McHenry County Zoning Board of Appeals met Oct. 28

By Kristine Gonzales-Abella

Jan 13, 2022

McHenry County Zoning Board of Appeals met Oct. 28.

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

1. APPLICANT

Pleasant Grove Solar, LLC, a subsidiary of Duke Energy Renewables Solar, LLC (Petitioner)

2. REQUEST:

Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Solar Farm and variations to allow for 1) an exemption from the requirement to screen with vegetation any part of the facility within five-hundred (500) feet of a right-of way (except where the facility is within five-hundred (500) feet of a residence requiring screening under the McHenry County Unified Development Ordinance), and 2) a setback of zero (0) feet instead of the minimum fifty (50) feet required from any lot line where adjacent parcels are located within two different jurisdictions and where panel arrays are proposed to be constructed contiguously from one parcel in unincorporated McHenry County and one parcel in the City of Marengo.

3. LOCATION AND SIZE OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION:

The subject property consists of approximately 1,933 acres and is located in Riley Township, Illinois.

4. DATE AND TIME OF HEARING

July 29, 2021; August 12, 2021; September 9, 2021; September 23, 2021; October 7, 2021, and October 21, 2021 @ 1:30 PM

5. DATE AND TIME OF VOTING MEETING

October 28, 2021 @ 1:30 PM

6. LOCATION OF HEARING AND VOTING MEETING:

McHenry County Administration Building, 667 Ware Road, Woodstock, Illinois, 60098, County Board Conference Rooms

7. PRESENT AT HEARING:

A. ZBA Members: David Stone - Chairman, Linnea Kooistra, Kurt Schnable, Charles Eldredge, Vicki Gartner, Donald Smolinski, Robert Kosin

B. Witnesses: Tyler Coon, Paul Donley, Jennifer Klingshirn, Michael MaRous, Thomas Huddleston, Michael Tryon, Andrea Koller, Graham Furlong

C. Attorney: Thomas R. Burney

D. Public: Renee Hanlon - County Staff, Kim Scharlow - County Staff, Wayne Duckmann, County Staff, Adam Wallen, County Staff, Joanna Colletti, County Staff, (see public sign-in lists for each hearing date)

8. ITEMS OF EVIDENCE:

Group Ex. No. 1 - Complete Zoning Application

Group Ex. No. 2 - "Green Book" of resumes, documents, and exhibits, along with the PowerPoint presentation

9. SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY AT HEARING

Chairman Stone called the hearing to order by stating that the applicant was before the Board requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a Solar Farm and variations to allow for: 1) an exemption from the requirement to screen with vegetation any part of the facility within five-hundred (500) feet of a right-of way (except where the facility is within five-hundred (500) feet of a residence requiring screening under the McHenry County Unified Development Ordinance), and 2) a setback of zero (0) feet instead of the minimum fifty (50) feet required from any lot line where adjacent parcels are located within two different jurisdictions and where panel arrays are proposed to be constructed contiguously from one parcel in unincorporated McHenry County and one parcel in the City of Marengo.

Tom Burney, attorney for the applicant, stated that he represents Duke Energy and Pleasant Grove Solar, LLC and that they would be presenting multiple witnesses in support of the application.

Tyler Coon was called as the first witness. He stated that he is Business Development Manager II with Duke Energy and also the developer of this project. He explained that the proposed project spans across three jurisdictions: Boone County, City of Marengo, and unincorporated McHenry County. Mr. Coon indicated that Duke is one of the largest electric holding companies in the United States, operating over seventy (70) renewable energy facilities. He noted that they are experienced in large utility scale solar projects. Mr. Coon pointed out that there are no facilities of similar size located within the State of Illinois currently, but there are five (5) projects under development in the State.

Mr. Coon explained that the proposed project is a 300-megawatt ground-mounted solar generation facility with enough clean renewable energy to power the equivalent of 60,000 homes. The entire project area across all three jurisdictions is approximately 2,668 acres and consists of leased land, on which Duke would have land rights throughout the life of the project. Mr. Coon noted that Duke's total investment in the facility is estimated to be $450 million. He noted that both Boone County and the City of Marengo have already approved the special use permits and variations for the portions of the project area that fall within their jurisdiction.

Mr. Coon estimated executing an interconnection agreement with ComEd early in 2023, with construction to begin that year and operations by the end of 2024. They anticipate a forty (40)-year project life. Mr. Coon addressed the Approval Standards for Conditional Use, and noted that each of the witnesses would also be addressing them within their area of expertise.

Mr. Coon addressed a number of benefits to the community a project of this nature would provide including an increase in tax revenue, creation of new jobs during construction, economic development during construction, and their commitment to support the re-establishment of the Coon Creek Drainage District and financing the cleaning of it. He also mentioned that they anticipate involvement with local school districts and communities to bring education and contributions to the area. Mr. Coon spoke about meeting or exceeding all required setback requirements of the County and their intent is to have a facility that appears as a managed prairie system, rather than an industrial facility. He noted that they will be using a woven wire farm fence rather than the typical chain link fence.

Vice-Chair Kooistra asked about the availability of a drain tile study, and Jennifer Klingshirn stated that it would not be completed before the vote, but they are committed to provide it at the time of building permitting. Ms. Kooistra expressed concerns with voting on the application without the information on drain tile placement. Tom Huddleston, Huddleston-McBride Drainage Company, stated that they will be conducting a drain tile study on this property for this project. He noted that the main reason it has not yet been completed is due to the existing crops.

Zoning Board member Gartner asked who would be benefiting from the electricity produced from this project. Mr. Coon explained that this is a wholesale project. He noted that it would be delivered to ComEd's transmission system and be available to anyone that draws from the system, including the local communities. Generally, he noted large tech companies would pay for the power through a virtual power purchase agreement, but it is really going into the local electrical grid.

Chairman Stone questioned the amount of land that would be taken out of agricultural production with the proposed project. Mr. Coon stated that the majority of the subject property is tillable acreage, but during the life of the project, the land would be given a rest and preserved for future agriculture.

Members of the public then asked questions of Mr. Coon. One member of the public, Justin Fortinberry, asked why farmland is being sought for the solar farm as opposed to brown fields where there is no detriment to the impact of the land. Mr. Coon explained that they do develop on brown field sites where it makes sense, but there are not enough of them next to good transmission systems to meet the growing demand for renewable energy in the country. He noted that this site was first selected based on the transmission line and the capacity of the 345-kV line. He also pointed out that there was interest from local landowners within this region with regard to both financial reasons and to preserve their farmland long term for future uses. Karen Schnable, Supervisor of Riley Township and business manager of Riley School District #18, asked about the benefit to the applicant if the Coon Creek Drainage District is reinstated. Mr. Coon stated that there could be a long-range benefit due to having a well-drained site, but it is not a requirement for this project. Additional questions were asked with regard to vegetative screening, property values, and drainage, which were all identified as areas that would be addressed by future witnesses.

