Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board holds over wind, solar and energy-storage zoning changes and adopts short moratorium on energy storage systems
Summary
The Lee County Board held over three proposed text amendments to the county zoning code for wind, solar and energy storage systems and approved a temporary moratorium on energy storage systems while ordinance standards are finalized; the planning commission had recommended approval with a required phase-one environmental assessment on decommissioning.
The Lee County Board agreed to hold over three petitions from the planning commission that would amend Title 10 (Performance Standards) of the Lee County Code of Ordinances to address wind energy systems (26-PC-86), solar energy systems (26-PC-87) and to create a new section for energy storage systems (26-PC-88).
Alice, who presented the petitions on behalf of the county zoning office, told the board the proposed text changes "are necessary to comply with the provisions of 55 ILCS 5... and the amendments thereto pursuant to Public Act 104-0458." The planning commission heard public testimony on April 6 and concluded its hearing May 4; no members of the public attended. The planning commission recommended approval of all three petitions but included a requirement for a phase-one environmental assessment after completion of decommissioning.
At the meeting the board voted to hold each petition over to the June meeting: petition 26-PC-86 (wind), 26-PC-87 (solar) and 26-PC-88 (energy storage). The transcript notes alternate member Amy Palmer recused herself from the planning commission vote on 26-PC-88 due to a conflict of interest.
Separately, while the ordinance language is being finalized, the board approved a short moratorium resolution on energy storage systems to "cover us until next month when you are scheduled to vote on the ordinance that would include the standards for energy storage," as explained during the discussion. The moratorium was moved by Mr. Hudson and seconded by Mr. Copin and carried on voice vote. The moratorium is intended to preserve the county’s regulatory authority while the board completes its local rulemaking process.
Board members and staff emphasized the need to align local code updates with state statute references cited in the petitions and to include environmental safeguards (the phase-one assessment) as part of decommissioning planning. The petitions and the moratorium will return to the board agenda in June for further action.
