The Des Moines County Board of Supervisors voted to set public hearings on revisions to a proposed wind, solar and battery siting ordinance (Ord. No. 64), scheduling three readings for Jan. 6, Jan. 13 and, tentatively, Jan. 20, 2026, all at 9 a.m. in the board meeting room. The board directed the county auditor to publish required legal notices.

Planning staff presented the draft changes and said the edits are largely clarifying: replacing ambiguous references to “the board” with “Board of Supervisors,” making the county administrator the explicit notifier for required public notices, and adding provisions that grant consent to proceed does not guarantee final approval if final design or scope does not meet ordinance requirements. Staff also pointed to new wording that would allow the board to deny final approval if “material or substantial changes” are made after a consent to proceed.

That presentation prompted more than two hours of public comment. Attorney Kyla Massner urged the board to fix an apparent ambiguity in the draft definition of “occupied dwelling,” saying the term is not defined and that ambiguity affects when and how landowners, lenders and developers know rights and obligations. “There’s an important ambiguity that I think is necessary to be resolved,” she said, identifying the definition on page 4 and related references on pages 7, 26 and 27.

Other speakers raised safety and quality-of-life concerns tied to turbine height, setbacks and operations. A letter read into the record said 650-foot turbines would “destroy wildlife habitats” and could lower property values; the letter’s authors asked the board to block turbines in Des Moines County. Patty Jo Patton, who said she represents local supporters of the project, countered that “there is no scientific evidence that wind turbines cause adverse health issues,” citing studies she included in a handout from the Iowa Environmental Council and the University of Northern Iowa.

Residents pressed for clearer timing and placement information. Several speakers asked when landowners will learn the exact location of turbines; staff and planning advisers explained that the draft site plan, including proposed turbine locations, is submitted with a developer’s permit and that more detailed information is available during the board’s permit review, but that turbine locations can shift until final approval. The ordinance text as presented says the draft site plan includes proposed locations when the developer submits their permit and directs the administrator to notify property owners within one mile of each turbine with “basic information” about the project.

Speakers asked the board to consider stronger setbacks tied to property lines rather than dwellings, to require more detailed safety information from developers (one commenter said the developer has withheld a safety manual), to add enforceable penalties for shadow flicker and noise, and to move future hearings to evening hours so working residents can attend. One commenter noted an ordinance provision that makes an approved siting permit valid for two years following board approval; planning staff confirmed a two-year validity period for final approved permits and described a separate one‑year period between preliminary consent-to-proceed and final permit submittal.

Board members acknowledged the range of views. During the meeting the board extended a moratorium through Jan. 31 and set the public hearing dates; one supervisor said privately they do not feel comfortable moving forward but voted to set the hearings so the process can continue. Several residents asked the board to consider additional time (a longer moratorium) or to place a follow-up agenda item to move hearings to evening hours.

The board’s action to set the hearings is procedural: it schedules the public comment and subsequent readings so the board may formally consider amendments and vote on final language at a later meeting. The hearings are now scheduled for Jan. 6 and Jan. 13 at 9 a.m.; the Jan. 20 date may be waived by a future vote, according to the resolution. The public comment period at this meeting concluded after dozens of residents spoke for and against the proposed revisions.

The Board of Supervisors did not adopt the ordinance at this session; it only set notice, hearing dates and the schedule for subsequent readings. The ordinance text and staff report referenced in the hearing will remain available in the county packet; the board said it will consider resident requests — including changes to scheduling, setback metrics and clarifications to definitions — during upcoming hearings.