McHenry County postpones vote on solar farm petition amid legal, environmental and community concerns
Loading...
Summary
The board postponed a zoning decision on a solar farm to the Dec. 16 meeting after developers and nearby residents testified for and against the project, and staff and county attorneys warned of a 30‑day statutory deadline and potential litigation.
The McHenry County Board postponed consideration of a solar farm zoning petition until the Dec. 16 meeting after a mix of staff legal guidance, developer presentations and forceful public comment.
Developers representing two projects introduced themselves and described outreach: Britney Krebsbach of Pivot Energy said she was available to answer community questions and had provided a memo to the board; Dylan Haber of Water Locust Solar (owned by Cultivate Power) said the project followed state siting requirements and a zoning-board-of-appeals unanimous recommendation of approval. “We feel like we've been very transparent and engaging throughout this entire process,” Haber said.
Neighbors and other residents urged caution. Renee Weigert, who lives adjacent to a proposed site on Spring Grove Road and Ringwood Road, told the board: “McHenry County is not a testing ground. Our health is not negotiable,” citing concerns about electromagnetic fields, water contamination, fire hazards, glare and wildlife impacts. Several commenters asked the board to commission more extensive water‑system and natural‑resource reviews before permitting.
County staff and the state's attorney explained the procedural and legal context. The board heard that state law requires a zoning decision within 30 days of the close of a public hearing (transcript reference to statute described as "12 0 20 secondtion C"), and assistant state’s attorney Burandt said the statute does not spell out clear consequences for missing that deadline but that a mandamus action (court order to compel action) could be filed.
Given those legal time frames and sustained community concern, board members debated whether a 30‑day delay would worsen the county’s exposure to litigation or allow time to gather more information. After a voice vote the board voted to postpone the matter to the December meeting to allow time for additional information and for nearby municipalities and pending cases to evolve.
What happens next: the zoning petition will return to the board for a Dec. 16 vote; staff and the state's attorney indicated legal risk is uncertain and that neighboring counties have active solar‑farm litigation in various stages of appeal.
