Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Will County committee denies Greenflow Energy solar plan near Meadow Creek Airpark after safety objections
Summary
A proposed ~9.8‑MW, 20‑acre commercial solar facility in Monee Township was denied by the committee after residents and some members raised aviation‑safety and proximity concerns despite an FAA no‑hazard letter and developer mitigation proposals.
The Will County Land Use and Development Committee voted down a special‑use permit request from Greenflow Energy LLC to build a 20‑acre commercial solar facility near Meadow Creek Airpark.
Staff told the committee the applicant proposed a roughly 9.4–9.8 megawatt fixed‑tilt solar installation across the site, submitted an FAA "no hazard to air navigation" determination, and proposed berming, enhanced vegetative screening and underground wiring. Staff recommended conditions including proof of compliance with the State Historic Preservation Office at permitting.
Frank Russo, the project representative, said the panels would be nonreflective, there would be no on‑site battery storage, and the site would be surrounded by a six‑foot chain‑link fence. "There is no real fire risk," Russo said, and he noted the company would provide insurance and follow industry standards.
Opponents, especially pilots and residents of the Meadow Creek neighborhood, pressed a different case. Sam Roth, who described a long career as an A&P mechanic and pilot, told the committee that thermal plumes and localized updrafts above solar fields can affect small, general‑aviation aircraft on approach and create a safety hazard at a short runway. "If it hits the solar plume, it's gonna have a little bit of lift... that plane can be affected dramatically," Roth said, urging denial because the airpark serves many small, lightly equipped aircraft.
Kachi Energy, a project co‑developer, and others countered that non‑glare panels, berming and setbacks would mitigate visual impacts and that there is no documented U.S. airplane crash caused by a solar farm. The applicant emphasized the FAA determination and said panels installed at many major airports present no known hazard.
The planning and zoning commission had earlier denied the request 3–4, and after extensive public comment the land‑use committee reached the same result: the motion before the committee failed by a 3–4 vote. The committee noted the narrow runway and the nearby homes as decisive in its assessment of local risk.
What’s next: The developer can revise the proposal or pursue other procedural options; the committee’s denial means the special‑use request will not move forward in its current form.
