Southampton County planning commission advances battery storage ordinance draft, requests county attorney review and schedules special meeting

The Southampton County Planning Commission moved forward on a draft Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) ordinance but paused final action pending legal review and additional edits. Planning staff said they adapted language from Isle of Wight County and the City of Suffolk, reformatted the draft to match county code order and incorporated provisions addressing design standards, landscaping, setbacks, emergency response, decommissioning and financial assurance.

Several commissioners raised substantive concerns. One commissioner (speaker 4) reported running the draft through an automated review and flagged a likely legal conflict, noting the ordinance repeatedly references NFPA standards and may require building or fire standards that Virginia law reserves to uniform statewide codes: "Virginia localities cannot impose building or fire codes requirements, stricter than uniform statewide building codes," the commissioner observed. Commissioners agreed they should obtain a written opinion from the county attorney before adopting final language and asked staff to send the draft for review.

A focal point of the discussion was a poorly worded sentence that suggested the board could approve siting "closer than 350 feet, but no closer than 100 feet," which commissioners found confusing and legally risky. Members discussed replacing or deleting that clause, and several commissioners suggested retaining a clear baseline setback (350 feet from roads and approximately 500 feet from dwellings) while removing optional "wiggle room" language that would allow ad hoc reduction without clearer criteria.

Other substantive edits requested included clarifying who must approve emergency‑response plans in a county served by volunteer fire departments (staff said they would coordinate with the emergency management coordinator and first-responder jurisdictions), consolidating duplicated provisions on post‑construction noise studies, replacing or removing references to other localities (e.g., City of Suffolk wording), clarifying the responsible county official for final site inspection and spelling out financial assurance and landscaping bond requirements and replacement obligations if plantings fail.

Commissioners also debated the ordinance's construction‑commencement deadline (current draft requires construction to commence within 12 months of CUP approval). Staff noted the ordinance includes extension language that permits the county to grant extensions upon satisfactory evidence of good‑faith progress; members asked staff to verify whether the 12‑month deadline remains appropriate in practice and to consider clarifying the extension process.

Because of the number of editorial and legal issues remaining and a looming deadline to transmit materials to the Board of Supervisors, Commissioner (speaker 3) moved to continue the item and convene a special called meeting Thursday, 05/21/2026 at 7:00 p.m., with the county attorney asked to provide comments in writing or appear. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Staff said they will circulate the revised draft and the county attorney's comments in advance of the special meeting.