McLean County Board approves 300-megawatt Dawson Solar special use over neighbor objections

The McLean County Board on Sept. 11 approved a special-use permit allowing Dawson Solar LLC to construct a 300-megawatt solar energy generating facility in Dawson Township, voting 11–8 to accept the Zoning Board of Appeals recommendation. The vote followed public comments from neighboring residents who said the project could reduce property values and raised safety and agricultural concerns.

The motion to approve the application was made by Member Leah Klein and seconded by Member Eric Hansen; the tally recorded 11 yes votes and 8 no votes. The board counted “yes” votes in favor of approving the ZBA recommendation; board clerks read the roll call aloud during the meeting.

Why it matters: The project would occupy a multi-thousand-acre tract of farmland in Dawson Township and, according to the applicant, would generate a multi‑million‑dollar tax stream and temporary construction employment; neighbors and several board members argued the county record did not fully quantify local economic losses, property-value impacts, or public‑safety tradeoffs.

Brendan Andrew, a representative of Dereva Energy, said the company was “very excited about the project” and that it expected to produce significant tax revenue for McLean County and Dawson Township, create construction‑phase jobs and require limited ongoing county services. Andrew said Dereva had held follow‑up meetings with neighbors and was negotiating “good neighbor” or participation agreements and had investigated a reported unsafe practice by a survey subcontractor.

Nearby residents urged denial or further review. Mark O’Rourke, a Dawson Township resident who said his property would be bordered on three sides by the project, asked the board to “vote no” and described an example of a recent nearby sale in which he said a seller received $100,000 less than asking price; he cautioned that nearby properties could see reduced sale values during construction. Joe Zellers, also a Dawson Township resident, said he was not opposed to solar generally but opposed converting prime U.S. farmland into panels and questioned the scale of the project and the adequacy of outreach and compensation for affected neighbors.

Board members debated Zoning Board of Appeals findings and the seven standards ZBA applies when recommending special uses. Member Klein and others said the ZBA recommendation should be respected; Member Friedrich and other dissenters said the record left open questions about economic losses, soil productivity measurements, emergency‑response access, and long‑term loss of farmland. Member Loeffler highlighted safety concerns raised by witnesses, including panel damage in high winds and firefighter access when panels remain energized during structure fires.

The record includes differing analyses: Dereva and its witnesses cited projected countywide economic benefits and construction employment; several board members and residents said the ZBA’s economic presentation was inconsistent (one board member noted testimony that various acreage figures were confused between 1,700 and 2,700 acres) and that the ZBA record did not fully quantify net local losses, reversion to agriculture, or mitigation for neighbors.

The board’s approval implements the ZBA recommendation and allows the special use to proceed under the county’s zoning process. During the meeting members repeatedly noted that ZBA findings are grounded in the seven criteria listed in the ZBA report (referenced in the meeting packet) and that, under state law and local practice, the board’s review is limited to the hearing record.

The project now proceeds under county permitting processes and any conditions attached to the special use. Opponents said they may continue to seek clarifications and mitigation for adjacent property owners; the transcript contains public requests for buyout options for immediately adjacent parcels and for more comprehensive economic analysis.

For transparency: the meeting record shows public comment on the item occurred during the “appearance by members of the public” section, that the item was pulled from the consent agenda by Member Friedrich for roll-call consideration, and that discussion and the roll-call vote occurred as part of the Land Use and Transportation agenda on Sept. 11.