is worked here,

is Lot 6, which has a short frontage of 156.44. The minimum frontage requirement for

Industrial zoning is 300 feet, and this is what we're looking at here, this -- dimensions.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Will this be corrected with the replat?

MAYOR HILL: This is the replat.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: That is the replat. That's what I was going to present to him,

but that's it right there. He has it.

MR. SMITH: Is this the replat -- the latest?


MR. SMITH: So at any rate, this is what we're talking about -- this side lot here, and the

portion of it, which is 156.44.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: So you would be recommending that once the replat is

submitted, that you would approve the reduction in the frontage?

MR. SMITH: I'm not sure if it would be during the replat or during this conditional site

plan approval? I'm not sure if that could be done.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Well, you can't approve the replat tonight.

MR. SMITH: I'm sorry.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: All you can do is agree to reduce; and at that point, you can

vote on it and agree to it now, but it doesn't become effective until the replat is

submitted.

MS. OWENS: So this is going to be considered, like, the entrance to Lot 6?

MR. SMITH: Yes, I believe so.


MS. OWENS: That's what it's amounting to. That's why -- so when you replatted it --

after the whole thing is done, this is going to be what's left of the back section, Lot 6?

MR. SCHOFER: Lot 4-B and Lot 6 will not be plotted together.

MS. OWENS: They will not be.

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Bill will have to answer that -- Lot 4.

MS. OWENS: 4-B is the front.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: No -- well, they're platted together. They're replatted

together, but they're separate. They're separate and distinct lots.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Are they different parcels?

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: Separate parcels -- yes, sir?

MR. SCHOFER: So then we have to vote on 156 or not?

MS. OWENS: And that's for ingress or egress for Lot 6. My question -- well, no that's

future. Forget it. I better not ask that.

MAYOR HILL: Basically, our zoning says if you have a Residential lot, it has to be 100-

foot frontage; Commercial, I believe, is 200; and Industrial is 300. That's the way it was

set a long time ago, and what they're asking is when they get done replatting this, rather

than 300 foot, have 156 foot, which would give them access to the back lot, and I go

back to -- there's one (1) property owner, you know.

I believe the 300 foot there was to protect any other property owner on the street or in

the neighborhood, and Clean Energy Futures -- or a division thereof -- was going to be

the only property owner who we would be serving if we did this.

MR. BOND: It's only the property owner at this time -- not saying that that property can't

be sold.

MAYOR HILL: That property could be sold, you know. It's possible -- but then even if

anybody else comes in, and they decided to develop that, they would still have to come

in front of the Planning Commission.

MS. OWENS: That's what I was going to ask for the future, but I didn't know.

MAYOR HILL: If somebody comes in the future for that lot, they still have to come and

go through -- not quite as elaborate as this because they won't be looking for future lot

developments -- but could they sell that lot -- possibly. Yes, they could -- but basically,

the land is landlocked. There's no other traffic on that, and what they're asking us for --

144 footers on the waiver to have access to that lot.

MS. BORDNER: I think the other thing here is that if the two (2) -- the two (2) lots, as

they currently exist -- I mean, for me, are two (2) vertical lots; and what they want to

create is two (2) horizontal lots; and -- so in order for them to come to me and ask me to

consolidate those two (2) lots, and then break them apart and subdivide them into the

two (2) horizontal pieces, I would have to say that I could not grant that subdivision

because it does -- the bottom lot does not meet the 300-foot requirement.

So if you guys gave them the conditional waiver, I believe, then I would be able to go

ahead and approve that subdivision -- no?

MS. BORDNER: Thank you.

MR. RECH: All right. Would someone like to make a motion on that?

MAYOR HILL: I'll make a motion that we grant the waiver for 155 --

MR. RECH: All right, sir.

MAYOR HILL: -- 156.44 foot for that one (1) lot.

MR. RECH: I have a motion. Is there a second to that motion?

MS. OWENS: I'll second.

MR. RECH: Mrs. Owens seconds -- any other discussion?



MR. RECH: Hearing none, can we have roll call on that, please.

MS. DUGAN: Yes, sir -- Pamela Owens?

