Waunakee delays decision on 6 MW Kennedy Drive solar project after packed public hearing

The Waunakee Village Board on Monday opened a public hearing on a site plan and conditional-use permit for a 6 megawatt solar facility on Kennedy Drive and then voted to delay a final decision after several hours of testimony and technical questions.

Lauren Freeman, the village deputy administrator and community development director, told trustees the project would place panels on less than 30 acres of a 112-acre parcel now owned by Madison Gas and Electric and that the draft conditional-use permit includes required DNR stormwater and wetland approvals, a decommissioning plan and an escrow requirement for non‑utility owners. “CUPs are kind of a great device for allowing decision makers to evaluate the impact of a certain use like a solar panel and place conditions on that approval,” Freeman said during her presentation but cautioned the board that state law limits denying CUPs unless an applicant doesn’t meet requirements.

Nolan Sumpf, project manager for developer 1 Energy Renewables, said the site design uses bifacial single-axis tracking panels and vegetative groundcover intended for pollinators or grazing. He described the proposal as roughly 27.7 fenced acres expected to produce about 12,000,000 kWh per year — “about the energy needs of 1,600 average Wisconsin households.” He also said his team’s third‑party glare study indicated no aviation or ground-level glare issues and that inverter noise is about 45 decibels at the fence line.

The public hearing drew dozens of speakers. Many nearby residents said the project conflicts with Waunakee’s comprehensive-plan designation of rural preservation, raised property‑value and health concerns and questioned whether the village would receive meaningful local benefit given MG&E ownership of the land.

“There's a lot of misinformation in that presentation earlier,” said Suzanne Carroll, one of the early opponents, and cited studies she said show residential declines near solar farms. Other residents urged denial or at least more time to review DNR documentation, decommissioning guarantees and whether the utility‑aid payments offset potential property‑tax effects.

Trustees’ technical questions focused on three areas: environmental permits (DNR wetland delineation and MPDES stormwater review), emergency access and fire department response capacity, and the financial protections for the village if project owners change hands. Freeman confirmed that the applicant submitted a DNR‑verified wetland delineation and that DNR approvals and the required stormwater maintenance plan would be preconditions for the CUP. The fire chief said the department will treat a large fire as a rural incident with tanker shuttles and mutual-aid resources but asked that the access road be engineered to hold apparatus year‑round.

Legal counsel advised the board that it was not required to decide immediately and could lay the item over to address outstanding questions. Trustees voted to “carry this item forward to a future meeting,” giving staff and counsel several weeks to assemble follow-up materials and revised conditions. The board did not adopt or deny the CUP at Monday’s meeting.

The village also discussed remaining procedural steps: finalizing decommissioning escrow amounts (to be part of a condition and periodically updated), whether projects owned by a regulated utility (like MG&E) are treated differently than private project companies, and potential landscape screening standards. Officials said the CUP draft includes a decommissioning requirement: if the facility is not operational for 12 months the owner must remove equipment and restore the land, and non‑utility owners would need bonding or escrow to assure decommissioning funds.

The applicant offered to host site tours of comparable completed projects so trustees and neighbors could see operational examples. The board set no final date in the public meeting but indicated staff would aim to return the matter in a future meeting after follow-up with the developer, DNR materials and legal review.

Next procedural step: the hearing remains open for the record; the board carried the item forward for additional information and revised conditions before any vote.