McHenry County committee weighs ordinance to shift solar approvals to ZBA, flags battery safety and litigation risks

McHenry County’s Planning, Environment and Development Committee discussed an ordinance that would remove county-board approval for solar generating facilities and make the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) the approving body, but took no formal vote and directed staff to report back on legal and safety issues.

The committee considered a proposal “that removes county board action from solar generating facilities, CUPs,” and heard staff caution that the ordinance would shift responsibility to the Zoning Board of Appeals, which “would be required to have their findings of fact submitted or recorded in writing,” rather than relying on transcripts, said Adam, Planning & Development director.

The change would make the ZBA the final approver for uses defined in the ordinance instead of routing approvals to the county board, Adam said. Committee members raised several concerns during the discussion, including whether the county would retain meaningful review authority, how the ZBA would document findings, how quickly hearings must proceed and whether battery energy storage systems (BESS) should be treated differently.

Committee members repeatedly noted that state law has constrained local zoning authority. “We cannot vote no or yes. I mean, you can vote no, but ultimately, it has to be a yes. We don't have any authority,” one member said during the discussion. A separate speaker said he had met with the sheriff and the state's attorney’s office and warned that “the proximity to a school is not the answer” to community safety concerns.

Battery-storage systems drew particular attention. Adam said, “At present, there's we don't have standards for them in the unified development ordinance, which without the standards means they're prohibited,” and described a gap between land-use approval and the technical safety standards that would apply at permitting. He noted municipalities are developing standards (venting, thermal monitoring, liquid cooling, compartmentalization) but that larger installations—“cargo container size” arrays of storage units—raise volume and fire-suppression concerns.

Members pressed about emergency response capability and long-term risks. Adam described battery fires as capable of extreme heat and difficult to extinguish: “They're largely like a magnesium fire. So they're about 5,000 degrees. So they're gonna go right through steel,” and said that fire-suppression and containment systems are evolving but not yet uniformly regulated.

Legal risk was a second major topic. Committee members asked staff to report on litigation in other counties that challenged similar state-level restrictions; Adam said he believed Will County had a pending lawsuit and offered to verify status. A member asked whether counties that lose such suits can be assessed court costs; staff said courts could, in rare cases, assess fees if a local government repeatedly litigated and lost. One committee member said, “At some point, someone will prevail on this. A county will prevail and and beat the state at this.”

The committee did not adopt an ordinance at the meeting. Instead members directed staff to: seek an update from the state’s attorney on pending litigation in other counties, continue work on a draft ordinance that would shift approvals to the ZBA and to report back on what written findings and ZBA procedures would look like; and to study standards and permitting implications for battery energy storage systems. Committee members said they would revisit the matter at the next meeting.

The discussion did not include a motion to enact an ordinance and no formal vote was taken. Committee members flagged the potential for future litigation against the county if it resisted state statute and emphasized the need for clear written findings by the ZBA and technical standards for batteries before any procedural change was implemented.

Looking ahead, staff will gather the litigation status, draft suggested ordinance language about the ZBA’s written findings, and outline what technical standards for BESS would be needed at the permitting stage. The committee said it expects those items to return for discussion at the next monthly meeting.