Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and unions clash at Will County Board hearing over placement and impacts of large solar projects
Summary
Public comment at the April 16 Will County Board meeting featured dozens of residents, farmers, union leaders and developers debating jobs, community benefits and risks to farmland and drainage as the board faced court orders affecting zoning decisions.
Dozens of residents, union representatives, developers and local officials spoke during the public‑comment period at the Will County Board meeting on April 16, sharply divided over whether utility‑scale solar is an economic opportunity or a threat to farmland and rural character.
Who spoke and what they said: Supporters — including union leaders and construction representatives (Operating Engineers Local 150, Laborers and other trades) — emphasized jobs, project‑labor agreements and tax revenue that they said would benefit schools and local economies. Patrick Young of Local 150 said Earthrise had executed a project labor agreement and that apprentices and journeymen from Will County would be hired for construction.
Opponents — several farmers and long‑time residents — warned of lasting damage to drain tiles and compacted soils, aesthetic intrusion near homes, and the loss of productive acreage that they feared could never be fully restored. Farmer Dave Kestle said he expected I‑beam piles and heavy equipment to break drainage tiles and “it won't be right for many, many years after that.”
Developer responses and mitigation commitments: Earthrise speakers described mitigation steps, including wetland and habitat avoidance, pre‑construction surveys, native seed mixes, prairie restoration and community benefit programs (the company cited nearly 100 grants/supports in Will County). Engineers described phased construction to limit continuous heavy work on any single parcel and an operations plan with a staffed operations center at the tied‑in peaker plant.
What residents asked the board to do: Opponents requested denial or remand for further review; some board members sought to remand OD26‑108 to the Planning & Zoning Commission to resolve late amendments (a motion to remand failed). Several residents and township officials urged the board to push state legislators for changes to statewide solar siting law.
Tone and stakes: The meeting was tense at times. Speakers noted divergent values — property‑rights arguments from landowners, regional energy‑capacity and climate framing from proponents, and legal constraints framed by county counsel and the assistant state's attorney. Several speakers asked the board to clarify what remedies would be in place if developers failed to repair drain tiles or meet promised mitigation.
Bottom line: The public record shows a divided Will County electorate: many residents plead for protection of farmland and hydrology; labor and developer witnesses stressed jobs, speed to market and community investments. The board's approvals came with added conditions aimed at balancing safety and environmental safeguards with court‑ordered constraints.
