Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wind Turbine Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents deliver 850-signature petition urging Des Moines County to tighten wind-turbine setbacks
Summary
During public comment, residents submitted an 850-signature petition asking the Des Moines County Board of Supervisors to adopt larger turbine setbacks, a 650-foot height cap and wildlife buffers; petitioners said signatures were countywide and presented heat maps to support their request.
Brad Coats of Pleasant Grove handed the Des Moines County Board of Supervisors a petition he said contained 850 signatures — 727 electronic and 123 on paper — asking the county to increase setback distances and limit turbine height.
The petition, submitted during public comment, proposes larger setbacks from residences and property lines and a 650-foot maximum turbine height; petitioners also requested buffers relative to known wildlife sites (petitioners referenced a 5-mile buffer from Eagle Nest and 3 miles from bat locations). Coats told the board the petition includes heat maps showing signatures concentrated across the county and said a second petition collected substantially more responses than an earlier effort.
"The petition 850 total signatures we ended up with on this second petition, 727 electronic, 123 by hand," Brad Coats said, summarizing the count and the heat-map results. He told supervisors the group compared setback figures to other counties and believes the county's draft ordinance currently sets distances that are too small.
Don, who said he and his wife Diane helped gather signatures, told the board canvassers found residents across Minneapolis, Yarmouth, Pleasant Grove and Burlington willing to discuss safety and wildlife concerns face-to-face. "People we talked to were willing to ... express their concerns to us," he said, describing the outreach and validating the heat-map results presented to the board.
Opposing views surfaced during public comment. Charles Tominson South questioned the petitioners' premise and said he encountered many residents who support turbines. Tominson South also made a technical claim about turbine startup and grid interaction, arguing those technical factors undercut some petitioners' energy claims.
The board did not take immediate action on the petition during the meeting. The petition was received for the record and Public Input was closed; no ordinance change was adopted on the spot. The auditor later noted that formal ordinance changes would require a staff review and further board consideration.
What happens next: petitioners said they had provided heat maps and signature lists for staff review; the board will retain the submission in the record while staff and supervisors consider whether to refer the petition into the ordinance review process or to another committee.
