On the agenda: Pontiac Minutes — Data Center (Aug 5)

LIVINGSTON COUNTY BOARD
AGRICULTURE & ZONING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 5, 2026 MEETING
Committee Chair Mike Haag called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Present:

Mike Haag, Paul Ritter, Rebekah Fehr, Gerald Earing, Steven Lovell, Jack
Vietti

Absent:

Joel Barickman

Board Members Present:

Linda Ambrose, Leroy Rodriguez, Marty Fannin, Robert Weller, William
Mays

Also Present:

Zoning Administrator Brittney Miller, Executive Director Alina Hartley,
Administrative Assistant Eryn Brining, Andy Keyt (Heyl Royster), Seth
Uphoff (Uphoff Law), Aaron Galloway (Fellheimer Law Firm), Eric
Lovgren (Illinois Cement), Shawn Mages (Illinois Cement), John Duncan
(Illinois Cement), Steven Kroll (Illinois Cement)

Haag called for other additions or changes to the agenda. Motion by Earing, second by Ritter to approve
the agenda. Motion carried by voice vote with all ayes.
The Committee reviewed the minutes the June 1, 2026 committee meeting. Motion by Ritter, second by
Vietti to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried by voice vote with all ayes.
Zoning Administrator Report
Miller reported the complaints in regard to the condition of the living fence for Avoca/CEK 3 Solar
outside of Fairbury had been remedied in July. Miller also informed the committee that following a
meeting with Prairie Dock Solar, an extension request is anticipated for next month.
Miller reported the building permit for Heritage Prairie Wind was issued on July 16, 2026. Miller also
noted a meeting with Cayuga Ridge, but shared more discussion would follow per the meetings agenda.
Miller reported numerous violations are being turned over to the State’s Attorney office; noting that
multiple offices have started investigations in regard to a property on Route 23.
Miller reported she is registered for a Solar conference in September. Miller also shared she completed
her training for battery recycling and has received event supplies; discussion will be held at the next
meeting to set a date for the next recycling event.

1

Business:
a. Case SU-12-24 CS Long Point 1, LLC (Extension)
This zoning case pertains to the review of an extension for a previously approved special use to develop
a 5 MW solar farm on approximately 26.91 acres of a 39.79-acre tract of land in an AG, Agriculture
District located in Section 1 of Long Point Township in unincorporated Long Point.
b. Case SU-13-24 CS Long Point 2A, LLC (Extension)
This zoning case pertains to the review of an extension for a previously approved special use to develop
a 5 MW solar farm on approximately 18.88 acres of a 78.24-acre tract of land in an AG, Agriculture
District located in Section 2 of Long Point Township in unincorporated Long Point.
c. Case SU-14-24 CS Long Point 2B, LLC (Extension)
This zoning case pertains to the review of an extension for a previously approved special use to develop
a 5 MW solar farm on approximately 26.4 acres of a 78.24-acre tract of land in an AG, Agriculture
District located in Section 2 of Long Point Township in unincorporated Long Point.
d. Case SU-9-24 CS Anacona 1A, LLC (Extension)
This zoning case pertains to the review of an extension for a previously approved special use to develop
a 5 MW solar farm on approximately 33.8 acres of a 117.87-acre tract of land in an AG, Agriculture
District located in unincorporated Ancona.
e. Case SU-10-24 CS Anacona 1B, LLC (Extension)
This zoning case pertains to the review of an extension for a previously approved special use to develop
a 5 MW solar farm on approximately 32.5 acres of a 117.87-acre tract of land in an AG, Agriculture
District located in unincorporated Ancona.
f. Case SU-11-24 CS Anacona 1C, LLC (Extension)
This zoning case pertains to the review of an extension for a previously approved special use to develop
a 5 MW solar farm on approximately 34.64 acres of a 117.87-acre tract of land in an AG, Agriculture
District located in unincorporated Ancona.
The committee was in agreement to discuss the six extension requests as one as they share the same
parent company and current expiration dates. Uphoff noted all extension requests were due to utility
upgrade delays outside of the developer’s control. Extension letters provided indicated a request to
extend the special use permits until December 31, 2029 and substantial completion deadlines to
December 31, 2030.
Motion by Ritter, second by Earing to recommend approval of Case SU-12-24 CS Long Point 1, LLC;
Case SU-13-24 CS Long Point 2A, LLC; Case SU-14-24 CS Long Point 2B, LLC; Case SU-9-24 CS
Anacona 1A, LLC; Case SU-10-24 CS Anacona 1B, LLC; Case SU-11-24 CS Anacona 1C, LLC 2

