Will County Board rejects solar facilities in near New Lenox, Wilmington
The Will County Board voted 16-5 vote Thursday to reject plans for a solar facility in New Lenox Township that was opposed by New Lenox village officials and nearby homeowners.
Soltage proposed two 5-megawatt commercial solar energy facilities on about 75 acres southeast of Haven Avenue and Gougar Road. The village of New Lenox abuts the property to the west and north and objected to the plan.
More than 80 residents of the nearby Fieldstone Subdivision signed a petition stating the commercial solar energy facility would negatively impact their property values. They also said the height of the vegetation and the minimal times it would be mowed would be an eyesore and create problems with mosquitoes and rodents.
'This proposed solar farm will be extraordinarily close to our homes,' Sandy Wheeler said. 'I was involved in preparing the signatures in opposition to this proposed solar farm. Not one resident that I asked to sign the petition denied it.'
Ray Stanford said residents in the Fieldstone Subdivision believed it would depreciate their property values, saying he researched the impact of property values next to solar farms in states that have had such facilities long before they became popular in Illinois. He said he learned the value of homes about a half mile from the solar farms go down in value.
That claim was denied by Soltage representatives.
New Lenox is recommending a medium density, single-family residential development as part of its comprehensive plan for that land, said Robin Ellis, the assistant village administrator and community development director.
The village has been very deliberate in its planning and has intentionally kept industrial development west of Gougar Road, Ellis said.
The county could generate more in property taxes from a future residential development than a solar plant, Ellis said in a letter to the county, noting the developer estimated the solar facility would generate about $73,000 annually in property taxes whereas a modest residential development could generate $1.6 million annually.
The land owner last talked to the village about building a residential development in 2008, Ellis said. Since then, the village has taken steps to encourage residential development east of Gougar Road by investing nearly $4.5 million in road improvements. The village is also investing in a new wastewater treatment facility to prep the area for residential development, she said.
Board member Frankie Pretzel, the chair of the County Board's Land Use and Development Committee, said this is the wrong location for a solar project.
'I drive by this property regularly,' Pretzel, a New Lenox Republican, said. 'It's just a matter of time that we see homes.'
He said the site is in a highly desired area in the heart of town.
New Lenox Mayor Tim Baldermann said homes are located to the west and north with Lincoln Way West High School to the south. If a solar facility is built, nearby vacant land would not be developed for homes, and an industrial use would likely be proposed.
'It doesn't fit the area,' Baldermann said. 'We are not anti-solar, it just doesn't make sense on this piece of property.'
Baldermann said he believed the solar project would be a tremendous loss of revenue for the area taxing bodies.
Union School District 81 would receive $660,000 a year in property tax revenue if the land were developed as homes as the village wants, said Baldermann, who is also the district's superintendent. As a solar facility, the district would receive $22,000 a year, he said.
The district is also highly sought after and would welcome more students, Baldermann said.
James Brown, fire marshal for the New Lenox Fire District, said he had concerns due to its proximity to schools and Silver Cross Hospital.
Stephanie Sienkowski, director of development at Soltage, said the project would bring about 60 to 75 union contractor jobs during construction, and the solar facility could provide solar energy to about 2,000 homes, helping meet a growing demand for electricity.
She said the company also planned to offer college scholarships to students and gift the New Lenox Fire District with an ATV. She tried to assuage concerns about fire hazards and said the company has an emergency response plan in place.
Andrew Lines, a real estate appraiser for Soltage, said data shows solar energy facilities don't have issues on property values throughout the country including in coveted and scenic areas of Hawaii, California or Colorado.
Soltage attorney Maria Bries said the property is located in unincorporated Will County, which should supersede New Lenox's planning authority. New Lenox's comprehensive plan is only advisory, she said.
Commercial solar facilities are allowed to be located on agricultural land, and the Soltage project meets the requirements for a special use permit, she said. The company has invested $1.6 million in the project thus far, she said.
