Fauquier planning staff revise draft battery storage rules after commissioners raise safety and setback concerns

Planning staff presented a draft zoning-ordinance text amendment March 20 to create a new use category for battery energy storage systems in Fauquier County and agreed to revise setbacks and emergency-response language after commissioners pressed for clearer definitions and fire-safety measures.

The amendment, introduced by staff at the Planning Commission work session, would define two tiers of battery systems, allow small “Tier 1” systems (under 600 kilowatt-hours) by right, and restrict “Tier 2” utility-scale systems (600 kWh or greater) to specific industrial and agricultural zoning districts via special exception and a comprehensive plan compliance review. "This is a zoning ordinance text amendment to establish a new use category for battery energy storage systems," Planning staff said during the presentation.

Why it matters: utility-scale battery sites can be sited near homes, public facilities and environmentally sensitive areas; commissioners said the draft must clearly measure setbacks and minimize wildfire and other safety risks before the matter goes to the Board of Supervisors. A pending application, the Summer Sweet Energy Center, is under appeal and expected to be considered by the Board in April, underscoring the immediacy of the rule-making.

Staff said the draft drew on other jurisdictions, industry guidance and the county’s utility-scale solar rules. Key provisions in the draft include a 15-foot maximum enclosure height (based on typical 12-foot enclosures), a minimum 6-foot fence with anti-climb devices, and a 50-foot-wide landscape buffer measured around the project perimeter. New utilities serving the site would be required to be placed underground, and a draft emergency-response plan must be submitted with the first site plan; the final plan must be approved by the Fauquier County Fire and Rescue System at least 30 days before commercial operation and updated annually.

Commissioners focused on how setbacks would be measured and how landscaping interacts with fire risk. Staff proposed a 100-foot setback from battery equipment to the project boundary and a 50-foot landscape strip outside the fenced project area; commissioners questioned whether the ordinance should instead measure from the fence and whether vegetation within buffers should be restricted. Staff agreed to revise the language so setbacks are measured from the fence and to add a clear definition for "project boundary" (to be defined as the area of disturbance shown on the special exception plat) or to substitute the word "fence" to avoid ambiguity.

On vegetation and fire safety, commissioners asked staff to consult the fire marshal about acceptable distances from ignitable vegetation and to consider conditions that would keep the immediate area near enclosures clear of vegetative fuels. Staff said they would contact the fire marshal and, if the marshal recommends a distance greater than 100 feet, make the setback larger. Staff also said they can add a requirement that there be no vegetation inside the fenced area and that the space immediately outside enclosures be gravel or otherwise maintained to reduce fire spread.

The draft allows the Board of Supervisors to modify setbacks from corridors of statewide significance and from major-collector-road access requirements when justified in a special-exception application. Commissioners reiterated the intent to require access from a major collector or better where practicable to facilitate emergency and construction traffic, noting the county’s many narrow or unpaved local roads.

Developers and utilities submitted comment letters. Dominion Energy asked to limit the scope of historic-resource triggers and requested a 20-foot height allowance for some equipment; staff said the ordinance follows Virginia historic-resources standards (50 years or older for historic designation and an archaeological site defined by a minimum of three related items) and recommended retaining the drafted approach. Eastpointe Energy (the Summer Sweet applicant) requested edits including changing some setback baselines and using the parcel boundary rather than the project boundary; staff did not support those changes as written.

Staff also reported several technical adjustments made after the February work session: ownership or operational-control changes must be reported within 30 days (reduced from a proposed 90 days), and the emergency-response plan submission / annual update language was tightened after consultation with Fire and Rescue.

No formal vote was taken at the work session. Commissioners directed staff to (1) revise Section 3’s setback language to measure from the fence or otherwise define the project boundary as area of disturbance on the special-exception plat, (2) consult the fire marshal about acceptable vegetation-free distances and whether 100 feet is adequate, (3) add a prohibition or clearer standards for vegetation inside the fenced area, and (4) return with the updated ordinance language at the evening meeting. Staff said they will make the changes and bring the revised draft back that evening.

Context: staff said the county has received one battery-storage application so far (the Summer Sweet Energy Center); that application was initially processed under an electrical-substation category because the county had not yet adopted a battery ordinance. The Summer Sweet project is still pending before the Board of Supervisors and an appeal of the Planning Commission determination is scheduled for the Board’s next public meeting. Commissioners and staff also discussed the separate but related issue of site agreements and appeals in recent battery and solar applications, noting that a county siting agreement can affect the county’s comprehensive-plan compliance determination and that the Board has discretion whether to negotiate such agreements.

Next steps: staff will consult the fire marshal and return with clarified setback wording, a defined project-boundary term or an instruction to measure from the fence, and recommended vegetation and emergency-response language for the evening agenda and subsequent Board review.

Ending: The Planning Commission did not adopt the ordinance at this session; the item will return to the commission and then to the Board of Supervisors for final action. The Summer Sweet Energy Center application remains pending with the Board with an appeal and special-exception matters still to be resolved.