IRGINIP Charlotte County Planning Commission 250 LeGrande Avenue, Suite A Charlotte Court House, VA 23923 Tuesday, March 20, 2025 7:00 PM 7:00 pm Call to Order Invocation Consider Approval of Agenda Consider Approval of January Minutes General Public Comment Period Annual Planning Commission Report Discuss Battery Energy Storage Zoning Amendment Fire Risks Decommissioning Tier 1 Battery Energy Storage Systems (those less than 600 Kwh) Staff Report Commissioners' Time Adjourn Charlotte County Planning Commission January 21, 2025 7:00 pm Charlotte County Administration Office Present: Absent: Miller Adams Mike Price Patrick Andrews Hazel Bowman Smith* James Benn Belinda Strom Andrew Carwile Richard Vaughan Kerwin Kunath David Watkins, Jr. W.V. Nichols Eugene Wells "BordofSupervisors: Representative - Non-voting Staffi in Attendance: Dan Witt, County Administrator Monica Elder, Assistant County Administrator Monica Elder, staff representative, called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm and Patrick Andrews gave the invocation. Motion was made by Andrew Carwile to approve the agenda as presented. David Watkins seconded the motion and the motion carried with all members present voting yes. Patrick Andrew made the motion to approve the December 19th meeting minutes as presented. James Benn seconded the motion and the motion carried with all members present voting yes. 2025 Organizational Activities Ms. Elder called for nominations for the 2025 Planning Commission Chair. Patrick Andrews nominated James Benn. There being no further nominations, nominations were closed, and the motion carried with all members present voting yes. Chairman Benn called for nominations for first vice-chair. Patrick Andrews nominated Andrew Carwile. There being no further nominations, nominations were closed, and the motion carried with all members present voting yes. Chairman Benn called for nominations for second vice-chair. Mike Price nominated Patrick Andrews. There being no further nominations, nominations were closed, and the motion carried with all members present voting yes. Chairman Benn then called for nominations for secretary. David Watkins recommended the appointment of staff member Monica Elder. There being no further nominations, nominations were closed, and the motion carried with all members present voting yes. Motion was made by Andrews Carwile to adopt Robert's Rules of Order for Small Groups amended to require a second for all motions, subject to modification from time to time by a vote of simple majority of the Commissioners in attendance, and with the following standing modification: That the Charlotte County Planning Commission in whole or as individual Commissioners, and at the discretion and approval ofthe Chairperson, or upon a vote ofsimple majority ofmembers present, may, during the course of public meetings, solicit input from persons other than the members present at the meetings, including posing specific questions, where such input is limited to an orderly discussion ofan approved agenda item, with the order, timing and duration ofsuch questions, discussion and input at the discretion ofthe chair. David Watkins seconded the motion, and the motion carried with all members present voting yes. Richard Vaughan made the motion to set the regular meeting date for the third Thursday of each month at the Charlotte County Administration Office at 7:00 pm. Belinda Strom seconded the motion, and the motion carried with all members present voting yes. David Watkins made the motion to adopt the remote participation policy as presented. Belinda Strom seconded, and the motion carried with all members present voting yes. Public Hearing - Battery Energy Storage Systems - Zoning Amendment Chairman Benn recessed the meeting and called to order a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Charlotte County Zoning Ordinance to: Allow Tier 1 battery energy storage systems (600kWh or less) as a by-right use in all zoning districts Allow Tier 2 battery energy storage systems (greater than 600 kWh) as a conditional use in the County's General Agriculture, Intensive Agriculture, and General Industrial Zoning Districts, and Establish zoning requirements for battery energy storage systems. Staff provided a report on battery energy storage, addressing how the ordinances would apply in various zoning districts, land use issues addressed in the draft ordinance, updates to the draft ordinance to reflect the Planning Commission's December 19th recommendations, noise levels, and spacing between storage containers. Battery. Energy Storage Public Comments Written comments from Dolores Neumann of Cullen were read, expressing opposition to allowing battery energy storage in the zoning ordinance and allowing conditional uses in the General Agricultural district. Ms. Neumann advised that