Roscoe zoning board approves two design reviews, grants variance for ground-mounted solar with landscaping conditions

The Roscoe Zoning Board approved design reviews for a 5,600-square-foot storage building at 5313 Ross Lane and a 160-square-foot accessory storage structure at 4767 Blue Step Road, and granted a variance to waive the fence requirement for ground-mounted solar panels at 11380 Main Street.

The approvals for the two design reviews were unanimous and carried conditions: the Ross Lane project must provide a compliant building-foundation landscaping plan and related transition-area inventory, and the Blue Step Road accessory structure must match the principal building’s siding color and have no curb cut in front of the new structure. The board also approved a variance for the solar array that waives the ordinance fence requirement so the system can reach the height the applicant said is necessary; the variance is conditioned on maintaining vegetative screening from Main Street and nearby residences and on an emergency backup landscaping plan approved by the zoning administrator.

The Ross Lane proposal is a 5,600-square-foot storage building for Forest City Gear, presented by Jared Leifert, director of operations for Forest City Gear. Leifert said the building is needed because “we're running out of fixed space within the building” and the off‑building will store raw material, work‑in‑progress and finished goods. The applicant said there will be no employees based in the storage building; staff or company employees will access it for materials and product.

Evan (Zoning Administrator) told the board the site can be classified as light industrial, which makes the building a permitted use instead of prohibited. He reported the project meets most bulk requirements, that village staff and the applicant agreed to a 10-foot setback on the southwest lot line, and that the proposed parking (eight spaces) meets off‑street parking requirements. Evan also said the applicant provided a landscape layout on the site plan, but that it did not meet specific landscape-code sections (building foundation and transition area). He noted the code requires building foundation landscaping to cover 80% of the façade and that, as zoning administrator, he may reduce landscape requirements by up to 25% for the site; because the building‑foundation requirement would consume most of that allowance, the staff recommendation tied approval to a revised foundation landscaping plan and a transition-area inventory.

The board moved and approved the Ross Lane design review with the staff conditions (motion and second on the record; formal roll call recorded by the board).

At 4767 Blue Step Road, applicant John Beeman presented a 10-by-16-foot, 160-square-foot steel‑sided accessory storage structure to be located between an existing dumpster enclosure and the parking area of a commercial parcel. Evan said the structure meets bulk requirements for the district and recommended approval with two conditions: the accessory siding color match the principal building as closely as possible, and no new curb cut be installed in front of the structure to prevent vehicle storage. The board approved the accessory-structure application with the two staff conditions.

The largest discussion concerned a variance request for ground-mounted solar panels at 11380 Main Street (applicant Michael Miller, with Stateline Solar represented by Zach Noss). Miller said roof mounting would have required removing several large, old oak trees on his heavily wooded lot, so he proposed a ground-mounted system sited to maximize sun exposure. He described the system as roughly 52.5 feet long by 11 feet wide, about 13 to 14 feet high at the peak, with about 26–28 modules in two rows (measurements approximate as stated by the applicant). Miller said timing was important because certain solar incentives were expiring “by the end of the year.”

Evan explained the village code (referenced in staff materials as Section 1555, ground-mount systems; and Article 6, fencing standards) requires a fence along adjacent properties containing ground-mounted systems, and that the fence standard (maximum fence height 6 feet under Article 6) effectively limits solar height to 5 feet. Given the applicant’s need for taller racking to clear trees and achieve the proper tilt, Miller applied for a variance to waive the fence requirement so the height cap would not apply.

Evan told the board his staff recommendation was denial because typical variance doctrine favors relief for restrictive site conditions (small lots, unusual setbacks) rather than permissive circumstances. He wrote in the report that findings of fact for the variance (the code’s “hardship” test) would be difficult to meet under a strict interpretation. The applicant and multiple neighbors, however, described the lot as heavily wooded and secluded from public view. Neighbor Brian Black (property owner to the south) said the panels “are not an eyesore to me” and opposed building a new fence that could fall into disrepair; another neighbor, Kurt Schwiggler, said he “got no problem with it because it would be out of my view completely.”

Board members discussed the long-term implications of granting a variance that effectively changes height expectations for ground-mounted residential systems and whether a text amendment to the zoning code would be preferable. Several members said they were concerned about opening a broad precedent but also noted the code’s current fence-height linkage creates situations where ground mounts are impractical on wooded lots. After discussion the board made findings that, for this specific property, unique circumstances (mature tree canopy, deep lot setback and seclusion from public view) constituted the hardship for the variance. The board approved the variance with conditions: the arrays must be screened from Main Street and from nearby residences using vegetation; the applicant must provide a backup landscaping plan to be used if existing vegetation is later removed or lost; the backup plan must be reviewed and approved by the zoning administrator; and the variance is tied to the continued existence of the stated hardship (if the hardship is removed, the conditions would trigger required screening or other remedies).

The board and staff discussed enforcement mechanics and acknowledged that ongoing enforcement would rely on future complaints or code enforcement review if screening were lost; the board directed staff to draft and consider a code text amendment addressing ground-mounted solar standards for a future meeting. Evan said staff were aiming to bring text amendments to the board in November or December.

Votes at a glance: Zoning board approvals were recorded on the minutes for the three agenda items. Each approval included the staff conditions described above; formal votes were taken by roll call and recorded by the board clerk.

The zoning board recommended the solar variance for approval to the Village Board; staff indicated the Village Board would see the recommendation at its next meeting and the applicant agreed to provide photos and a proposed landscaping plan for the Village Board packet.