Dozens of residents told the McHenry County Board Committee of the Whole on Dec. 11 that the Water Locust solar project proposed near Ringwood and Spring Grove roads is the wrong location for a commercial array and urged board members to oppose the permit.

The mostly local commenters — homeowners, farmers and a young resident who said he ‘‘drinks the water here’’ — raised health and environmental concerns anchored on a county Natural Resource Information (NRI) report and local well dependence. ‘‘I’m not against renewable energy. I’m against the location — 150 feet from family homes,’’ resident Renee Weigert told the board, asking members to ‘‘vote no’’ until independent, long-term studies prove safety.

Why it matters: Residents said the parcel contains highly leachable soils and fast-draining layers that could transmit contaminants to shallow wells and the Fox River. Angela Romanski, a local resident, cited county ordinance language and the NRI findings that the site contains ‘‘high leachability soils’’ and A2 and A5 geological layers with ‘‘high aquifer contamination potential,’’ and warned that construction could change drainage patterns beyond the project boundary.

Developers and counsel pushed back. Dylan Haber, who identified himself as the lead developer for the Water Locust project, said the Zoning Board of Appeals recommended the petition unanimously and that project staff and county reviewers found it complies with applicable Illinois siting law. ‘‘The Zoning Board of Appeal did unanimously approve this petition 7 to 0,’’ Haber told the board and said the team conducted community outreach, adjusted site design and left a corner of the parcel vacant to preserve a future retail opportunity.

Mark Gershon, who said he represents Water Locust and related projects, told the committee the project ‘‘is obligated to and will meet US EPA, IEPA, and county standards on groundwater issues’’ and said federal and state permitting and engineering studies support the proposal. He added that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has treated solar piles as not constituting a wetland impact for this design and that the developer reduced tree removals and will coordinate with the fire department on access.

Residents cited additional concerns beyond groundwater: panel glare and driver safety, the number and depth of mounting piles, potential for long-term maintenance and decommissioning problems, the life-cycle disposal of panels and the prospect of future commercial batteries being added to the site. Real-estate agent Jamie Decker presented estimated property-value impacts, citing a study she said found a 7.2% decline for parcels within a half-mile of a solar farm and estimating multimillion-dollar assessed-value losses in the immediate area.

What the board did and next steps: The Committee of the Whole heard more than 30 minutes of public comment and voted to extend the public-comment period. Multiple board members said they oppose large-scale solar on prime farmland and requested that solar items be removed from the consent agenda so each may be considered and voted on separately at the upcoming Tuesday voting meeting. The board did not take a final vote on any solar conditional-use permits during the committee session.

Voices from the meeting

• Dylan Haber, lead developer: ‘‘We respectfully request you to approve our petition.’’

• Renee Weigert, resident: ‘‘We are standing on the side of humanity.’’

• Mark Gershon, representative for the applicant: ‘‘The project is obligated to and will meet US EPA, IEPA, and county standards on groundwater issues.’’

What remains unresolved: The environmental and hydrological claims are contested in the hearing record — residents cite the NRI report and local engineers, while the applicant cites compliance findings from county staff, the ZBA and referenced state or federal standards. The committee did not adopt any new conditions at this meeting; the item will appear for separate votes at the next county-board voting meeting.