MS. OWENS: Yes.


MR. BOND: No.


MR. SCHOFER: Yes.


MR. RECH: Yes.


MAYOR HILL: Yes.


MR. RECH: All right, thank you. That carries. Moving on to item seventeen (17.),

gentlemen.

MR. SMITH: Item number seventeen (17) Section [1161.13] Building Setback from

Gas Well. Item "a." All principal structures to be located within any Residential,

Commercial or Industrial zoning district, must be at least one hundred feet (100')

from an existing gas well head, separator unit or storage tanks.

Item "b." All such well heads, separator units and storage tanks must be

contained inside an earthen dike sufficient to contain any spills or runoff from

these units. A chain-link fence, at least six feet (6') in height, and a locked gate

shall contain this dike. Shrubbery adequate to conceal the appearance of this

fenced in area shall be installed. The dike, fence and shrubbery shall be

maintained and kept in good operation and appearance.

Item "c." Prior to construction and/or "Site Plan Review", all transmission lines

and other gas lines in the area of the development must be located, mapped,

marked, and relocated if necessary, to prevent development over these lines.

If said gas facilities are to be removed to accommodate this development, provide note

on the site plan that the well heads are to be properly capped and ancillary items are to

be removed.

Basically, this is saying that there's a -- gas lines, gas wells, collector transmission lines,

crisscrossing from east to west through the middle of the site -- generally, right through

the center here, from east to west, and they're there now. They just need to be

addressed. Either they need to be brought up to code and have a 100-foot setback or

if they're going to be removed, capped -- removed, capped or relocated, we just have to

have a plan that reflects that information.

MR. DEKREY: Lynn DeKrey, with Siemens -- our understanding has been -- is that

they would be capped and removed in my side bar that I was having here. I'm not sure

-- did you get that off of our documents or did you find them from actual documents -- or

how did you identify the gas well?

MR. SMITH: They came off of your documents that you typed up.

MR. DEKREY: Oh, okay. So am I speaking correctly here, Bill?

MR. SIDEREWICZ: Yeah, I was going to say -- again, Bill Siderewicz from Clean

Energy Future-Lordstown. Since the -- within the recent past, through the cooperation

with Henn, Limited, I believe, is the correct affiliate who owns the land -- they have

purchased the well from NCL, and they have since capped that well. So that well is no

longer operative -- the one that's being referred to this evening.

That work was orchestrated and organized by Dan Cuckovich, who was here this

evening, working on behalf of Henn Corporation. So that information is something that

we can provide to the engineer as well as to the Village, which is documentation that the

State of Ohio has signed off on the well having been capped, and we can provide

documentation from the contractor who actually capped the well. So we will make sure

that that becomes part of the record so that there's no vagary, whatsoever, about the

well. It has been removed.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: How will that be illustrated on the final site plan -- will it not be

shown as, you know -- not existing or will it be shown as being capped?

MR. PESCI: However you want it. We can, as far as the --

SOLICITOR DUTTON: How do you normally do it, Mr. Engineer?

MR. KOGELNIK: That's how you do it. You just talked your way through it. You

normally would show them whatever the improvements are on the finished site plan.

MR. SMITH: Typically, you'd have --

SOLICITOR DUTTON: So you'd show the well, but you'd show that it's been capped.

MR. KOGELNIK: Right.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: And the lines will not be removed? They'll remain.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: The lines are being relocated.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Relocated, okay -- so the lines will be relocated and shown in

the relocated area, and the well head will be shown as being capped --

MR. SMITH: Yes.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: -- inoperable.

MR. SMITH: Yes. Basically, the site plan will take care of a lot of that information and

notes as to whether or not this gas line is going to be completely removed -- if it's going

to be abandoned in place; and all of the facilities, the wells -- looks like a meter

connection and tank -- all that stuff is likely going to go once they cap it.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: And he's got -- this paper trail will accompany the site plan.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: It will.

MR. SIDEREWICZ: And also, it will demonstrate that the tankage has been removed.

The meters have been removed -- so forth.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: All gone.

MR. BOND: You mean capped -- or plugged and abandoned? There's a difference.

