Kane County board approves Orchard Solar special use for three community solar arrays
Loading...
Summary
The Kane County Board approved petition 4673 to allow three collocated 5 MW community solar projects on a roughly 90-acre parcel in Sugar Grove, with one member abstaining; developers said the project will yield new tax revenue, dedicated subscriber access via ComEd and mitigations including large setbacks and a GLARE study.
The Kane County Board approved a special‑use zoning petition (No. 4673) on Dec. 9 to permit three collocated community solar arrays on a parcel in Sugar Grove. The roll‑call vote passed after discussion and a single recorded abstention by board member Leonard.
Lead developer Gary Linos told the board the project consists of three 5‑megawatt community solar arrays with separate points of interconnection and will produce electricity that subscribers can take through ComEd. "This is a big, economic investment in the community, which will generate electricity for the ComEd power grid and create over $4,000,000 in new tax revenues," Linos said. He also described setbacks and screening designed to minimize visual impacts.
Landowner Scott Jessman, a fourth‑ or fifth‑generation local farmer, said the arrays were sited to remain unobtrusive and that much of the surrounding property will stay in agricultural use. "It's out of sight. It's not obtrusive," he said, explaining the family selected a company and timetable that they felt would protect long‑term land use options.
County staff and board members asked for technical clarifications about community solar rules and aviation safety. Petitioner representatives confirmed each 5 MW project will have its own point of interconnection with ComEd and said subscribers must be ComEd customers; projects can include municipal or commercial subscribers but cannot be a single customer under community solar rules. The developer said a GLARE study found negligible impacts to nearby federal aviation observation points and that visual screening will further mitigate any effects.
Petition materials cited a project area of roughly 90 acres, a 500‑foot setback on one side and about 800 feet at the southwest corner, and an expectation that construction could begin as early as March or April next year if permitting proceeds. The board also heard from residents and fielded questions about whether the solar lease would affect future residential development; the petitioner said utilities and sewer availability—not the solar lease—are the primary constraints on nearby residential annexation.
After deliberation the board voted to approve the special use; the motion carried with Leonard recorded as abstaining. The petitioner may now proceed with county permitting and interconnection arrangements with ComEd.
