Kossuth County supervisors continue review of draft ordinance for large solar projects

KOSSUTH COUNTY — The Kossuth County Board of Supervisors spent a substantial portion of its meeting discussing a draft ordinance to regulate utility-scale solar projects, examining setback distances from residences, how to define the regulated project size, and application requirements including decommissioning and permitting fees.

County legal counsel led the conversation and asked the board whether the ordinance should regulate projects by energy output, acreage or both, noting the state standard differs from the draft. Supervisors and conservation staff discussed details of setbacks from occupied residences and from county or drainage infrastructure, and whether waivers from neighboring landowners should be permitted to reduce the setback in individual cases.

The discussion matters because the county’s comprehensive plan and agricultural land policies guide local land-use decisions and a local ordinance would set requirements for how large solar projects are sited and reviewed. Board members said they wanted to preserve agricultural land while giving owners a pathway to develop clean-energy projects.

Board members debated two main approaches to defining which projects the county will regulate: an output-based threshold tied to megawatts and a land-use threshold tied to contiguous acreage. County counsel advised that defining regulated systems by output could overlap with state utility regulation and that land area can be a clearer local standard tied to the county’s agricultural-preservation goals. Supervisors discussed language that would track state definitions while also including a local acreage threshold (examples discussed included 10 megawatts/30 acres in the draft and the state’s 25-megawatt standard). Several supervisors favored aligning definitions with state code language but adding a 30-acre contiguous-land threshold so county review would capture projects with larger land footprints even if state capacity thresholds differ.

On resident setbacks, Supervisor Amber Garman said some constituents consider a 500-foot setback from an occupied residence “too much” and urged the board to consider smaller distances to avoid preventing local projects. Counsel cautioned that any setback needs a legal nexus to the county’s stated purpose for the regulation and warned against arbitrary distances without supporting findings. The board discussed measuring setbacks from an exterior wall of an occupied residence, rather than a property line, and whether to allow negotiated waivers signed by neighboring property owners to address local concerns.

Drainage and tile infrastructure also drew attention. Counsel and county staff recommended referencing Iowa Code provisions for drainage districts (Iowa Code chapter 468) and making explicit how proposed projects must account for public drainage district tile and open ditches; the draft will clarify whether private tile requires coordination and whether drainage-district trustees must consent to crossings.

Supervisors discussed decommissioning requirements, who should review decommissioning plans, and whether the county engineer or planning and zoning staff should play a formal review role. Several supervisors recommended the county retain the authority to approve decommissioning plans while requesting technical input from the county engineer or outside engineers when needed. The board also discussed financial-security requirements and the frequency that decommissioning plans must be updated.

On permitting fees, staff said the draft currently sets a $1,000 application fee but warned that a single flat fee may not reflect staff time on larger projects; the board asked staff to consider fee structures that scale with project scope. Counsel recommended putting fee amounts in a resolution so the board could adjust them without repealing the ordinance.

The law firm representative said he will revise the draft to more closely track the state definition for utility-scale projects and add explicit references to Iowa Code 468 for drainage-district issues, then circulate a revised draft for further discussion. The board did not take a final vote on the ordinance at this meeting and deferred final action until members absent from the discussion can participate.

The board directed staff to produce a revised ordinance incorporating the changes discussed and to provide a fresh copy for the next meeting so members may review and continue deliberations.