The Champaign County Board on Sept. 18 voted to table action on an ordinance that would permit the Mahomet Solar 1 project, a 4.99‑megawatt, 36‑acre community solar installation proposed by Mahomet Illinois Solar 1 LLC and developed by Summit Ridge Energy. The board moved to defer the matter to its Oct. 23 meeting after more than an hour of public comment and a last‑minute legal threat letter from the developer.

Residents from the Spring Lake and Briarfield subdivisions urged the board to deny waivers sought by the project and to reject placement of an industrial‑scale solar facility next to existing homes. Linda Hamilton, a Spring Lake area resident, told the board the proposal would “undoubtedly alter the natural habitat” and raised concerns about wetlands, eagles and nearby trees. Other speakers cited potential impacts to Spring Lake, noise, emergency access during nine months of construction, and uncertainty about long‑term decommissioning and who would pay if the developer failed to perform.

Developers and their consultants responded at the meeting. Bridgette Callahan, representing Mahomet Illinois Solar 1 LLC, said the project would produce enough electricity to serve about 1,200 homes, increase local property tax revenue and create 15–30 construction jobs during an eight‑ to nine‑month build period. Civil engineer Dale Johnson described construction methods, saying the racking piles would be driven 10–15 feet into the ground without concrete foundations, and that the design would use best management practices to limit erosion and sediment during construction. Project counsel Ben Jacoby told the board the project had met county zoning standards in the Zoning Board of Appeals process and noted a majority ZBA vote in favor.

The developer amended its financial assurance proposal during the meeting, offering a cash escrow “in the amount equal to 100% of the decommissioning estimate” and an escrow agreement acceptable to both parties in lieu of a surety bond or letter of credit.

Public commenters disputed the developer's outreach and process. Several speakers said Summit Ridge intentionally avoided early community meetings to limit opposition; several also said they had received the developer’s threatened‑lawsuit letter the day before the board meeting and urged the board not to be “bullied” by legal threats. Alexis Godby, a Spring Lake resident, said the board should “stick up for … the neighbors who will see it, hear it, and live with the consequences every single day.”

Board action unfolded in three parts: a motion was made to deny ordinance 2025‑11 (the special‑use permit); a separate amendment was offered to modify the requested waiver for financial assurance so the developer could provide a cash escrow equal to 100% of the decommissioning estimate; and a motion to table the entire agenda item — including the proposed amendment — passed on a roll‑call vote. The board did not take a final yes/no vote on the special use permit at the Sept. 18 meeting.

What happens next

Board members who spoke in favor of tabling said more time was needed to study the developer’s legal argument, allow a newly seated board member to review materials and give the developer an opportunity to pursue community outreach that it acknowledged it had not previously conducted. The item is scheduled for consideration at the board's Oct. 23 meeting, where members will have the additional legal research and time requested.

Developers and residents both said they intend to use the intervening weeks to gather more information. The record at the Zoning Board of Appeals and the county’s Environmental and Land Use Committee will remain part of the public file.

Speakers quoted in this article spoke during the public‑comment period and at the project presentation to the county board. Direct quotations are taken from the meeting transcript of Sept. 18, 2025.