Bries said the Will County Board cannot be more restrictive than state law in denying an application.
'Decisions by counties based on local resistance rather than objective standards … are yielding arbitrary outcomes detrimental to ComEd's future power supply and the state of Illinois' pressing energy needs,' she said.
State laws governing solar projects have frustrated many county lawmakers, who feel the state is taking the control over local projects out of their hands.
'I strongly believe that the state legislature got this wrong and shame on them for putting us in this position month after month after month,' Pretzel said, adding he would like to put a halt on solar cases.
'The only reason they are called solar farms is because we are putting them on farm land,' said Republican Leader Jim Richmond, of Mokena. 'Really, they are solar utility plants, and we are putting them in close proximity to houses not because this board wants them there but because Springfield has pushed this upon us.'
Democrat Sherry Newquist of Steger, who voted against the project, said she was on the fence. She said on one hand it was a textbook case of a municipality using its future planning area to decide how it wants to grow. But she conceded denying the project would ultimately lead to a lawsuit.
'And how well is that serving the taxpayers,' she said.
The County Board also voted 16-5 to reject a commercial solar energy facility proposed by Nexamp Solar LLC that would have been located on about 34 acres on Wilmington-Peotone Road in Wilmington.
County Board Speaker Joe VanDuyne, a Democrat from Wilmington, said the planned location is next to the community's welcome sign and would be a bad location for a solar farm.
The city of Wilmington objected to the request because it was too close to existing residents and could be annexed to the city for a future residential use. City officials said the solar energy facility would be an eyesore and potentially create glare or contamination concerns, county documents said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Latest Donald Trump approval ratings: new poll finds good news for president
Registered voters like what they see from President Donald Trump, according to a new poll. A survey released by Napolitan News Service found that 51% of respondents approve of Trump's handling of the presidency. Of those respondents, 30% said they 'strongly' approve of the work Trump has done so far, while 21% said they just 'slightly' approve. The poll also found that 46% of respondents disapprove of Trump's work in the Oval Office. Among those who said they disapprove, 35% said they 'strongly' disapprove, while 11% said they only 'somewhat' disapprove. Only 2% of respondents said they were not sure about how Trump has handled the job of the presidency, according to the poll. The poll was conducted between May 27 and June 3 with a sample size of 3,000 registered voters. The poll's margin of error is plus or minus 1.8%. The Napolitan News Service is part of the Napolitan Institute, founded by veteran Republican pollster Scott Rasmussen, The organization bills itself as involved in 'rigorous, unbiased polling,' providing 'deep insights into American sentiment.' These numbers represent an incremental improvement in Trump's approval rating when compared to Neapolitan News Service's previous poll, conducted between May 20 and May 29. In that poll, 50% of respondents said they disapproved of Trump's handling of the presidency, while 49% said they approved. The previous poll's sample size also was 3,000 registered voters. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 1.8%. The last time a Napolitan News Service poll found that a clear majority of respondents approved of Trump's handling of the presidency was in May. The poll, conducted between May 7 and May 15, found that 52% of respondents expressed approval, while 48% expressed disapproval. Like the other two polls, the survey's sample size is 3,000 registered voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.8%. Other polls conducted around the same time as the Napolitan News Service poll offer mixed results for the president's approval rating. A YouGov/Economist poll conducted between May 30 and June 2 found 49% of respondents disapproving of the job Trump is doing as president, while 45% approve of the work he is doing. The poll's sample size is 1,610 U.S. adults. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2%. A CBS News/YouGov poll conducted between June 4 and June 6 found that a majority of respondents (55%) disapprove of Trump's work as president compared to 45% who said they approve. The CBS News/YouGov poll's sample size is 2,428 U.S. adults. Its margin of error is plus or minus 2.4%. Over 12,000 Harvard alums lend weight to court battle with Trump in new filing Mass. Sen. Warren: DOGE accessed 'sensitive' student loan data at Education Dept., calls for probe Markey: Trump using National Guard in LA to distract from big cuts in 'Big Beautiful Bill' Can the Mass. GOP flip this Taunton state House seat? | Bay State Briefing ABC News suspends correspondent over social media post critical of President Trump Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