August 12, 2021

Chairman Stone called the hearing back to order. Mr. Burney stated that they would like to move on to three additional witnesses starting with Paul Donley.

Paul Donley was called as a witness and stated that he is the Director of Project Engineering with Duke Energy. He described the various equipment proposed for the site, including the rows of panels, with a typical distance of twenty (20) feet between them. Mr. Donley showed an example of a bi-facial solar module pointing out that they allow the panels to collect light from both sides. These are covered with an aluminum frame. He also described mono-facial panels which have glass on the front and a sheet on the back. Mr. Donley described the single-access tracker and explained that they rotate in one direction following the sun from east to west throughout the day.

Mr. Donley stated that the modules are supported on a racking system on which piles are driven about four (4) to eight (8) feet into the ground. He also showed an image of a typical inverter skid, pointing out that they are approximately 10'x20' or 10'x40' and the inverter would sit about six (6) to eight (8) feet tall.

Mr. Donley addressed concerns about the potential for hazardous materials in the modules by explaining that all of the primary materials: glass, aluminum, silicone, copper, and trace semiconducting metals are all inert and don't constitute hazardous materials or waste. He noted that there could be trace amounts of lead from soldering material, which is similar to televisions and cell phones. Mr. Donley explained that there is no risk of exposure of leakage and any amount contained in the modules is below the EPA limits.

Mr. Donley described the emergency action plan that had been prepared, which includes plans to contact the local fire district and coordinate with them prior to building permit. He said that all onsite employees will be aware of the final plan which includes: prevention of fire risk, electrical safety protocols, training, and vegetation maintenance.

To address concerns about electromagnetic radiation, Mr. Donley explained that studies have shown there is no EMF risk from a solar facility, mainly due to the low voltage they operate on.

With regard to setbacks, Mr. Donley pointed out that all solar panels and electrical equipment will be no less than fifty (50) feet from any lot line. He also noted that the structures will not be closer than three hundred (300) feet from any residence.

Next, Mr. Donley discussed the decommissioning of the site. He stated that the project would recycle as much material as possible, including the solar panels. In addition to the panels, Duke Energy would also be removing the electrical equipment, poles, piles, foundations and conduits, as well as access roads, fencing, groundcover, landscaping, and anything else installed as part of the project.

Thomas Huddleston was called as the next witness. He stated that he is with Huddleston McBride Drainage Company and has run the company for the past forty-seven (47) years. He indicated that a drain tile study needs to be completed prior to securing a building permit from the Stormwater Division. Mr. Huddleston explained that when they do agricultural drainage mapping for solar fields, they prepare a detailed drainage base map that includes: aerial photography, boundary parcels, surface conveyance, soils, wetlands, and topography in order to make decisions on where they assume there might be drain tiles. He further explained that they then prepare a perimeter drain tile investigation map in which they trace drain tile through the project area. Mr. Huddleston stated that they then are able to survey that with a Trimble Survey System and State Plane Coordinates, within plus or minus one inch in accuracy, to know exactly where the drain tiles are located.

Mr. Huddleston mentioned that once the drain tiles are located, they evaluate for design and reconstruction with regard to the project area which may include replacement with a polyethylene dual wall pipe, or rearrangement of lateral lines to make sure they are not in conflict with any of the solar piles installed during construction.

Mr. Burney asked whether it was necessary to have the drain tile study completed prior to the Board's recommendation on the Conditional Use. Mr. Huddleston explained that the issue with conducting the study at this time is the fields are full of crops and it would be unreasonable to do an investigation at this time. He noted that there should not be any issues that could not be designed around to make the project feasible. Mr. Burney noted that neither Boone County or the City of Marengo required a drain tile study in advance of granting the special use permits.

Mr. Eldredge asked for clarification on Mr. Huddleston's testimony with regard to drainage to the Coon Creek. Mr. Huddleston stated that he believes the combination of plantings associated with the solar field and the tiles that will be repaired and cleared would make the amount of water flowing into the Creek slower and less per day than it is now.

September 9, 2021

Jennifer Klingshirn was called as the next witness. She explained that she is an environmental scientist and senior project manager at Energy Renewal Partners. Ms. Klingshirn stated that she was involved in the early phases of this development process and has been putting together application materials. She noted that Duke Energy has completed fourteen (14) studies including: a Natural Resource Information Report, Ecological Compliance Assessment Tool, decommissioning plan, transportation access, wetland delineation, solar glare hazard analysis, and market impact analysis. Ms. Klingshirn indicated that they have received feedback from U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and both agencies indicated there should be no impacts to federally or state listed species or natural resources, if certain conditions and recommendations are followed.

Ms. Klingshirn showed a series of photographs depicting current conditions of the site, including roads and agricultural fields. She described the process of preparing the site layout, noting that they established a conditions map and incorporated the result of the studies that have been completed in order to appropriately consider setbacks, environmental features, and utility locations. She pointed out that the inverters would be located far from roads and residences, no panels would be constructed in the floodplain, and all of the UDO setback requirements are either met or exceeded in this proposal. Ms. Klingshirn spoke to the variation request from the required vegetative buffer. She explained that the UDO requires native shrubs as screening where residences or rights-of-way are within five hundred (500) feet of the facility. While they are committed to meeting the requirement for screening from residences, they are requesting a variation from the screening requirement between the facility and the road rights-of-way within five hundred (500) feet. Mr. Burney noted that this would amount to approximately one million dollars ($1 million) and for approximately 30,000 linear feet. He stated that there is no benefit to the public welfare to install that amount of screening and it would be an extraordinary expense to the applicant.

Ms. Klingshirn stated that there had been discussions with landowners in the vicinity of the proposed project regarding making accommodations for any concerns they may have. She mentioned that Duke will look to make several changes to the site plans based on those discussions. This includes removal of a small area of panels, as well as including additional vegetative buffer along Grange Road.

Ms. Klingshirn indicated that Duke has provided a signed version of the Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreement with the Illinois Department of Agriculture. She noted that the requirements of that agreement include decompaction of soil upon decommissioning, as well as drain tile stipulations for the site.

With regard to the second variation request, Ms. Klingshirn pointed out that there are two (2) portions of the project area where panels are proposed to cross from unincorporated McHenry County to neighboring property within the City of Marengo, thereby not meeting the requisite fifty (50)-foot setback requirement. She noted that Duke has leases with the adjoining neighbors in those situations.

Vice Chair Kooistra asked about the Drainage Repair and Remediation Plan. Ms. Klingshirn explained that Duke prepared the document and it overlaps a bit with the AIMA agreement. She noted that it includes pre-construction activities, such as identifying tile lines and repair standards and procedures, as well as a post-construction plans showing where final tile lines or changes needed to be made. Ms. Kooistra stated that she had concerns with the document and felt it weakens the AIMA. Specifically, there is language stating that Duke would not be required to implement recommendations of the Soil and Water Conservation District. She mentioned that she reached out to Spring Duffey with the MCSWD because she believes they should not be excluded from the process. Ms. Kooistra also shared the Plan with the Farm Bureau, who also had concerns of their own. Mr. Burney stated that they would incorporate the AIMA and Tom Huddleston's recommendations and submit a revised Drainage Repair and Remediation Plan for the next hearing date.

