Lee County board rejects special-use permit for large religious gatherings at Rocky Ford Road property

The Lee County Board voted against approving a special-use permit request for a property at 174 Rocky Ford Road in unincorporated May Township, concluding a months‑long review of petition 25P1651.

Alice, a county zoning staff member, read the petition on behalf of the zoning hearing officer, identifying the petitioner as Rosie Tales and the parcel by PIN 13-21-25-100-003. The petition asked for a special-use permit to allow the parcel (approximately 5 acres, zoned Ag-1) to be used for what the filing identified as a church or religious facility. The zoning hearing officer’s record and testimony at an earlier public hearing, held Sept. 24, indicated the petitioner repeatedly described the planned activities as neither a church nor a traditional religious facility.

The hearing officer, Brian Brim, after the public hearing and review of objections, recommended that the board reject the application. Alice read Brim’s recommendation into the record and summarized his analysis, noting inconsistency between the formal petition and the petitioner’s testimony and substantial public opposition.

The hearing record, as presented to the board, described planned gatherings of roughly 80 to 150 people twice monthly for singing, prayer, meditation and peer support addressing issues such as addiction, anxiety and trauma. Testimony indicated some events would be overnight, take place under a large tent, and use portable bathrooms. Brim recommended rejection but listed conditions that should be required if the board chose to grant the permit: within 60 days the petitioner must obtain commercial‑occupancy inspections for fire, well and septic systems; a Lee County Health Department audit for a commercial occupancy of 80–150 people; and, if camping is to be allowed, coordination with the Illinois Department of Public Health and a separate special‑use permit for camping.

Board discussion referenced the hearing officer’s recommendation and the large public turnout at the hearing, which Alice said was about 40–50 people. Board member Mr. Craigstead asked whether approval would require adding the hearing officer’s recommended conditions; Alice confirmed it would. Board members Reid [last name not specified] and Ellie [last name not specified] urged following the hearing officer’s recommendation and rejecting the petition.

The county then conducted a roll‑call vote on a motion to approve the special‑use permit (moved by Mr. Hudson; seconded by Nancy [last name not specified]). All recorded votes were “no,” and the motion to approve failed, leaving the petition without county approval.

The hearing officer’s recommendation and the unanimous recorded “no” votes mean the board did not grant the special‑use permit. County staff noted that May Township trustees had not supported the petition; that information was received after the public hearing and was not part of the hearing officer’s original presentation.

The board moved on to other agenda items after the vote; no alternate permit terms were adopted at the meeting.