By Jim Magdefrau

VINTON – The Benton County Board of Supervisors voted 2-1 to deny a land use change for Destructible Inc. at their meeting Tuesday, June 10, at the service center in Vinton. The company planned to shred solar panels in Section 12 of Cedar Township.

Meeting video

After over two hours of discussion, Supervisor Ron Tippett made the motion to deny the land use change request. Tippett said, “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. It’s incompatible. Material used could alter the stability of the overall land use program in the area. 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.” 

Referring to the applicants, he 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,” followed by a round of applause from the audience.

Public hearing

The vote came after a public hearing, led by Barb Fetzer and Matt Even of the land use office. Even read the application, in that Destructible Inc. was requesting to change the use of approximately 20 acres of land to allow for a wind turbine blade recycling and storage facility. This is about two miles northeast of Mount Auburn in Section 12 of Cedar Township. The land is owned by FarmTastic 3 LLC. This is not high quality farm land, with a weighted average corn suitability rating of 64. It was a chicken egg farm and is now used as a storage facility. 

Even said the office has been contacted by many who are in opposition. They have not been contacted by people who are neutral on this. They have also been contacted about potential environmental hazards. Even reported, “The primary potential risk with these facilities is from airborne particles mainly composed of fiberglass dust, carbon fiber dust, and epoxy resin particles. Other potential issues include microplastic pollution and potential fire hazards.”

Even added, “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 continued, “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 concluded, “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 this proposal be denied.

The board heard from the applicants, Cody Earle and Jared Sanford. They said their company is focused on end-of-life solutions for renewable energy, specifically turbine blades. They stressed there is short-term storage. They added dust mitigation is almost to the point that there’s zero dust produced. They also keep the shredder inside. They work to take care of the community in which they operate. They also explained their permitting process.

The supervisors and audience asked about how the blades are transported, shredding, storage, water usage, dust, existing processing operations, traffic, decommissioning, solid waste requirements, disposal, environmental concerns, impact on county roads, bonding, talking with the neighbors, the land use pattern of Benton County and compatibility, land values, carbon fiber, and high risks.

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 stressed he wanted to talk with the county attorney on this. He said he was on the fence on this. 

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