Michael MaRous was called as the next witness. He stated that he is President of MaRous & Company and has been appraising real estate for over 40 years. Mr. MaRous explained that he has reviewed the proposed project, toured the project footprint, and done extensive research on economics, sale price, demographic information, cost of the property and jobs. He noted that he prepared a written report that was published in February of 2021 and submitted as part of the zoning application. He indicated that, based on his experience and consideration of the impacts of the project, there would be no negative impact on the surrounding property values. Mr. MaRous stated that there are significant financial benefits to the local economy, including approximately a million dollars a year to the taxing bodies, which would bring money back into the economy.

Mr. MaRous explained that they typically look at appearance, traffic, noise, odor, hazardous materials, and demands of public services when evaluating uses such as a waste transfer station, a landfill, industrial and commercial uses when determining affect on property values. He pointed out that solar farms produce minimal noise and traffic, no hazardous materials, and is a contribution to public services. He mentioned that the most comparable project would be North Star Solar in Minnesota which consists of one hundred (100) megawatts and one thousand (1,000) acres and basically surrounds a residential development. He noted that sales prices have actually increased over time in that area.

September 23, 2021

Mr. Burney pointed out that the AIMA provisions had been adopted as Duke's Drainage Repair and Remediation Plan, in order to remain consistent due to the conflict brought up by Ms. Kooistra at the previous hearing. He also noted that he had prepared a memo in response to whether a drain tile study is required prior to a vote on the proposed zoning application.

Mr. Burney mentioned that Andrea Koller was present to fill in for Emily Boukai as a witness and Graham Furlong would be presenting four (4) modifications that have been made to the plan in order to address concerns raised during testimony. Mr. MaRous joined the meeting remotely to answer remaining public questions.

Bruce Peleschak asked if there have been cases where solar farms like what is proposed have found that there were negative impacts to property values. Mr. MaRous explained that, after speaking with Assessors, there had been no tax appeals in the Midwest showing any instance of property values being negatively impacted by a solar farm.

Andrea Koller was called as the next witness. She stated that she is a licensed professional engineer with Kimley-Horn & Associates. Ms. Koller explained that Kimley-Horn prepared: the site plan, glare studies, noise studies, transportation memo, and hydrology memo for this project. She noted that the only civil engineering related infrastructure improvements include the addition of on-site access roads and driveways connecting to existing roads. The project does not require any other utilities such as water or sanitary sewer.

Ms. Koller described the tracking of the panel as it rotates throughout the day following the sun. She noted that there is approximately fifteen (15) to twenty (20) feet between panel areas which would remain as green space. Each panel is approximately seven (7) feet wide. Ms. Koller indicated that there would be minimal to no grading proposed as part of the project and existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the extent possible. She noted that a preliminary hydrology study had been submitted which showed that the proposed ground cover would decrease runoff from the pre-development to post-development condition.

Ms. Koller went through the glint and glare study, as well as the noise analysis. For the glint and glare, a software called Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool was used to track system models to determine if there is potential for glare. The analysis determined there was no glare present at any of the points of analysis. With regard to noise analysis, Ms. Koller indicated that solar farms are generally quiet and do not emit much noise. The only significant source of noise is the inverters which are strategically located within the project area to keep them away from the property lines. She pointed out that the inverters do not run at night because the equipment does not generate when there is no light out. For the noise analysis, a software called Sound Plan was used to compute noise levels based on the manufacturer issued noise data. Ms. Koller stated that the study confirmed noise projected at the property line of the project would not exceed the Illinois Pollution Control Board limits.

With regard to the traffic and access plan, Ms. Koller noted that a road use agreement with the township will be established and the road use schedule will follow township requirements. She noted that there will not be any issues with maintaining clear site triangles throughout the site.

Mr. Schnable pointed out that the Environmental Defenders of McHenry County had submitted a letter raising an issue about capturing leaks from transformers or inverters. He asked for clarification on whether the inverters contain coolants or lubricants. Mr. Donley explained that the inverter skid would have a transformer that would have environmentally friendly oil and the inverters could be environmentally friendly liquid or air cooled.

Graham Furlong was called as the next witness. He explained that he leads the greenfield development team for Duke Energy. Mr. Furlong stated that they have been working with neighbors to the project and have committed to making improvements to the site plan in order to accommodate some concerns. Two specific areas that have been modified on the plan are the Beh Lake Estates area where they propose to remove the panels between the tollway and the residential area. Mr. Furlong also pointed out the intersection of Grange Road and Burma Road where additional vegetative screening is now proposed, as well as along Blissdale Road, in order to increase the screening. Additional accommodations, such as setback increases, are also being discussed.

Mr. Furlong described the proposed vegetative screening as being native shrubs, with a taller tree every twenty-five (25) feet for buffer screening within five hundred (500) feet of residences. He mentioned that they have been working on a concept with the Farm Bureau that could potentially allow for living fences to be planted in the areas along township road frontage where the variance is being requested. He explained that the living fence would generally consist of twelve (12) rows of corn, about thirty (30) feet wide. It would be planted in May and harvested in March of the following year, and would also provide as a wind break or snow break for snow drifting.

October 7, 2021

Michael Tryon was called as the next witness. He stated that he was elected to the general assembly in 2004 and during that time served on the Energy and Environment Committee for twelve (12) years. He indicated that he worked on the Future Energy Jobs Act bill and was co-sponsor and chief sponsor on the Clean Carbon Energy Bill. Mr. Tryon explained that McHenry County has a lot of desirable access points under the transmission grid.

Mr. Tryon described how the Illinois Power Agency was created in order to buy renewable power. Since that time, he mentioned current generators, Commonwealth Edison and Exelon, have too much energy at certain times of the day and cannot modulate their output. He explained a bill was just passed recently, called the Illinois Climate and Equitable Jobs Act, which proposes Illinois to be carbon free by 2050. He indicated that the current energy platform is comprised of fifty-three percent (53%) nuclear power, thirty percent (30 %) carbon sources, ten percent (10%) renewables, and point two percent (.2%) hydroelectric and other power generated in Illinois. Mr. Tryon noted that there are many large multi-national corporations, such as McDonald's, Amazon, Walmart and Facebook making a commitment to renewable energies as well.

Ms. Gartner asked whether Mr. Tryon would anticipate only seeing solar as the main renewable source in the future. Mr. Tryon explained that there will also be a significant amount of wind energy and there is also hydro-generation. He noted that one of the incentives of the bill is to take waste and turn it into energy. He stated that there will likely be more biomass-type energy production, but predominantly wind and solar.

