Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appellate ruling narrows local review of solar farms; resident urges board to prepare for litigation
Summary
Board members discussed a recent appellate ruling that limits county consideration of local factors for solar farms sited in agricultural or industrial zones, and a Johnsburg resident urged the board to collect evidence to support litigation and community impacts.
County leaders told the March 12 meeting that a recent appellate-court decision addressing a Grundy County solar farm significantly narrows what local governments may consider when reviewing solar or wind projects in agriculturally or industrially zoned parcels.
"The ruling in essence says that the LEL factors do not count. They are not something we can consider. We are only allowed to consider the things that were put in the new state statute," Vice Chair Dr. Brian Sager summarized for the board, adding that the state's attorney will provide formal guidance.
During public comment, resident Renee Wigert urged the board to view litigation as an opportunity to document harms from an inappropriately sited large solar project. "When law meets human risk, laws are important... your opportunity to show with evidence why location matters," she told the board, citing previous board votes opposing a local solar farm and warning that state mandates can push counties toward approvals that concern residents.
Board members noted that the appellate ruling applies in particular when property is zoned agricultural or industrial, and that setbacks and panel-height rules in the state statute (as described by staff) will control review scope. Members also flagged other pending matters — a Monarch battery project that may fall partly inside county boundaries and a proposed change discussed in Springfield about allowing additional housing in certain residential zones — as items to watch for policy and land-use implications.
The board did not adopt new policy at the meeting; county staff said they will coordinate with the state's attorney and return with guidance on how the ruling affects local review procedures and any evidence the county can assemble in the event of litigation.
