In a split vote this week, the DeKalb City Council shut down plans backed by a Champaign-based developer to build a data center and solar facility off Peace Road.

The petitioner, Nick Mahoney of Donato Solar, approached DeKalb city leaders seeking approval of a series of measures, including an agreement for annexation of the property, a development agreement, rezoning and more.

Mahoney sought to build a 4-megawatt solar energy system and two 6,000-square-foot data center buildings on about 30 acres at 1199 N. Peace Road.

In January, plans for what project leaders have previously said would make for a “boutique data center” received favorable support from an advisory panel. No official action was taken.

It has been pitched as a way to “offset” utility costs, especially during peak energy consumption periods. To accomplish this feat, the project would come with the capability to interconnect with the existing Ameren distribution grid, aiding the development of solar energy systems and battery systems, and leasing data storage to tenants. The plans also would have provided for energy collected from the solar field to be calculated with existing ComEd meters, according to the development’s proposal.

DeKalb Mayor Cohen Barnes said he supported the petitioner’s plans.

“With all the great information you all provided and all the emails that I’ve gotten, I can’t see a better project to ultimately protect that neighborhood,” Barnes said.

In a 2-5 split vote this week, the City Council rejected an agreement for the annexation of the property. The dissenting votes were cast by Aldermen Tracy Smith, Mike Verbic, Andre Powell, John Walker, and Alderwoman Carolyn Zasada. Second Ward Alderwoman Barb Larson was absent.

The city manager had recommended that the council approve a number of measures associated with the development on Monday, despite DeKalb’s Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously voting a week ago to recommend council action against the project.

Some city staff said the commission’s vote was not in line with its mandate, however.

City Manager Bill Nicklas said the city is not a “doormat” to the will of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

“It’s our business, according to state law, to actually be considering these things,” Nicklas said. “Whether we approve them or not is something we should be open to considering.”

Several residents on Monday shared objections to the development during a public hearing before the council voted.

Elizabeth Johnson Kueny said she was wary about the petitioner’s commitment to DeKalb.

“My first concern is that given the tariff situation and the current [Trump] administration, [as well as] the antipathy toward alternative energy resources, I’m concerned that this facility will not be feasible for construction to finish, or if it does, the tax incentives will change and it will be more profitable,” Johnson Kueny said. “I speak on this [from experience]. When I was a child, there was an ethanol plant near my house in St. Paul, and as soon as the tax incentives went away, the facility was abandoned. It was an absolute blunt on the neighborhood.”

DeKalb resident Jennifer Lucchesi said she doesn’t agree with the line of thinking that a “lesser of evils” would be better.

“I just think that process matters,” Lucchesi said. “It’s another incompatible project next door. ... Fear of something worse is not sound governance, and it should not be the reason to approve a project that does not fit.”

Mahoney tried to address some of the concerns that were raised.

“We’ve been very impressed with DeKalb’s business-friendly atmosphere, and that’s the reason why we are looking to invest in excess of $30 million on this project here,” Mahoney said. “We believe that this project is overall a great neighbor for the community, and it’s an appropriate use of the site under the comprehensive plan.”

But a majority of the City Council did not seem convinced by the petitioner’s plea amid protest from a crowd on hand for the meeting.

Verbic questioned what the City Council was doing.

“I guess my struggle is, why is this on the agenda?” Verbic said. “You’ve explained the roles well of [the] Planning and Zoning [Commission] and got a unanimous turndown of this. No one voted for any rezoning. This is highly unusual for this to come to [the] council without any support. So, if we vote in opposition, then we ask, why do we have a Planning and Zoning Commission?”

Zasada said that seeing the community’s opposition means something to her.

“I feel like it was all the more clear this community is strongly opposed to it, and that’s the biggest issue for me,” Zasada said. “I am a solid ‘no.’ ”

Smith shared that sentiment.

“I have to say I spent more time on the phone on this issue than I have with everybody else in the last five years,” Smith said. “Some of you I know very well out there. Thank you for your calls, emails, texts.”

After the council’s first motion failed to pass, the remaining measures meant to aid the petitioner’s plans failed for lack of a motion.

The mayor, who supported the project, said he would like the Planning and Zoning Commission to meet with city staff to review its role in such matters moving forward.

“They’re there to make sure it’s falling within [Unified Development Ordinance], make sure it’s falling into codes,” Barnes said. “At that meeting, they were voting from a subjective standpoint. Their role – my understanding – is more of an objective standpoint, and that’s why we brought it forward."