Joann Jones asked whether solar panels could be placed on rooftops that could support that, such as hospitals and retail, rather than taking away farmland for their energy credits. Mr. Tryon explained that he does believe we will see roof top solar on industrial operations, but with power needed twenty-four (24) hours per day, these companies will likely not be able to afford the cost to store it. Ms. Jones agreed that they would just utilize and generate what they consume and other types of power would be needed.

Mr. Donley provided additional testimony on the proposed living fence that was discussed previously and provided images to show how they would be used for the project area. He explained that they had met with the Farm Bureau, as well as with Ed Markison with the McHenry County Division of Transportation and made some modifications to the original concept. He mentioned that there would be approximately twelve (12) to sixteen (16) rows of corn near the fence around the facility, as far away from the right-of-way as possible, leaving approximately twenty (20) feet of clear space and standard grass vegetation. Mr. Donley described the benefits of the living fence including: visual screening, reduction of hazardous driving conditions, such as drifting snow, increased visibility, and less maintenance and salting costs for plowing. He noted that the stalks of corn would remain standing until the spring before being replanted.

October 21, 2021

Chairman Stone opened the meeting and Mr. Burney explained that there would be some additional testimony from Paul Donley with regard to the living fence concept. Mr. Donley stated that they had revised the exhibit based on conversations with the Riley Township Highway Commissioner, David Diamond. Specifically, Mr. Diamond was concerned about the proximity of the living fence to the right-of-way and snow drifting. In order to address those concerns, Mr. Donley pointed out they have extended the distance between the fence and the right-of-way in order to allow for fifty (50) feet of clear space between the living corn fence and the right-of-way. He noted that this would be the condition in the winter, but the farmers could farm a larger width of corn area during the summertime, as long as it is cut back to the fifty (50)-foot clearance in the winter condition.

Dave Diamond was present to give testimony with regard to the Township's position on the living fence. He mentioned that their primary concern was with how the fence would affect drifting snow and clearing of the roadways. If there is no obstruction within fifty (50) feet that should not adversely impact the roads.

During public comment, Staff cleared up a previous question about the Harmony Road bridge and whether weight limits could apply. They indicated that Ray Beets with MCDOT had indicated there had previously been a load posting for the bridge, but it had since been removed after the improvement project was completed in November of last year. There is currently no load posting, but a permit could be required for overweight/over-sized loads for using Harmony Road. Staff continued with comments, explaining that the proposed use is consistent with the current and future land use designations of Agriculture. They also noted that the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the 2030 and Beyond Update both support the development of solar farms. Staff noted that they remain neutral on the Conditional Use request as well as the setback variance, but that they do not support the request for a one-hundred percent (100%) waiver of the landscape screening requirement along public roadways.

Several members of the public gave comments in regard to the request. Bruce Peleschak, whose property is within one-hundred (100) feet of the project area, stated that he believes the solar facility would be good for the community. He did express concern with regard to noise levels potentially creating detrimental effects to property values. Doug Anthony stated that he owns approximately four hundred ten (410) acres with his sister along Jackson Road. He noted that his house would be surrounded by the proposed solar farm. As one of the landowners of part of the project area, he explained that they agreed to the lease for the future of the property and for their kids and grandkids. When the project is decommissioned, it would be up to them what to do with the land. Mr. Anthony stated that this is progress within the County. Lyn Downing stated that she bought her property with the intention to build and live there forever. She explained that she does not want to live amongst a solar farm and has concerns about the agricultural integrity of the County. She expressed opposition to the application. Joann Jones stated that she is surrounded on three sides by the project and noted that she does not feel any decisions should be made until all of the pertinent information has been submitted by the applicants. She also noted that fencing in thousands of acres will deplete wildlife habitat. Ms. Jones referenced videos taken on her phone to show the amount of flooding in the area of Coon Creek, near her property. She noted that it is typically under water multiple times per year. She stated that an additional four percent (4%) impervious surface (107 acre) is proposed to be added to the site which she is concerned will provide significant additional water issues.

Karen Schnable stated that it is important that Duke Energy follow the rules set forth by the County Board when the UDO was developed. She noted that she does not think it is fair to compare homes and property values near community solar farms when this is a utility-scale solar farm. Ms. Schnable indicated that residents are concerned that the project would add to the drainage problem throughout the area and expressed the importance of having the drain tile study completed so that the ZBA can make an informed decision.

10. SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT

For further information refer to report number: 21-001-4323

11. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

The consultation included American Brook Lamprey, Northern Long-Eared Myotis, Spike, and Swainson's Hawk as protected resources that may be in the vicinity of the project location. The IDNR recommended a native seed mix that includes forbs be planted as ground cover wherever feasible. They determined that impacts are unlikely based on the proposed use. IDNR consultation is closed at this time.

12. SUMMARY OF VOTING MEETING DISCUSSION

Chairman Stone opened the voting meeting. Vice Chair Kooistra made a motion to delay the vote on the application until the documents normally provided to Staff Plat Review are provided. Ms. Gartner seconded the motion. Ms. Kooistra mentioned that there is not enough site plan detail on the concept plan that was provided and she was also not comfortable with voting until the hydrology report has been completed and reviewed. Members discussed the motion. Chairman Stone called for the vote. The motion failed.

Chairman Stone continued by listing all proposed conditions:

1. The Conditional Use shall have no time limit, but may expire as outlined in Section 16.20.040.H Expiration of Approved Conditional Use Permits and per Sections 16.56.030.PP.4 and 5 Abandonment and Decommissioning in the Unified Development Ordinance.

2. Site development and operation shall be in substantial conformance to:

a. Sheet EX-0 through Sheet Ex-5 of the Zoning Site Plan prepared by Kimley-Horn dated June 7, 2021 as amended September 21,2021 and located within the official zoning file in the Department of Planning and Development.

b. Decommissioning Plan, Pleasant Grove Solar prepared by Kimley-Horn dated June 9, 2021.

c. Drainage Repair and Remediation Plan prepared by Duke Energy and submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals on September 23, 2021.

d. Emergency Action Plan prepared by Duke Energy received July 8, 2021 in the Planning & Development Office.

e. Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreement between Pleasant Grove Solar, LLC and the Illinois Department of Agriculture, dated March 12, 2021.

3. Prior to submittal of a construction/building permit application for any portion of this development project, a Development Plan Set shall be prepared by the applicant and presented for review and approval to the McHenry County Staff Plat Review Committee (SPRC). Upon submittal of a complete, in the opinion of the Zoning Enforcement Officer, Development Plan Set and payment of applicable review fees, staff shall schedule the presentation of the Development Plan Set before the SPRC during a regularly scheduled meeting.

a. The Development Plan Set shall minimally consist of the following:

i. Development Site Plan drawn at a scale of 1:20’ including the following detail:

1. Location of all property lines

2. Location of all buildings and other improvements within the project boundary along with all residential structures located within five hundred (500) feet of the project boundary.

