Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hampshire board signals opposition to two county solar farm applications in village planning area
Summary
Trustees raised land-use and economic concerns and asked staff to submit county comments and bring back a nonbinding resolution opposing two Kane County solar farm applications that lie within the village planning area; the county comment deadline was noted and coordination with neighboring municipalities was discussed.
The Hampshire Village Board spent the bulk of its new-business period discussing two solar farm applications filed with Kane County that lie inside the village’s planning area but outside village limits. The board asked staff to file comments with the county and to return a nonbinding resolution opposing the two specific applications at the next meeting.
The matter came to the board after the mayor said nearby Pingry Grove alerted Hampshire staff to two separate solar proposals near State Route 47. Staff told trustees that a recent state statutory change has shifted approval authority for many solar farms to county boards, limiting direct municipal control over siting. The mayor said the discussion was not about whether solar energy is valuable but about "where" large-scale installations should be sited given long-term impacts on commercial corridors and future annexation plans.
Trustees and staff voiced several concrete concerns: the applications are proposed adjacent to a corridor the village considers prime for future commercial development; a 30-year operational lifespan for solar farms could shape surrounding land uses for decades; and in some cases the developer and project owner are based outside the area, which trustees said complicates local engagement. Mr Paulson, the staff presenter, explained that the current phase for nearby projects is procedural at the county level and that village input is submitted as an advisory opinion to the county zoning board.
Several trustees urged regional coordination. The mayor and staff said they have already been working with neighboring municipalities through Metro West and plan to present a joint case to the county board and to state representatives. The board noted a Kane County comment deadline (staff referenced January 31 in the packet) and directed staff to file an official comment and prepare a focused resolution identifying the county zoning findings of fact the village believes are not met.
The board did not vote on a resolution at the meeting; trustees asked staff to return the drafted nonbinding resolution for formal consideration at the next meeting. The mayor encouraged residents and trustees from neighboring communities to attend county-level hearings when the cases are scheduled.
