Grundy County board unanimously denies Brisbane Road 2-MW community solar proposal

The Grundy County Board voted unanimously Thursday to deny a proposal by Brisbane Solar LLC to locate a 2-megawatt community solar array on a 28.3-acre farm parcel north of the Brisbane Road interchange.

The board’s action follows public testimony and formal negative recommendations from the county Zoning Board of Appeals and the Land Use Committee. County planning staff and several municipal and regional economic leaders warned the board that the interchange was planned and publicly funded for commercial and industrial development, not a solar farm.

The project proponent said the array would occupy about 13.09 acres of the parcel owned by the Betty Kinsella Farm Trust and would be fenced with an eight-foot security fence. “The parcel is 28.3 acres in size. And the solar array will occupy approximately 13.09 acres, which will be enclosed in fencing,” said Hannah Udishis, business development manager at Nexium, who presented the application with legal counsel Jim Griffin and engineer Kelsey Sidrice. Udishis told the board the array would use low-profile, non-reflective panels that track the sun, include a native pollinator seed mix in and around the array, and would be bonded for decommissioning after the project’s 40‑year expected life.

Opponents framed the request as inconsistent with long-term economic plans for the interchange. “Does it really make sense to put solar in a major highway interchange?” asked Andrea Hogan of the Grundy Economic Development Council, noting the interchange represents “years of effort and nearly $25,000,000 in tax dollar investment.” Hogan compared estimated tax receipts, saying other interchange businesses produce substantially more property tax revenue than a solar installation would.

County planning staff summarized local objections in briefings and in the board packet: the city of Morris submitted a formal objection citing conflicts with its comprehensive plan, lack of sewer and water infrastructure north of the interchange without annexation, and zoning incompatibility; the Grundy County Chamber and state legislative representatives also provided opposition memoranda. Planning staff reported the Zoning Board of Appeals voted 4–0 to send a negative recommendation to the Land Use Committee; the Land Use Committee then voted 4–2 to negatively recommend denial to the full board.

During the board meeting a motion to deny the application was moved and seconded; the clerk recorded a unanimous roll-call vote in favor of denial. The county’s action now ends this application at the county level; the board did not adopt any alternative mitigation or conditions.

Applicants and their counsel cited the county zoning ordinance and the Illinois statewide siting bill as authorizing frameworks for the proposed use; county staff and multiple municipal leaders said those policies do not override local comprehensive‑plan and infrastructure concerns for this interchange.

The applicant said access would use an existing Saratoga Township road within IDOT right of way and that the project meets the county zoning ordinance’s siting requirements and the state siting law, but they acknowledged the city of Morris chose not to pursue annexation discussions. The applicant also presented a preliminary decommissioning bond estimate and an agricultural impact mitigation agreement.

The denial followed extensive public comment and committee review. The board’s roll-call tally and the Land Use and ZBA recommendations are recorded in the meeting packet and minutes.

Looking forward, opponents said the interchange should remain planned for industrial and commercial uses; the applicant did not indicate an immediate alternative site during the board meeting.