MR. SMITH: Well --

MR. PESCI: Plugged and abandoned.

ATTORNEY SCHUBERT: Yes, plugged and abandoned, and we have the final

inspection showing that from the State of Ohio.

MR. SIDEREWICZ: They basically pour concrete down the middle of the pipe, and it is

no longer functional.

MS. DUGAN: Do we need a timeframe on that?

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Well, it will accompany the final site plan.

MS. DUGAN: So that would be forty (40) days?

SOLICITOR DUTTON: No, it's whenever the final site plan is submitted; which right

now, is probably forty (40) days --

MAYOR HILL: -- or less.


SOLICITOR DUTTON: With your permission, I would like to have the applicant go

through those waivers that were requested in this document that Kellie read, to make

sure we've covered or we -- all the waivers because I think there was a lot of

duplication, like, starting with number nine (9) -- Location of all walls, fences, and

buffers: It says, Proposed landscaping will not include any berms at property lines; a

waiver will be requested for required buffer. Now, we waived that, correct?

MS. DUGAN: Yes.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Okay. So then you would go to the next one, which is on page -

- okay, number fourteen (14.) The existing and proposed front setbacks: We've waived

that, correct?

MS. DUGAN: Yes.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: The rear setbacks -- we've waived that.

MS. DUGAN: Yes.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Side-yard setbacks, we've waived that.

MS. DUGAN: Yes.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Okay -- lot frontage, we've waived that as part of the replat,

correct?

MS. DUGAN: Yes.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Vehicular access points.

MAYOR HILL: That's the width of the driveway.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Width of the driveway -- we've waived that, correct?

MS. DUGAN: Yes.

MS. BORDNER: Yes.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Okay. See, we need to speak to get the record. Off-street

parking, we've waived that.

MS. BORDNER: Yes.

MS. DUGAN: Yes.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Off-street parking, size and access.

MS. BORDNER: Yes.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: And there aren't going to be any trees, right?

MS. BORDNER: Correct.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Okay -- Setback and Height Requirements, we've waived that.

MS. BORDNER: We have not addressed the height requirements.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Okay. Why don't you speak to the issue of height, Kellie, I

guess this is in your --

MS. BORDNER: Sure. There is a 100-foot maximum height requirement that's

pursuant to [1137.01]. As they indicated in their Site Plan Review, there would

need to be a waiver requested for the heat recovery steam generator, which is

going to be 120 feet high; and its stack, which is going to be 160 feet high; and

then the collector bus structure is going to be 140 feet high.

So they have three (3) structures at -- which would be 20 foot over and 40 foot over and

60 foot over -- and would need a height requirement waiver for at least those three (3)

structures as it stands right now.

MR. RECH: All right. So we need to vote on a waiver for that. Would anybody like to

make a motion for that?

MAYOR HILL: I'll make that motion.

MR. RECH: All right. I have a motion made by the Mayor. Is there a second on that?

MS. OWENS: I can second that -- you're just waving for 1137.01?

MR. RECH: The height requirement --

MS. OWENS: The height requirement.

MR. RECH: -- and their stacks and so forth.

MS. OWENS: The stack and the steam generator.

MS. BORDNER: And the collector bus.

MS. OWENS: And the collector bus, okay.

MR. RECH: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there discussion?



MR. RECH: Okay. Hearing none, can we have roll call on this, please?

MS. DUGAN: Yes -- Robert Bond?

MR. BOND: Yes.


MR. SCHOFER: Yes.


MR. RECH: Yes.


MAYOR HILL: Yes.


MS. OWENS: Yes.


MR. RECH: All right, thank you. That passes. Are there any others that we need to

address here?

SOLICITOR DUTTON: I don't think so.

MS. BORDNER: No, I don't believe so.

MR. RECH: All right. Let's move back to additional comments, then, from Mr. Smith.

MR. SMITH: Okay. Additional comment number one (1.) -- Please refer to letter from

Paul Dutton, Village Solicitor, dated 10/20/2015 for clarification regarding conditional

site plan review and approval.

MR. RECH: That's already been discussed.

