Des Moines County supervisors debate when development is 'proposed' under draft Ordinance 64
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
Supervisors and planning staff spent the meeting clarifying when a wind/solar/battery project is 'proposed' under draft Ordinance 64, how the definition of 'occupied dwelling' affects setbacks, and what evidence will be required to protect future homes; residents urged larger setbacks and warned of potential litigation.
BURLINGTON — The Des Moines County Board of Supervisors spent a substantial portion of its meeting hashing out how a proposed wind, solar or battery project becomes official under draft Ordinance 64 and what that timing means for neighbors’ rights.
At issue was language defining an “occupied dwelling” and the timing tied to the two‑step permitting process: a preliminary review and a later final siting permit. An attendee who identified themself as an attorney asked directly: “When is development considered proposed?” and pressed staff for a clear, administrable line so property owners would know when they must provide evidence that a dwelling is ready for occupancy.
Planning staff and legal advisors told the board the ordinance treats the filing and public notice of an application for “consent to proceed” as the point when a development is proposed. Staff said preliminary submissions must include the proposed locations and setback measurements (plus an extra 200 feet) for turbines, arrays or battery devices, and that developers are required to file revised maps if they change the layout during final review.
That timeline, board members and residents warned, can disadvantage people who build or plan homes after a preliminary application is filed. One resident said a turbine’s location could shift between preliminary and final stages and leave a later homeowner outside the notice radius until it’s too late. Staff responded that the final review also includes public notice to property owners within one mile and allows comment and revised maps; they added the board may deny a final siting permit if the project no longer meets ordinance minimums or previously imposed conditions.
Residents urged a clearer test for what constitutes an occupied dwelling. The draft requires property owners who claim a dwelling is not ready for occupancy to “provide sufficient evidence” that it will be ready within one year; staff and supervisors discussed what evidence — surveys, staking, electrical permits, dirt work — will satisfy the burden of proof.
Public commenters, including one who presented shadow simulations for a 650‑foot structure, asked the board to increase setback distances and tighten map requirements. Richard J. Tager presented a verbal petition asking the board to amend siting agreements, strengthen decommissioning and disposal rules for turbine parts, and pause siting permit awards until the board considers the petition.
Supervisors repeatedly urged clarity in the ordinance language. One supervisor said the county must draw a line because “if you wait till [final review] … somebody’s already built a house and it’s too late.” County staff said they would rely on the map and any board‑recognized occupied dwelling to lock in setback protections at the time the board approves consent to proceed.
Next steps: the board did not adopt new ordinance text at the meeting; discussion will continue as staff and the board refine language about evidence, timelines and how map changes are handled.