Land use change is denied for turbine processing operation

VINTON – The Benton County Board of Supervisors voted 2-1 to deny a land use change for Destructible Inc., a company that planned to shred solar panels in Section 12 of Cedar Township.

After more than two hours of discussion, Supervisor Ron Tippett moved to deny the land use change request.

“I move at this point to deny the request for the application for land use change as the proposed new non-agricultural use is inconsistent with the purpose of Ordinance 24,” Tippett said. “It’s incompatible. Material used could alter the stability of the overall land use program in the area,” he said.

“Its impact on the land and environment to me is unknown, but it would impact adjacent property owners, whether that impact be in property values, farming operations or overall enjoyment of the land,” Tippett said.

Referring to the applicants, Tippett said, “I do believe that these gentlemen will be successful in marketing their property. I just don’t believe that this project is a good project for Benton County.”

Supervisor Bruce Volz seconded the motion, saying, “I don’t believe that this is the way that they need to do it.”

Supervisor Chairman Tracy Seeman voted against the motion, feeling he had more information he’d like to get out. After the 2-1 vote, Seeman said, “Denied,” and the audience applauded.

Public hearing

The vote came after a public hearing, led by Barb Fetzer and Matt Even of the land use office. In the application, Destructible Inc. asked to change the use of about 20 acres of land two miles northeast of Mount Auburn to allow for a wind turbine blade recycling and storage facility.

The land is owned by FarmTastic 3 LLC. This is not high quality farm land; its weighted average corn suitability rating is 64. It was a chicken egg farm and is now used as a storage facility.

Even said his office has been contacted by many who oppose the change. The office has not been contacted by people who are neutral.

The office has been contacted about potential environmental hazards. “The primary potential risk with these facilities is from airborne particles mainly composed of fiberglass dust, carbon fiber dust, and epoxy resin particles,” Even said.

“Other potential issues include microplastic pollution and potential fire hazards.”

“One of the major goals the people of Benton County hoped to achieve with our land use plan was to protect agricultural land of the county Other goals of our land use plan include providing for the orderly growth of urban industrial and agricultural lands so that they develop in harmony with each other, and encourage the development of commercial industrial businesses in defined areas of the county.” Even said.

“This proposal will allow for an industrial use within a largely agricultural area with little to no buffer. According to the compatibility of land uses table, within our comprehensive land use plan, heavy industrial is considered incompatible with agricultural and residential rural uses,” Even said.

“There are serious concerns about this proposal’s effect on nearby farm operations and its potential to materially alter the stability of the overall land use pattern in the area. As I reported, this proposal is not consistent with the specific policies of the land use plan for this service area.”

Even recommended the proposal be denied.

The board heard from the applicants, Cody Earle and Jared Sanford who said their company is focused on end-of-life solutions for renewable energy, specifically turbine blades. They said there is short-term storage and that dust mitigation is almost to the point that there’s zero dust produced.

They also keep the shredder inside and work to take care of the community in which they operate. They explained their permitting process.

The supervisors and audience asked about how the blades are transported and shredded, about storage, water usage, dust and existing processing operations, traffic, decommissioning, solid waste requirements, disposal, environmental concerns and impact on county roads.

Seeman asked about the number of employees (five or six), the timeline for processing (12 months a year), the number of loads per day, stockpiling of blades and running of misters. He said he wanted to talk with the county attorney because he was on the fence.

After hearing from the county attorney’s office, Seeman called for the vote.