Brandon board denies Black Mountain battery storage permit after residents press safety, zoning concerns

Brandon’s Board of Aldermen voted on March 16 to deny a conditional use permit application from Black Mountain Energy Storage 2 LLC for a proposed lithium‑battery energy storage facility on parcels identified as J‑9320 and J‑930, following a lengthy public hearing in which nearby residents urged rejection over safety, environmental and compatibility concerns.

The board’s decision followed presentations from staff and the applicant’s fire‑safety consultant, Brian Scholl of Energy Safety Response Group. Scholl described the proposed facility as an enclosed, climate‑controlled, unmanned battery installation using lithium‑iron‑phosphate modules, saying the systems undergo extensive UL and NFPA testing and that he would train local firefighters to respond to any incident. Scholl told the board the developer projects about $78 million in economic activity over the project’s lifetime and estimated approximately $19.9 million in local benefits tied to the project’s presence.

Residents and neighborhood representatives, speaking during the public‑comment period, pressed the board on a long list of unresolved issues: proximity of the project to single‑family subdivisions and new development in Cornerstone; the site’s FEMA floodplain, delineated stream and wetlands; potential contamination of waterways in a worst‑case runoff; evacuation and local road capacity during an emergency; and uncertainty about long‑term ownership and financial responsibility because the land control structure involves multiple out‑of‑state LLCs. Don Thompson, speaking for Northlake subdivision residents, urged denial and requested ‘‘a full NFPA 855 compliance review, a UL 9540A hazard and plume analysis, a third‑party emergency response capability assessment, a site‑specific buffer and setback study, and full public disclosure of ownership documents’’ before any rezoning or conditional use.

City staff recommended denial after revising an earlier recommendation for approval. Staff and the city attorney read findings that the application was premature and materially incomplete: the record lacked final engineered site plans, site‑specific emergency response and hazard‑mitigation documentation, independent fire‑code review and any interconnection agreement or feasibility study from the utility that owns the adjacent substation. The staff report also flagged inadequate screening and buffering commitments, unresolved floodplain and wetland siting questions, and the absence of required outside‑agency approvals.

After discussion, a motion to follow staff’s recommendation to deny was adopted by the board. The denial order incorporated the staff and legal findings that on the record before the board the applicant had not met the statutory or ordinance conditions for a conditional use in the city’s Traditional Neighborhood District.

Next steps: the board’s findings noted the city is actively amending its zoning ordinance to clarify conditional‑use rules for quasi‑public utility uses; staff and the applicant may return with site‑specific engineering, finalized emergency‑response plans and documented interconnection commitments if the project is to be revived. The city did not adopt any new mitigation conditions at this hearing; the board’s action was a denial of the pending permit application.