De Moines County work session scrutinizes draft wind-solar-battery ordinance; residents press for larger setbacks

County supervisors and regional planning staff spent a lengthy work session reviewing redline edits to a draft wind, solar and battery siting ordinance and heard extended public comment pressing for stronger protections and larger setbacks.

Regional planning staff walked the board through numerous edits — mostly consistency changes (replacing “land owner” with “property owner”), corrections to solar acronyms and a series of substantive procedural changes intended to preserve county leverage during early-stage project review. The most significant edits clarified that a preliminary "consent to proceed" or preliminary review is not a guarantee of final approval and added related provisions allowing the board to impose additional conditions at the preliminary stage. Staff also proposed a 30-day deadline for internal departmental comments, spelled out notification duties for the administrator, and tightened some timing windows in the final-review section.

The work session followed more than an hour of public comment. Dozens of residents and stakeholders urged the board to substantially increase setbacks from homes and property lines and to require developers to provide manufacturer safety documentation before approval. “There are valid concerns about how 650-foot tall turbines will affect our health and safety,” Rose Fischer told the board, adding that neighboring counties had recently extended setbacks after proposals for taller turbines emerged.

Other commenters cited manufacturer safety manuals and court precedent to argue for setbacks on the order of several thousand feet, warned of ice and debris throw, and asked the board to consider effects on livestock and private wells. Several speakers said they believed the developer had inappropriately shaped draft language; others said lease terms effectively silence neighboring landowners.

Planning staff defended the two-step approach as a practical way to get early design information to the board and public while retaining the authority to deny final approval if the final design fails to meet ordinance requirements or the board’s conditions. One senior planner summarized the compromise language the staff recommended: adding explicit statements that granting consent to proceed does not ensure final approval and that material changes to a preliminary design can be grounds for denial of final approval.

Supervisors expressed differing views about the appropriate setback distance and the balance between protecting property rights and allowing development; at least one supervisor said they remained uncomfortable with the draft's 650-foot figure. No final ordinance adoption vote occurred during the work session; staff and supervisors left the draft with the added clarifying language and with the plan to continue deliberations in future sessions.

The county did adopt a number of technical and procedural clarifications in the redline, including: defining notification responsibilities, setting 30-day windows for departmental review, requiring an operations and maintenance plan for system safety procedures, and specifying that wildlife-monitoring plans will follow the conservation-board review process. The board did not record a final approval of the ordinance during this meeting and staff noted the possibility of future legal questions if the process or language is not carefully crafted.

Next steps: planning staff will incorporate today's redline changes into the draft ordinance and provide the board with updated language for subsequent review; supervisors indicated additional work sessions or meetings will follow before any final vote.