Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission Recommends Zoning Text for Battery Energy Storage; Board Questions 600 kWh Threshold and Setbacks
Summary
Fauquier County planning staff and the planning commission recommended a zoning text amendment to regulate battery energy storage systems with a tiered approach and safety standards; the board discussed the 600 kilowatt‑hour threshold for tiers and setbacks, and noted industry feedback from Eastpointe Energy and Dominion.
Fauquier County planning staff presented a proposed zoning ordinance text amendment April 10 to establish a new use category and standards for battery energy storage systems (BESS).
The planning commission unanimously recommended the ordinance after review of comments from industry stakeholders and comparisons with other jurisdictions. The recommended approach uses a two‑tier system: Tier 1 for aggregate energy capacity less than or equal to 600 kilowatt‑hours (typically accessory systems for residential or commercial uses) permitted by right in all districts; Tier 2 for systems greater than 600 kWh, considered utility‑scale and allowed only by special exception with a comprehensive plan compliance review in specified districts (Agriculture, Industrial Park, Industrial General and Business Park).
Staff said the 600 kWh threshold is based on national industry standards and is intended to distinguish accessory systems from utility‑scale operations. Proposed standards include adherence to National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) guidance for stationary energy storage systems, applicable fire, electrical and building codes, a 15‑foot maximum height for individual battery enclosures (noting industry enclosures are typically ~12 feet), minimum setbacks (a 100‑foot setback from the project fence to battery enclosures, maintained as non‑flammable surface with no vegetation, resulting in battery enclosures being at least 200 feet from property lines when combined with other setbacks), a minimum 6‑foot anti‑climb fence, a 50‑foot landscape strip around the perimeter, and requirements that facilities be on roads designated as major collectors or higher unless the board finds a lesser standard appropriate.
Staff reported one application for a BESS — the Summer Sweet Energy Center — was filed and later withdrawn and that industry stakeholders including Eastpointe Energy and Dominion provided comments. Dominion raised concerns about setbacks tied to associated equipment (connex boxes and substations); staff said the planning commission adjusted language to exclude associated equipment from the 100‑foot battery‑enclosure setback. Dominion also noted HVAC equipment could affect enclosure height; staff said the draft allows rooftop HVAC not counted toward height if it occupies less than 25% of the roof area.
Board members expressed concern that the 600 kWh threshold could impose the same special‑exception process on schools or sizable businesses that install larger accessory systems; staff and a board member agreed accessory installations under the threshold should remain by‑right and that utility‑scale projects would trigger the special‑exception review. Staff offered to review definitions further at a follow‑up session.
The zoning text amendment was presented to the board for consideration and questions; the draft ordinance and the planning commission’s recommendation were on the agenda for the public hearing portion of the meeting cycle.
