[PAGE 1]
Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 26th, 2024
Approved minutes
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the EOC at the Court House.
Commission members present: Dean Tjaden, Ben Rottinghaus, Pam-Erbe-Lines, Guy Carpenter, and
Candi Brandau-Larson. County staff that were present were Jen Solomon (Zoning Administrative
Assistant), Jessy Willadsen (Zoning Administrator)
Also present was John Robbins NIACOG along with those named in the attached sign-in sheet.
Approval of Agenda
A motion to approve the agenda was made by Rottinghaus and seconded by Erbe-Lines. The motion
was unanimously approved.
Approval of Minutes
The Chair asked if there were any corrections to the May 29, 2024 Minutes. Brandau-Larson commented
correction of who discussed section 1 (4) Commercial Wind Energy Conversion System definition.
Minutes stated it was Candi and it was Pam. A motion to approve the amended minutes from May 29th,
2024, was made by Carpenter and seconded by Brandau-Larson. The motion was unanimously
approved.
Public Hearing: Consideration of proposed amendment to the Floyd County Zoning
Ordinance (Ordinance 2011-2)
“AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FLOYD COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE 2011-2)
REGARDING PROVISIONS REGULATING COMMERCIAL WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS
(C-WECS) AND BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS (BESS)”
Dean Tjaden began the Public Hearing by summarizing the history of the process to date, including 3
workshops and 3 public listening sessions that were open to the public. Tjaden stated expectations of the
decorum for the Hearing and the public in attendance. Tjaden officially opened the Public Hearing.
Public Comments
John Robbins explained his role as being hired by the Floyd County Supervisors to assist with the
Ordinance Amendment, what is currently in the Ordinance, the role of the Planning & Zoning
Commission, and the process from now on.
Cala McGregor comments:
Stated that there is a concern from members of the Floyd County residents that there is a lack of
awareness of the amendment process. She presented the Butler County Wind Ordinance and
highlighted certain requirements from that Ordinance. She mentioned the setback is 1640 feet from
participating property lines and 1800 feet for non-participating property owner lines. Floyd County has
high-quality farmland that is meant to be farmed. There are 33 county parks that she requested to have ½
a mile to 1-mile setbacks to the park property lines. Cala also requested to have a 40-decibel noise limit.
Scott Larson comments:
Scott requested property value guarantees and claimed there was not enough insurance. Also discussed
need for fire suppression equipment, requesting 1 million in an escrow fund for use in a disaster, and
requested ice sensors. Scott requested drainage protection and that tile lines be undisturbed. He said
1

[PAGE 2]
that the 50-foot setbacks are not good enough for battery storage and that he wants to make sure bald
eagles are protected.
Pat Merfeld comments:
He supports clean energy and getting away from fossil fuels. He stated that electrical demand is
increasing and not decreasing. He requested that the setback be 2 times the tower height. Pat
investigated on his own the questions on the impact on the environment. He found that there were no
concerns about the environmental impact of the wind turbines.
Alan McGregor/ Steve McGregor comments:
He stated there are groundwater karsts and sinkholes that may affect the base of the turbines, and that
wind farms will negatively affect the scenery.
Christy Laube comments:
She stated the positive financial benefit to the County and the increase of our tax base and tax revenue.
She stated that this is a renewable energy source. The quarry near them took many acres of farmland out
of production for mining.
Barbara Lien comments:
She stated that the profits from the wind turbines are not going to Iowans. The Iowa farmers feed the
world and turbines decrease land values. She said that all wind farms care about our federal tax dollars.
Also mentioned were possible environmental and health concerns. Barbara added that there are
economic misconceptions, and they are short-lived, stating that wind companies are in it for profit.
Dan Miller comments:
He stated that he is in favor of the wind turbines and that each turbine only takes up 1 – 1 ½ acres of
land. Nobody is complaining about the MidAmerican wind farm with a 1200 ft setback.
Dean Tjaden read a letter from Margaret Hoel stating concerns as follows: Compacted soil, increase in
noise, fire damage, and negative wildlife impact. She wants a 1-mile setback.
Dennis Westergard comments:
Wind turbines will damage the landscape.
Tim Fox comments:
Tim wants a compromise between the parties. There is economic development benefits during
construction and maintenance technician jobs after the wind turbines are built. He discussed property tax
income for the county and there is no eminent domain as they are all voluntary for property owners.
Doug Groshens comments:
Against the wind turbines due to quality of life, noise, and shadow flicker. Mentioned that it is not fair that
cities get the 1-mile setback yet only 1500 ft setback in the county. He also mentioned that aerial spraying
around turbines can be problematic.
Chuck Souder comments:
Talked about the hearing-impaired people can get sick from turbines. Also damage due to drain tiles from
heavy cranes during construction.
Cal Schultz comments:
Letter to Planning & Zoning supporting turbines and requesting a 1200 ft. setback.
2

