Commission reviews draft solar and front‑of‑meter energy‑storage code changes after state regulatory preemption

Carroll County planning staff on July 9 presented a draft set of zoning revisions that would align county code with recently enacted Maryland state rules for solar energy generating systems and front‑of‑meter energy storage devices.

Staff told the Planning and Zoning Commission the state has limited local authority to prohibit and to set design standards for solar projects: staff said the Public Service Commission (PSC) issues Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for projects of roughly 2 megawatts or larger and that the state's recent rules require certain solar projects to be treated as principal permitted uses across local zoning districts. Staff said the county must therefore revise its code where state law preempts local prohibitions or limits local design discretion.

Key points staff presented and commissioners discussed:

- State preemption and application thresholds: Staff said a CPCN is typically required for projects of about 2 megawatts and larger; staff also said the staterule requires treatment of projects in certain size ranges as principal permitted uses in zoning districts (staff discussed a 1–5 megawatt band and noted state variations). County code must be revised to reflect these thresholds and the countyrole in permitting smaller projects under local process where allowed.

- Setbacks and buffers: Carroll County previously set a 400‑foot setback for some solar installations; staff said the state bars local setbacks larger than 100 feet in some instances. The proposed draft reduces the county maximum to match state limits while adopting a state provision that no panel or structure be within 150 feet of the nearest wall of a residential building. Commissioners asked whether variance authority should be limited; several commissioners urged that any setback reductions be non‑waivable and that landscape buffer requirements be strengthened where allowed.

- Visual impact and community meetings: For projects located in state‑identified overburdened or underserved communities, staff proposed adopting the state requirement that applicants hold at least two public meetings in the affected community. Staff also proposed retaining a requirement for visual impact studies (the PSC requires such a study for CPCN projects) and asked the commission whether the county should require visual studies for locally permitted projects under 2 megawatts; commissioners asked staff to consider what a required visual study would look like in local review.

- Grandfathering and alterations: Staff reported that projects already in review under the county's earlier fall 2024 requirements were intended to proceed under the prior rules. To avoid creating permanently nonconforming sites, staff proposed language allowing future alterations or expansions to those earlier projects without penalizing them as nonconforming, subject to specified review.

- Agrivoltaics and limitations: Staff noted the state code excludes agrivoltaics from some site‑design limits; staff recommended not creating an extensive separate agrivoltaics code but asked commissioners whether any special treatment is warranted.

- Energy storage (front‑of‑meter battery facilities): Staff proposed adding definitions and design standards for front‑of‑meter energy storage devices as principal permitted uses where state law requires. The draft cross‑references NFPA 855 (National Fire Protection Association standard for energy storage) and includes requirements to notify Fire & EMS of isolator switches and site maps, bonding and decommissioning language, maximum fence heights, and other site controls. Staff said the county has asked the local Fire & EMS and will require applicants to provide any specialized training or equipment necessary for emergency response.

- Landscape, screening and maintenance: The state restricts some planting height requirements; planning staff proposed a 35‑foot buffer where required but noted the state limits plant heights for initial installation to four feet and allows full screening to be achieved within five years. Staff also proposed bonding and survival rate inspections at year 5 (release 50% if 90% survival) and year 7 if needed.

- Decommissioning surety: Staff said state practice on who holds decommissioning surety (county vs. PSC) is not always consistent in guidance; the draft allows decommissioning surety to be held by either the county or PSC pending clarification.

Commissioners asked about taxation of former agricultural land converted to solar, inspection regimes, fire risk and incidents at storage facilities, security measures (cameras, alarms), and whether local tiers or designated growth‑area language could allow prohibiting larger projects in growth areas; staff noted Carroll County did not adopt the state's tiering system and recommended instead prohibiting >5 megawatt projects in "designated growth areas" to meet the intent of state allowances without wholesale code adoption of tiers.

Staff said they will produce a redline of the proposed zoning changes, return to the commission with answers to outstanding questions (tax assessment implications, NFPA 855 specifics, fire‑response requirements and security considerations) and present the draft for further comment before forwarding recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners.