Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends battery energy storage ordinance, including fence-line buffer and modified decommissioning language, to supervisors
Summary
After an applicant presentation and technical questions, the commission voted to recommend Ordinance Amendment 2024-04 (battery energy storage systems) to the Board of Supervisors with edits on fence-line buffer and decommissioning language; commissioners also requested additional criteria for salvage-value offsets.
The Surry County Planning Commission voted on Feb. 24 to recommend Ordinance Amendment 2024-04, which would establish local rules for battery energy storage systems (BESS), to the Board of Supervisors with recommended edits from staff and the applicant.
Scott Foster, the applicant's attorney, summarized changes made in response to commission comments, including clear lists of required studies, notice provisions consistent with the county’s solar ordinance, and use of the conditional use permit (CUP) process to set case-specific setbacks and conditions. "I attempted to take the consensus of the commission... and I've incorporated those in here," Foster said while walking commissioners through the redline edits.
Key technical points discussed included fire suppression and placard details, moving a minimum 20-foot cleared buffer to the fence line rather than 'outermost structures' to aid firefighting access, and noise standards tied to equipment specifications. Foster told commissioners that the draft sets a maximum of 55 dBA at the exterior wall of any occupied structure and a higher standard at property lines, and that final compliance would be demonstrated during final site plan approval using manufacturer specs.
Commissioners debated whether decommissioning language should 'shall' require estimated salvage value be used to offset decommissioning costs or if it should read 'may' to allow circumstances-based determinations. Staff (Miss Perkins) and the secretary (Mister Wade) recommended adding criteria and a decision vehicle (for example, CUP conditions) if a 'may' formulation is used to avoid inconsistent treatment across projects.
After discussion and clarification, a commissioner moved to recommend approval of the ordinance as presented with the applicant’s and staff’s stipulations (including changing the buffer to fence line and editing the decommissioning provision); the motion was seconded and carried with a recorded nay. The commission directed staff to draft language providing criteria if the decommissioning provision is adjusted to 'may.'
