[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


LOCATION/TYPE

News Home
Archive
RSS

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

Adair County supervisors pass solar ordinance Wednesday  

Lyle Beane stated that MidAmerican Energy, the company that was the main developer on the Orient and Arbor Hill wind farms, completed early last year, had mistreated the county in several ways. He said the county should be leery of more developers coming in as forcefully as they did.

Credit:  By Caleb Nelson | Creston News | May 05, 2021 | www.crestonnews.com ~~

GREENFIELD – An ordinance passed by the Adair County supervisors Wednesday night set parameters for future utility-scale energy development in the county.

A public hearing was held with about 25 persons gathered, either in person or on the phone, for the event.

The ordinance passed on a 3-2 vote with Jodie Hoadley, Jerry Walker and Matt Wedemeyer voting yay and Steve Shelley and John Twombly voting nay.

The ordinance

The ordinance provides that there be a cap of 400 total acres of utility-scale solar energy development in the county. There is an appeal process outlined in the ordinance for those denied a request to erect such systems. A permit process carries a $100 fee.

Setbacks in the ordinance are 1,000 feet from an occupied residence, 250 feet from the property line of any non-participating parcel, 50 feet from the road right of way, a radius of 150 feet from the center of the intersection, and five miles from the property line of a public airport.

Non-participating and participating landowners may sign a waiver saying they allow utility scale solar energy systems closer to them than the distances outlined in the ordinance.

There are provisions in the ordinance for fencing, insurance, ground cover underneath the panels, road use agreements and a decomissioning plan.

Feedback

All residents who spoke during the public hearing were in favor of the supervisors setting such an ordinance. MidAmerican Energy project developer Matt Ott spoke in favor of solar development.

Since early March, residents have shared concerns with the county’s elected officials that if certain parameters such as setbacks weren’t set soon, the county would potentially incur a large amount of acres of solar panels.

Comments shared during the hearing dealt with a wide array of concerns residents had, as eight different individuals spoke.

Glare from panels, sound from panels that move toward the sun and a decomissioning plan were all concerns shared. Some are also worried about the impact solar panels could have on the productivity of the local agricultural sector.

Tammy Baier of rural Orient is one who was concerned about the decomissioning plan.

“I’m mainly wanting to make sure we don’t end up with the solar panels at our landfill,” she said during the public hearing.

Rural Stuart resident Curt Beane said he liked the setbacks that are in the ordinance.

Lyle Beane stated that MidAmerican Energy, the company that was the main developer on the Orient and Arbor Hill wind farms, completed early last year, had mistreated the county in several ways. He said the county should be leery of more developers coming in as forcefully as they did.

“There’s no reason for us to allow a company that acts like that to come in and abuse us,” he said. “There’s no reason.”

Karen Seley of rural Greenfield said that she felt the 400-acre cap on utility-scale solar development in the county is appropriate, however there’s no way for the county to know how many acres of development have already been accounted for in the county to date. The supervisors have been made aware of a solar farm that is on tap to be installed near 130th Street and Walnut Avenue southeast of Stuart.

Jayne Steffen spoke on various nuisances she thinks solar panels could create. She warned the board to do their own homework on these issues and what could happen down the road if replacement parts are installed, upgrades are made or technology evolves.

“We need to be proactive, not reactive, in order to protect the rural lifestyle enjoyed by those who choose to live here,” Steffen said.

Jane Cooper, a small business owner from Bridgewater, stated that though the wind turbines aren’t all that close to her home, they’re surrounded on three sides by them. She encouraged the board to find good, reliable information going forward on solar energy as they make decisions.

Cooper also said she is worried about taxation and utility costs.

“Who’s going to benefit from the solar panels? Us, or someone in Chicago or Florida?,” she said. “We’re the ones putting up with them, we’re the ones living around them, we should reap some of the benefits.”

Ott disagreed with the board’s setback distances and cap on total acres of solar in the county, saying that 400 acres is a very small amount of the county and setting that amount of acres greatly hinders those who do wish to participate in utility-scale solar energy.

“That will really severely limit landowners’ ability to use their property for solar. Solar’s a very passive energy source with no discernable noise,” Ott said. “I know there’s concern sometimes about the glare, but the glare is basically equivalent to bare soil. What we’re really concerned with is people’s ability to use their property for solar. Our recommendation is that the setbacks would be more in line with other counties and jurisdictions throughout Iowa.”

Ott also stated that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) should have jurisdiction on what can and cannot be within a certain range of an airport, rather than the supervisors setting an ordinance that limits something such as solar within five miles of the airport.

On split vote, it passed

Hoadley said that Ott had lied to her early in this process regarding solar development already in the works in Adair County, but she did say the ordinance is also an open door for residents to work together if they want solar energy on their land.

“In my eyes, this is to protect the residents of Adair County. It’s not say we can’t have solar, it’s saying let’s step back, take a look, and if you want it on your land, let your neighbors know,” Hoadley said. “We need this protection for our county.”

Matt Wedemeyer said that the ordinance will allow the county to slow down and evaluate on a case by case basis any future solar development.

“If everyone likes [solar panels] we can revisit it. I’ve had one person I’ve talked to who is in support of having solar panels like we have wind turbines, so I feel we’re doing the right thing,” Wedemeyer said.

Following the 3-2 vote that approved the ordinance, Shelley shared that the reason he voted nay on the ordinance is because he feels some of the setback distances are too far.

Twombly stated that his reason for dissenting is because he feels the 400-acre cap is unnecessary.

Source:  By Caleb Nelson | Creston News | May 05, 2021 | www.crestonnews.com

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate

Share:


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share

CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.
Share

 Follow: