Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Will County committee debates local control of solar farms, seeks options after state limited discretion
Summary
Board members and state lobbyists discussed the county's reduced authority over solar development after state action, lawsuits against approvals, and options ranging from seeking limited clawbacks of authority to continuing local special-use permitting to retain community influence.
Will County Board members pressed state lobbyists about the county's ability to control placement of utility-scale solar farms after recent state law reduced county discretion.
A committee member asked whether the legislature had moved to restore county control. Matt Murphy, a state lobbyist with Max Strategies Group, said the legislature had intentionally reduced counties' latitude to ease renewable development and that a full reversal was unlikely in the next two years. Murphy suggested a narrower approach: identify “egregious” local outcomes caused by the change in state law and use those examples to seek a limited return of discretion.
Multiple board members described local experience working with solar developers under county oversight. Judy (last name not specified) told the committee the county has approved many solar facilities but also denied some that were “too close to residential areas.” She said the county's requirements — including coordination with soil and water conservation staff and native-planting guidance — led developers to make concessions such as landscape screening, donations to local projects and road repairs.
Judy and other board members said four lawsuits against the county have followed recent approvals and denials, which complicates decision-making at the local level. Speaker Van Dine asked whether legislators could stop routing certain solar approvals to the county board for special-use review if the board no longer has meaningful discretion; Murphy called that a “reasonable conversation” as part of broader discussions about where authority should sit.
Board members cautioned that removing county review entirely would eliminate the local negotiation that has yielded site-specific mitigation and community benefits. One board member said county review allowed plantings and soil practices tailored to local soils and topography, while another said keeping local review enables developers and townships to work out road and drainage fixes.
Murphy and the committee agreed on follow-up actions: staff will share the county's solar report from the Land Use Department with lobbyists; the county and ISACO could pursue coordinated legislative efforts to seek targeted restorations of authority; and the board should define the specific outcomes it would seek to change at the state level.
The committee did not take any formal legislative action at the meeting on this topic; members asked lobbyists to monitor potential bills and offered to prepare examples of problematic outcomes the county would use when seeking a limited statutory fix.