[PAGE 3]
Roxann Bjelica comments:
Most of the people that are signing the contracts do not live on the property.
John Merfeld comments:
I am not an absentee owner and recommend that 1200 ft and 2 times the height would be acceptable.
Cathy McGregor letter:
Was contacted by Invenergy who said they were not interested. Wants more setbacks such as ½ a mile
to 1 mile. Wants the DNR and Conservation to be involved. The decommissioning plan requires the
base to be removed at 4 ft below grade and wants the tower base to be removed to 6 ft below grade.
Isaac Lampa from Invenergy answered questions – plans are for a 180-megawatt wind turbine farm and
will start building in 2027. They are presuming 4.5 megawatts per turbine with around 40 turbines and the
height of the turbine will be 500 to 600 ft.
John Robbins answered a question about decommissioning and an escrow account to be required that
would be reviewed every 5 years.
Mason Kolbet comments:
Wants at least ½ mile setback from an animal facility and at least 2000 ft from any property lines.
Mark Radar comments:
Turbines will affect animals and the soil where turbines are built will never be the same.
Merlin Bartz comments:
Family generational farmer says farmers need income to remain profitable and would like to consider
1200 ft and 2 times the height setback.
Travis McCloskey comments:
The lifespan of a turbine is 20 years. Would like $500,000 per turbine to decommission and $100,000,000
to decommission the whole wind turbine farm. Dean responded that wind turbine companies are paying
for the decommissioning and not the county. John Robbins said they will be 100% covered and that they
can also be repowered after 20 years.
Questions on damage to the land during construction, who is going to pay for this? Isaac said that there
is a landowner’s agreement and they will be compensated and there would be provisions in the
agreement. Dean said in the Ordinance that there are minimum requirements, but the property owners
could have their own agreements.
Dustin Straube comment:
His concern is on who pays the property taxes. John Robbins said that the taxes for the turbines are
considered “building on leased land” thus all increased property taxes will be paid by the wind turbine
developer.
Cayla McGregor stated that the Chickasaw County’s setback should be been 125% instead of 115%
from the property lines.
General Comments from the public:
That if property taxes would go up Invenergy would cover the difference.
Private property owners can still hunt on their land.
Isaac said that property owners can do whatever they want with the land but not damage the turbine.
3

[PAGE 4]
Dean said that a lot of this is between the landowner and the turbine company.
Stray voltage was brought up as a concern. Isacc responded that the underground voltage would be 34.5
kilovolts.
Dean asked the public if there were any more comments. John did answer the question about the 1-mile
city setback which was due to allowing for city expansion.
Rhonda Groshens was concerned about underground contamination regarding battery storage and
would like to have studies done. John said that battery storage would have containment measures.
Comments were made concerning the foundation of the turbine and Isaac said the foundation is about
10-12 feet deep.
John Zimmerman comments:
Former Butler County Supervisor asked about tax revenue. Ben read the letter from the County Assessor
explaining tax revenue. Dean stated that tax rates are regulated by the state and taxes are prorated over
7 years up to 30% of the total value of the turbine.
Questions were asked about stray voltage and Dean answered that all electrical installations must comply
with electrical code regulations that are Federally controlled.
Gordon Boge comments:
He does not want turbines on his farm. He mentioned that farm equipment is getting bigger not smaller.
He wants the Butler County Ordinance to be looked at for input.
Arlow Bates comments:
He wants participating and non-participating property owners to be covered by setbacks. He
recommends 1200 or 2 times the height of the tower.
Adam Sears Letter:
Floyd County Conservation Board recommends ½ mile from conservation areas. Also recommends that
the Zoning Commission follow the US Fish & Wildlife rules.
Heidi Reams comments:
Wants natural resources protected (such as campgrounds and tourism areas). She indicated that turbines
close to camping areas may affect the tourism industry.
Mike Carberry comments:
He does not live in Floyd County but recommends that the Zoning Commission approve the Ordinance
the way it is currently written.
Jen Daffie/David Stewart letter:
They do not live in Floyd County but do have property in the county. They support the wind turbines and
recommend setbacks at 1100 to 1200 ft.
Rhonda Groshens comments:
Wants the setback to be greater than currently proposed.
Isaac Lampa Invenergy comments:
Does not live in Floyd County. Wants setback to be 1200 ft. Tax revenue for the county would be 70
million over 40 years and 100 million in payments over 40 years to the property owners. Scientific
research on negative health effects is very limited. Turbines, relative to solar farms, do not take up much
farmland.
4

