Will County board denies special-use permit for Drolly Road solar farm after residents and pilots cite safety concerns

The Will County Board voted on July 16 to deny a special-use permit for a proposed commercial solar facility on Drolly Road that would border Meadow Creek Airpark.

The decision followed more than an hour of public comment from airpark officials and neighbors who said the project’s proximity to an active runway creates unique safety hazards for small and amateur pilots. “Solar panels directly beyond a runway and or near extended centerline can present an aviation safety and airport compatibility concern,” said Chris Thompson, Meadow Creek Airpark manager, who also noted FAA advisory circular guidance and said he feared the effect of glare and of thermal plumes on small aircraft during critical phases of flight. “There’s no way you can land into a solar farm and survive,” Thompson said.

The applicant’s representative, Paul Brown of Kachi Energy, told the board the developer has studied potential issues and will use east‑west panel orientation and perimeter berms to reduce glare and visual impacts. Brown said there is no recorded crash attributable to a solar farm. “There is absolutely nothing to support that whatsoever,” he said.

Board members debated two central questions: whether the FAA review and the state statute’s listed factors allowed the board to deny the permit for safety reasons, and whether the small-airpark context differs from larger airports that co-exist with solar installations. Marguerite Kenny of Will County Land Use confirmed the applicant submitted FAA consultation and that the FAA “determined that there was no flight hazard with this project.”

Several board members and residents countered that the scale and character of Meadow Creek — a runway flanked by homes where residents regularly taxi and store small planes — create risks not contemplated in prior approvals for larger commercial airports. “This is different in the sense that we have not … any data to support the impact on small planes,” member O’Gala said during debate.

The board first approved a motion to call the question and then proceeded to a roll call on the ordinance; chair’s announcements recorded that the motion to approve the special-use permit failed. The vote followed earlier committee recommendations; both the Planning and Zoning (PCC) and the Land Use and Development committee had recorded denials (3–4).

The denial means the applicant must either withdraw, revise the proposal to address the board’s concerns, or seek a future hearing after further consultations with neighbors and aviation stakeholders. The land-use committee record indicates that local officials and residents will be involved in follow-up discussions.

The board’s action, combined with questions about statutory denial criteria and FAA consultation, underscores how small-airpark contexts can complicate land-use decisions for projects otherwise approved near larger airports.