Will County board declines to approve Soltage solar special-use permit after heated public hearing

A motion to approve a special‑use permit for a commercial solar energy facility known as ZC24117 failed during the Will County Board meeting on May 15, after a public hearing in which residents, municipal officials, first‑responders and the developer debated safety, local planning consistency and economic benefits.

The board considered testimony both for and against the proposed Soltage project on South Gougar Road. Opponents, including Village of New Lenox representatives and nearby residents, said the project conflicts with local and county plans, could lower nearby home values and poses fire‑safety risks. Supporters, including the developer and a union labor representative, said the project would create construction jobs, deliver community benefits and comply with state and county siting rules.

Why it matters: The vote puts on hold a 10‑megawatt commercial solar proposal that the developer said could serve about 2,000 homes and produce long‑term tax revenue, while neighbors said its location next to planned residential growth and schools makes it unsuitable.

Supporters and project details

Stephanie Sinkowski, director of development for Soltage, told the board the company has operated since 2005 and typically owns and operates projects long term. “We are committed to using union laborers that have been well trained in the proper installation of all the electrical equipment needed for the project's construction. This equates to between 60 and 75 contractor jobs,” she said. Sinkowski said Soltage has invested roughly $1,600,000 in site development and proposed mitigation measures including a 20‑foot vegetative buffer, a 22‑foot access road per fire district standards and a decommissioning bond.

Developer witnesses said equipment is UL‑certified, inverters use vegetable oil and emergency shutdown and arc‑fault detection systems are part of design and building‑permit review. Jonathan Roberts, vice president of development at Soltage, framed the project as part of easing projected electricity supply shortfalls: “We are here building generation. Like, we need generation in this country to be built,” he said.

Opposition: planning, schools and safety

Robin Ellis, assistant village administrator and community development director for New Lenox, said the village’s planning bodies unanimously recommended opposing the request. “This case was presented to our plan commission and village board earlier this year and the board, recommended unanimously to object to this request for a number of reasons,” she said, citing inconsistency with New Lenox’s comprehensive plan and concerns that the array would discourage planned residential development on adjacent acreage.

First‑responder concerns were raised by James Brown, fire marshal for the New Lenox Fire District: “We we are not opposed to solar, but we're opposed to where this is going,” he said, adding that his district “currently do[es] not” have specialized equipment to fight large solar‑array fires and that a major nearby hospital and two high schools could be affected by a large fire or smoke event.

Nearby residents cited property‑value and hazard concerns. Ray Stanford, who organized a petition from the Fieldstone subdivision, presented studies and data he said showed declines in nearby home values near some utility‑scale solar fields and criticized the developer’s selection of open farmland instead of industrial rooftops.

Economic and appraisal testimony

Andrew Lines, a real‑estate appraiser with Kone Resnick retained by the project, said his team's review of multiple academic and market studies found no consistent, measurable negative impact on home sale prices near solar farms. “All of the data that I have been able to review does not indicate a consistent and measurable negative impact,” he told the board, and said several national and regional studies show neutral or positive effects in some markets.

Developer legal and procedural arguments

Maria Breece, an attorney for the applicant, told the board the county should evaluate the project under the state siting statute and the county’s solar ordinance. She cited “Illinois Counties Code Section five‑one hundred and twenty‑twenty” and argued the county’s zoning authority and the solar‑siting statute provide a nondiscretionary path when submittal requirements are met.

Vote and procedural outcome

After public testimony and board discussion, a motion to approve the special‑use permit was called and the clerk conducted a roll call. The motion failed; the clerk recorded 16 votes in the negative and announced, “The motion fails.” The transcript does not record any board motion subsequently approving the permit.

What the record shows and what it doesn’t

The hearing record includes extensive technical and policy back‑and‑forth: the developer emphasized UL certification, rapid‑shutdown features and a structured decommissioning bond schedule; the village and neighbors emphasized comprehensive‑plan conflicts, emergency‑response concerns and property‑value studies. The project’s emergency response plan was discussed as part of later building‑permit review rather than a condition of special‑use approval; the New Lenox fire marshal told the board the fire district had not yet received and approved a final emergency plan from the developer.

Next steps

Because the motion to approve failed on May 15, the applicant may choose to revise the application, address outstanding concerns identified in testimony, or seek future action under the county’s normal land‑use timeline. The transcript shows no subsequent board action on ZC24117 during the meeting.

Ending note

Board members repeatedly noted the legal tension between state siting law and local planning goals during debate. Multiple speakers urged careful review of technical emergency‑response details and clearer evidence on local impacts before the county takes a final position.