solar and energy storage projects should be limited to the industrial zone and energy storage should be limited to three acres. Comments written by Terry Ramsey of Charlotte Court House were read, stating Tier 1 battery energy storage (up to 600 kwh) was too large to be a by-right use in the General Residential District and expressing concerns about locating larger Tier 1 energy storge units on property adjacent to town residential lots. Written comments from Larry and Libby Dorris of Cullen were read, asking that solar and energy storage projects be permitted only in Industrial zones, that battery storage projects be limited to three acres, and that the Commission establish a position on data centers. George Toombs ofSaxe expressed concerns regarding PFAS's or "forever chemicals" associated with solar and battery energy storage. Mr. Toombs then noted a number ofl lawsuits in other states related to PFAS contamination and associated health impacts. Benjamin Hadlock with East Point Energy stated an acreage cap could be used to limit energy storage impacts, but the three-acre limit mentioned would be too restrictive. He recommended a 15-acre cap and recommended using sound studies to account for noise levels at adjacent property. Copeland Casati of Pamplin stated the loss of agricultural land is a critical issue and the energy industry is currently the largest developer of former agricultural lands. Ms. Casati asked that resources be protected and stated the community was asking that farmland not be sacrificed for energy storage. Cornell "Brick" Goldman of Cullen expressed support for battery energy storage. Mr. Goldman stated that solar and energy storage were like food production in that they also provided energy, SO he did not view it as loss ofagricultural land. He noted that battery storage and solar were removable and agricultural land was restorable. Daniel Dixon who owns land in Madisonville spoke on the "Duck Curve" which illustrates solar's limited productivity in the early morning and evening when demand peaks. Mr. Dixon stated that due to its limited production hours, increased solar generation requires increased energy storage. He recommended restricting energy storage to the industrial district if it was allowed. Mario Kahar of Fluvanna stated he worked in an industry closely associated with the issue. After referencing the recent Moss Landing battery energy storage fire in California, he stated' energy storage increased costs and risk of fire and failed to meet 24/7 energy needs, lower emissions, or improve grid reliability. He advised that nuclear and gas power plants were more reliable options for meeting energy demands. Will Stembridge, Chief of Bacon District Volunteer Fire Department, stated the County's fire departments did not have the manpower or equipment to handle an incident at a battery energy storage facility. Mr. Stembridge reminded Commissioners that local firefighters are volunteers, many are new and have limited training, and few can commit the long hours needed to work a major incident. He also expressed concerns about water needed to address a battery energy storage fire and associated runoff. Chairman Benn called on the Commissioners for questions related to public input. Richard Vaughan asked Mr. Kahar about his local connection and Mr. Kahar noted he was acquainted with Mr. Dixon. Supervisor Bowman Smith asked Mr. Hadlock, the former applicant, about his recommendation ofa 15-acre cap. Mr. Hadlock stated his recommendation would allow for appropriate equipment spacing. Belinda Strom questioned the need for 15-acres since she understood the largest operational facility in Virginia occupies three acres and recommended revisiting battery energy storage in a year since new technologies were being tested and there was not a current need. Commissioner Price recommended making a decision SO the Board of Supervisors could make a final decision on battery energy storage. Commissioner Benn then adjourned the hearing and called the meeting back to order. Consideration ofi Battery. Energy Storage Systems - Zoning Amendment Belinda Strom made the motion to recommend denial oft the Battery Energy Storage Zoning Amendment based on the infancy of the technology, potential for new technology, and the large volume of approved energy projects in the County and their unknown impact. Richard Vaughan seconded the motion. Miller Adams again expressed his concerns of decommission since projects had not been decommissioned. Roll call vote was as follows: Belinda Strom- Yes; Richard Vaughan-Yes; David Watkins-Yes; Miller Adams-Yes; Patrick Andrews-No; Kerwin Kunath-No; Eugene Wells-No; W.V. Nichols-No; Mike Price-No; Andrew Carwile-No; and James Benn-No. Motion failed, 4-7. Commissioners then discussed the Planning Commission's January 25 deadline for providing