After months of waiting and two delayed meetings, the matter of a potential solar farm just outside Waterloo finally came before Monroe County officials, garnering a largely negative response.

The Monroe County Planning Commission voted to recommend denying a petition for special use exception for the Chicago-based Monroe Sun LLC and Monroe Sun 2 LLC in seeking a permit for a “large solar energy facility” on a plot of land north of Maeystown Road to the southwest of Waterloo just outside city limits.

With that recommendation of denial, the matter would be set to go before the Monroe County Zoning Board of Appeals. However, per zoning board member George Obernagel, the request for special use exception has currently been rescinded and will not be heard by the board of appeals at its Dec. 15 meeting.

Thursday evening, discussion of the proposed solar farm took up most of a nearly three-hour meeting, consisting largely of a presentation from the farm’s prospective developers, questioning and critique by members of the planning commission and a substantial amount of input from members of the public in attendance.

Speaking on behalf of the project were attorney Sean Pluta, engineer Hannah London and Henry Barrett,  director of business development for Nexamp, the parent company of both Monroe Sun LLCs.

As a substantial point of clarification, Pluta explained early in the meeting that the previously scheduled meetings to address this project had been postponed as the previous developer was in the midst of having a child and didn’t have the time to also take on the application for the project’s special use permit.

Barrett offered an overview of both the project and Nexamp as he offered a PowerPoint presentation.

The business, as he explained, was established in 2007 by a pair of veterans looking to encourage clean energy development.

“They’re two Army veterans, and they later formed a company with the goal of accelerating the transition away from traditional sources of energy and foreign dependence on those resources,” Barrett said. “They started out small, working on rooftop solar projects, small wind turbines back in the early days, and then since then, the company has evolved into what we are now.”

He spoke to Nexamp’s strong presence throughout Illinois, with upwards of 50 projects throughout the state and dozens of additional solar farm projects in the works.

Regarding the Monroe County project, he re-established some particulars such as the 117-acre size of the plot – though he also explained the project would take up roughly 72 acres for two solar arrays generating 5MW each.

It was further explained that the lifespan of the project was expected to run 30-40 years.

Originally, three arrays were planned for the property, though this was ultimately deemed too large a project, and Nexamp landed on establishing just the two arrays to the north of the property.

Speaking on maintenance, Barrett said Nexamp would be the long-term owner and operator of the facility – it was noted elsewhere in the meeting that the aforementioned Monroe Sun LLCs would be managing the respective solar arrays while reporting to Nexamp – with 24/7 monitoring.

It was further explained the site would be treated with a pollinator-friendly seed mix for the purposes of both erosion control and establishing something of a meadow habitat, with multiple vegetation management trips throughout the year.

On the large concern about solar decommissioning, Barrett said Nexamp would, at the end of the project, take and recycle the components at the end of their lifetime.

Bonds would be issued as part of the project to ensure adequate funding for this decommissioning.

Along these same lines, it was noted Nexamp would be committed to replacing components of the arrays in the case of any storm damage.

Barrett also spoke about the apparent benefits the project would provide the community, noting the contribution to the tax base without requiring public services, the preservation of farmland and the opportunities for construction jobs.

The larger benefit to the community discussed during the presentation and elsewhere in the meeting were the solar subscriptions which would allow Ameren customers to subscribe in exchange for monthly savings on their electric bill.

Throughout the meeting, members of the planning commission took many opportunities to criticize the project and special use application.

One particular area several commission members took issue with was the application’s apparent emphasis placed on explaining state law outlining the limitations of local government to restrict where solar farms can be developed.

Pluta responded to one commissioner’s remark by saying the mention of these laws wasn’t meant to be pointed but simply provide background for officials as they voted on the project.

“The reason for the inclusion of the statement of the law is simply so that people aren’t surprised,” Pluta said. “It’s not intended to come off as a slap in the face.”

Planning commission member Jane Kolmer was one such commissioner to speak about how the project was seemingly intended to be forced through by the developers.

“There are some mechanisms for denying this,” Kolmer said. “You reaffirmed that we didn’t really have any choices, and people have historically used the comprehensive plan, they’ve used the preservation of farmland and they’ve used conflicts of infrastructure, and we have all three of those things happening in this area… From my research, there have been instances where they have been denied. It hasn’t been absolute, and I think in the beginning of this you did present it in a way that implied that we had no choices.”

