Residents urge Vermilion County Board to scrutinize proposed 1,400‑acre Catlin solar project

Tanya Dull, a cancer survivor, told the Vermilion County Board she and other neighbors fear environmental and health effects from a proposed 1,400‑acre solar project near Catlin and said she could not find evidence the Vermilion County Health Department had been invited to serve on the ordinance-mandated wind and solar committee. “There has been nobody representative from the Vermilion County Health Department,” she said, and asked the board to appoint a health‑department representative to the review process.

Johnny Jones of Kaplan Township said his home would be surrounded on three sides if the project proceeds and listed likely impacts including “loss of property value, crop damage … well water contamination” and what he described as a lack of transparency from local officials and village staff. Lisa Connor, a health‑care professional who said she’d reviewed local rules, highlighted what she called a discrepancy involving the 1.5‑mile extraterritorial zoning provision and the county ordinance, and urged the board to resolve the conflict before permitting decisions.

Alex Sarris, speaking for a local group identifying itself as Vermilion County Lodestone, described the proposal as an “industrial solar operation under a 30‑year lease” and accused local officials of secrecy and “corporate favoritism.” He listed resident concerns including water runoff, decommissioning plans, tax treatment, emergency access and potential long‑term effects on infrastructure and property values. “This is not about clean energy. It's about a pattern of secrecy, deception, and corporate favoritism,” Sarris said.

Speakers repeatedly asked who is responsible for permitting and whether Catlin village officials or the county board has decision authority; multiple commenters said they had been given conflicting explanations and requested clearer information from staff. Several urged the board to insist contractors and village boards produce environmental reviews, decommissioning plans, and clear emergency‑access provisions before any permit is acted on.

The public commenters repeatedly referenced ordinance 23‑0509, which the transcript shows governs commercial solar and wind facilities; speakers said the ordinance envisions participation by county agencies and urged that the health department, emergency management and county engineer be active participants in reviewing any application. The board did not take a formal vote on the project during the meeting; members acknowledged the comments and several asked staff to ensure appropriate agencies are included in solar/wind committee work.

Next steps: commentors asked the board to require fuller environmental and decommissioning plans, to clarify who will vote on permits, and to have county health and emergency officials participate in committee deliberations. The board noted the wind and solar committee will meet and said it will try to notify the public of upcoming hearings.