Des Moines County reviews draft siting ordinance for wind, solar and battery projects

Des Moines County regional planning staff and supervisors spent a work session reviewing a draft update to the county’s siting ordinance for wind, solar and battery-storage projects.

The draft restructures the permitting pathway into two checkpoints — a preliminary review and a final review — intended to bring developers, county departments and the public into the process earlier. Jared, regional planning, said the preliminary step is intended so “we get the information ahead of time, have a chance to review, provide feedback, and then there’s a public hearing as well to allow public feedback.”

Why it matters: the ordinance would set the county’s procedural and technical expectations for large energy projects: what studies are required, how and when neighbors are notified, the county’s review timetable and potential conditions tied to approval.

What the draft would require - Two-stage process: a preliminary application and public hearing, followed by a final application and a second public hearing; staff said the two-stage approach is intended to give the public and county departments an early opportunity to flag design or siting concerns before developers finalize engineering plans. The draft sets a 90-day window for county review after a complete application is filed and a two-year deadline for a project to begin construction before the approval lapses (extensions may be requested). - Expanded notice: planning staff and several supervisors argued for direct notice to nearby property owners when an application is filed — staff proposed certified mail to owners within a set radius (discussion referenced both a 1-mile and 2-mile radius at different points for different notices) and the usual newspaper posting and website notice for public hearings. - Technical studies and plans required: the draft lists required documentation that may be provided as draft material in the preliminary stage and final documentation at the final review. Required items include a site plan with setback lines, structural-engineer reports, estimated generation capacity and timeline, noise modeling (A-weighted decibels) and a mitigation plan if thresholds are exceeded, shadow-flicker/line-of-sight modeling for turbines, interconnection documentation or evidence the developer is pursuing an interconnection agreement, operations and maintenance plan, ice-accumulation and ice‑throw mitigation measures for turbines, road‑use agreements and a decommissioning and reclamation plan. Staff also proposed requiring copies of applicable permits (for example FAA and DNR) and proof of coordination with secondary roads and emergency management. - Fees and consultants: the draft notes the county may require an application fee and may hire third‑party consultants to review technical reports; staff said the fee schedule would be adopted by separate resolution so it can be updated without amending the ordinance text. - Insurance and financial assurance: the draft asks for disclosure of insurance policies and references decommissioning financial assurances; staff cited recent experience in an adjacent county as a reason to require clearer insurance information.

Supervisor discussion and points of emphasis - Early notice: Supervisor Trent argued for adding a mandatory proof‑of‑service step at time of application to ensure neighbors are informed early. “We want to make sure that the public’s brought in at the beginning,” he said. - Clarity about conditions: board members debated language tying any conditions to the final permit. Some supervisors asked that the ordinance avoid language that would suggest the board pre‑commits to conditions before it reviews a final application; others said getting developer agreement to certain conditions during the preliminary stage is a practical way to ensure enforceable protections later. - Technical specificity: staff and supervisors discussed how to define thresholds (for example 50 dBA for noise and 30 hours/year of shadow flicker were cited as reference points in the draft) and what mitigation plans should include. They also talked about adding explicit references to FAA approvals for lighting systems and DNR permits where applicable.

Next steps Planning staff said the draft will be revised to reflect the board’s points — including clearer notice language, explicit lists of required technical reports, and removal or rewording of language supervisors flagged as implying pre‑approval of conditions — and returned for further review. No formal vote or ordinance adoption took place at the session.

For readers: the discussion was a staff‑led work session and not a final public hearing; supervisors indicated additional drafting and a subsequent public hearing(s) would be scheduled before any ordinance adoption.