Litchfield Asserts Authority Over Elm Lawn Solar; County Concurs

Montgomery County Board Meeting | June 9, 2026

Article Summary: The Montgomery County Board was told June 9 that Litchfield has decided to exercise its extraterritorial jurisdiction over the Elm Lawn Solar project, canceling a public hearing set for May 27, and that an assistant state’s attorney has advised it is the county’s position that Litchfield has authority over the project.

Elm Lawn Solar Key Points:

• Development & Personnel Chairman Chad Ruppert reported that Litchfield has decided to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction authority over the Elm Lawn Solar project.
• The public hearing scheduled for May 27, 2026, was subsequently canceled.
• Assistant State’s Attorney Andrew Affrunti attended virtually and said he has talked to legal representation for both Elm Lawn and the City of Litchfield.
• It is the county’s position that Litchfield has the authority over the solar farm project, according to Ruppert’s report of Affrunti’s remarks.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY — The Montgomery County Board on Tuesday, June 9, 2026, received a report that the City of Litchfield has asserted planning authority over the Elm Lawn Solar project on unincorporated land near the city, and that the county’s legal position is that Litchfield holds that authority.

Development & Personnel Committee Chairman Chad Ruppert told the board Litchfield has decided to exercise its extraterritorial jurisdiction authority over the project, and that the public hearing scheduled for May 27, 2026, was subsequently canceled.

Extraterritorial jurisdiction generally allows a municipality to assert planning authority over unincorporated land near its limits.

Ruppert said Assistant State’s Attorney Andrew Affrunti attended the meeting virtually to say he has talked to legal representation for both Elm Lawn and the City of Litchfield, and that it is the county’s position that Litchfield has the authority of this solar farm project.

No motion was taken on the item, and the minutes record no vote. It appeared on the agenda under the heading “Elm Lawn Solar Update/Approval,” a title the county uses for most committee report items whether or not any action follows.

The report closes a question the county’s own records had left open. The Coordinating Committee’s May 28 minutes described Litchfield’s move as an exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction, while the Development & Personnel Committee’s June 1 minutes described it as supervisory authority — two phrasings that do not obviously describe the same legal mechanism. The full board’s June 9 minutes use the extraterritorial jurisdiction language.

Litchfield is one of several Montgomery County communities where renewable energy projects are in play. The county is separately engaging outside counsel to review its own wind and solar ordinances, adopted a Code of Conduct resolution for land agents and energy project representatives in May, and approved a road use agreement for a different solar project near Witt at the same June 9 meeting.

The minutes do not state whether Elm Lawn Solar is related to any of the other renewable energy entities appearing in the county’s coverage, and the county’s documents do not describe any connection among them.

The board packet does not include Affrunti’s advice in writing, a copy of any correspondence with Litchfield, or any document from the city describing the scope of what it has asserted.