In looming Hegseth hearings, Republicans may air their budget peeves
The first time Pete Hegseth testified before Congress the hardest questions he faced were from Democrats who accused him of sexual and alcohol abuse — both of which he denied as 'anonymous smears.' Now, as America's defense secretary returns to Capitol Hill for a week of testimony, he's likely to get sharper questioning from his own party. After five months atop the Pentagon, Hegseth has dismissed top U.S. officers, slashed the Defense Department's workforce and fired much of his own staff. For a defense secretary confirmed by the narrowest margin possible, the rapid changes have concerned even some Republican members of Congress. 'This is it. This is really the first oversight' of Hegseth's time as secretary, said Mark Montgomery, a retired rear admiral and former Senate Armed Services Committee aide. Alongside Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine, Hegseth will testify in multiple hearings focused on defense spending. But in an unusual twist, these hearings will occur without the Pentagon actually releasing its budget request, which is already months late. As in his January hearing, Hegseth will likely face blistering criticism from Democrats aghast at his handling of the Defense Department — from sharing sensitive attack plans on a group chat to tasking the U.S. military with more missions on American soil. But he may also face hard questions from Republicans, many of whom have publicly chafed at the administration's plans for military spending. Hegseth returns to Capitol Hill to defend Trump's defense budget plan In May, the administration asked Congress for a $892.6 billion base defense budget, of which around $850 billion would go to the Pentagon. The number amounts to a cut when accounting for inflation. 'It's going to be hard to say you're actually putting forward a 'Peace through Strength' policy when you're asking for less money than your predecessors projected,' said Elaine McCusker, a top official in the Pentagon's comptroller office during the first Trump administration. Per the scarce budget documents already released by the administration, the Pentagon's procurement account is poised for a major cut — almost $20 billion less than the Biden Pentagon had projected, McCusker said. The drop could harm some of the administration's top priorities, such as the Golden Dome missile defense system and investments in shipbuilding, both of which are also popular in Congress. 'It appears the Trump administration's [fiscal year 2026] defense budget request will double down on the Biden administration's material neglect for the glaring national security threats challenges about which they speak with great alarm,' chair of the Senate appropriations subcommittee on defense Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., wrote in a May statement. Both McConnell and Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee Susan Collins, R-Maine, voted against Hegseth's confirmation. Many top Republicans in Congress are calling for the kind of military buildup the administration is asking of its European and Asian allies — closer to 5% of GDP spent on defense. The administration has defended its budget by saying it's not the only military spending planned for this year. Congress is also debating a massive party-line bill that would include $150 billion for defense, spread over four years. This bill includes much of the money slated for top priority weapons purchases, like missile defense and warships. 'This budget provides that level [of spending] while ensuring that only Republican-votes are needed by using reconciliation to secure those increases without Democrats insisting on increasing wasteful government,' Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought posted on X in May. Still, such supplemental defense bills haven't been counted as part of the defense budget in the past and would introduce new uncertainty. Pentagon officials plan the funding for major weapons programs years into the future to make sure funding is predictable. If, say, Golden Dome is only funded in a stand-alone spending bill, then there's no guarantee it will get more money in the future. 'The appropriate defense budget isn't that you give it a huge chunk of change but that you grow it year over year,' Montgomery said. Privately, some Republicans are also concerned about the increased use of U.S. forces on American soil to support immigration enforcement. Some 9,000 active-duty troops have either been deployed to the southern border or are approved to do so. Such missions are under even higher scrutiny after the protests in Los Angeles against the Trump administration's recent deportations in the city. Over the weekend, Trump called up 2,000 National Guard troops to protect officials carrying out the mission. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has decried the choice and said he plans to sue for their removal. Meanwhile, U.S. Northern Command posted on X Sunday that parts of an infantry brigade team from the California National Guard have already begun deploying to Los Angeles. Hegseth, who has said active duty Marines may follow, shared the post from his personal account.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Can $1,000 at birth change a child's future? A Republican proposal aims to find out
