Lee County ZBA Hears Testimony on Mound Hill North and South Solar Special‑use Permits; Decision Continued to April 28

The Lee County Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing April 14 on special‑use permit applications from Mound Hill Road North Solar LLC and Mound Hill Road South Solar LLC to construct and operate commercial community solar arrays on parcels in Palmyra Township. The board heard expert testimony about market effects and engineering, presentations from the applicant, and objections from nearby residents and landowners; the board did not vote and scheduled a follow‑up meeting for April 28 to consider findings and a recommendation.

The hearing mattered because it pits county land‑use review against statewide siting rules and raises questions residents flagged as local: farmland preservation, property values, drainage and corrosion of driven posts, and proximity to the Midway Drive‑In Theater. The applicants argued the projects meet county and state standards, while residents urged the board to protect high‑quality farmland and nearby homes.

Thomas Marous, president of Marous and Company, testified for the petitioner as a market‑impact expert. "There's no negative value impact, in my opinion, based on the subject," Marous said, summarizing his review of sales, assessor interviews and match‑pair analyses from similar rural solar projects. Marous told the board he had prepared more than 200 market impact studies in his career and found no professional tax appeal or assessor study that established a sustained diminution in residential values attributable to rural solar projects when they are set back and screened.

Petitioner's counsel, Nick Stanford, summarized technical and compliance testimony in closing. He told the board the projects "comply with the requirements set forth in the Statewide Siting Act (55 ILCS) and Lee County ordinance 2023‑07‑008" and argued petitioner witnesses demonstrated the projects satisfy county special‑use factors. Stanford said the applicants increased setbacks after local meetings and offered screening to adjacent landowners. He cited specific distances in testimony: county setbacks of 150 feet, plus the applicant's setbacks of roughly 874 feet from one northern residence and about 891 feet from an occupied residence near the south project; the proposed project boundaries were roughly 460 and 480 feet from Mound Hill Road.

Engineer Andy Galone testified that stormwater impacts would be addressed, that vegetative management would use pollinator‑friendly seed mixes intended to improve drainage versus current row‑crop conditions, and that drain‑tile surveys and repairs would be performed consistent with an Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreement (AIMA). The applicant also told the board that post‑construction site visits would be infrequent, estimating about "3 to 6 times a year" for maintenance visits.

Residents and nearby landowners raised several objections during the public comment period. Property owner Nick Hermas said the two petitioned parcels are "about the best prime producing farmland" in the area and cited Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA/LISA) scores he supplied: a 99 for the south parcel and 97 for the north parcel. Hermas, who said the petition signs on the road had been removed, also raised corrosion and material‑safety concerns for hot‑dip‑galvanized posts and reported a Lee County corrosion risk assessment showing elevated corrosivity within the top soil layers at the site.

Mike and Mia Kurz, owners of the Midway Drive‑In Theater (represented in the hearing by Kim Bruno), submitted a statement saying the theater is a local historic attraction and expressing concerns about light, radio interference with FM soundtrack transmission and disruptions to patrons. Other residents questioned whether panels should be sited on lower‑quality farmland or nonagricultural land, and one participant, Griffin Thuisen, told the board, "this solar field is not green," arguing about material‑production impacts and federal subsidies.

Board chair Forster and county staff clarified process expectations: witnesses who assert facts must testify under oath and be subject to cross‑examination; general public comments were permitted but are not evidence unless offered by sworn witnesses. The board did not resolve the permit applications on April 14. Chair Forster said staff would prepare draft findings and possible motions and reconvene at 6:30 p.m. April 28 on the third floor of the Lee County Courthouse to take up findings and a recommendation.

Questions and concerns that the board flagged to be addressed in findings included the adequacy of setbacks and screening, drain‑tile protection and repair, the durability and corrosion risk of driven posts in local soils, and the appropriateness of siting community solar on parcels identified as high‑quality farmland under LESA/LISA scores. Testimony also referenced state law changes (House Bill 4112) and a requirement under state siting rules; petitioner counsel argued the projects meet those statutory standards. The hearing record includes sworn testimony from applicant witnesses and oral statements from multiple residents that the board will weigh in written findings.

The ZBA concluded the evidentiary hearing portion and set the next public meeting for findings and a recommendation on April 28 at 6:30 p.m. at the Lee County Courthouse, third floor. No vote or final permit decision was recorded on April 14.