[PAGE 5]
Colleen Shanks comments:
Wants a setback further and does not like the noise or shadow flicker.
John Vetter comments:
Made a point that losing land to other things like schools, factories, and highways takes up more land
than turbines. Also, the noise with the semis going through the county is much worse than the turbines.
He supports the turbines and 1200 ft setback.
Ben Johnson comments:
He is not for or against wind turbines, but he does not want one ½ - 1 mile from his backyard. The new
turbines are a lot taller than the Mid-American turbines.
Brian Ott comments:
Supports the turbines but does not want to infringe on neighbors.
Tom Treharne – Nextera Energy comments:
Benefit of tax revenue, their company wants to be active in Floyd County and wants to be a good
neighbor. He wants the 3-times tower height setback reduced.
Andy Johnson comments:
Doesn’t live in Floyd County but farms land in the county and doesn’t want turbines put up by any ground
that he operates in the County.
Colleen Shanks comments:
Questioning where the electricity is going. Ben from Planning and Zoning answered her question that the
power will go into the grid and Dean added that this is Federally controlled.
Cayla McGregor comments:
She wants to know the plans from wind turbine companies.
Mike Shanks comments:
Wants to know if the underground electric lines can cross property. Isaac indicated they would need an
agreement with the property owner. Mr. Shanks did say the Avenue of the Saints project was a
government project and this project is not.
Being that there were no other comments from the public, the Chair Dean Tjaden closed the Public
Hearing and asked for input from the Commission.
Commission comments:
John commented on lighting, and how the regulations interfere with FAA requirements. John provided
amended language to the Ordinance that does not interfere with FAA requirements. Chairman Tjaden
stated that all changes should be either approved or denied on an individual basis. Motion to approve
FAA verbiage changes. A motion was made by Rottinghaus and seconded by Carpenter. All members of
the Commission approved- motion carried.
A waiver discussion on what gets recorded to exclude financial arrangements: Isacc did say that
Invenergy includes the finances in the easement. Rottinghaus made a motion to waiver evidence to be
recorded instead of the whole waiver which was seconded by Erbe-Lines. All members of the
Commission approved- motion carried.
The next discussion regarded setbacks. The question was asked of John on what setbacks should be
and John stated that it was not his decision, and he chose a compromise. The discussion revolved
around 1500 ft and 3 times the tower height of the dwelling or occupied building. After much discussion
5

[PAGE 6]
on setbacks a motion by Carpenter for a 1500 ft setback and 2.25 times the tower height was made and
seconded by Erbe-Lines. A discussion was then opened to the public. Cayla McGregor commented that
she did not want to reduce the setback and tower height. Mr. McGregor asked if shadow flicker would
reduce property value. Merlin Bartz mentioned that increasing to larger setbacks might take out a small
farmer’s ability to have a turbine. Dean called for a roll call vote.
Roll call Rottinghaus, Erbe-Lines, Tjaden, and Carpenter were yea’s (4) and Brandau-Larson was a nay
(1). Motion carried.
Guy questioned about CRP ground and does that call for a Conservation setback. John said no, just the
county-owned property. Dean said that the Board of Adjustment can change the setbacks on individual
applications.
Brandau-Larson brought up wanting a CSR limit on where the turbines could be located. Dean
mentioned that he does not want to penalize property owners for having good farm ground and wants to
possibly enter into an agreement with the wind turbine companies. A discussion was held amongst all
Commission members and the consensus by majority of the board was not to put a CSR limit into the
Ordinance.
Brandau-Larson brought up about a maximum height on turbines. A discussion was held and the
consensus of majority of the Commission was not to restrict the height of the turbines.
Discussion on how much liability insurance should be required. The consensus of the Commission was
to have the Board of Supervisors investigate this further since this is regarding the financial exposure of
the County.
A discussion was held on requirements for fire suppression systems to be on turbines. Isaac indicated
that there are no fire control systems available because it is more of a danger for the workers on the
turbines than to just let it burn. John said that turbine companies are required to work with the EMA
Coordinator in the Ordinance. The consensus by the Commission was that a fire suppression system
would not be part of the Ordinance.
Chairman Tjaden asked for a motion to approve all changes that were discussed and approved by the
Commission after the Public Hearing was held. The amended Ordinance would be presented to the Board
of Supervisors, with a recommendation to review the liability insurance. A motion was made by Carpenter
and seconded by Erbe-Lines. Dean called for a roll call with Rottinghaus, Erbe-Lines, Tjaden, Carpenter,
and Brandau-Larson all approving. Motion carried.
Dean called for Adjournment.
Adjournment: At 9:15 p.m.
Zoning Administrator Minutes were taken by Jessy Willadsen and Jen Solomon.
6