Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Battery Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Surry County planning commission tables battery storage ordinance after safety, noise and siting concerns
Summary
After a hours-long review of PC Ordinance Amendment 2024-04 for battery energy storage systems, the Planning Commission voted to table the proposal so staff can incorporate edits on notice, setbacks, safety standards (NFPA 855), and noise modeling.
The Surry County Planning Commission paused action on a proposed battery energy storage ordinance after commissioners raised questions about public notice, fire safety, setbacks and allowable noise levels.
Commissioner Cheek asked the panel to tighten several provisions, urging a lower noise ceiling: “I strongly recommend we bring down that noise level… I recommended 40,” she said, noting residents’ complaints about existing solar-project noise. Staff and a technical presenter said projects can be modeled and must demonstrate compliance before final approval. “We’re confident we can comply with 65 dBA at a property line,” a technical presenter said, adding that a model tied to the nearest occupied structure could be used as an alternative compliance metric.
Discussion also focused on emergency safety measures and equipment standards. Staff recommended requiring final designs that conform to NFPA 855 and building an emergency-response plan coordinated with the county fire department, while acknowledging that technology types (air- vs. liquid-cooled systems) require different mitigation approaches.
Commissioners debated zoning and footprint limits: staff recommended allowing battery projects in AR, M1 and M2 districts with a conditional use permit (CUP) rather than rezoning, and noted that a 50-acre cap would accommodate many projects’ footprints while limiting larger proposals. Several commissioners pressed for larger setbacks and stronger screening requirements in areas near residences.
After the discussion staff asked for time to consolidate edits. Commissioner Cheek moved to table PC Ordinance Amendment 2024-04 so staff could prepare a clean, revised draft; the motion was seconded and passed by voice vote. The item was tabled for the next meeting; staff said they will pursue subcommittee meetings, a possible site visit and additional technical review before returning the ordinance for a vote.
