The McHenry County Zoning Board of Appeals on Oct. 9 held a quasi‑judicial hearing on application Z25‑0077, a request from Water Locust Solar LLC (a Cultivate Power affiliate) for a conditional‑use permit to build a community solar facility on property near the intersection of North Spring Grove Road and West Springwood Road in McHenry Township. The developer said the proposal would place roughly 5 megawatts of solar capacity on about 32 acres inside the fenced area of a parcel the presentation variously described as 41.3 acres and approximately 54 acres.

At the hearing, the petitioner’s attorney, Mark Gershon, said the project contains no battery energy storage and that the team has reduced the originally proposed footprint to remove the northwest corner of the site. “There is no battery storage in this project,” Gershon told the board when asked to confirm the record. Dylan Haber, identified in the presentation as the project’s lead developer with Cultivate Power, described technical details of the site: single‑axis tracker panels, a central equipment pad with inverters and a planned vegetative seed mix under the panels intended to meet Illinois pollinator and agricultural impact requirements.

The petitioner presented a suite of documents for the record, including a property valuation report and what the team described as an Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreement (AIMA). The developer said the project would be built under state siting law and county zoning rules that the attorney and staff said constrain what factors the board may consider. Gershon and other speakers repeated that, under Public Act 102‑1123, counties must approve commercial solar projects that meet the statutory siting standards and county ordinance provisions.

Why it matters: neighbors live within a few hundred feet of the proposed fence line, and many told the board they fear groundwater contamination, increased runoff, noise, glare, construction disturbance and long‑term effects on property values and well water. Residents also asked about decommissioning, financial assurances and emergency response. The zoning board did not vote; it closed the hearing and recessed for a continuation and vote scheduled for Oct. 16 at 1:30 p.m.

Most of the developer’s technical responses centered on statutory compliance and engineering controls. Project representatives said the solar arrays will meet the county’s setback rules (panels 50 feet from property lines and 150 feet from residences on nonparticipating properties under the county ordinance), that the site will be seeded with deep‑rooting native plants intended to improve infiltration versus current row crops, and that a decommissioning plan and financial assurance will be provided and reviewed periodically. Haber told the board the developer’s preliminary tax estimate showed first‑year taxes of about $28,868 and an estimated $633,500 collected over 40 years, figures the developer attributed to state assessment rules for photovoltaic installations.

Residents pressed specific technical points. Nearby homeowners asked whether panels contain cadmium or other heavy metals, whether panels or buried cables can leach chemicals into groundwater during storms or fires, and how stormwater and drain tiles would be handled. The developer said the panels proposed are polysilicon modules (not cadmium‑based), that the EPA’s leaching tests do not classify modern panels as requiring special hazardous waste disposal, that drain tiles would be located and repaired as required at permitting, and that the project’s stormwater and decommissioning plans are subject to county and state review. The petitioner also said the interconnection will require about a mile of line work on Spring Grove Road and that those distribution upgrades would be funded by the project under the interconnection agreement with ComEd.

Public safety and emergency access were discussed. Dylan Haber said the fire district asked for perimeter clearance to assist emergency response; the developer said it expects to provide a minimum buffer around the fence and to continue coordinating with the fire district on an emergency plan required at the building‑permit stage. The petitioner said inverters are quieter than many everyday appliances and do not operate at night; the narrative noted an inverter rated at 67 decibels at 10 meters.

Several residents asked about long‑term ownership and financial responsibility if the developer or an operating company ceases business. The team said project ownership and operation models vary, that financing partners commonly join before construction, and that financial assurance required by the AIMA and county code is held to ensure decommissioning if an operator fails to act. The attorney said the county determines the bond amount per its rules and state AIMA requirements.

Board action and next steps: the zoning board closed public testimony and the hearing was continued for a vote at its Oct. 16 meeting at 1:30 p.m. Staff accepted the petitioner’s record submissions and acknowledged more than a dozen written objections in the file. No formal permit decision was made on Oct. 9.

Documents and records: the petitioner asked that exhibits A–K (application exhibits), its PowerPoint, property valuation report, IDNR comments and other filings be entered into the record; staff confirmed required notices (publication, posting and mailing) and that the AIMA and other environmental consultations are in the record. The board chair confirmed the AIMA is a public document and said copies could be requested from county staff or the Illinois Department of Agriculture.