a recommendation as well as the Board's timeline for taking action. Chairman Benn recognized former applicant, Benjamin Hadlock with East Point Energy, and inquired about the timeline for their project. Mr. Hadlock stated he was not ready to make a public statement on the project's timeline yet. Andrew Carwile explained that in many communities with higher electricity costs, Tier 1 battery energy storage was being used by homeowners to reduce their electricity costs, collecting energy during low demand times when rates are lower and then using it during peak demand times when rates are higher. David Watkins expressed a preference for addressing Tier 1 battery energy storage in General Residential separately from Tier 2 facilities. Commissioners then discussed variations in electricity usage by home and season which might impact the amount of battery energy storage needed by a residential user. In response to Commissioner inquiries regarding ways to address Tier 1 and meet the January 25th deadline for providing a recommendation to the Board, staff confirmed that the two tier levels could be considered separately or Tier 1 could be revised to a conditional use in the General Residential and/or Village Center zoning districts without an additional Planning Commission public hearing. After further discussion on how to address Tier 1 systems, Patrick Andrews made the motion to recommend approval of the Battery Energy Storage Zoning Amendment with the recommendation that the Board ofSupervisors reach out to the seven fire chiefs to discuss the associated fire risk and whether the county or energy storage facility was responsible for addressing that risk; refer Tier 1 battery energy storage back to the Planning Commission for further review; and carefully review decommissioning. Kerwin Kunath seconded the motion. Roll call vote was as follows: Patrick Andrews-Yes; Kerwin Kunath-Yes; David Watkins-No; Miller Adams-No; Belinda Strom-No; Eugene Wells-Yes; W.V. Nichols-Yes; Mike Price-Yes; Richard Vaughan-No; Andrew Carwile-Yes; and James Benn-Yes. Motion carried, 7-4. Public Comment Period Citizen George Toombs then addressed the Commission, stating that disposal of damaged equipment in the regional landfill was a concern. He stated that only a few citizens had a vested interest in the industry and while those few will benefit, many of the County's citizens will experience the costs. Mario Kahar from Fluvanna stated solar was only feasible due to government subsidies. He explained natural gas and nuclear had much smaller footprints and could generate power 24/7. Mr. Kahar advised the Commission not to assume the state would require battery energy storage, and stated the Virginia Clean Economy Act could not meet energy needs. Staff Report Staff referenced the staff report included in the packet, reminded Commissioners to submit their statements of real estate holdings, and reported that Commissioner W.V. Nichols had notified staff of his resignation, effective January 31, 2025. Commissioner's Time David Watkins expressed concerns about deadlines imposed on the review of zoning issues. Adjourn Mike Price made the motion to adjourn. Patrick. Andrews seconded the motion, and the motion carried. GINI Charlotte County Planning Commission 2024 Annual Report Overview The Charlotte County Planning Commission serves as an advisory board to the Charlotte County Board of Supervisors, working to promote orderly development in the county. This annual report is provided in accordance with $15.2-2221 of the Code of Virginia for the purpose of communicating the activities of the Commission and the status of planning within the county to the governing body and the citizens of Charlotte County. Primary Activities The Planning Commission's primary activities for 2024 included conditional use permit reviews for two solar facilities and two private businesses. The Commission also completed a review and analysis of several zoning and subdivision issues including lot size requirements, other specifications for lots, battery energy storage systems, and family subdivision lot sizes. Membership Andrew Carwile served as the 2024 Planning Commission Chairman, with Jim Benn serving as Vice- Chair, and Eugene Wells serving as Second Vice-Chair. In February 2024, Richard Vaughan was appointed to serve as the representative for the Keysville District, filling the position previously held by Lynn Royster. Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance Amendments Commission Board Initiated By Subject Regulations Recommendation Action Board of Lot Sizes and Setbacks in the General No Change Recommendation Supervisors Agricultural Zoning District Recommended Accepted Minimum lot sizes for Family Subdivisions in the General Agricultural Zoning District, Board of Recommended for the Village Center Zoning District, and Approved Supervisors Amendments for the General Residential Zoning District and other Miscellaneous Lot Requirements Recommended Referral Back to Landowner Addition of Battery Energy Storage Amendments with the Planning Agent Systems further research Commission Conditional Use Permit Reviews Commission Board Application By For Location Recommendation Action Wood Processing Charlotte Court Approval with Approved with Samuel Hostetler Facility House conditions conditions Chalotte Court Approval with Approved with Tobias Stoltzfus Retail Store House conditions conditions Lavender Solar, LLC Solar Facility Pamplin Denial Denial Quarter Horse Solar, Solar Facility CUP Approval with Approved with Drakes Branch LLC Amendment conditions conditions 2024 Meetings Held Meeting Type Quantity Regular Monthly Meetings 10 Public Hearings 8 Planning Commission Membership and Attendance Meetings District Representative Attended* A - County Seat Andrew Carwile, 2024 Chairman 80 of1 10 B. - Wylliesburg / Red Oak Miller Adams 9of10 C- Drakes Branch Kerwin Kunath 5of10 - Keysville Richard Vaughan (Appointed February 2024) 6of9 E - Cullen / Red House Belinda Strom 10 of 10 F- Aspen / Phenix Michael Price 7 of 10 G - Bacon / Saxe William V. Nichols 9of10 Town of Drakes Branch Eugene Wells, Jr. 5of1 10 Town of Keysville James Benn 9of10 Town of Charlotte Court House David Watkins, Jr. 9of1 10 Town of Phenix Patrick Andrews 8of1 10 Board of Supervisors Hazel Bowman Smith (non-voting) 9of1 10* *Alternate Noah Davis attended one meeting RGINIP Charlotte County, Virginia Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: March 20, 2025 Subject Title: Battery Energy Storage Systems STAFF REPORT History The Planning Commission recommended approval of a draft ordinance for battery energy storage systems (BESS) with additional research for three remaining areas of concern (fire risks, decommissioning, and Tier 1 systems). In response, The Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution to refer those three issues back to the Planning Commission for further review. Review Timeline & Schedule The Planning Commission has 100 days, or until June 28th, to complete their review. Should substantive changes to the previously recommended draft result, a public hearing will be required prior to making a recommendation to the Board. Fire Risks: Prior Recommendation: The Board of Supervisors reach out to all seven fire chiefs to discuss the fire risks associated with BESS and determine whether. fire risks would need to be addressed by the county or the BESS applicant/operoto. Proposed Regulations: Fire Risks are Addressed in the Draft Ordinance as follows: $10-24-3 = Compliance with Building Codes, Electrical Codes, & Regulatory Requirements $10-24-4 - Installation & Design (Tier 2 BESS) $10-24-14 - Fire Protection (Tier 2 BESS) Fire Risks - Recommended Options for Consideration: 1. Request staff obtain input from the fire chiefs and review BESS siting agreements and conditional use permit (CUP) conditions for inclusion of public safety related terms, reporting back at the next meeting. 2. Invite the fire chiefs to provide input at the next Planning Commission meeting and have staff review BESS siting agreements and CUP conditions. Decommissioning: Prior Recommendation: The Board of Supervisors look into decommissioning of BESS. Commissioners have communicated two different concerns, with the majority questioning the ability to obtain realistic decommissioning estimates due to the newness of the industry. At least one Commissioner associated this recommendation with additional review of the inclusion of project landowners as co-obligees on the decommissioning bond. NOTE: This inclusion was previously presented to the County attorney, and in his opinion, there is no benefit in doing sO. Bond Estimates Proposed Regulations: Draft ordinance 510-24-15 Includes the following: "The decommissioning estimate shall be prepared and stamped by an independent third-party professional engineer who has expertise in the removal of Battery Energy Storage Facilities." "The decommissioning cost estimate shall be recalculated every five (5) years at the facility owner's expense by an independent third-party professional engineer who has expertise in the removal of Battery Energy Storage Facilities or by a third-party professional engineer approved by the County" Bond Estimates - Recommended Options for Consideration: 1. Amend both sections above to also allow for estimates by an independent third-party professional engineer with expertise in Battery Energy Storage Facility construction and decommissioning of industrial sites. 2. Amend the language for the initial estimate to also allow for third-party professional engineers approved by the County. 3. Request that staff obtain input from engineers involved in energy infrastructure project development and bonding and report back at the next meeting. Bond Requirements and Co-obligees Proposed Regulations: The proposed ordinance does not address project landowners as co-obligees. This issue was previously referred to County Attorney Russell Slayton in response to a citizen's concerns. Mr. Slayton advised, in part, as follows: The interest of the property owner should be protected through the lease he/she negotiates with the developer and any surety bond required by the lease. In the unlikely event that the County did not exercise its decommissioning rights, the property owner may have the right to bring action against the County. However, if that right exists, the property owner has that same right without being a co-obligee. Based on his findings, Mr. Slayton advised that adding landowners as co-obligees would accomplish little, if anything, of substance. His opinion was shared with the Board and they accepted legal counsel's guidance. Bond Co-obligees Recommended Options for Consideration: 1. Staff recommend accepting legal counsel's opinion and making no changes. 2. Alternatively, the Planning Commission could seek additional input from legal counsel regarding this issue. Tier 1 BESS Prior Recommendation: The Board of Supervisors refer regulations for Tier 1 BESS (those 600 kwh or less) back to the Planning Commission for further review to provide the Commission with additional time to consider this issue. Proposed Regulations: The draft ordinance defines Tier 1 BESS as those with an aggregate energy capacity of less than or equal to 600kWh and, if in a room or enclosed area, consisting of only a single energy storage system technology. Proposed language allows Tier 1 by-right in all zoning districts. To provide context, the average US home uses approximately 30 kWh of electricity per day while the average usage per home in Virginia is approximately 35 kWh per day. A typical 600 kWh unit that can be mounted on a trailer measures approximately 8' long X 3' wide X 5' high. Tier 1 - BESS - Recommended Options for Consideration: 1. Establish a three-tier system like solar with a small residential BESS allowed by-right in all districts, a large residentia/commercial BESS (up to 600 kWh) allowed as a conditional use in all districts, and utility-scale allowed as a conditional use in General Ag, Intensive Ag, and General Industrial. 2. Establish a three-tier system as above but include large residenta/commercla BESS as aby-right use in all districts except General Residential. 3. Make no changes. Staff Review Record Exhibits Battery Energy Storage Draft Regulations March 12, 2025 Board Resolution February 12, 2025 Findings Report Charlotte County, Virginia GINIE Planning Commission Report Battery Energy Storage Systems Draft Amendments to the Charlotte County Zoning Ordinance = Version 4 (Appendix A oft the Charlotte County Code) Hearing Date: January 21, 2025 Article IX. USE MATRIX B = By Right = Conditional Use Permit T = Temporary Use Permit Use Types Zoning Districts General Intensive General Village General Agricultural Agriculture Residential Center Industrial Battery Energy Storage Facilities - B B B B B Tier 1 Battery Energy Storage Facilities - C Tier 2 ARTICLE X. SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS Sec. 10-24. Battery Energy Storage Facilities. 10-24-1. Principal or Accessory Use. Tier 1 Battery Energy Storage Facilities, as defined in this ordinance, shall be considered an accessory use. Tier 2 Battery Energy Storage Facilities, as defined in this ordinance, shall be considered as a principal use. However, an existing use or an existing structure on the same lot shall not preclude the installation of a Tier 2 Battery Energy Storage Facility on such lot. 10-24-2. Site Design. To minimize impacts to adjacent properties and maximize buffers, Tier 2 Battery Energy Storage Facilities shall: 1. Be sited toward the interior ofi the lot to buffer the facility from the surrounding areas 2. Have a 20-foot minimum buffer within the fenced area ofthe facility, located between the system components and the fencing 3. Take advantage of existing topography, structures, and vegetation to provide extra screening 4. Be sited to avoid wetlands, floodplains, and any other environmental concerns. 10-24-3. Compliance with Building Codes, Electrical Codes, and Other Regulatory Requirements. Battery Energy Storage Facilities shall be constructed, maintained, and operated in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal codes and standards, including but not limited to applicable fire, electrical, and building codes adopted by the County; National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 855, Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems; Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 9540A, Standard for Test Method for Evaluating Thermal Runway Fire Propagation in Battery Energy Storage Systems; and Virginia s stormwater management and erosion and sediment control requirements. Applicable requirements are those in effect at the time of construction and equipment installation. 10-24-4. Installation and Design. Battery cells in a Tier 2 Battery Energy Storage Facility shall be placed in a Battery Energy Storage System ("BESS") with a Battery Management System ("BMS"). The BESS shall provide a secondary layer of physical containment to the batteries and be equipped with cooling, ventilation, fire alarm, fire and heat monitoring, and fire suppression systems. 10-24-5. Location. Absent specific authorization by the Board of Supervisors as part of a Conditional Use Permit, no Tier 2 Battery Energy Storage Facility shall be located within one (1) mile of an existing town boundary. Under circumstances deemed appropriate by the Board of Supervisors, the Board may approve a Tier 2 Battery Energy Storage Facility location closer than (1) mile to an existing town boundary and establish the permitted distance from such system to an existing town boundary, provided that no project is approved closer than one (1) mile to the Town of Keysville, or closer than one-half (1/2) mile to the Towns of Phenix, Charlotte Court House, and Drakes Branch. 10-24-6. Setbacks. 1. Tier 1 Battery Energy Storage Facilities shall conform to all minimum building setback requirements for principal structures of the zoning district in which they are located, or fifty (50) feet, whichever is greater. 2. Unless otherwise prescribed by the Board of Supervisors as a condition of approval for a Conditional Use Permit, Tier 2 Battery Energy Storage Facilities shall conform to the following setbacks: a minimum setback of 150 feet from the center line of any state maintained road abutting the property; a minimum setback of 150 feet from all other property lines with the exception of those property lines that are inside the project's boundaries and which do not abut property located outside the project area; and a minimum of 400 feet from all off-site residential structures and places of assembly as defined in this ordinance. 10-24-7. Height. Battery Energy Storage Facilities shall comply with the building height limitations for principal structures of the underlying zoning district. 10-24-8. Lighting. Lighting of the battery energy storage systems shall be limited to that minimally required for safety and operational purposes and shall meet all requirements of this ordinance. 10-24-9. Utilities. All on-site utility lines shall be placed underground to the extent feasible and as permitted by the serving utility, with the exception of the main service connection at the utility company right-of-way and any new interconnection equipment, including without limitation any poles, with new easements and right-of-way. 10-24-10. Fencing for Tier 2 Battery Energy Storage Facilities. Tier 2 Battery Energy Storage Facilities shall be enclosed by security fencing. Fencing height shall comply with the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources' most recent guidance at the time project construction begins. If the Department of Wildlife Resources has not established guidance, security fencing shall be a minimum of seven feet in height and, in addition, shall have an anti-climbing device at least one foot in height. 10-24-11 Screening, for Tier 2 Battery Energy Storage Facilities. The entire Tier 2 Battery Energy Storage Facility, including fencing, shall be screened from ground-level view of adjacent properties by a landscaped buffer zone at least 25 feet wide consisting of an mix of native evergreen and deciduous species as approved by the Zoning Administrator; a planted berm; or a combination of the two methods, unless otherwise prescribed by the Board of Supervisors as a condition of approval for a Conditional Use Permit. Opaque fencing slats of an approved color may be required to enhance screening at the Zoning Administrator's discretion. Existing mature tree growth and natural landforms on the site shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible and may be used in whole or in part to provide the required screening if they provide adequate screening from public view as determined by the Zoning Administrator. In the event that existing vegetation or landforms providing screening are disturbed, new plantings shall be provided which accomplish the same. 10-24-12. Noise Limits for Battery Energy Storage Facilities. After completion of construction, noise levels measured at the property line during standard operations shall not exceed 60 dbA. Applicants shall submit equipment and component manufacturers' noise ratings to demonstrate compliance. The applicant shall be required to provide Operating Sound Pressure Level measurements from a reasonable number of sampled locations at the perimeter ofthe battery energy storage system to demonstrate compliance with this standard. 