Solar energy development changes approved by DeKalb County Board

SYCAMORE – The DeKalb County Board approved changes to the county’s existing solar energy regulations this week, with debate again centered around how much distance should be required between solar developments and surrounding properties.

During Wednesday’s meeting, the County Board voted to amend and then approve its Solar Energy Systems Ordinance. A related policy proposal involving regulations for storing solar energy for use was tabled for further consideration.

County Board member Scott Campbell, a Democrat from District 7, proposed what he called a minor change to the solar ordinance amendment. Campbell sought to change the minimum setback for solar energy systems to 300 feet from the property lines.

“I think our first responsibility is to take care of those who are here and have decided to invest in the county, before we allow others to come in and make large investments in the county,” Campbell said.

After listening to comments made by opponents of the original solar ordinance, Campbell said he did some math to see how changing the setback would affect solar projects in the county. Campbell said, per his math, in all cases his proposed change would reduce the size of a 3,000-acre solar garden by 0.16%.

“It’s a very small change to the overall project size for these companies that want to do large solar development, but it gives peace to these individuals who have decided to multi-generationally settle in DeKalb County,” Campbell said.

According to county documents, the originally proposed legislation to amend the solar ordinance in the DeKalb County Code stated solar energy systems need to be setback a minimum of 100 feet from property lines or rights of way. All solar components, except for the interconnection points, also would need to be set back at least 100 feet for every three feet the solar energy system is tall when oriented at its “maximum tilt from the nearest outer wall of any occupied structure not located on the property,” the ordinance reads.

Campbell’s proposition to move the minimum setback 200 feet farther from property lines was met with staunch opposition from County Board member Steve Faivre, a Democrat from District 4.

“I think most of you have heard me say, ‘If you want more space, you buy more space,’ ” Faivre said. “You can’t expect your adjacent farm and farmer to give you additional space to accommodate what you think you came into the community to get. So I would oppose this.”

Faivre said there’s nothing to “prevent a huge grain bin” from being built farther than 20 feet from the line of someone’s property.

“And I’ll tell you a grain bin will block a lot more of your view, and there’s not a [darn] thing you can do about it because it’s an agricultural building,” Faivre said.

County Board member Tim Bagby, a Republican from District 3, asked Campbell if his proposed change to the setback requirements was for properties of any size. Campbell said yes.

County Board Chairman John Frieders, a Republican from District 12, said he believes Campbell’s proposal was an issue because it could take away large chunks of land from large parcels.

After debate over procedural rules related to Campbell’s initial proposal, Campbell withdrew his initial amendment and issued a more specific one: That the minimum setback for solar developments be 300 feet for parcels equal to or less than 12 acres.

Campbell’s motion passed 15-7. County Board vice chairman Suzanne Willis, a Democrat from District 10; John Emerson, a Republican from District 2; Roy Plote, a Republican from District 11; Craig Roman, a Democrat from District 6; Ellingsworth Web, a Democrat from District 9; as well as Frieders and Faivre voted no on Campbell’s measure.

The County Board subsequently voted 19-3 to approve changes to its existing solar ordinance, with Willis, Emerson and Plote voting no.

John Lageman, a resident of Mayfield Township who’s frequently been outspoken against the county’s solar ordinances, said in an interview after the meeting that he’s lukewarm on the board’s Wednesday decision.

“I think under the circumstances we achieved the best that we could hope to achieve with what we knew we were up against,” Lageman said. “So I can’t say I’m satisfied or unsatisfied, but I think that it was nice to see a little bit of a compromise.”

In related legislation the County Board has debated for months in tandem with its solar regulations, proposed changes to the county’s existing battery energy storage system ordinance – meant to regulate how solar developments can store collected energy – was tabled.

The vote postponement that passed 19-3 was in line with a recommendation made recently by the county’s Planning and Zoning Committee.

Lageman said he thinks tabling the battery ordinance “was the right choice” because he wants county first responders to receive more training on fighting fires near battery storage systems. County officials said they desired more time to deliberate on the proposal before holding a vote.

“So I think it was a smart idea to table that and really give it some additional consideration,” Lageman said.