Will County officials spent the meeting’s main block reviewing proposed revisions to Chapter 55, the county’s stormwater management ordinance, and agreed to continue the item to the next month after questions about solar‑farm exemptions, federal references and terminology.

The committee’s staff presenter, Mark (staff member), walked the board through redlined changes to definitions and citations, saying the draft “adopts by reference what the federal government does” with respect to the National Flood Insurance Program and Code of Federal Regulations, title 44. That led members to ask whether future federal changes would automatically apply at the county level.

“Complying with the rules of the National Flood Insurance Program codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, title 44 — so automatically, we are adopting by reference what the federal government does,” Mark said. Committee chair Phil Pelkey confirmed the practical effect: the county would follow the CFR provisions until those federal rules were repealed or changed.

Why it matters: the change means county standards for flood mapping and minimum floodplain protections will track the federal rules unless the ordinance is further amended. Several members flagged that federal programs such as the NFIP periodically face short-term extensions in Congress and that those changes can affect local permitting.

Discussion highlights and technical points

- Solar‑farm exemption and the 25,000‑square‑foot threshold: Members raised repeated questions about language that treats certain solar arrays as “disconnected impervious surfaces” and therefore pervious for stormwater calculations so long as the project’s total ground-level impervious area remains under 25,000 square feet. Butler asked how that fixed number scales with parcel size; Mark and other members said the threshold is intended as an exemption for smaller projects and that the county had previously borrowed the 25,000 figure from other jurisdictions (one source mentioned was the Maryland Department of Energy).

- Practical meaning: Mark explained the intent is that elevated solar panels generally allow rainfall to reach the ground and infiltrate, so panels themselves are not counted as impervious unless the cumulative on‑ground impervious surface (gravel, pavement, concrete and related support structures) for the project exceeds 25,000 square feet. A staff clarification offered in the meeting: 25,000 square feet is roughly 0.57 acre.

- Definitions and acronyms: Members asked staff to standardize acronyms and definitions (examples: FEMA, BFE and FPE). The group corrected an internal inconsistency: FPE should be “flood protection elevation” and the staff confirmed FPE is illustrated as the BFE plus one foot of freeboard in the ordinance text.

- Bulletins and references: Staff noted bulletin citations were updated (e.g., from earlier bulletins to Bulletin 75, instituted in 2020 in the packet). The draft uses “Bulletin 75 or successor” or similar language in some places to allow the county to follow the most recent technical guidance without constant amendment.

- Web publication and links: Members discussed whether the county clerk should publish the ordinance text with live hyperlinks to cited standards (federal regulations, bulletins, technical guides) rather than relying on third‑party publishers such as American Standard Publishing. No final decision was made; members said they would scope the project and consult the county clerk on feasibility and cost.

- Enforcement and penalties: The committee reviewed penalty provisions and enforcement tools (injunctive relief and civil remedies). Staff said fines in the ordinance are primarily for minor technical violations, while meaningful noncompliance would be addressed through court orders and assessment of liens for corrective work. A member noted that some fines (for minor erosion control items) are low and that staff sometimes proposes higher fines for certain enforcement situations.

Board directions and next steps

- Members asked staff to invite Land Use representatives to the next meeting to explain how the 25,000‑square‑foot threshold is applied in practice and whether the county or state rules (or both) drive that threshold. The committee agreed that having Land Use staff present would help resolve outstanding technical questions.

- Staff also committed to search-and-replace style cleanup (capitalization, consistent acronyms), correct a misspelling in the definitions (thalweg), and confirm the names and titles for the ordinance’s defined administrative roles.

Votes at a glance

- Approval of minutes (Aug. 12, 2025): Motion to approve minutes moved by Board member Freeman, seconded by Board member Richmond; roll call votes recorded as yes by Logan, Bowick, Butler, Freeman, Newquist and Richmond. Outcome: approved.

- Postpone Chapter 51 (sewers and sewage disposal) until October 14: Motion moved by Board member Butler, seconded by Board member Freeman. Outcome: approved (motion passed by voice vote).

- Continue consideration of Chapter 55 (stormwater management) to next meeting: Motion moved and seconded in meeting; outcome: approved (voice vote; “The ayes have it. Motion passes.”).

- Adjournment: Motion to adjourn carried by voice vote.

What the committee did not decide

The committee did not finalize technical changes on solar‑farm exemptions, numeric thresholds, or cross‑references that would lock the county to specific future federal program mechanics. Instead the committee paused the item, directed staff to bring Land Use subject‑matter experts, and scheduled continued review at the next meeting.

Meeting context and outlook

The chapter‑by‑chapter review was detailed and technical, with multiple staff and board clarifications requested. The committee repeatedly emphasized accuracy of statutory citations, consistent acronym usage, and the practical effects of adopting federal regulations by reference. Members signaled a preference to resolve technical ambiguities before final adoption rather than rushing changes into the ordinance.

A Land Use briefing at the next meeting is expected to clarify the solar‑farm exemption threshold, the county’s treatment of elevated solar panels, and whether the 25,000‑square‑foot figure should be scaled to parcel size.