Accomack County staff on Tuesday introduced draft zoning amendments to regulate battery energy storage systems, proposing to limit such facilities to the industrial zoning district and require conditional-use review.

"What this ordinance does, again, restricts battery energy storage systems to the industrial district, and they would have to go through a conditional use process," Lee Pangent, Deputy County Administrator for Community and Economic Development, told the Planning Commission during an introductory presentation. Pangent said the conditional-use route would require two public hearings: one before the planning commission for a recommendation and a second before the Board of Supervisors for a final decision.

Staff highlighted several safety and site-control measures in the draft: a required safety plan to be reviewed by the Director of Public Safety, fire-suppression requirements tied to the fire code, a decommissioning bond to cover site restoration if an operator abandons a facility, and siting agreements. The draft also includes a minimum 200-foot setback from property lines, with language allowing the Board of Supervisors to reduce that distance to no less than 100 feet upon a finding that adequate safety and fire-protection features exist.

Commissioners raised concerns about several provisions. One commissioner said the proposed allowance for applicants to offer "financial compensation to the county" — framed in the draft as an optional mitigation or proffer — could lead to undue influence. "If I can influence something because I have a big, you know, I’m gonna have a problem with that every time," Commissioner (speaker 5) said. Pangent said staff would review that code section further.

Commissioners also asked about noise and screening. Pangent said the draft would require applicants to submit noise studies and that the county would rely on the sheriff’s department and its decibel meters for enforcement of the county’s noise ordinance (chapter 38). He cited the Jupiter Scout Energy project in Wattsville as a past case that raised community concerns about noise, fire suppression and public safety and said staff planned to return with more background information at the next meeting.

The introduction drew no vote; staff said it would bring more-detailed language, maps and examples back to the commission for further review next month.

Next steps: staff will refine the draft, provide more information on noise and setback justification, and return to the Planning Commission for continued review.