Development committee rejects Wilson School solar farm proposal near Elgin neighborhoods

Kane County’s Development Committee voted to deny zoning petition 4666, a request for a special-use permit to build a commercial solar energy facility on parcels south of Highland Avenue near the city of Elgin. The committee vote failed 7–2, with two members voting to approve and seven voting against.

The petition became a focal point of competing priorities: developer SunVest argued the project met county solar-ordinance requirements, provided new tax revenue and could improve local drain tile, while the City of Elgin and neighborhood residents said the site sits in a county-designated critical growth area and is immediately adjacent to single-family subdivisions, where future housing and annexation are planned.

Staff said the proposed array meets the county’s setback and screening requirements and supplied ecological, hydrologic and cultural-resource reviews. The site plan shows the panels would not occupy entire parcels and that vegetative screening and a fence are proposed; staff also submitted US Fish & Wildlife section 7 consultation results and an ECOCAT report. Mark Milano, director of community development for the City of Elgin, told the committee the city objected in writing and said the site is identified in local and county plans for single-family development. “Removing this much land from the inventory does not help that age-old supply-and-demand equation,” Milano said, summarizing the city’s concerns about housing supply and orderly growth.

Several neighborhood speakers opposed the project on property-value, flooding and safety grounds. Vincent Argento, an attorney representing area residents, urged the committee to apply the LaSalle factors and noted that more than 60 homeowners in nearby subdivisions signed formal objections. Sharon Wright, who lives adjacent to an existing solar field sited elsewhere, said photos of that facility show sparse vegetation and poor maintenance, and she warned of fire risk and persistent aesthetic impacts.

SunVest representatives defended their submittal. Bill French, SunVest’s regional director, said the company’s materials included two property-value studies (one general and one site-specific) by the firm Cohen-Resnick that found no consistent negative impact on home prices from nearby solar arrays. French also said the project team had an interconnection agreement with the local utility and that the petitioner would commit to repairing or replacing existing drain tile. Owner Charles Bernich said he had lived on the property for decades and explained that sewer access had been constrained by adjacent property and HOA decisions; he said leasing for solar allowed the family to retain ownership of the land.

Several committee members referenced statutory review standards for special uses. Chair Williams reminded the body that state law and county precedent limit the reasons a county can deny such projects and that any denial should be supported by explicit findings (the LaSalle factors) on the record. Nonetheless, multiple members said the project was incompatible with immediate residential uses and county/city planning expectations; member Vern Tepe said he opposed the petition because the project would abut long-established subdivisions.

Action: The recorded roll call shows the following votes on petition 4666: Ayes — Iqbal, Williams; Noes — Arroyo, Dorty, Garcia, Linder, Tepe, Leonard, Roth. The motion to approve therefore failed (recorded result: 7 no, 2 yes). The petitioner may choose to refine the plan, negotiate mitigation or pursue other sites; staff noted the project would otherwise proceed through the standard permitting process if approved.

Clarifying details: staff noted required screening (vegetative buffer plantings with minimum planting heights), a table of distances from panels to nearby residences showing setbacks well beyond county minimums from structure to fence line, and a US Fish & Wildlife species consultation indicating mostly "no effect" with tailored mitigation. The City of Elgin characterized the site as within its planning jurisdiction and flagged the county 2040 plan’s designation of the tract as resource management/critical growth area. Neighbors raised longstanding drainage and drain-tile concerns, and the petitioner committed to installing 1,650 feet of 12-inch tile along the east line as a mitigation measure.