A myriad of other critiques were made by commissioners throughout the meeting.

Some questioned the project’s management and ownership. The relationship between the Monroe Sun LLCs and Nexamp was discussed, as was the replacement of Alex Farkes by Nexamp, with Farkes’ name still appearing on a number of documents pertaining to the project and application even as the project has been taken over by Nexamp.

State and federal oversight of the project also came into question in a number of ways, with one concern being whether or not the project could be considered federally funded as it was relying in part on a federal tax credit.

In explaining the ultimate recommendation to deny the permit, commissioners pointed primarily to the seemingly incomplete nature of the application.

Throughout the meeting, it was noted various important elements of the application were missing, outdated or otherwise showed flaws, such as a soil report or plans for storm water management.

Commissioners chiefly jumped on the apparent omission of information regarding a large, high-pressure gas pipeline which runs through the property and would thus seem to heavily impact how the solar farm could be set up.

While the project’s representatives seemed to indicate they were aware of the pipeline, they also indicated it took them an extended period to receive easement and other information from the pipeline’s owner, thus the omission.

Additional concerns were raised about the solar farm’s place with the new county comprehensive plan which, while not affecting how any properties are actually zoned, prioritizes properties so close to municipalities for residential development.

Commissioner Dave Glosecki was among those who were especially critical of the application’s organizational shortcomings.

“I think trying to short the process by presenting an incomplete proposal is really just a slap in the face,” Glosecki said. “I don’t know how else to put it. We’re asked by the county folks to be their voices and represent them, at least in an initial screening.”

Kolmer was likewise among those officials who was particularly vocal and seemingly well-researched on the application, voicing a number of concerns.

“The application’s not perfect,” Kolmer said. “The submission’s not perfect. It’s a big responsibility for us to make these decisions for the community. There’s a lot of things that don’t match. There’s some that say Monroe Sun, some that say Monroe Sun 2, some that say Farkes’ name, some that say Nexamp. A lot of the pieces feel like they were piecemealed together, and, in my personal opinion, this is a huge mess.”

Kolmer and other commissioners further spoke elsewhere in the meeting when the suggestion was made to approve the special use permit with contingencies.

Concerns were raised about the commission being asked to outline numerous requirements and identify all the missing or unsatisfied parts of the application within the remainder of the meeting.

Prior to the unanimous vote to recommend against the project’s special use permit, commissioners made requests of a storm water plan, large vinyl fence, accordance with the comprehensive plan, accommodation of the pipeline, completion of the incomplete studies and a number of other items regarding operation and maintenance.

As mentioned, members of the public also had a number of comments during the meeting.

These remarks and questions largely focused on the solar farm’s impact on the aesthetic and character of the area, concerns about pollution and flooding and the value in maintaining the rural, farming element of the county.

Among those who spoke was Candice Kohlmeier Doyle, who spoke about her connection to the property where the project would take place as she lives on the adjacent property.

“I grew up on this land, and I know and I care about it,” Doyle said. “I will look directly onto these proposed solar panels from my home. When my grandparents passed away, my father had to sell most of the agricultural land to settle the estate. Thor and Christine bought the land and told my dad they would continue to farm it, which they have. It’s their land now, and while I personally would like to see it remain in agricultural production, I respect his right to do what he wants with his land within county and state ordinances.”

She went on to voice a number of concerns about the project, noting the vague or incomplete parts of the application, potential issues with water runoff and lack of discussion about putting native plant life on the property.

Amy DeVault was another neighbor to speak against the project, likewise taking issue with potential runoff and pollution and also placing emphasis on how other projects of this nature have resulted in eyesores with dead trees and unmaintained facilities.

Nathan Krebel, another nearby resident and Waterloo’s deputy director of public works, also spoke against the project, it’s conflict with the comprehensive plan and the impact it would have on the area’s aesthetics for the foreseeable future.

While not among the public comments, Waterloo Zoning/Subdivision Administrator Roberta Rohwedder offered a statement during the meeting on behalf of the city, noting that city government wouldn’t have authority over the project or property and adding that the project would have a negative impact on expected growth in that area.

“It is our expectation that the issuance of additional single-family residential building permits in that direction would cease immediately consistent with the anticipation of change in land use conditions,” Rohwedder said.