Final reading of county solar ordinance passes

The third and final reading of the new Montgomery County solar ordinance is complete.
Audience comment on the ordinance was plentiful before the final vote took place to put the ordinance in the books.  One of the citizens in attendance who spoke was Stanton’s Vicky Rossander, who called into question the comments that her proposed changes to the ordinance would negatively impact the county’s ability to attract utility-sized solar farms to the area.
“All the changes which I had proposed came directly from either the Iowa model solar ordinance, which encourages the development of all sizes of solar power systems, and from the Mills County solar ordinance, where they are currently in the process of building a utility-sized solar farm,” Rossander said.
Rossander added none of the changes she proposed would have impeded the development of large-scale solar farms in the county.
“What it would have done is insure that when those utility-sized solar farms had been constructed in the county, it would have been done in a reasonable and responsible way that protected everyone involved: the landowners where the solar farm was to be built, the neighbors surrounding the solar farm, and the county and its assets, such as roads and bridges. None of these recommendations will now happen, as the planning and zoning board refused to consider them,” Rossander stated.
Rossander closed her comments saying that she felt the county was stuck for now with a poorly crafted and written ordinance, and hoped it was “good enough,” as others had indicated.
Barb Nelson of Stanton was next to speak, and said she was supportive of establishing solar power in the county and was extremely in favor of the county having an ordinance that protected the county and the businesses that wanted to build solar farms, but she was concerned that she heard that if something didn’t work, it could be fixed later.
“I urge you not to wait until there’s a problem with a solar installation being built, and urge you to have the zoning board meet again to fix whatever concerns there might be to protect not just the landowners and the county, but the businesses that want to build here so they have a clear understanding of what is expected and required,” commented Nelson.
Maggie McQuown of Red Oak also spoke against the adoption of the ordinance, despite being in favor of solar farms and offering protections for landowners, the county, and potential businesses.
“It appears apparent that this ordinance is going to pass as submitted. But I know several people have submitted comments to the planning and zoning commission over desired revisions, and I feel that warrants calling a planning and zoning commission meeting to review and improve the ordinance. Also, the ordinance was drafted when there were still two vacancies on the planning and zoning commission,” McQuown said.
Montgomery County zoning commissioner Barry Byers was in attendance at the meeting, and said he understood that some of the ordinance seemed vague, but that was partially intentional, so it could be adapted to different circumstances.
“It puts more responsibility on the board of adjustment during the review process, and I understand that, but that also allows us to dictate how the process moves, instead of having it all written in stone and having to do everything exactly how the ordinance states,” Byers said. “We revise and amend ordinances quite often, so while this is an ordinance, all ordinances are subject to change when we find something we need to address.”
Byers added that there have been a lot of recent comments regarding the ordinance, and he wished they would have been shared when they were having the meetings to draft the ordinance, as that was when the changes were supposed to take place, not after they had been voted on and approved by the planning and zoning commission and brought to the supervisors for approval.
Supervisor’s Chair Mark Peterson asked what the format was for making punctuation changes or fixing misspelled words. Byers said he can fix the spelling errors, but he hadn’t moved on making any of the changes so the supervisors could vote on the as-approved version submitted by the commission.
Harry Rossander advised the supervisors that procedurally, the commission was required to modify the documents, and procedurally, they would have to make changes and the revised version would again need to be approved by the supervisors.
Nelson, who didn’t use her entire two minutes to address the supervisors, was given another minute to add to her initial comments. Nelson took exception to Byers’ comment about the lack of public input at the drafting meetings, as there were no minutes of the meetings published, and the public wouldn’t have known what was going on. Also, she questioned whether the ordinance presented to the supervisors was the one initially approved.
“I believe the ordinance was changed. I believe it was adjusted and was never brought again before the planning and zoning board to reapprove. That was one of the reasons, I thought, that you sent it back to the planning and zoning board, and no one would second so it was never talked about.
Supervisor Mike Olson said he wasn’t aware of any changes made to the ordinance from that initial approval to the one being currently submitted for approval to the supervisors.
When asked for clarification, Byers said he wasn’t present at the planning and zoning meeting where the ordinance was approved, as he was home sick with COVID-19, and county engineer Karen Albert was the one who coordinated the final meeting.
Albert addressed the supervisors, and said there was discussion, and a request was made for some revisions to be made, and then, based on those revisions, the ordinance was approved. According to Albert, the revisions were discussed and approved.
“So the revisions were made based on the discussion that day, and it was approved that day, and this document, plus those revisions, were approved at that meeting in October,” Albert explained.
Supervisor Mike Olson said he had a real issue on the amount of pushback being received on the ordinance. According to Olson, currently at the Iowa Statehouse, there is a statewide ordinance being considered to ban all solar energy from the state of Iowa.
“I believe that the planning and zoning board and Barry Byers have done the best job they possibly could with the materials available at that time, to form and bring forward a comprehensive solar ordinance,” Olson commented. “We’ve talked about this now for two months, and I believe we’ve gone through the motions. Sure, there are comments and different ideas that will come up over the next few months and years, and to stop this, and argue, I feel is ridiculous. Let’s go ahead and get it approved. Not all solar farms will be the same.”