Extension to the full county board. Motion carried on roll call vote. Ayes: Mike Haag, Paul Ritter,
Rebekah Fehr, Gerald Earing, Steven Lovell, Jack Vietti Nays: None Absent: Joel Barickman
g. Case SU-3-26 Illinois Cement Company
This zoning case pertains to the review of a special use to operate a mineral extraction site on an 80-acre
tract of property in an AG, Agricultural District located in unincorporated Chenoa.
Keyt explained as a result of the July 9, 2026 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting that no recommendation
for SU-3-26 Illinois Cement Company was approved. Keyt confirmed the Findings of Fact in the matter
was approved, but the draft conditions did not receive enough votes and failed on the motion to
approve. The draft conditions were provided for review by the committee.
Keyt noted of the 22 conditions drafted many addressed concerns of the neighboring land owners;
highlighting conditions for dust control measures, drain tile surveys, well protection agreements, well
monitoring, property value guarantees, and lighting.
Discussion regarding well protection agreements and well monitoring resulted in provision to be added
to draft conditions requiring a baseline test of all wells within the ½ mile radius to test for water flow and
contaminants. Keyt reiterated that proof of the well agreements negotiated in good faith would be
required prior to obtaining an Improvement Location Permit from the zoning office.
A member questioned if well agreements had been offered and negotiated yet, to which Galloway stated
a sample agreement used previously by Illinois Cement for LaSalle County had been provided to the
neighbors and one agreement had been negotiated separately, but no feedback had yet been received by
the property owner’s attorney. Another member asked if Illinois Cement Company would cover the legal
fees assessed for neighboring land owners’ negotiations to which Duncan responded it could be
considered on a case-by-case basis.
Members expressed concern over the relationship between the road commissioner and property owner
of the proposed quarry site in regard to road use agreements. Keyt noted the draft condition had been
revised to add a provision to include the review of the road use agreement by the county engineer or a
third-party engineer to avoid any unfairness or bias.
A member had questions in regard to truck routing and if the roads were classified to accept the weight
of the proposed traffic. Keyt explained truck routing was an initial concern of neighboring land owners
and that they had addressed routes directly with Illinois Cement. Concern was raised in regard to road
upgrades and it was reiterated as part of the draft conditions that the road use agreements must be in
place before an Improvement Location Permit can be obtained by the zoning office.
Discussion took place in regard to screening requirements to which Keyt shared a plan would need to be
provided showing a combination of earth, berm and trees. Keyt reiterated as part of the screening
condition, Illinois Cement Company would need to comply with commercially reasonable revisions
requested by the county or adjacent property owners prior to obtaining an Improvement Location
Permit from the zoning office.

3

Keyt touched on property value guarantees noting that no residential impact studies or expert testimony
had been provided in regard to property values, however a condition for a property value guarantee had
been drafted for the four occupied properties within 2000 ft of the proposed quarry. Keyt reiterated that
the property value agreements would need to be negotiated in good faith and proof provide to the
zoning office prior to obtaining an Improvement Location Permit.
Members voiced concerns in regard to repercussions for not following through on conditions of
approval to which Keyt responded the challenge comes from conditions not being part of the ordinance.
Keyt reiterated that agreements have to be offered and negotiated in good faith and proof provided
before obtaining an Improvement Location Permit. Members requested to be notified by the zoning
office prior to approval of the permit, to which Miller responded the office would comply with that
request.
Motion by Ritter, second by Vietti to recommend approval of Case SU-3-26 with conditions as amended
to the full county board. Motion carried on roll call vote. Ayes: Mike Haag, Paul Ritter, Gerald
Earing, Steven Lovell, Jack Vietti Nays: Rebekah Fehr Absent: Joel Barickman
h. Data Center Ordinance Discussion
Keyt opened discussion on the county’s interest in scripting an ordinance for data centers. Keyt stated
there currently is no statutory requirement and questioned the direction in which the county would like
to address the matter. Keyt stated the first step would be to establish the definition of ‘data center’ as
there is no universal definition that encompasses the various types of data centers.
Keyt noted the greatest concern has been for hyper-scale data centers utilized for AI or cloud
computing, and colocation data centers which serve more as a self-storage for a business’ data needs.
Keyt also stated the county would need to determine zoning districts to allow and/or prohibit a Special
Use Permit for data centers. Members were in agreement to consider hyper-scale or colocation data
centers over 10,000sq ft as permitted special use in industrial districts only.
Discussion took place with additional concerns regarding effects on water supply, power supply, and
noise pollution. Keyt said those concerns would be addressed within the ordinance and reiterated that
the LaSalle-Sinclair factors would apply and still need to be met. Members discussed considering a
moratorium until an ordinance could be drafted, to which Keyt stated a draft ordinance would be ready
for review prior to the September meeting.
i. Cayuga Ridge Wind Discussion
Members discussed a number of concerns in regard to Cayuga Ridge Wind turbines, including oil stains
on multiple turbines, one turbine that has been inoperable for three years, two turbines that have
become inoperable within the last six months, and a turbine with a noise complaint. Keyt relayed a letter
of response to address the named concerns would be drafted.
Solid Waste Update:
Haag reported on the Landfill Synopsis and stated that no issues were identified.
4

Other Issues to Come Before the Meeting:
No other issues were presented before the Committee.
Public comment:
The floor was open for public comment.
Review and Approval of Bills:
Motion by Vietti, second by Lovell to approve the bills as submitted. Motion carried by voice vote
with all ayes.
Adjournment:
Motion by Vietti, second by Ritter to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried by voice vote with all ayes.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:31 p.m.
_________________________________
Eryn Brining, Administrative Assistant
Livingston County Regional
Planning Commission

5