Lengthy Floyd County public hearing on wind energy continued to Aug. 6

By Bob Steenson, bsteenson@charlescitypress.com

More than 125 people – almost all of them from Floyd County, based on a request from one speaker for all county residents to stand up – filled the Youth Enrichment Center at the county fairgrounds on Monday evening, July 29, to share their opinions about commercial wind energy and a proposed county zoning amendment that would regulate future wind energy projects.

A clear majority of the comments opposed commercial wind projects, with 31 statements against, 21 in favor and eight comments that were somewhat neutral or wanted small changes in the proposed ordinance.

After four hours of listening to people’s statements and concerns, and reading email and mail messages that had also been received, the Board of Supervisors decided to continue the public hearing until next week to give another opportunity for people to share their opinions.

That hearing will begin at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 6, and will also be held at the Youth Enrichment Center at the fairgrounds.

John Robbins, a senior planner with the North Iowa Area Council of Governments (NIACOG), who the county had hired to help with the ordinance revision process, started the meeting Monday by listing some of the changes in the proposed new ordinance.

The existing ordinance currently regulating wind projects is “fairly minimal,” Robbins said.

The proposed ordinance, which was sent to the supervisors by the Floyd County Planning and Zoning Commission, would maintain the current path of applying for a conditional use permit through the Floyd County Board of Adjustment.

But it would set up a complex procedure companies would have to follow to apply for that permit, and a list of rules and requirements they would have to follow if a commercial wind project is constructed and operated.

The ordinance includes a long list of required documentation, a review period by other county departments, notifying all landowners within one mile of of the project, having a public information meeting and more.

If the Board of Adjustment grants a conditional use permit, the company would also have to get a building permit for each turbine or other structure that’s part of the project, and would need to follow all road use requirements by the county engineer during construction.

Setback requirements in the proposed ordinance are:

• Non-participating property line – 115% of the total height of the turbine (the highest point of the spinning blades).
• Dwelling or occupied building – 1,500 feet or 2.25 times the total height, whichever is greater.
• Road right-of-way – 115% of the total height.
• Railroad right-of-way – 115% of the total height.
• Utility lines or pipeline – 115% of the total height.
• Public park, RV/travel-trailer park, conservation area, or Wildlife Management Area – 1,500 feet or 3 times the total height, whichever is greater.
• Commercial feed operation – 115% of the total height.
• Incorporated city limits – 1 mile or as approved by applicable city, whichever is lesser.

The ordinance would require the applying company to do a sound study and sets the maximum sound levels from the turbines at 50 decibels at the closest point to any dwelling or occupied building, and would require a shadow flicker study and sets the maximum amount of shadow flicker at 30 hours per year on the closest dwelling or occupied structure.

Almost all of the comments expressed Monday evening have been heard before in various forms, at one or more opportunities for the public to offer input since the process to revise the commercial wind ordinance began last year.

The Board of Supervisors and Planning and Zoning held two joint public “listening sessions” in February, and a public hearing was held by Planning and Zoning the end of June before it approved the proposed zoning ordinance and recommended it to the supervisors.

In general, the arguments in favor of wind power projects fall into these categories:

• Landowner rights and income: Provides consistent lease payments to landowners who host turbines, and who voluntarily choose what to do with their property.
• Tax revenue: Increases county property tax revenue, which can fund public services.
• Clean energy and energy independence: Reduces carbon emissions and reliance on fossil fuels.
• Economic growth: Creation of jobs and income for the area.

Several people at the hearing said the income from wind turbine easements could make the difference between a farmer being able to remain on the land during downturns in the ag economy or being forced to sell all or part of their property.

Others pointed to the costs for county services and the ability of wind projects to add millions to the county’s annual property tax collections rather than raising rates on other property owners.

