Tazewell County public raises objections as developer updates Springfield Road solar project
Loading...
Summary
Residents questioned whether an expired permit and state law limit the county's role in approving solar and wind projects; developer representing Katmand Solar LLC told the board the project has permits and an executive committee recommendation for a renewal agreement.
Several Tazewell County residents and a developer addressed the county board about a proposed solar facility near Springfield Road, raising questions about permit expirations, local authority and compensation for nearby homeowners.
Matt Hoffman, an East Peoria resident, asked whether Toll Faith Power’s permit — originally issued in May or June 2023 and extended in May or June 2024 — remains valid if construction has not started. "If they do not begin with any type of construction... can they still do it this year? Or do they have to get another extension?" Hoffman asked.
The question prompted wider public comment. Jim Bear of Tremont argued the county board should not vote on wind and solar installations because, he said, state law requires issuance when state standards are met and local votes are effectively ceremonial. Bear urged the board to focus on compensation for property owners whom he said lose quality of life, citing the Fifth Amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation," and saying nearby installations "destroy the pursuit of happiness for nearby residents, and they should be compensated for their loss of quality of life."
Mark Gershon, representing Katmand Solar LLC on its special-use application, responded with a status update and a legal interpretation provided to the developer by local officials. "We did confirm with your both your state's attorney and your county administrator," Gershon said, and summarized the county-code requirement that "the project be implemented prior to the deadline." He said the developer has obtained county access and stormwater permits, submitted detailed civil and electrical plans, updated decommissioning-bond documents and a county-board resolution approving that bond, and has filed other building-permit materials.
Gershon also said county staff had reviewed the application package and that the executive committee issued a unanimous recommendation to approve the RUA before the full board. "We are in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws and statutes, and have a renewal engine contract we expect to have fully executed July 2025. Project will likely commence construction post harvest this year," he told the board.
The public and developer remarks made clear two separate threads in the meeting: questions from residents about the limits of county discretion and potential remedies for neighbors, and the developer’s statement that it has secured required county permits and internal approvals. The transcript does not record a board vote on the project or a county-level determination on residents’ compensation claims.
The county board did not enter a recorded vote on the solar project during the portions of the meeting captured in the transcript. The executive committee’s unanimous recommendation on the RUA was cited by the developer, but no full-board action on the RUA or permit extensions appears in the record provided.
