Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Large Scale Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA adds setback condition and recommends approval for Keeneland solar after neighbor objections
Summary
The ZBA recommended approval of USS Keeneland’s 4.98‑MW solar proposal but added a site‑specific condition to move panels to increase separation from a nearby residence after neighbors raised visual and quality‑of‑life concerns; vote was 4–1 in favor of the recommendation.
The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended approval of USS Keeneland LLC’s proposed 4.98‑megawatt solar facility on a 38‑acre limit‑of‑work area while adding a site‑specific landscaping and setback condition intended to increase separation between the array and a nearby residence.
County staff summarized the petition for a ground‑mounted solar installation on a parcel in Saratoga Township and said the applicant submitted required items including an NRI/LISA score (231.99), a vegetation plan and emergency response coordination. The applicant said the development would generate no daily traffic once operating and provided an interconnection plan to nearby distribution infrastructure.
Several neighbors testified about visual impact, farmland loss and property values. Susan Jeskowitz, who described opposition to large‑scale renewable build‑out in the state, said Illinois’ renewable target “means covering 200,000 acres of farmland in Illinois with solar panels and 300,000 acres of wind turbines to meet that goal.” Residents emphasized the close proximity of panels to fronting roads and houses.
Tyler Morris of US Solar told the board the company had limited ability to shift the array because of program rules that penalize co‑located projects but said the developer had already adjusted layouts to avoid drainage tile. After a specific neighbor asked for more separation, Morris agreed to a concrete change at the podium: when asked whether panels could be pulled back about 300 feet from the north property line adjacent to the neighbor, he responded, “I could absolutely make that adjustment.” Staff advised that the board could add site‑specific conditions.
Board members discussed LaSalle factors and public‑benefit questions; taking the site’s specifics into account they approved a motion to recommend approval with staff conditions plus the added northern setback/landscaping requirement. The roll-call vote was 4–1 in favor (one member opposed). The recommendation will go to the county’s Land Use Committee Sept. 24 and the County Board Oct. 14 for final action.
Materials in the case file include the developer’s site plan showing the limit of work, the LISA/NRI score, a vegetation plan, and public comments both in favor and opposition. Any final approval will require the developer to complete final engineering, satisfy drainage and decommissioning requirements, and meet the county’s conditions for lighting, glare and vegetation management.
