Developers present two 5‑MW community solar projects; board hears environmental, drainage and local‑jobs concerns

The Tazewell County Zoning Board of Appeals on the April agenda heard a presentation and public comment on two proposed community solar projects — Cincinnati CSG 1 and Cincinnati CSG 2 — each a 5‑megawatt array planned on the same approximately 157‑acre property south of BFW Road near Pekin. Dimension Energy said it intends to build both projects as co‑located but legally separate installations and to participate in the state community solar program if eligible.

The projects, presented by Paul Irby, project development manager for Dimension Energy, would occupy about 27 acres each and use single‑axis tracking panels, underground medium‑voltage wiring inside the fenced arrays, and a shared access road from Veterans Drive. “We’re planning to build these projects as soon as we can,” Irby said, adding the company has signed an interconnection agreement and paid its deposit to Ameren for one site and is completing the study for the second.

Staff and the project’s consultant, Rebecca Colson of GEI, summarized studies submitted with the application. The county planner reported no setbacks or zoning‑compliance issues found in staff review and said the site lies within 1.5 miles of Pekin and is shown as industrial in Pekin’s future land use map. GEI reported no recognized environmental conditions in a Phase I site assessment, no wetlands in the project footprint, no expected impacts to federal or state listed species, and that the bulk of the southern array contains soils with higher agricultural productivity indexes while the northern array is largely lower‑productivity ground.

Why it matters: the projects raise competing local priorities — tax revenue, farmland preservation and drainage — and implicate multiple agencies. Dimension Energy projected roughly $450,000 in total tax revenue across both projects over a 30‑year life span and said year‑one taxes would be roughly $35,000 per project, an increase from about $3,500. The company proposed a 25‑year lease with a five‑year extension option and said it will be the long‑term owner‑operator.

Board members and residents asked detailed technical and community‑impact questions. County staff and the developer confirmed the arrays would comply with county and state setback rules, that fencing would be 7‑foot chain link, and that no batteries are proposed. The developer said electrical interconnection work would be internal to the site and that major upgrades to the Ameren distribution system were not expected. IDOT requirements for a commercial entrance were raised in staff comments and the developer said it has coordinated with an IDOT regional engineer and will build the access to IDOT standards.

Public commenters raised employment, property‑value and emergency‑response concerns. Martin Helpers, retired executive director of Central Building Trades, said he supports solar but urged the developer to use local trades and to consider a project‑labor agreement so local union members share construction work. “We expect them to follow our norms, our culture, our traditions,” Helpers said.

Neighbors asked about storm damage and cleanup if a severe tornado scatters panels, and about where responsibility would fall for debris beyond the site boundary; the developer said the projects will be insured and that local contractors will be engaged for operations and maintenance, and that the company would coordinate with first responders and the county on emergency response plans. The county’s emergency management director was referenced as the liaison for first‑responder coordination.

Other issues raised and staff/developer responses: - Soil and farming: Tazewell County Soil and Water Conservation recommended denial in its submission because prime farmland would be taken out of production; GEI and the developer noted prime soils exist on parts of the site but said the design includes pollinator‑friendly seed mixes, possible livestock grazing for vegetation management, and that the arrays are not permanent (typical module life ~30 years), allowing for potential future restoration to agricultural use after decommissioning. - Drain tile and drainage: the developer said a desktop drain‑tile review found one potential tile line and that a subsurface tile survey will be performed; if tile is encountered the company said it would reroute or avoid it to maintain existing drainage. - Vegetation/pollinators: county staff and commenters said past local solar projects have had poor pollinator establishment, producing weeds in early years; the developer said it would work with a vegetation management consultant and could adjust the seed mix to match county preferences. - Screening and visibility: the developer proposed a 20‑foot planting buffer and evergreen/bushy species along Veterans Drive and said typical planted trees are 3–4 feet at installation and grow roughly a foot per year; the company said it can plant larger specimens if desired by the county or neighbors. - Decommissioning: Dimension presented a sample decommissioning plan and said GEI would furnish a licensed engineer’s cost estimate for removal, subject to county approval.

The hearing did not conclude with a final board decision on either application. As class A special‑use requests the zoning board will make a recommendation to the county board, which has final authority; the land‑use committee also reviews class A cases and meets monthly. The record shows substantial technical documentation already submitted and additional items flagged for follow up if the projects proceed (drain‑tile survey, finalized vegetation and emergency plans).