3. Location of all public and/or private wells, septic tanks, and septic fields.

4. Location of solar arrays.

5. Location of internal access roadways, and access driveways onto public and/or private roadways.

6. Location of all above and below ground existing and proposed public/semi public/private utility lines.

7. Location of all agricultural drain tile.

8. Location of all environmentally sensitive areas (i.e. wetlands, floodway, waterways).

ii. Landscape Site Plan drawn at a scale of 1:20’ including the following detail:

1. Location of all existing and proposed landscape materials.

2. Planting details and specifications for all proposed plant materials including, but not limited to, required screening plant materials and all ground cover.

3. Location of existing and proposed fences.

4. Fence detail and construction specifications for all proposed fence materials.

5. Location of existing trees to be preserved

iii. Landscape Monitoring and Maintenance Plan to ensure the establishment and continued maintenance of the native prairie species, all installed landscape screening, and all existing vegetation that provides required landscape screening.

iv. Tree Survey and Preservation Plan drawn at a scale of 1:20’ including the following detail:

1. Location of all existing trees. Tree numbers on the plan shall correlate with tags assigned to trees during field survey.

2. List of trees, organized by tree number, detailing the size, species, health, and status of each tree.

3. Trees slated for removal shall be marked with an “X”.

4. Construction detail sufficient to understand techniques used to protect trees during construction and consistent with best management practices as determined by the Zoning Enforcement Officer.

v. Drain Tile Survey drawn at a scale of 1:20’ including the following detail:

1. Location of all drain tile.

2. Explanation of condition of drain tile.

3. Location of all culverts and open drainage ditches

vi. Drain Tile Construction Plan drawn at a scale of 1:20’ including the following detail:

1. Location of all proposed drain tile.

2. Location of all existing open drainage ditches and culverts to remain along with maintenance plan.

vii. Complete engineering construction documents sufficient to understand the installation of racking system, solar arrays, collection systems, inverters, and any other equipment and/or buildings proposed.

viii. Decommissioning Plan including:

1. Engineer’s cost estimate for implementation.

2. Draft financial surety document in support of plan implementation.

b. The SPRC has the express authority to require any additional information deemed necessary for an adequate review of the Development Plan Set. Such request for information shall halt the review process until such time as the information has been provided to the SPRC.

c. The SPRC shall not be held to a time limit in the review of this Development Plan Set nor limited in number of scheduled meetings deemed necessary for review of the Development Plan Set.

d. At the conclusion of review, the SPRC shall take action in one of the following forms:

i. Approval of the Development Plan Set

ii. Approval with Conditions of the Development Plan Set

iii. Denial of Development Plan Set with requirement to amend this Conditional Use Permit to reflect the substantial deviations for these conditions of approval.

iv. Denial of Development Plan Set with requirement to refile a Conditional Use Permit application to reflect the substantial deviations from these conditions of approval. e. In the event of dispute between the SPRC and Pleasant Grove Solar LLC, appeal shall be made to the McHenry County Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). The ZBA shall review the matter during a regularly scheduled meeting. A decision supported by at least five (5) members of the ZBA shall be binding upon both parties.

4. Decommissioning Plan, Pleasant Grove Solar prepared by Kimley-Horn dated June 9, 2021 (Decommissioning Plan) shall be applicable in part as well as whole. If any portion of the solar farm facility ceases to perform its intended function for more than twelve (12) consecutive months, that portion of the solar farm facility shall be decommissioned in compliance with all the terms of the Decommissioning Plan.

5. Engineer’s Cost Estimate of Decommissioning Plan shall be approved by the Staff Plat Review Committee prior to construction/building permit issuance. Financial surety in a manner approved by the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office shall be executed in the amount of 150% of the engineer’s estimate prior to issuance of construction/building permit. Revised Engineer’s Cost Estimate shall be submitted for review and approval to the Staff Plat Review Committee in ten (10) year intervals beginning on the date the solar farm facility is commissioned.

6. No structures, excluding power lines for interconnection, may exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. Power lines shall be placed underground to the maximum extent possible.

7. Lighting shall be installed and maintained in accordance with §16.60.020 Exterior Lighting of the McHenry County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)

8. All site development shall comply with the McHenry County Stormwater Management Ordinance (Title 17 McHenry County Code of Ordinances). A McHenry County Stormwater Management Permit shall be secured prior to construction. Any damaged drain tiles shall be repaired at the expense of Pleasant Grove Solar LLC and in a manner satisfactory to the Water Resources Division Manager.

9. The solar facility shall be planted with a “low-profile” native prairie species, using a mix appropriate for the region and soil conditions as prescribed by the Water Resources Division Manager. These plantings shall be maintained for the life of the solar facility.

10. Prior to construction, the operator shall prepare a Landscape Monitoring and Maintenance Plan to ensure the establishment and continued maintenance of the native prairie species, all installed landscape screening, and all existing vegetation that provides required landscape screening.

11. Fencing shall be provided in compliance with the National Electrical Code, as applicable. The use of barbed wire is prohibited. Setting fence posts in concrete is prohibited except for gate posts and where otherwise required for stability.

12. To minimize soil disturbance and impacts to groundwater infiltration, solar panels shall have driven pile foundations or ground screw anchors. If the facility is within 1,000 feet of an inhabited residence, pile foundations shall be installed with a hydraulic pile hammer or similar sound-attenuating process (as compared to an impact-driven hammer) unless not feasible due to environmental or geologic conditions.

13. All requirements of McHenry County Unified Development Ordinance §16.56.030.PP shall be met or exceeded unless specifically amended by this Conditional Use Permit.

14. All other federal, state, and local laws shall be met.

15. Applicant shall implement new subsurface drainage system installation including pattern drainage and mainline reconstruction as described in Agricultural Drainable Considerations Including Modifications and Maintenance Recommendations for Ground Mounted Solar Projects within Existing Agricultural Land Use Area prepared by Huddleston McBride dated July 22, 2021.

16. Any change in ownership and/or operator of this solar facility shall be immediately disclosed to the Zoning Enforcement Officer. The Zoning Enforcement Officer shall be provided the contact information of an authorized representative of the new owner and/or operating organization as part of the written disclosure notice. Pleasant Grove Solar LLC shall have the sole responsibility in disclosing all requirements and agreements made during the zoning approval and /or permitting process to the new owner and/or operator.

17. Any additional improvements necessary to the operation of this solar facility which are proposed outside of the geographic boundary of this Conditional Use Permit requires the granting of a separate Conditional Use Permit or a major amendment to this Conditional Use Permit. Filing shall be made in compliance with all provisions of UDO Section 16.20.040 as amended from time to time.

18. All equipment shall be operated and maintained with biodegradable oil and/or lubricant.

Mr. Eldredge made a motion to amend references of 1:20' to "1 inch equals 20 feet." Ms. Gartner seconded the motion. The motion carried.

