Public commenters urge flexibility on battery storage siting as Culpeper planning commission moves into work session on ZTA 15.25

At its June meeting the Culpeper County Planning Commission opened an informal public comment period and heard multiple speakers urge the commission to allow battery energy storage to be sited on agricultural land near existing electrical infrastructure.

Dylan Taylor, a representative of Energy Direct, told the commission that many of the safest and most practical sites for battery facilities are adjacent to substations and transmission corridors often located in agricultural zones and urged the panel to "maintain the ability to site best on ag land" or provide a special‑review pathway for such projects.

The dispute centers on ZTA 15.25, a proposed zoning text amendment the commission is reviewing. Commissioners postponed the formal public hearings for the night but allowed citizens to give informal comments; the chair said the formal hearing will be rescheduled as part of a joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors on June 24 or 25 at 7 p.m. (the transcript does not specify which date).

Jeffrey Heron, a resident, said he had discussed potential 15– to 20‑acre battery projects for an 80‑acre farm intersected by transmission lines and warned that proposed language that removed battery storage from agricultural zoning "is gonna pretty much kill what I was trying to do here." He urged the commission to consider the county's future electricity needs and said siting such projects on marginal farmland could provide local income while limiting impacts.

Joseph Gray, who identified himself as farming the parcel referenced by Heron, said the land is "subpar" for agriculture and argued that battery storage, solar or data centers with appropriate buffers would be a better use of that parcel and "beneficial to the county."

The chair responded to commenters by encouraging them to speak with county staff for detailed answers, noting that county guidelines take effect July 1 and providing a staff contact number. "Staff would have an opportunity to address it," the chair said, adding that the commission wanted questions resolved before the formal hearing so staff could present details at the joint meeting and the commission could be prepared to make a recommendation.

After public comment the commission moved into a work session to discuss ZTA 15.25, saying the session would give newer commissioners a chance to review the amendment and prepare recommendations for the joint public hearing. A motion to enter the work session was made, seconded and carried by voice vote.

The commission did not take a final vote on the zoning amendment at the meeting; members said the matter will be discussed again at the joint hearing with the Board of Supervisors when the public record is formally opened.