access. He pointed out the petitioner did not own the property and had no legal
authority to give his clients permission to travel across the land and into the
farmland. His clients are of the opinion that they hold the legal right to the
access by prescriptive use of the easement for the past 20 years. Two lawsuits
have been filed regarding that issue. Mr. Lundgren asked the board to focus on
the acts and deny the petition because the revised site plan does not comply
with state statute or the county ordinance. Lastly, he noted that there is a
pending bill in the Illinois General Assembly to change the state's solar statute
on setbacks from 50 feet to 500 feet.
Atty. Stuart Peterson, representing an adjacent owner, summarized his concerns
about property values decreasing and the real estate appraisal was provided to
the board immediately prior to the board voting, giving the board no time to
review the appraisal. Mr. Peterson stated that nothing has changed since the
ZBA vote, other than the petitioners wanting another chance before the board
and to threaten a lawsuit. He reiterated that Item B in the Lasalle/St. Clair
factors, and the county's ordinance, was a key factor in denying the special use
on this petition. He also believes such concerns are why there is a pending
house bill going through the Legislature. He asked the board to deny and keep
the vote from the board's February County Board meeting.
Mr. Chuck Haskin, 1N700 Meredith Road, Maple Park (western edge of his
property borders the site) shared his objections of this petition. He believes the
petitioners, under the guise of working together, have been untrustworthy and
cited the reasons why. The Kaneville Township board opposed the petition, the
county's ZBA opposed the petition and now petitioners threatened a lawsuit
because the board voted based on the facts presented. He asked the board to
deny the petition.
Ms. Carrie Svilhik, Meredith Road, whose western edge of her property borders
the proposed site, shared her and her neighbors' concerns who voiced objection
to the petition. She referenced a prior solar field approved by the board. That
company worked with the residents, as compared to the subject petitioner for
#4616. Ms. Svilhik reported the landowner, Richard Johnson, refuses to be
involved in the discussions and the petitioner has only met with a few residents
of the Pine Tree Subdivision, where more families lived. Horizon did not hire
specialists; instead they hired an attorney and a lobbyist. Due to the zoning
board denying the petition its second time, she asked the board to do the same.
Ms. Gayla Argent, a Route 38 resident, said her entire southern and eastern
edges of her property border the proposed site. She is representing her family
and other neighbors who signed a petition against the petition. The board
approved other solar sites that were well chosen and the petitioner worked with
the neighbors. Horizon's representative stated they wanted to be a good
neighbor but they have not, mocking the residents' concerns. As stated on its
website and ask Mr. Melka has stated publicly, Horizon Solar is a developer who
sells to long-term investors and eventually moves on. Ms. Argent reminded the
board the subject property is zoned agricultural and it is up to the board to
assess the matter and grant or not grant the zoning variance to allow the land to