WASHINGTON (AP) — When children of wealthy families reach adulthood, they often benefit from the largesse of parents in the form of a trust fund. It's another way they get a leg up on less affluent peers, who may receive nothing at all — or even be expected to support their families. But what if all children — regardless of their family's circumstances — could get a financial boost when they turn 18? That's the idea behind a House GOP proposal backed by President Donald Trump. It would create accounts for all babies born in the U.S. over the next four years with $1,000 that would accrue interest until the children reach adulthood. At age 18, they could withdraw the money to put toward a down payment for a home, education or to start a small business. If the money is used for other purposes, it'll be taxed at a higher rate. It builds on the concept of ' baby bonds,' which two states — California and Connecticut — and the District of Columbia have introduced as a way to reduce gaps between wealthy people and poor people. Rep. Blake Moore, a Republican from Utah, spearheaded the effort to get the initiative into a massive House spending bill. In an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, he said wealth inequality has soured many people on capitalism. 'Trump Accounts,' as the proposal calls them, could be the antidote, he said. 'We know that America's economic engine is working, but not everyone feels connected to its value and the ways it can benefit them," Moore wrote. 'If we can demonstrate to our next generation the benefits of investing and financial health, we can put them on a path toward prosperity.' The bill calls for the money to be handled by investment firms. The bill would require at least one parent to produce a Social Security number with work authorizations, meaning the U.S. citizen children born to some categories of immigrants would be excluded from the benefit. But unlike other baby bond programs, which generally target disadvantaged groups, this one would be available to families of all incomes. 'When little baby is born they're gonna start off with a thousand dollars and if we do a good job of investing their money — we're going to go with one of the investing guidelines, who the hell knows if they're any good — but they have a chance to be very rich,' Trump said at a rally last week in Pittsburgh. 'It's going to be very cute to see.' Economist Darrick Hamilton of The New School, who first pitched the idea of baby bonds a quarter-century ago, said the GOP proposal would exacerbate rather than reduce wealth gaps. He envisioned a program that would be universal but would give children from poor families a larger endowment than their wealthier peers, in an attempt to level the playing field. The money would be handled by the government, not by private firms on Wall Street. 'It is upside down,' Hamilton said. 'It's going to enhance inequality.' Hamilton added that $1,000 — even with interest — would not be enough to make a significant difference for a child living in poverty. A Silicon Valley investor who created the blueprint for the proposal, Brad Gerstner, said in an interview with CNBC last year that the accounts could help address the wealth gap and the loss of faith in capitalism that represent an existential crisis for the U.S. 'The rise and fall of nations occurs when you have a wealth gap that grows, when you have people who lose faith in the system,' Gerstner said. 'We're not agentless. We can do something.' The proposal comes as Congressional Republicans and Trump face backlash for proposed cuts to programs that poor families with children rely on, including food assistance and Medicaid. Even some who back the idea of baby bonds are skeptical, noting Trump wants to cut higher education grants and programs that aid young people on the cusp of adulthood — the same age group Trump Accounts are supposed to help. Pending federal legislation would slash Medicaid and food and housing assistance that many families with children rely on. Young adults who grew up in poverty often struggle with covering basics like rent and transportation — expenses that Trump Accounts could not be tapped to cover, said Eve Valdez, an advocate for youth in foster care in southern California. Accounts for newborn children that cannot be accessed for 18 years mean little to families struggling to meet basic needs today, said Shimica Gaskins of End Child Poverty California. 'Having children have health care, having their families have access to SNAP and food are what we really need ... the country focused on,' Gaskins said. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