MR. SMITH: I don't think we have any further comment on that.



MR. SMITH: Item number two (2.) Wetland delineations and parcel lines are

inconsistent from sheet to sheet of the plan set. Again, that should be addressed in the

final plans. Any questions?



MR. SMITH: Item number three (3.) Electronic files are used to share information

quickly. However, the embedded files within the reports and summaries create

difficulties in printing, plotting and assembly and distribution. We respectfully ask that

you please provide multiple bound or otherwise organized hard copies of an acceptable

size and scale for any subsequent submissions to the Village to ensure that all

documents are present and assembled correctly.

We've got multiple copies of things floating around everywhere, and it would be best if

we just kind of got everything in one (1) package.

Item number four (4.) Setback dimensions shown on Attachment "N" -- on the old,

which is now Attachment "M", as in Mary -- should reference the distance from the right-

of-way for the front setback and the "final" property lines for the dimensions to the rear

and the side of the yards. I'm sorry -- the rear and side yards.

And finally, item number five (5.) On the response to comments received in the

December 7th resubmission package, a statement was made that following completion

of LEC, the southern part -- the southern parcel has the potential to be used for

construction of a second similar energy project. If this is the case, and this second

project is already being considered, will this constitute a phasing plan, or will this be

submitted under separate cover? In either case, the facilities, and in particular, the

proposed utilities and proposed utility upgrades should consider this future development

in the design process to ensure adequate capacities are being provided for the full

build-out. That concludes my statements.

MR. RECH: All right, gentlemen. Thank you very much. I would ask Mr. Siderewicz or

anybody from Siemens -- are there any final comments you guys would like to make in

regard to anything we haven't touched on? We kind of exhausted it pretty good the last

couple of hours.

MR. DEKREY: We appreciate your supporting us and working with us, and actively

listening to where we are and where we need to go to build this, and so thank you very

much.

MR. SIDEREWICZ: Likewise -- Bill Siderewicz, again, I would just like to say thank you

to the Village -- all those who have helped us for the last two (2) years.

There have been many times when we could have easily packed up our lunch boxes

and gone home, and that would have been the easy way; but I can tell you that the

Village, its consultants, and its advisers have been unbelievably sturdy in facing all the

roadblocks that we've come across; and for that, we are quite grateful to everyone who

has been helping us along the way.

Just for some historical prospective, because I know many have been involved when we

first talked about a place called Salt Springs Road, and they said, "Just move it down to

the Industrial Park." It sounded so simple that one night, but I just wanted to report back

to everyone that that simple move added about 21.5 million dollars to the project, and

we've had to modify or design, almost equally dollar for dollar, to make this work

properly.

So for future consideration, I know it was never part of the discussion, but that's the kind

of magnitude that we have faced; and I thought, quite honestly, myself -- being in the

Industrial Park would be literally a 6-inch putt; and today, at three o'clock (3:00), I was

meeting with one of the -- one of the third parties who was still trying to help us, in his

own special way, get to the finish line; but to put it gently, it's been a challenge to be in

the Industrial Park.

You would think that another facility in an Industrial Park would be somewhat straight

forward, and I'm sitting here tonight telling you it's anything but straight forward; but we

will prevail, and we are determined to make this a positive reaction and project for the

community, and particularly, the Village. Thank you all.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: They still have to vote on this, and Pamela Owens is making

the -- this motion, correct?

MS. OWENS: Which one, dear?

SOLICITOR DUTTON: The one I'm about to read.

MS. OWENS: Okay.

SOLICITOR DUTTON: Okay. You're moving to grant Clean Energy Future-

Lordstown, LLC, a conditional, preliminary site plan approval based upon the

application submitted and read in detail by the Zoning Administrator, and subject

to the two (2) opinion letters, and conditioned upon the two (2) opinion letters that

were authored October 20th, 2015, from Harrington, Hoppe and Mitchell, to Mr.

