Elbert County commissioners review draft solar and battery rules; seek NFPA guidance on fire risks, cisterns and setbacks

Elbert County commissioners examined draft rules for utility‑scale solar and battery storage on April 9, hearing from Lincoln County land‑use administrator Ty Stogsdell about practical safeguards such as on‑site water cisterns, differentiated road setbacks and third‑party technical reviews.

The work study, led by County staff and Community Development Services director Jennifer Jones, focused on safety and consistency as commissioners decide whether to adopt stand‑alone regulations or fold standards into existing special‑use and 1041 review processes. "They were the first ones that had contacted us about solar and batteries," Stogsdell said of early developers, describing how Lincoln County worked with industry to craft concise, enforceable rules.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the county needs clear, uniform standards so applicants receive equal treatment and residents near proposed projects understand safety and nuisance protections. Fire risks associated with battery storage dominated the technical discussion: Commissioner Byron McDaniel recommended following NFPA 855 guidance on spacing, ventilation and construction to reduce the risk of thermal runaway and toxic gasses.

What Lincoln County does: Stogsdell summarized Lincoln County’s approach: keep solar regulations (in place since 2017) and add a separate battery‑storage permit (adopted in 2022). He said Lincoln County requires water storage at facilities "so our rural fire department [can] draw water to basically protect their facility" and cited a 20,000‑gallon cistern in the county’s fire‑mitigation plan, with one company offering 30,000 gallons. He cautioned that even that volume would not put out a large battery fire but can help protect facilities from wildland fire spreading into a site.

Fire guidance and technical details: McDaniel urged using NFPA 855 as a baseline, noting the standard recommends separating battery racks and keeping battery enclosures at least 10 feet from combustibles; he described thermal runaway as a key concern and raised air‑quality risks from burning battery materials. "The batteries themselves had to be separated 3 feet apart and 10 feet from any exposure or combustibles," McDaniel said.

Setbacks and visual/traffic concerns: Commissioners discussed road‑adjacent setbacks. Stogsdell said Lincoln County uses a tiered approach by road classification — for a highly traveled county road the setback was extended to 1,000 feet on a recent facility to reduce wildlife/vehicle interactions; other locations used shorter setbacks. Elbert County commissioners said consistency across projects is a priority and suggested tailoring setbacks by road type and project size.

Permitting and process choices: Staff and the county attorney (Lance) debated whether to require both a 1041 review and a special‑use/land‑use review (SUR). Jones said dual processes cause duplicative submittals (traffic, drainage and other studies appear in both packets). The county attorney described the Pending Ordinance Doctrine and advised the board it may decide whether draft regulations apply to pending zoning applications.

Fees, taxes and third‑party review: Stogsdell described Lincoln County’s fee structure: a $2,500 development clerical fee for utility permits, separate commercial/residential fees, and a 2% use tax on building materials at the building‑permit stage; he said developers would pay any third‑party review fees if the county retained outside consultants. Commissioners discussed whether fees should be negotiable; Stogsdell advised against ad‑hoc negotiation by elected officials and staff cautioned that voter‑approved taxes cannot be waived.

Next steps: Commissioners agreed to a technical follow‑up focused on fire expertise. Staff will coordinate a standalone session with Cara (the NFPA battery‑storage committee chair at the Elizabeth Fire Department, identified in the meeting) to refine cistern, setback and fire‑safety language and then return with draft changes for board review. No formal motions or votes were taken during the work study.

Who's who: Commissioner Byron McDaniel and Commissioner Mike Buck spoke for the board; Jennifer Jones represented Community Development Services; Lance (county attorney) provided legal guidance; Ty Stogsdell spoke for Lincoln County.

What to watch next: Expect a follow‑up meeting with fire‑safety experts and a draft regulation (or short addendum to existing land‑use regulations) that will recommend cistern requirements, clarified setbacks by road class, and a policy on third‑party technical review and fee structures.