Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates enforcement, BESS and environmental protections in solar ordinance; public commenter urges clarity on lessee liability
Summary
Commissioners discussed Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS), insurer exclusions for toxic compounds including PFAS, enforcement challenges without zoning, and a proposed 50‑foot planting setback. A public commenter warned the ordinance could hold landowners responsible for lessee actions.
Discussion of the Solar Energy Facilities Ordinance focused on substantive technical and environmental protections and how the County would enforce them without zoning authority.
Commissioner Vance Agee said the General Assembly has separated Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) and that the revised ordinance should incorporate technical, financial and legal assessments for BESS and utility‑scale solar. He also flagged insurer exclusions for certain toxic materials — including 14 heavy metals and PFAS — as a reason to clearly define enforcement responsibilities.
Members expressed concern that without zoning the County might find enforcement difficult; Ms. Rorrer asked directly whether the County could enforce the proposed 66‑page ordinance and Mr. Overby said it could be enforced but acknowledged practical limits. Commissioner Matthew Jones proposed adding a 50‑foot setback for planting vegetation in Section 4.8.1 to help viewshed and buffer concerns; Mr. Pool agreed to add that language.
During public comment, Steve Ferring (Peters Creek District) asked whether the ordinance would make the landowner responsible for actions taken by a lessee and urged the Commission to clarify which party — landholder or lessee — would be held accountable.