Mr. Kosin made a motion to amend Condition #3.a.iv.4 from 'best management practice' to 'ANSI standards 300, Part 5 and Part 8.' Mr. Eldredge seconded the motion. Vice Chair Kooistra stated that she would rather defer to the Zoning Enforcement Officer and was opposed to the motion. Mr. Eldredge suggested to modify the motion to state 'best management practice not less restricted than ANSI 300, Part 5 and Part 8.' Mr. Kosin accepted the amendment to his motion. The amended motion carried.

Mr. Burney asked whether language could be added to Condition #15 after 'including' to include 'but not limited to'. Ms. Gartner made that motion. Mr. Eldredge seconded the motion. Additionally in #15, Mr. Burney asked if the language 'in accordance to the Drain Tile Survey' could be added after 'Drainage system installation.' The first motion carried. Ms. Kooistra stated that she was not in favor of the second motion. Duke Energy withdrew their request for the second motion.

Mr. Burney stated that there were proposed amendments the applicant had for some of the proposed conditions. For Condition #1, they proposed adding 'except the timeline for securing a building permit and commencing construction shall be extended to three years.' Ms. Hanlon pointed out that it would be unnecessary language due to the proposed amendments to the UDO that would suspend enforcement on the typical expiration time for solar farms. That proposed amendment was withdrawn.

Mr. Donley asked for clarification to be added to Condition #2.c and #2.e. Specifically, he wanted to make sure it was clearly referring to the amended appendix that was submitted. Vice Chair Kooistra made a motion to add the word 'Amended' before 'Drainage Repair and Remediation Plan'. Mr. Eldredge seconded the motion. The motion carried.

In Condition #3, Mr. Donley explained why he does not feel 1"=20' would be an appropriate scale for this project, as it would result in 500 to 1,000 sheets of paper per plan. He proposed that 1"=120' would work. Staff indicated that the plans need to be able to be read and they feel 1"=60' is the smallest that they would accept. Mr. Eldredge made a motion to change the scale to 1"=60'. Ms. Gartner seconded the motion. The motion carried.

The next area of concern Mr. Burney pointed out was Condition #3b in which the language regarding the right to require any additional information deemed necessary is too broad. He would like to see it limited to what is required under UDO Section 16.56.030.PP so that it is relevant. Mr. Eldredge made the motion to add the language 'under the McHenry County Unified Development Ordinance, Paragraph 16.56.030.PP after the word 'necessary.' Ms. Gartner seconded the motion. Vice Chair Kooistra noted that she was not in favor of anything that limits staff. The motion failed.

Mr. Burney suggested adding language following 'halt the review process' to include 'of that particular element in the plan set' to make sure one division's requirements do not pause the remainder of the review. Mr. Eldredge made the motion. Mr. Smolinski seconded the motion. Staff explained that the Staff Plat Review Committee is made up of members from Health, MCDOT, stormwater, planning, and building, and any revisions to the plan need to be approved in whole by the Committee. Mr. Eldredge amended his motion to say 'halt the review process before the Staff Plat Review Committee. The motion carried.

Mr. Burney stated that Condition #3c states the SPRC shall not be held to a time limit in the review of the plan set or limited in number of scheduled meetings. He proposed that a time limit of twenty one (21) calendar days be included for review. Mr. Eldredge made the motion for the purpose of discussion. Ms. Gartner seconded the motion. Staff indicated they could be accepting of thirty (30) calendar days and Mr. Burney agreed. The motion carried.

Mr. Burney questioned the relevance of #3d(iii) and #3d(iv) and asked that iv be removed while iii be revised to 'Denial of Development Plan Set with requirement to amend the Plan Development Set to reflect the substantial deviations from these conditions of approval.' Mr. Smolinski made that motion and Mr. Eldredge seconded the motion. Staff indicated that, if a development plan set is submitted that is substantially different from the concept plan voted on by the ZBA, there should be the potential for it to go back through the zoning process as either an amended petition or a new petition. The motion was withdrawn.

With regard to #3e, Mr. Burney asked for clarification on the five votes. Mr. Eldredge made a motion to amend the language to 'a decision in favor of Petitioner requires five affirmative votes by the Board.' Ms. Gartner seconded the motion. The motion carried.

Mr. Burney asked for clarification in Condition #5 to add the language 'in the form of a surety bond' after 'financial surety'. Mr. Eldredge made the motion. Vice Chair Kooistra seconded the motion. Members discussed the motion and asked applicant to further explain their request to amend. The applicant withdrew their request for the amendment.

Upon request by the applicant, Mr. Kosin made a motion to add telecommunications equipment as a structure that could exceed fifteen (15) feet in height in Condition #6. Mr. Eldredge seconded the motion. Mr. Kosin amended his motion to limit it to one (1) tower. The motion carried.

Mr. Burney indicated that Condition #10 was redundant and would like to see it removed. Mr. Eldredge made the motion for the purpose of discussion. Staff agreed that it was repeated and the motion carried.

On Condition #17, Mr. Burney asked to add the language 'except for any underground improvements'. Staff noted that discussions with the State's Attorney's Office have assisted in their opinion that any land disturbance, including underground improvements, would require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit or a second Conditional Use. No motion was made and the condition remained as proposed.

Vice Chair Kooistra made a motion to add the sentence 'Pile foundations and/or ground screw anchors shall be coated with an appropriate barrier to prevent corrosion to the greatest extent possible' to the end of Condition #12. Mr. Schnable seconded the motion. Mr. Eldredge did not agree with the condition because he felt it was beyond their expertise. The motion failed.

Vice Chair Kooistra made a motion, based on IDNR records of endangered species in the vicinity of the project, to add a condition stating that 'tree clearing shall be limited to November through March. Mr. Eldredge seconded the motion. The motion carried.

Mr. Eldredge made a motion to approve the conditions as amended. Ms. Gartner seconded the motion. The Board voted 7-0 to approve the conditions as amended.

Mr. Eldredge made a motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Smolinski seconded the motion. Mr. Eldredge stated that it is the policy of the County to support solar energy generation. He explained that this project is much larger than past solar farm requests, but in the long term it will be important for McHenry County to have this facility here for stability in the electric generation in the area, as well as enhancing economic development. Mr. Eldredge noted that he did have some concerns about the drainage in the area, but due to the hydric soils and drainage problems, the subject property is not considered to be the best farmland. He acknowledged the concerns of surrounding landowners, but stated that research and testimony has shown that there is no impact to surrounding property values. Mr. Schnable agreed with Mr. Eldredge, but pointed out that there would still be negative impacts to the surrounding area during construction, including 6,000 semi loads to deliver materials and pounding posts. Ms. Gartner also agreed with what had been said and mentioned that this would be a passive development to replace the cornfields. Vice Chair Kooistra stated that she is a great proponent of solar, but she disagreed with statements made about the lack of prime farmland on the property, as the Soil and Water Conservation District noted 97.94 percent prime farmland. While she mentioned the prime soils were not a big issue, she had concerns with the water issues on the site and was hesitant to vote in favor of the project without a full watershed study. Mr. Smolinski indicated that the applicants made adjustments to their plans to accommodate concerns of the objectors and he found no evidence to cause a rejection of the application. Mr. Kosin stated that he found no negative impact to the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the County with the proposed project. He mentioned that he has confidence in the applicant, as they have demonstrated their ability to construct these types of facilities elsewhere in the country. Chairman Stone went through the Approval Standards for Conditional Use noting that surrounding landowners may be irritated during construction and at the start of operations, but that over time, it should not be a bother to them. He also noted that all of the real estate studies have shown no negative impact to property values. The Board voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the Conditional Use.

