Effingham County committee advances draft wind and solar ordinance, requests more detail on fees, setbacks and oversight

The Effingham County Legislative Committee on an unspecified date continued work on a draft wind and solar ordinance, reviewing a model used in Coles County and asking staff to return with clarified fee schedules, setback and fencing rules, and a proposal for outside technical reviewers.

Committee members said Coles County’s approach — which uses a hearing officer, outside engineer and outside attorney to review applications — provided a useful template for a county without zoning. “They retain an attorney to be the facilitator at the hearing. They retain an engineer to look over that portion of it,” a committee member reported, summarizing the Coles County practice.

Why it matters: the committee is shaping how large renewable-energy projects would be reviewed and permitted in a county that currently lacks zoning, with implications for property access, local fees and farmland use.

Discussion highlights

- Outside reviewers and a local coordinator: Committee members agreed they should plan to retain outside expertise to run hearings and perform technical reviews. The proposal discussed would name a single county point of contact — described in the discussion as a “coordinator” or liaison — who would direct applicants to the application process.

- Hearing officer recommendation and final vote: Several speakers said Coles County’s hearing officer makes findings or recommendations that then go to the full board for a final decision. “They sort of make a recommendation, and then it has to go to the full board to then vote on it,” one attendee summarized.

- Fees and how they are used: Members pressed for clearer, documented fee amounts. One committee member cited Coles County and other examples and said application-review funds are often handled by an up-front deposit that is replenished as the county spends it. “There’s a little different than some of these other counties where they’ve got a pretty hefty up front application fee … I think it was a hundred and 50,000 and then anything excess of that would also be billed back to them as well,” the speaker said (amounts cited during the discussion were presented as estimates by meeting participants).

- Comparative fee examples: Mike (identified in the meeting by first name) said Fayette County’s published administrative approach includes a base administrative fee and a per-megawatt charge. He described Fayette County’s administration fee as “$6,000 plus $2,000 per megawatt” and said, in his view, Effingham’s draft fee—he cited “80,000” for the county permit in the draft—appeared low relative to neighboring counties. He also relayed a developer’s comment that some counties set very large trust or escrow amounts to cover review costs; speakers cautioned the committee to set fees that would be defensible as reasonable.

- Property access and fencing language: Committee members asked staff to fix draft language that appears to give “the county” broad right of entry to private property. One member said the draft should be clarified to read “county’s authorized representative” rather than “the county.” They also asked for specific fence-location language (for example, whether fences must be on the property line or set back so neighbors may farm to the line) and for clearer fire/emergency access requirements.

- Setbacks, noise and vegetation: Members asked staff to identify and cross-check state rules referenced in the draft. A speaker noted noise limits enforced by the Illinois Pollution Control Board and urged review of state vegetation and weed-control requirements so counties do not duplicate or contradict state rules. Another member noted some ordinances include a 50-foot setback from property lines unless a neighboring landowner agrees in writing.

- Protections for landowners: The committee discussed language used in other counties that voids a permit if the developer falls behind on required payments to the landowner (one example heard during discussion referenced six months of missed payments as a trigger to void a permit).

Board direction

Committee members directed staff to continue drafting and to return with clarified, corrected language on the items above, plus concrete suggested fee amounts based on neighboring counties’ practices. Staff said they will compare sample ordinances, correct typographical issues and present recommended language at a future meeting.

No formal ordinance vote was taken at this meeting; the matter will return to the committee for further review.

Ending

Committee members left the item on the agenda for additional research and revisions and said staff should circulate updated language and concrete fee recommendations at a later meeting.