Several residents used the public-comment period to press supervisors over revised setback recommendations from the Conservation Board and to raise safety and environmental concerns tied to large wind turbines.

Charles Thompson, a resident who identified himself during his comments, described rapidly growing turbine blade sizes and argued that debris fields and fiberglass fragments require much larger setbacks. "Fiberglass is right up there with asbestos ... it's a carcinogen," Thompson said, urging the board to consider both setback distances and cleanup requirements if turbines are sited near homes.

Board members and conservation-board representatives differed on process and intent. A supervisor said the conservation-board timing and suggested language risked vesting too much decision-making authority in a volunteer board and emphasized that elected supervisors should make final policy choices. A conservation-board member said the timing of the recommendations was not ideal and asked for consultation on mitigation measures; several speakers urged mitigation options such as setbacks, turbine curtailment or on/off controls. A conservation-board representative and other residents cited wildlife impacts, including effects on bats and eagles, as part of the rationale for stronger protections.

Residents also raised cleanup concerns, citing prior incidents where fiberglass fragments remained in situ for months in nearby communities. The board acknowledged past cleanup problems and expressed a desire to ensure quicker remediation if incidents occur.

The board did not adopt any ordinance language at the meeting. Supervisors asked staff and the county attorney to work on formulation and consultation language and to return with clearer proposals rather than immediately embedding conservation-board recommendations into ordinance text.