Chairman Stone stated that there were the following two (2) proposed conditions for the Variation requests:

1. All variations shall expire upon decommissioning of the solar farm facility and shall not be applicable to further development of the property.

2. The living snow fence shall be annually planted and cultivated to provide a visual screen of the solar facility in compliance with the Living Fence - Proposed Typical Layout submitted as Petitioner Group Exhibit 2 and located in the official zoning file held at the office of Planning & Development. Planting and maintaining the living snow fence is the sole responsibility of Pleasant Grove Solar LLC and/or any subsequent operator. A failure to maintain such living snow fence in any one (1) growing season will result in the revocation of the variation waiving the screening requirement along public rights-of-way. Pleasant Grove Solar LLC and/or any subsequent operator shall comply with all screening requirements of the McHenry County Unified Development Ordinance as amended from time to time. Pleasant Grove Solar LLC and/or any subsequent operator shall fully comply with all required screening standards within three (3) years of written variation revocation. In the event the variation is revoked under these terms, it is the responsibility of the Zoning Enforcement Officer to provide written notice of revocation to Pleasant Grove Solar LLC and/or any subsequent operator.

Mr. Burney asked whether the second condition could be modified to clarify that the applicant would receive notice of deficiencies and a reasonable period be given to cure the deficiencies within one growing season. Mr. Eldredge made a motion to include that statement. Ms. Gartner seconded the motion. The motion carried.

Mr. Eldredge made a motion to approve the conditions as amended. Vice Chair Kooistra seconded the motion. Mr. Schnable stated that he would like to add a statement that outlines the applicant's commitment to move the site fence back on the subject property to accommodate for the corn. Mr. Schnable made a motion to amend the motion to include the statement 'The site fence shall be located a minimum of eighty (80) feet from the right-of-way, allowing for thirty (30) feet of living fence and fifty (50) feet of clear space in front of it, as shown on Petitioner's Group Exhibit No. 2, as amended on October 21, 2021.' Mr. Eldredge seconded the motion. The motion carried.

Mr. Eldredge made a motion to approve the conditions as amended after withdrawing his previous motion of the same. Vice Chair Kooistra seconded the motion. The motion carried and the conditions were approved as amended.

Mr. Eldredge made a motion to recommend approval of the variation request for an exemption from the requirement to screen with vegetation any part of the facility within five-hundred (500) feet of a right-of way, subject to the approved conditions. He stated that he would have been opposed to the variation request, until the idea of the living fence was brought up. He explained that living fences have been successful and he believes it would help the area along the roadways remain looking like a cornfield during the part of the year that it is up. Mr. Eldredge stated that the living snow fence would make the township roads significantly safer. Vice Chair Kooistra explained that she is opposed to the variation. She mentioned, as a farmer, she knows that there is a lot that would go into keeping corn growing for forty (40) years, including harvesting, tilling and spraying. She does not believe it could practically work for this purpose. Chairman agreed and was also opposed to the motion while the other Board members were in favor. The Board voted 5-2 in favor of the Variation.

Mr. Eldredge made a motion to recommend approval of the variation request for a setback of zero (0) feet instead of the minimum fifty (50) feet required from any lot line where adjacent parcels are located within two different jurisdictions, subject to the approved conditions. Vice Chair Kooistra seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0.

13. FACTS THAT SUPPORT RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST

1) The Approval Standards for Conditional Use, listed in Section 16.20.040.E of the McHenry County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), have been met to the satisfaction of most of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

2) The Approval Standards for Variation, listed in Section 16.20.020.F of the UDO have been met to the satisfaction of most of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

3) There would be a significant tax benefit to the taxing bodies within McHenry County.

4) Studies have shown no negative impact to nearby property values.

5) The County's land use plan supports the addition of solar energy.

14. FACTS THAT SUPPORT RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE REQUEST

1) The property, and area in general, have drainage and flooding issues.

2) Some Board members had issues with the proposal of a living fence in lieu of native shrubs and questioned the ability to maintain the corn over the life of the project.

15. MOTION

Made by Charles Eldredge, seconded by Donald Smolinski, to recommend approval of the request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Solar Farm, subject to the following conditions:

2. Site development and operation shall be in substantial conformance to:

b. Decommissioning Plan, Pleasant Grove Solar prepared by Kimley-Horn dated June 9, 2021.

c. Amended Drainage Repair and Remediation Plan prepared by Duke Energy and submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals on September 23, 2021.

d. Emergency Action Plan prepared by Duke Energy received July 8, 2021 in the Planning & Development Office.

e. Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreement between Pleasant Grove Solar, LLC and the Illinois Department of Agriculture, dated March 12, 2021.

a. The Development Plan Set shall minimally consist of the following:

i. Development Site Plan drawn at a scale of one (1) inch equals sixty (60) feet including the following detail:

1. Location of all property lines

2. Location of all buildings and other improvements within the project boundary along with all residential structures located within five hundred (500) feet of the project boundary.

3. Location of all public and/or private wells, septic tanks, and septic fields.

4. Location of solar arrays.

5. Location of internal access roadways, and access driveways onto public and/or private roadways.

6. Location of all above and below ground existing and proposed public/semi-public/private utility lines.

7. Location of all agricultural drain tile.

8. Location of all environmentally sensitive areas (i.e. wetlands, floodway, waterways).

ii. Landscape Site Plan drawn at a scale of one (1) inch equals sixty (60) feet including the following detail:

1. Location of all existing and proposed landscape materials.

2. Planting details and specifications for all proposed plant materials including, but not limited to, required screening plant materials and all ground cover.

3. Location of existing and proposed fences.

4. Fence detail and construction specifications for all proposed fence materials.

5. Location of existing trees to be preserved

iv. Tree Survey and Preservation Plan drawn at a scale of one (1) inch equals sixty (60) feet including the following detail:

1. Location of all existing trees. Tree numbers on the plan shall correlate with tags assigned to trees during field survey.

