Board hears appeal over proposed 150 MW battery facility near Morrisville; planning commission previously found it not in accord with comprehensive plan
Loading...
Summary
An applicant appealed a Planning Commission determination that a proposed ~150‑megawatt battery energy storage facility on about 16 acres near Morrisville is not substantially in accord with the comprehensive plan; staff outlined facility components, past parcel history and competing views about appropriate siting and potential mitigation.
The Board of Supervisors heard an appeal of a Planning Commission finding that the Summer Sweet Energy Center's proposed battery energy storage system is not substantially in accord with Fauquier County’s comprehensive plan.
Planning staff summarized the proposal as "a 150 megawatt energy storage system encompassing approximately 16 acres" that would include roughly 192 battery enclosures, a control house, a 230 kV substation and perimeter screening. The parcel, located off Shipstore Road in the Morrisville village, includes the county's sole industrial lot in that village and abuts residential and school properties.
Staff reviewed the application history: prior rezoning and special‑exception requests (including a denied junkyard rezoning), removal of a prior junkyard, and a Planning Commission recommendation (4–1) that the battery facility is not in accord with the comprehensive plan. The applicant argues the facility will increase grid resiliency, provide tax revenue and avoid using prime agricultural land; opponents and some supervisors raised concerns about proximity to Mary Walter Elementary School and village character.
Supervisors asked technical and siting questions, including buffer distances: staff said the edge of the proposed facility would be about 550 feet from the property line and approximately another 600 feet to the closest point of the school building, and noted that conditions such as tree buffering and site‑plan standards would be addressed at later special‑exception or site‑plan stages should the board find the proposal substantially in accord.
The board was presented with two prepared resolutions: one concurring with the Planning Commission (not in accord) and one finding the proposal substantially in accord. No final decision was recorded in the work session transcript.
What’s next: If the board determines the project is in accord, the applicant would proceed to a special‑exception application and detailed site plan; if not, the comprehensive‑plan determination stands and the special‑exception process cannot proceed in its current form.
