Elbert County commissioners direct staff to draft zoning rules for solar and battery storage, keeping ag sites primary

Elbert County commissioners on July 16 directed county staff to draft detailed zoning language for solar energy facilities and battery energy storage systems, emphasizing consistency between applications and public safety while avoiding overly prescriptive procedural changes.

"From previous work sessions, the goals that I had heard and made note of was consistency between applications that come in and safety," Jennifer Jones, the county's CDS director, told the board as she framed the issues staff will fold into a red-line draft for the planning commission.

Jones recommended using existing review processes — the county's SUR procedure and the "10 41" review — rather than recreating procedural steps in the new rules. She said the current land-use table lists solar or wind farms as uses requiring an SUR in the A or A2 zoning districts and that staff would propose where to insert supplemental standards and any new definitions.

Board members broadly agreed on several preliminary directions: keep agricultural (A) zoning as the primary location for utility-scale projects, consider adding commercial and industrial districts as allowable locations for solar, probably remove the A2 district from eligibility, treat wind and solar as distinct categories with different standards, and add battery storage as an explicit component of the standards.

"I personally would be in favor of separating the wind and solar," one commissioner said, noting wind's greater visual impact and larger lot-size needs.

On design standards, commissioners asked staff to include setbacks, fencing and screening, and to consider — but not necessarily adopt — land-ratio formulas used by other counties. Jones cited examples from other jurisdictions and a state comparison study (INRAIL) that show wide variation in approaches.

Jones reported public-safety guidance from an Elizabeth Fire District expert, Cara, who emphasized setbacks and defensible space to aid fire response. Board members cited example setback figures discussed in past sessions — 350 feet from property lines or roads and 1,000 feet from occupied structures — and asked staff to confirm recommended distances with Cara when drafting standards.

Panel height limits were discussed but commissioners warned against overly restrictive caps that could exclude agrivoltaic designs or conflict with site-specific needs; Jones said county examples range from 15 to 35 feet or no specific height limit.

Fencing and screening drew detailed discussion. Commissioners and staff debated whether visual screening is practical for very large sites, whether fencing should be wildlife friendly or strictly security-oriented, and whether fencing should sit at the panels (inside setbacks) rather than at the property line.

Lance (staff) advised caution in considering a complete ban on non-utility solar facilities, saying legal protections and distinctions between public utilities and private entities could limit the county's options. "I think it is possible to ban facilities but only for non utility entities," he said, while urging the board to weigh legal constraints.

Jones said she will prepare a short set of red-line regulations that place development standards in the supplemental-standards section and definitions in the definitions article, then take the draft to the planning commission and return to the board. Commissioners debated whether to hold another brief work session before that step; several members favored moving forward with a red-line draft for public review.

No motions were made and the board took no votes at the session. Staff will return with drafted red lines, requested examples and a planning-commission review schedule.