Residents deliver 850-signature petition urging stricter wind-turbine setbacks and height limits

Brad Coates, a county resident, presented two petitions to the Des Moines County Board of Supervisors on behalf of local residents, saying the combined petitions include 850 signatures (727 electronic and 123 collected by hand) and asking the board to adopt stricter standards for wind turbines in the county ordinance.

Coates said the first petition, submitted in June, sought a two-year moratorium on wind development; the second petition, handed in at the meeting, asked the county to require much larger setbacks and a lower maximum turbine height. He described heat maps showing heavy signature concentrations in Minneapolis and outlying areas such as Pleasant Grove and Dartmouth and said the second petition reflected broader, countywide concern.

Don Ross, who said he and his wife walked neighborhoods to collect signatures, told the board that residents across rural and town neighborhoods raised safety and wildlife-impact questions during door-to-door conversations. “People were willing to have us come into their home and express their concerns,” Ross said.

During public comment, some speakers advanced technical claims about project output and grid requirements—one resident disputed the developers’ numbers for megawatt output and argued turbines require external grid energy to operate. Other attendees and supervisors pushed back, with one participant saying those technical claims were misunderstood and urging focus on safety and property-rights implications.

The petitions ask the county to consider, as stated by petitioners, substantially larger setbacks from residences and a maximum turbine height change that petitioners described in the documents. Petitioners also requested buffers measured in miles from certain points mentioned in their materials. Petitioners asked the board to record the petitions and to factor the community feedback into any ongoing ordinance or moratorium discussions.

The board accepted the petitions into the record and heard residents’ accounts; supervisors acknowledged safety and property-rights concerns and discussed how petition input would be considered alongside ongoing county and planning processes. No formal ordinance change or vote on the petition language took place at the meeting; the petition and accompanying maps were entered into the public record and staff will incorporate the input into their ongoing reviews.