Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DeKalb County Board approves multiple commercial solar special-use permits after extended public comment
Summary
After more than an hour of public comment, the DeKalb County Board approved several commercial solar special-use permits — including a large Burr Oak project that drew objections from nearby residents — while supporters cited jobs, tax revenue and climate benefits.
DeKalb County Board members voted to approve multiple commercial solar special-use permits following extensive public comment both for and against the projects. The approvals included a 4.5-megawatt system at State Route 38 and larger commercial permits tied to the Burr Oak/Burrow solar proposals that drew the most public attention.
Supporters — including student groups, the Sierra Club and the project developer — said the projects would produce renewable energy, local tax revenue and jobs. “This project will operate safely and does not contain any hazardous and toxic material,” said Chase Line, representing Renewable Energy, the project developer, urging the board to follow planning committee and hearing officer recommendations.
Opponents — many of whom live adjacent to planned arrays — raised concerns about farmland loss, visual impacts, drainage and long-term decommissioning. “If this is needed, then this will not be just a one- or two-year project … but it will be 30 years,” said Carol James of Pierce Township, urging the board to require an enforcement fund to compensate nonparticipating neighbors. Molly Eskimo, a nearby resident, asked the board to require setbacks, visual buffers, construction-hour limits and an escrow account of “at least $10,000 to $20,000 for nonparticipant residents overseen by the county.”
Other commenters questioned whether the electricity generated would benefit local residents and raised concerns about recycling of panels. “Has anybody actually asked Leeward if there’s an actual named recycling facility?” asked one resident. Farmer Ron Reyes told the board that solar output can vary sharply with weather, saying, “You can’t run a utility electric system with that kind of variability.”
Board members debated legal limits on county authority and the language of the existing zoning ordinance. County staff told the board there was no requirement attached to the special uses that a developer establish a compensation fund specifically for nearby nonparticipating property owners; those arrangements would need to be negotiated privately. Several board members said they wished the county ordinance gave more authority to require neighbor funds or larger buffering but voted based on the ordinance as written.
The board recorded roll-call votes and approved the ordinances as presented. County staff and the hearing officer’s recommendations were cited during the motions.
With the approvals final, several residents and speakers said they intend to press for stronger permitting conditions or legislative changes at the state level. Developers said they will proceed under the county approvals and stated plans for eventual decommissioning and site restoration as described in their application materials.
