Des Moines County supervisors and residents spar over when energy projects are 'proposed' under draft siting ordinance

The Des Moines County Board of Supervisors spent more than an hour on a detailed discussion and public input about a draft of Ordinance 64, the county's proposed rules for siting wind turbines, solar arrays and battery energy storage systems.

Board and planning staff framed the central question as when a development becomes 'proposed' for purposes of notice and for determining whether nearby buildings qualify as "occupied dwellings." Jared, speaking for regional planning, told the board the ordinance ties the "proposed" stage to the filing and public notice for a consent-to-proceed application. "The timeline is if you want it has to be before the consent to proceed," he said, describing the preliminary review, public hearing and the consent-to-proceed vote as the point that starts statutory timelines.

Several residents and attorneys pushed back, saying the preliminary-stage plans are often conceptual and can shift before final approval — a change that could leave late-notified landowners unable to demonstrate they intended to build a dwelling in time to win required setbacks. "When is this ordinance considering development proposed?" asked a local attorney, pressing the board to clarify what evidence (staked lots, building permits, contractor invoices) would satisfy the burden of proof for a dwelling "ready for occupancy within one year."

The draft text cited during the meeting places the burden on the person claiming noncompliance to provide "sufficient evidence" that a building will be ready within a year if it is not yet occupied. A board member emphasized the ordinance makes the board — not the developer — the factfinder on such claims. "If you convince the board that you're actually doing something, then you would be recognized as part of the map," one supervisor said.

Public commenters warned practical problems. Brad Coast, of Pleasant Grove, asked whether the same set of property owners will be notified at preliminary and at final review and raised a scenario in which a landowner misses the preliminary notice but the developer later shifts turbine locations closer to the landowner's planned home. Rose Fisher and others asked what recourse property owners have if a final plan places turbines closer than initial maps and the landowner has already built a residence in the intervening months.

Planning staff pointed to ordinance provisions that require a developer to submit revised maps and to the board's authority to deny a final siting permit if the final design fails to meet ordinance requirements or if material changes occurred after consent to proceed. "We can deny the final siting permit if the final design does not conform with the minimum requirements," staff said. Board members also noted notice radii in the draft extend beyond the minimum setback distances to try to catch changes in layout.

The meeting record shows no change to the draft language at this session; staff and several board members said the discussion and public letters (one referenced from Dec. 29) will inform final edits. Multiple residents asked the board to consider adding clearer, objective standards for what constitutes adequate evidence that a dwelling is under construction or will be ready within one year. Others asked the board to extend the moratorium on new applications until those details are resolved.

The board concluded the item as a board discussion and invited additional written comments; no final vote on Ordinance 64 occurred at this meeting.