2. List of trees, organized by tree number, detailing the size, species, health, and status of each tree.

3. Trees slated for removal shall be marked with an “X”.

4. Construction detail sufficient to understand techniques used to protect trees during construction and consistent with best management practices not less restrictive than ANSI 300 part 5 and 8 as determined by the Zoning Enforcement Officer.

v. Drain Tile Survey drawn at a scale of one (1) inch equals sixty (60) feet including the following detail:

1. Location of all drain tile.

2. Explanation of condition of drain tile.

3. Location of all culverts and open drainage ditches

vi. Drain Tile Construction Plan drawn at a scale of one (1) inch equals sixty (60) feet including the following detail:

1. Location of all proposed drain tile.

2. Location of all existing open drainage ditches and culverts to remain along with maintenance plan.

viii. Decommissioning Plan including:

1. Engineer’s cost estimate for implementation.

2. Draft financial surety document in support of plan implementation.

b. The SPRC has the express authority to require any additional information deemed necessary for an adequate review of the Development Plan Set. Such request for information shall halt the review process before the SPRC until such time as the information has been provided to the SPRC.

c. The SPRC shall have thirty (30) calendar days to review the Development Plan Set, but the SPRC shall not be limited in the number of scheduled meetings deemed necessary for review of the Development Plan Set.

d. At the conclusion of review, the SPRC shall take action in one of the following forms:

i. Approval of the Development Plan Set

ii. Approval with Conditions of the Development Plan Set

iii. Denial of Development Plan Set with requirement to amend this Conditional Use Permit to reflect the substantial deviations for these conditions of approval.

iv. Denial of Development Plan Set with requirement to refile a Conditional Use Permit application to reflect the substantial deviations from these conditions of approval.

e. In the event of dispute between the SPRC and Pleasant Grove Solar LLC, appeal shall be made to the McHenry County Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). The ZBA shall review the matter during a regularly scheduled meeting. A decision in favor of the applicant by at least five (5) members of the Zoning Board will be binding upon the parties.

6. No structures, excluding power lines for interconnection and one (1) telecommunications tower, may exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. Power lines shall be placed underground to the maximum extent possible.

7. Lighting shall be installed and maintained in accordance with §16.60.020 Exterior Lighting of the McHenry County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)

10. Fencing shall be provided in compliance with the National Electrical Code, as applicable. The use of barbed wire is prohibited. Setting fence posts in concrete is prohibited except for gate posts and where otherwise required for stability.

11. To minimize soil disturbance and impacts to groundwater infiltration, solar panels shall have driven pile foundations or ground screw anchors. If the facility is within 1,000 feet of an inhabited residence, pile foundations shall be installed with a hydraulic pile hammer or similar sound-attenuating process (as compared to an impact-driven hammer) unless not feasible due to environmental or geologic conditions.

12. All requirements of McHenry County Unified Development Ordinance §16.56. 030.PP shall be met or exceeded unless specifically amended by this Conditional Use Permit.

13. All other federal, state, and local laws shall be met.

14. Applicant shall implement new subsurface drainage system installation including, but not limited to pattern drainage and mainline reconstruction as described in Agricultural Drainable Considerations Including Modifications and Maintenance Recommendations for Ground Mounted Solar Projects within Existing Agricultural Land Use Area prepared by Huddleston McBride dated July 22, 2021.

15. Any change in ownership and/or operator of this solar facility shall be immediately disclosed to the Zoning Enforcement Officer. The Zoning Enforcement Officer shall be provided the contact information of an authorized representative of the new owner and/or operating organization as part of the written disclosure notice. Pleasant Grove Solar LLC shall have the sole responsibility in disclosing all requirements and agreements made during the zoning approval and /or permitting process to the new owner and/or operator.

16. Any additional improvements necessary to the operation of this solar facility which are proposed outside of the geographic boundary of this Conditional Use Permit requires the granting of a separate Conditional Use Permit or a major amendment to this Conditional Use Permit. Filing shall be made in compliance with all provisions of UDO Section 16.20.040 as amended from time to time.

17. All equipment shall be operated and maintained with biodegradable oil and/or lubricant.

18. Tree clearing shall occur only between November 1 and March 31 of any given year.

16. VOTE

6 - AYES; 1 - NAYS; 0 - ABSTAIN

Vicki Gartner - Aye

Robert Kosin- Aye

Kurt Schnable - Aye

Donald Smolinski - Aye

Charles Eldredge - Aye

Linnea Kooistra - Nay

David Stone - Aye

17. MOTION

Motion by Mr. Eldredge made a motion to recommend approval of the variation request for an exemption from the requirement to screen with vegetation any part of the facility within five-hundred (500) feet of a right-of-way, subject to the following conditions:

1. All variations shall expire upon decommissioning of the solar farm facility and shall not be applicable to further development of the property.

2. The living snow fence shall be annually planted and cultivated to provide a visual screen of the solar facility in compliance with the Living Fence - Proposed Typical Layout submitted as Petitioner Group Exhibit 2 and located in the official zoning file held at the office of Planning & Development. Planting and maintaining the living snow fence is the sole responsibility of Pleasant Grove Solar LLC and/or any subsequent operator. A failure to maintain such living snow fence subject to notice and an opportunity to cure within any one (1) growing season will result in the revocation of the variation waiving the screening requirement along public rights-of way. Pleasant Grove Solar LLC and/or any subsequent operator shall comply with all screening requirements of the McHenry County Unified Development Ordinance as amended from time to time. Pleasant Grove Solar LLC and/or any subsequent operator shall fully comply with all required screening standards within three (3) years of written variation revocation. It is the responsibility of the Zoning Enforcement Officer to provide written notice of violation of this condition to Pleasant Grove Solar LLC or a subsequent operator.

3. The living snow fence shall be designed in compliance with the document “Pleasant Grove Solar-Living Fence” as amended and submitted during the hearing of October 21, 2021. Living snow fence setback shall be at least fifty (50) feet from the right-of-way and shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet in width, for a total of eighty (80) feet from the right-of-way to the site fence.

18. VOTE

5 - AYES; 2 - NAYS; 0 - ABSTAIN

Vicki Gartner - Aye

Robert Kosin- Aye

Kurt Schnable - Aye

Donald Smolinski - Aye

Charles Eldredge - Aye

Linnea Kooistra - Nay

David Stone - Nay

19. MOTION

Made by Charles Eldredge, seconded by Linnea Kooistra to recommend approval of the variation request for a setback of zero (0) feet instead of the minimum fifty (50) feet required from any lot line where adjacent parcels are located within two different jurisdictions, subject to the following conditions:

1. All variations shall expire upon decommissioning of the solar farm facility and shall not be applicable to further development of the property.

20. VOTE

7 - AYES; 0 - NAYS; 0 - ABSTAIN

Vicki Gartner - Aye

Robert Kosin- Aye

Kurt Schnable - Aye

Donald Smolinski - Aye

Charles Eldredge - Aye

Linnea Kooistra - Aye

David Stone - Aye

https://mchenrycountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=4953&Inline=True

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

!RECEIVE ALERTS

The next time we write about any of these orgs, we’ll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Sign-up

DONATE

Help support the Metric Media Foundation's mission to restore community based news.

Donate

McHenry Times