Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Battery Energy Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission tables battery energy storage zoning amendment after public concerns and technical edits requested
Summary
The Charlotte County Planning Commission tabled draft zoning rules for battery energy storage systems to the November meeting after public commenters urged stricter siting and decommissioning requirements and commissioners proposed technical edits and further staff follow-up.
On Oct. 17, 2024, the Charlotte County Planning Commission voted to table consideration of draft zoning regulations for battery energy storage systems until its November meeting after hearing public comment and multiple commissioner requests for revisions.
Benjamin Hadlock of East Point Energy urged the commission to "require submission of the decommissioning plan with the site plan rather than at the time of application" so applicants include necessary details, and public commenter Daniel Dixon asked that the county "limit battery energy storage to the General Industrial District, 20 acres or less, and a minimum of two miles apart," while raising concerns about lighting, fencing and requiring third‑party decommissioning plans.
Staff told the commission the Board of Supervisors on Oct. 9 referred the issue to the Planning Commission and that East Point Energy withdrew its zoning application, which paused the 100‑day review period and gave the commission more time to develop regulations. Staff presented draft language and an alternative provision that would limit battery sites to properties with or adjacent to existing energy infrastructure such as solar facilities or substations.
Commissioners pressed staff on technical details. Supervisor Hazel Bowman Smith asked whether the draft specified a distance between containerized systems and perimeter fencing; staff said it did not but noted siting toward the lot interior is required for buffering. Chairman Andrew Carwile suggested a gravel buffer around the perimeter to provide emergency‑vehicle access. Commissioner Belinda Strom referred to a previous solar application that removed batteries after community concerns.
Commissioner James Benn proposed specific ordinance edits, including replacing both instances of "may" with "shall" in the noise limits, adding "independently monitored" before "fire detection" in safety standards, and emphasizing the battery management system definition. Benn also recommended requiring an "independent third‑party" professional engineer or contractor for decommissioning plan preparations and suggested a draft decommissioning plan with the application and a final plan with the site plan submission. Staff said outdoor lighting would be governed by existing Section 10‑5 on dark‑sky protection.
Commissioners asked staff to investigate whether the ordinance should address large commercial or industrial (Tier 2) battery storage use; staff said the current draft did not cover that scale and agreed to follow up.
After the discussion, Commissioner James Benn moved to table the battery energy storage item to November to allow staff to incorporate the requested edits and research; Commissioner Patrick Andrews seconded the motion, which passed with all members present voting yes. The commission is expected to revisit the draft in November.
