McHenry County zoning board approves conditional-use request for 5 MW community solar; vote 7-0

The McHenry County Zoning Board of Appeals voted 7-0 to approve proposed conditions and recommended approval of a conditional-use permit for application Z250070, a proposed 5‑megawatt commercial community solar facility on roughly 63.59 acres on the west side of Illinois Route 23 near Marengo.

The project applicant is listed in the record as Lance Leaf Solar LLC; Trajectory Energy Partners representatives presented project details to the board. John Carson, managing partner of Trajectory Energy Partners, told the board the company has developed multiple projects in McHenry County and said, “I don't expect to see much of a slowdown across most of the country.” Matt Kopinski, Northern Illinois project development manager for Trajectory, said the array would cover about 24 acres, “produce enough electricity to power roughly 1,100 homes,” and provide an estimated $104,000 in electricity savings to the surrounding community.

Why it matters: the board and staff said the petition meets county and state siting standards for commercial solar and that state law limits counties’ ability to deny such permits when minimum siting standards are met. The board’s approval advances the petition to the McHenry County Board for final action.

Project details and conditions Trajectory representatives said the facility is being proposed as a community solar project that will prioritize local subscribers, use union labor during construction and provide additional property-tax revenue to local taxing bodies. Abby Whitlitzky, director of external affairs for Trajectory, summarized the tax estimate included in the project packet: “we're estimating that in the first year, this will generate 30,000 and over the 35 year life of the project, almost $600,000 in due property taxes.” The project team also said the site will comply with county setback requirements, avoid impacts to mapped wetlands and incorporate native tall-grass and flowering‑shrub screening and pollinator‑friendly groundcover.

Design and technical points noted during testimony included single-axis (tracker) arrays rather than fixed-tilt panels, agricultural-style fencing rather than chain-link, transformers and inverters sited in the southeast corner of the parcel, and underground conduit for the array until the interconnection point on the roadside 34 kV distribution line. Trajectory said poles for final interconnection to the existing 34 kV line on the road will be aboveground where required to tie in to the utility. The company confirmed it will provide a decommissioning plan and financial assurance as required under state rules.

Environmental and operational safeguards Trajectory said it redesigned access and panel placement to avoid any wetland impacts and will install a stormwater protection plan before construction. The developer referenced third‑party testing on modern panels and a TCLP‑style review, saying the report concluded releases from damaged panels are negligible. Trajectory and consulting materials cited that modern photovoltaic modules are encapsulated between glass and backsheet layers; the board also discussed industry changes since earlier projects and noted that this application does not include on‑site battery storage.

Public comment and local concerns Several nearby residents questioned visual impacts, property values and the placement of interconnection poles close to homes. Resident Corey Wilson said he lives at 305 N. Route 23 and told the board he was concerned about poles “where I'm gonna walk out my my front door and look at them every single day.” Other residents who spoke supported the project, including union representatives and homeowners with rooftop solar who said community solar can lower electric bills. The board allowed questions during the public portion and limited comments to three minutes per person.

Board discussion and vote County staff reported the parcel is zoned A‑1 (agriculture), that required notices and filings were on record, and that the county and state standards applicable to a commercial solar conditional‑use had been met. Board member Charlie Eldridge said staff had shown the project meets the standards and noted, “pursuant to state law, if they have met all state standards, we are obligated to vote in favor of it.” The board moved to adopt the proposed conditions, which were seconded, approved 7‑0, and then voted 7‑0 to recommend approval of the petition. The file will next be forwarded to the McHenry County Board for its consideration.

Timeline and next steps Trajectory estimates construction will take roughly nine to 12 months, with final utility testing potentially extending that period. The developer said the project will proceed to permitting and utility interconnection; building permit review and the utility’s interconnection process remain separate steps. The petition record notes a prior conditional‑use approval for the same parcel in 2018 that did not proceed to construction.

Votes at a glance - Motion: Approve proposed conditions for Z250070 (mover: Charlie Eldridge; seconder: Mary Donner). Vote: 7‑0 (Eldridge — yes; Mickey Gardner — yes; Robert Cozen — yes; Kurt Schnabel — yes; Mary Donner — aye; Bill Kernick — yes; Chair — yes). Outcome: conditions approved. - Motion: Recommend approval of petition Z250070 subject to approved conditions (mover: Charlie Eldridge; seconder: Mary Donner). Vote: 7‑0 (same vote). Outcome: petition recommended to McHenry County Board for final action.

The hearing record includes public comment both for and against the project; the board’s approval followed staff testimony that state and county standards were satisfied and conditions were adopted to address siting and operational details. The county board will consider the recommendation in a subsequent meeting.