The arguments against or concerns about commercial wind projects were more varied, but generally fell into these categories:

• Land use conflicts: Turbines can take farmland out of production and limit land use options.
• Visual and noise impact: Turbines can disrupt landscapes and cause noise pollution and shadow flicker for nearby residents. Some people have said that the sounds produced by the spinning turbines can have a negative physical impact on some people.
• Wildlife: Potential harm to birds, especially eagles, and bats due to turbine collisions, and possible impact on other animals.
• Environmental: Potential damage to sensitive areas, including in Karst topography; concerns during construction and during operation of the turbines; concerns about problems recycling the blades and about the ability to reclaim farmland when a wind project is decommissioned.
• Safety: Threats caused by potential fires in the turbines, from ice thrown from the spinning

Many people at the hearing said they simply don’t like the way the turbines look, and feel they disrupt the scenic agricultural landscape during the day, and their red marker lights are annoying at night.

The words “blight” as in “a blight on the horizon,” and “eyesore” were used by several people, although one person said he enjoyed seeing the turbines, calling them “marvels of engineering.”

Several people said that wind energy would not exist without government subsidies, but another person noted that all energy sources are and have been subsidized.

One topic that had not been raised previously was “cast-off” fiberglass fibers or microplastics from the blades, that the speaker said a study on a Norwegian wind farm contends happens as the blades wear down while spinning through the air, or even more so during rain or snow events, potentially contaminating the environment.

Issac Lamppa, project developer for Invenergy, one of the proposed wind projects, said he hadn’t seen evidence regarding “shedding.”

“With 6,000 turbines in Iowa I’m sure there would be evidence of that if it was a real thing,” he said.

Some of the people at the meeting said they were OK with the energy projects, but wanted the restrictions increased – on setbacks or noise limits, for example.

Cala McGregor of Nashua presented a petition she said was signed by more than 430 people asking for a list of changes to the proposed ordinance, including much greater setback limits, not allowing turbines on highly productive ag ground, a 500-foot turbine height limit, and a limit of no more than 70 turbines total in Floyd County.

Wind project developers have said that the setbacks being proposed by some groups are so great that there would not be enough areas in the county to develop a wind project and an ordinance with those limits would become a de facto ban on new commercial wind energy.

At the end of the meeting, after the supervisors had decided to continue the public hearing to next Tuesday evening, the supervisors decided to continue the rules that they had been operating under Monday evening: anyone can have up to three minutes to speak, and no sharing or combining of minutes.

After some discussion, it was decided that anyone who had spoken Monday night could not speak again next Tuesday, but that everyone would be allowed a combination of one verbal statement and one written statement emailed or mailed to the supervisors, so anyone who had spoken Monday could still write a statement, and anyone who had not done either could still do both for Tuesday. Written statements also need to be able to be read in three minutes or less.

Once the public hearing is closed, the supervisors will discuss any amendments to the proposed ordinance that they wish to consider, and may take action on those changes at that meeting.

The supervisors have said they will go through three readings of the ordinance, at three meetings, as part of the final decision-making process.

The supervisors have a policy of accepting comments from the public during meetings, regarding items that are or aren’t on their agenda.

Members of the Floyd County Board of Supervisors and others listen to comments during a public hearing held Monday, July 29, at the county fairgrounds, regarding a proposed commercial wind energy and battery storge ordinance. From left at the table are Jen Solomon acting as timekeeper, Floyd County Supervisors Jim Jorgensen, Mark Kuhn and Dennis Keifer, NIACOG Senior Planner John Robbins and Floyd County Auditor Gloria Carr. Press photo by Bob Steenson

Wind Energy Petition presented to Board of Supervisors

(signed by more than 430 persons and continuing to collect signatures)

I agree that industrial wind ordinance in Floyd County, Iowa, should include:

• A setback distance of 2,500 feet from occupied dwellings and livestock facilities.
• A setback distance of 1,640 feet from participating property lines.
• A setback distance of 1,800 feet from non-participating property lines.
• 1000 feet from an existing sinkhole
• Turbines shall not be permitted on highly productive soils where 25% or more of the parcel of land has been rated at 79.5 CSR2 or above.
• Public conservation lands shall follow state Fish and Wildlife Agency and DNR Environmental Review recommendations as listed below:
  • All public lands buffered 1 mile.
  • Known bald eagle nest sites with activity unknown buffered 3 miles.
  • Known active bald eagle nest sites buffered 5 miles.
  • 40+ acre tracts of grassland, forest, or wetland buffered 0.5 miles
  • o Bird Conservation Areas.
• 500 ft. height limit.
• No more than 70 turbines shall be placed in Floyd County.