Siderewicz at Clean Energy Future; and then the subsequent opinion letter

November 24th, 2015, addressed to Kellie Bordner, Planning and Zoning

Administrator, and subject to and conditioned upon the memorandum prepared

by Jeffrey Smith of CT Consultants, dated December 11th, 2015; and including

and subject to the various waivers that have been granted throughout this

meeting, in connection with the application, and that have been read into the

record; and subject to the correspondence and testimony from Bruce Platt, the

Utility Director for the Village of Lordstown, and the correspondence and

testimony from Travis Eastham, the Fire Chief; the correspondence from Brent

Milhoan, the Chief of Police; and subject to the discussions that were had by

Members of the Planning Commission. That was your motion, correct?

MS. OWENS: That's exactly what I said.

MAYOR HILL: Okay, I'll second that motion.

MR. RECH: We have a motion and a second -- Mrs. Owens and the Mayor. Any

additional discussion?



MR. RECH: All right. Hearing none, can we have roll call on the motion, please.

MS. DUGAN: Yes, sir -- Tony Schofer?

MR. SCHOFER: Yes.


MR. RECH: Yes.


MAYOR HILL: Yes.


MS. OWENS: Yes.


MR. BOND: Yes.


SOLICITOR DUTTON: And subject to the confirmation of the response of return

dates.

MR. RECH: You got it?

COURT REPORTER: Yes.

MR. RECH: Everybody still good with that additional language?



MR. RECH: All right. That motion does carry. Thank you very much.

PUBLIC COMMENTS: MR. RECH: At this time, is there any public comments this evening?

(WHEREAS, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE FLOOR, AND


MR. RECH: Going once, going twice?

(WHEREAS, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE FLOOR, AND


MEMBER COMMENTS: MR. RECH: Okay, hearing none -- is there any additional member comments this

evening?

MAYOR HILL: I would like to say that this has been, as Mr. Siderewicz said, it's been

almost two (2) years since he came to the Planning and Zoning Board, and there have

been a lot of pitfalls along the way, a lot of -- what's going to happen now? What's

going to happen now -- but in the end run, it's all good; and if anybody has ever gone

down to the similar facility, which is in Fremont, Ohio -- or the other facility, which is

being constructed -- a sister plant to this one, almost, in Oregon, Ohio -- this is a very

clean plant and non-polluting plant.

It is placed in an area which will not give us, as elected officials, or any of the residents

or anything -- any reason not to want to accept this; and I appreciate everybody that's

worked very hard on this. We haven't all agreed on everything -- but, hey, you never

do; but once they stick that shovel in the ground, I'll be happy. Thank you.

MR. RECH: All right -- anybody else?

(WHEREAS, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION

OR THE FLOOR, AND PROCEEDINGS WERE AS FOLLOWS:)

ADJOURNMENT: MR. RECH: Really, okay -- hearing none, is there a motion for adjournment?

MAYOR HILL: So moved.

MR. RECH: Mayor Hill -- second?

MS. OWENS: Second.

MR. RECH: Mrs. Owens -- all in favor say "aye".

MS. OWENS: Aye.

MR. SCHOFER: Aye.

MAYOR HILL: Aye.

MR. RECH: Aye.

MR. BOND: Aye.

(VOICE VOTE: 5, AYE; 0, NAY;

0, ABSTAINED.)

MR. RECH: All right, we're adjourned. Thank you. Thank you everybody. Thank you

for your patience this evening. I hope you all have a Merry Christmas.

(WHEREUPON, THE MEETING BEFORE THE LORDSTOWN PLANNING

COMMISSION ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 14TH, 2015, CONCLUDED AT 8:42 P.M.)

* * *

STATE OF OHIO ) ) ss. REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE COUNTY OF MAHONING )

I certify that the above and foregoing is a true and full transcript of the minutes and motions made during the Lordstown Planning Commission Meeting, as shown by stenotype notes written by me, in the presence of the witnesses at the time of the Public Meeting. _____________________________________ Dena Kay Crissman, Notary Public My Commission Expires 2-08-2019

MR. RECH: Mr. Bond seconds. All in favor, signify by ... · Chairperson Tim Rech, followed by the...

Documents

Transcript of MR. RECH: Mr. Bond seconds. All in favor, signify by ... · Chairperson Tim Rech, followed by the...