For the second time in as many weeks, the Sangamon County Board was served a lawsuit seeking to overturn a Board zoning decision.
In June, the board’s legal adviser and assistant state’s attorney, Joel Benoit, warned the board of potential legal action from Summit Ridge Energy. He said the petition for a 20-acre solar farm on Lenhart Road submitted by the Virginia-based company, which has more than 100 solar farms in Illinois, follows legal guidelines.
“The proponent would have a good case if, in fact, all the requirements of applicable law were met and we denied it,” he said in response to questions from board members at the June 9 meeting.
However, he said nearby residents objecting based on a possible decline in property values would not have a strong case against the county. “In my opinion, they could sue the county, but they would be unsuccessful.”
The Board voted it down 15-8. Five board members were absent, although even if all five had been in attendance and voted for it, it would not have been enough votes to approve the project.
Related
Denial for Springfield solar project
The state’s overarching laws on renewable energy zoning specifically “requires counties to allow commercial, utility-scale solar and wind energy conversion systems to be sited in areas zoned for agricultural or industrial use,” according to a University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign fact page. “A county can have more lax requirements than called for in state law, but it cannot have more restrictive requirements.”
The Board’s Zoning and Land Use Committee approved an amendment June 18 that attempts to regulate solar and wind projects after an appellate court ruling earlier in June granted local governments more decision-making power for renewable energy projects.
Related
Sangamon County seeks more local control
Daniel Hamilton, a partner at the Springfield-based law firm of Brown, Hay and Stephens, told the committee that petitioners could claim older law should apply.
“We could potentially put them on notice and tell them that these are the new rules. However, they won’t be the new rules until they’re final,” Hamilton said. “If someone comes in and wants to do an activity, whatever that activity is, if they have knowledge that the law is changing or changed, they can claim that the old law should apply. Then it’s their burden to prove that they’ve had sufficient expenditures of funds, they’ve relied on the law as it was previously, those sorts of things.”
That’s precisely what a team of lawyers from national law firm Polsinelli is arguing on behalf of the landowner, Springfield business owner Mark Roberts III, and Summit Ridge Energy in a July 14 court filing.
“Once the application was found to meet all solar siting ordinance requirements as well as… other state and federal statutes and regulations, approving the siting approval permit became a ministerial, nondiscretionary act” thanks to state law and the county’s existing solar ordinance, the lawsuit states.
It also claims it would be “unlawful” for the County Board to deny the project on the basis of a solar project diminishing property values – a pattern that studies of real estate sales in recent years have observed.
“The County Board’s only bases for denying the Application were objections relating to property value impacts and other objections based on the Project’s compatibility with the surrounding area. None of those bases were justifiable reasons to deny the permit,” the lawsuit reads. “To the extent County Board votes to deny issuing the permit were based on the project’s impacts to property value concerns, such reason is unlawful.”
The suit claims the County Board’s review criteria for issuing siting permits “does not include a review of property value impacts.” Zoning administrator Trustin Harrison acknowledged during the board’s June meeting that the county has never studied the issue.
It also cites the same state statute a group of Waverly residents referenced in their July 6 lawsuit that states any county board decision related to zoning is subject to fresh judicial review “as a legislative decision,” so long as any action taken to seek judicial review begins no later than 90 days after the decision.
No judge has been assigned to the case yet, and no initial court date is set.
