Will County committee rejects two proposed solar farms near Shorewood, citing growth and water concerns

The Will County Land Use Committee on July 3 voted to deny two special-use permit requests for commercial solar energy facilities on farmland south of Shorewood, saying the projects conflicted with nearby municipalities'growth plans and raised concerns about water planning and local tax revenue.

The votes followed public testimony from the village of Shorewood, school officials and nearby residents and a presentation from the applicant describing how the projects would be sited and operated.

The projects (zoning cases ZC25041 and ZC25054) are proposed by the same developer and property owner on adjacent parcels in Troy Township. For ZC25041 the developer described a projected 4.99-megawatt facility with roughly 13,000 panels and a proposed equipment pad about 82 feet from the eastern property line and 824 feet from Baltz Road. Both proposals included requests for variances on mowing frequency and maximum plant cover heights; the second case added a variance for a reduced side-yard setback.

Why it mattered: Shorewood officials urged the committee to weigh municipal comprehensive plans and a multi-community water infrastructure project that village leaders and the Grand Prairie Water Commission say rely on future residential development to help fund system extensions. Shorewood leaders, the village attorney and the mayor told the committee that placing multi-decade solar leases on prime buildable acreage could reduce the property available for housing and increase costs for water ratepayers and other taxing bodies.

At the committee meeting the mayor of Shorewood described the issue as one of siting and regional planning, saying, "This is just the wrong location," and argued the village had identified the land as part of its future residential growth strategy. Dave Silverman, attorney for the Village of Shorewood, told the committee the planning and zoning commission had heard extensive testimony and that village planning staff believed the projects "did not meet the requirements for issuance of a special use permit." Mark Fech, who identified himself as the property owner, said the developer and property owners had negotiated with the water commission and had reduced the number of proposed solar sites from three to two during talks about utility routing and costs.

Developers and staff: Project representatives presented noise and glare studies that they said predicted no adverse effects and described proposed screening and fencing. The developer's civil engineer and project representatives said interconnection and siting work had been completed as part of project due diligence. Planning staff and the county's planning and zoning commission recorded mixed recommendations; the commission recommended denial of the special use and the variances by votes reported in staff materials (the commission vote on the first case was 2-4 to recommend denial).

Committee action and reasoning: After public comment and questions from county board members about annexation, tax yield and long-term land supply, the committee took separate votes on the two cases. Both motions failed in committee (the record shows the outcome as failing with a 1-to-4 tally). Members who opposed the proposals cited the village's comprehensive plan, potential impacts on school district revenue and the water commission's long-range infrastructure planning; those in favor referenced job creation and the applicant's site studies.

What the vote does: The committee-level denials mean the proposals did not receive the committee's recommendation for approval. County staff indicated standard follow-up would include providing the applicants written notice and any next steps available under county procedures; committee members also asked staff to track any formal resolutions or additional memos expected from the Grand Prairie Water Commission or other taxing districts.

Context and next steps: The two projects were among several solar proposals discussed in the meeting and reflect a broader, recurring conflict the county has seen between distributed renewable proposals and local municipal planning priorities. The applicants and property owner said they would continue to engage with local governments; Shorewood leaders said they would press the village's comprehensive plan and water commission interests in future proceedings.