The DeKalb City Council on Sept. 8 rejected an annexation and development agreement that would have allowed Donato Solar to build a roughly 30-acre ground-mounted solar field and two 6,000-square-foot data-storage buildings on the west side of Peace Road between Greenwood Acres Drive and Challenger Drive. The council vote came after a public hearing with multiple residents urging denial and after the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended against the proposal.

Why it matters: The project drew sharp resident concern about potential local impacts — including noise, property values, energy-grid effects and the possibility the storage buildings could be used for cryptocurrency mining rather than conventional data hosting. Council members framed the decision as weighing neighborhood fit and public input against land-use and economic-development arguments.

The proposal, brought by Donato Solar with operating partner Gale Technology, called for a 4-megawatt solar array, battery systems and two tenant-leased data-storage buildings totaling about 12,000 square feet. Donato planned to interconnect with Ameren's distribution grid and said excess generation would be sold through that interconnection. City staff and the petitioner said construction activity could begin as soon as September or October if approved.

Residents who spoke during the public hearing said they were worried about long-term impacts. Elizabeth Johnson Cuny, a resident of 1504 Cambria Drive, said she feared the project could become an incomplete eyesore if federal or state incentives changed and asked whether the “boutique data center” was a euphemism for crypto mining. David Johnson, who said he owns property on Cambria Drive, asserted that Gale Technologies’ history of crypto-mining operations raises the possibility the buildings would serve mining operations, telling the council, “It is not a data center. It's a crypto mine.”

Several residents cited peer-reviewed studies and local market analyses, offering competing property-value evidence. Peyton Childress, a project advocate, provided sales examples from an Urbana project where home sale prices increased after a combined solar-array and data-center project was completed and said DeKalb’s site would include a vegetative buffer. Nick Mahoney, representing Gale Technology, said the company planned to invest “in excess of $30,000,000” and described the project as a “boutique data center” for tenant data storage.

At the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing on Sept. 2 the commission voted 6–0 against recommending the annexation and development agreement. City staff briefed council members on technical points raised in that meeting, including that the township assessor — not the city — determines property assessment and that the project’s estimated assessed valuation would likely produce additional annual property tax revenue (city staff estimated roughly $85,000 on their assumptions). Staff also noted that water demand for the two buildings would be minimal and limited primarily to restroom use, and reminded the council that state planning law calls for consideration of solar-energy realizations in local land-use planning.

Council members expressed differing views. Several aldermen and the mayor said the project’s industrial zoning was consistent with long-range land-use plans for that corridor, while others prioritized neighborhood opposition and concerns about transparency and long-term impacts. After discussion, the council voted on ordinance 2025-039 (annexation and development agreement) and the motion failed; subsequent related ordinances to annex and rezone the property were not brought to a successful vote.

What happened formally: The council opened a public hearing at 6:15 p.m. and heard multiple neighbors and representatives. After deliberations, a roll-call vote on ordinance 2025-039 failed, and the related annexation (2025-040) and rezoning (2025-041) items were not advanced.

Next steps: With the council’s rejection, the proposed Donato Solar annexation and development agreement will not proceed as drafted. Developers may revise the proposal, pursue other sites or seek further community meetings; council members urged that any future submittals include clearer, public-facing answers on energy interconnection, tenant uses for the buildings and noise and buffering plans.

(Reported from the Sept. 8 DeKalb City Council meeting.)