Amherst County tables battery-storage ordinance after safety, siting and revenue questions

The Amherst County Board of Supervisors voted on Sept. 16 to table Ordinance 2025-1, the county's proposed ordinance regulating battery energy storage facilities, after extended public comment and discussion about setbacks, emergency response and tax/revenue terms.

The ordinance would require a decommissioning plan, a baseline soil test, and an emergency response plan, and would allow battery storage only as a special exception in the M-1 industrial district, meaning each project would come before the Planning Commission and the Board on a case-by-case basis. Supervisor Martin moved to table the ordinance; the motion passed by voice vote.

Why it matters: battery energy storage systems (BESS) are increasingly proposed alongside solar and wind projects. They can affect public safety planning, local zoning and county revenue. The board’s decision pauses formal action so staff can return with clarified language on setbacks, conditions for special-exception applications and application requirements for emergency response plans.

Citizen speakers at the meeting urged caution and offered technical context. “Battery storage has become a vital piece of the puzzle in the ever changing landscape of energy demand,” said Dylan Taylor, identifying himself as a member of Energy Rights, an educational nonprofit. Taylor urged Amherst County to allow exceptions in agricultural zones when projects meet conditions set by the board and planning commission and emphasized that BESS projects generally require less land than utility-scale solar.

Resident Bob Fenner, who said he had experience as a planning commissioner and in solar energy, urged a case-by-case approach and cited public-safety concerns after high-profile fires at large battery installations. “We had to look at about 6 hours of exploding batteries,” Fenner said, arguing that runaway fires can require evacuations and costly mitigation and that safer battery chemistries may appear in coming years.

Staff presentation and board questions

County staff explained a published typo in the packet: the packet listed a 150-foot setback but the Planning Commission recommended 75 feet for the M-1 district; staff said the agenda text should read 75 feet and apologized. Staff said the 75-foot figure was adopted after removing A-1 agricultural zoning from the ordinance; the larger 150-foot setback had been proposed when agricultural zones were included.

“Staff originally proposed a 150 foot setback… When discussing with the Planning Commission, they decided to change that to 75 feet,” staff said. The ordinance will still be more stringent than a typical M-1 use, staff said, because the M-1 district often has buildings separated only by property lines.

Staff said the ordinance requires compliance with applicable fire-safety standards, including National Fire Protection Association guidance (NFPA 855), automatic shutdown systems for each battery pod, and an emergency response plan that must be approved by the county fire marshal and EMS before a building permit is issued. Major site-plan review and the Developmental Review Committee would involve fire/EMS and the fire marshal.

Revenue and siting terms

Staff and the county’s finance adviser outlined a revenue-share framework in the draft: a per-megawatt payment of $1,400 that increases every five years by 10% was described in the packet; staff said those statutory rates are set by state code but can be adjusted upward in a negotiated siting agreement between a developer and the county. “There is that thing called a siting agreement in which those numbers could change, depending on the negotiations,” staff said.

Board members sought fuller application requirements and discretionary language. Several supervisors asked whether the ordinance could explicitly permit the board to increase setbacks based on site plans or emergency response reviews; staff said the ordinance could be revised to add language giving the board latitude to require larger setbacks on a case-by-case basis or to require applicants to submit emergency response plans as part of the special-exception application.

Outcome and next steps

Supervisor Martin moved to table Ordinance 2025-1; the motion passed. Staff recommended tabling and returning next month with a cleaner draft that incorporates the changes discussed at the meeting, including clearer application requirements for special exceptions and explicit language to give the board latitude when reviewing site plans. Several board members said they could support the ordinance with the discussed changes, but not with loosened allowances for agricultural zoning at this time.

At the same meeting the board separately approved a change to the Comprehensive Plan language that had been proposed alongside the ordinance. The board removed the phrase “East of Route 29 and 29 Business” from a strategies paragraph and kept a guideline that promotes siting in M-1 industrial districts and in areas that do not negatively affect adjoining property, natural resources or county residents; Supervisor Adams made the motion to approve that change, which passed by voice vote.

What remains unresolved: the board asked staff to return with clarified setback language, a list of required materials for a special-exception application (including the emergency response plan), and a clear statement in the ordinance packet about which codes and NFPA standards applicants must meet. The ordinance will return for further consideration after staff revision.