Charlotte County planning commission advances draft ordinance on battery energy storage, schedules public hearing

CHARLOTTE COUNTY — The Charlotte County Planning Commission on Dec. 19 reviewed an updated draft zoning amendment intended to regulate battery energy storage systems and set a public hearing on the proposal for 7 p.m. Jan. 21, 2025, with Jan. 23 as an alternate date.

The discussion followed a staff update on draft state legislation from the Commission on Electric Utility Regulation that could require localities to allow solar and energy storage. Monica Elder, Assistant County Administrator, said the CEUR draft envisions an advisory panel and a model ordinance, and that appeals under the draft would be heard in local circuit court. "If the current draft legislation is adopted, both the local ordinance and the proposed state advisory council would play a role in the review process with appeals being heard by the local circuit court," Elder said.

Why it matters: Commissioners noted the county has until a Jan. 25, 2025 review deadline to provide a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, and that local rules adopted now could conflict with or be superseded by a later state model ordinance. The commission’s work addresses land-use placement, public-safety and environmental concerns, and processes for developer responsibility at end-of-life.

Key changes and concerns raised

- Zoning districts and town proximity: Commissioners discussed whether to limit battery energy storage to the General Industrial district. Commissioner Belinda Strom recommended restricting siting to industrial land but, after review, the commission left town proximity language unchanged by consensus while adding Tier 1 systems as a by-right use in General Residential and Village Center districts.

- Noise limits and technical guidance: Chairman Andrew Carwile asked staff to seek technical guidance on noise thresholds, asking whether a 60-decibel property-line limit would be realistic and whether a lower site-specific limit could be applied. The commission asked staff to provide sound-level estimates and possible distance attenuation data.

- Decommissioning and environmental testing: Staff recommended requiring Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) findings before construction and a follow-up ESA at decommissioning. Commissioner Strom pressed for clarity on PFAS testing and the disposal of hazardous materials; commissioners agreed to revise Item 7 of draft section 10-24-15 to clarify developer responsibilities for removing contaminated soils. As a safeguard, the commission also recommended adding the phrase "or by a third-party professional engineer approved by the county" to the item that governs removal cost estimates.

- Bonds and legal questions: Commissioners discussed whether additional parties could be named as co-obligees on decommissioning bonds after prior public comment on the subject. Staff said county legal counsel has been consulted and their opinion was shared with the Board of Supervisors, but additional legal guidance was recommended before the commission attempts to require co-obligees.

- Acreage and project size: The commission debated setting minimum or maximum acreage limits; staff reported project sizes are increasing and could approach much larger megawatt capacities. After discussion, commissioners by consensus removed a proposed minimum acreage requirement and did not set a maximum, noting technology change and participation opportunities for smaller landowners.

What’s next

Patrick Andrews moved to hold a public hearing on the amendment at 7 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2025, with Jan. 23 as an alternate in case of weather; Mike Price seconded the motion, which carried with all members present voting yes. The commission’s recommendation will be transmitted to the Board of Supervisors for final action. Staff also will seek the technical and legal clarifications the commission requested.

Public comment at the meeting included a warning about contaminants associated with energy facilities: Daniel Dixon urged pre-development soil testing and confining higher-risk components to industrial parks to limit PFAS exposure risks. "To address the potential introduction of PFAS into the soil and water, Mr. Dixon recommended pre-development soil testing and confining the use to industrial parks," the transcript records.