10-24-13. Removal of Damaged Components. Any damaged Battery Energy Storage Facility components or portions thereof shall be collected by the facility operator and removed from the site or stored on site in a location protected from weather and wildlife and from any contact with ground or water until removal from the site can be arranged; storage shall not exceed thirty (30) days. Ifnot returned to the manufacturer, damaged components shall be transferred directly to an approved recycling facility or disposal site in accordance with local, state, and federal laws. 10-24-14. Fire Protection for Tier 2 Battery Energy Storage Facilities. 1. Non-combustible 1 Buffer. A minimum 20-foot "non-combustible" gravel buffer shall be established around the perimeter ofTier 2 Battery Energy Storage facilities to help prevent the spread of fire and provide access for emergency vehicles if needed. The applicant shall maintain the buffer throughout the life of the facility to ensure it remains free of combustible materials and provides emergency vehicle access. 2. Emergency Access: Access to the property for emergency services shall be provided in a manner acceptable to the Charlotte County Zoning Administrator and the Charlotte County Director of Public Safety. 3. Safety Operation Standards. a. Each individual battery shall have 24/7 independently monitored automated fire detection and extinguishing technology built in. b. The Battery Management System shall monitor individual battery module voltages and temperatures, container temperature and humidity, off-gassing of combustible gas, fire, ground fault and DC surge, and door access. C. The Battery Management System shall be capable of shutting down the system before thermal runaway takes place. 4. Emergency Plan. Applications for battery energy storage facilities shall include an Emergency Plan that, at minimum, contains the following: a. Procedures to be followed in response to notifications provided by the battery energy storage management system that could signify potentially dangerous conditions b. Emergency procedures to be followed in case of fire, explosion, release of liquids or vapors, damage to critical moving parts, or other potentially dangerous conditions, including shutting down equipment, de-energizing, or isolating equipment and systems to reduce thei risk offire, electric shock, release of hazardous materials, and personal injuries; summoning service and repair personnel; and providing agreed upon notification to fire department personnel for potentially hazardous conditions in the event of a system failure. C. Procedures and schedules for conducting drills of procedures a and b. d. Procedures for safe start-up following cessation of emergency conditions. e. Procedures for dealing with battery energy storage system components damaged in a fire or other emergency event. f. A water containment plan to address potentially contaminated water associated with a fire, explosion, or hazardous materials incident. g. Procedures for inspection and testing of associated alarms, interlocks, and controls. h. Procedures and schedule for training local first responders on the contents of the plan and appropriate response actions. 5. Warning Signage. A 911 address sign shall be posted in a clearly visible manner. NFPA 704 placards and appropriate warning signage that complies with NFPA 855 and identifies the owner and a 24-hour emergency contact phone number shall be placed on all entrances. 6. Experience and Expertise: Qualifications and experience of developers and selected integrators shall be provided, including disclosure of fires or other] hazards at facilities. 7. Public Safety Information: Safety data sheets shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator and Director of Public Safety. 8. Emergency Response Training: The applicant shall coordinate with the Director of Public Safety to schedule and conduct training of emergency response personnel regarding system components, site design, potential hazards and risks, and system- specific emergency response plans. 10-24-15. Decommissioning of Tier 2. Battery Energy Storage Facilities. 1. Applications for Tier 2 Battery Energy Storage Facilities shall include a draft decommissioning plan detailing the anticipated life of the project, the estimated decommissioning cost in current dollars, an explanation of how the cost was determined, the method of ensuring funds will be available for decommissioning, a mechanism for calculating increased removal costs due to inflation, and an explanation ofthe decommissioning process. The decommissioning estimate shall be prepared and stamped by an independent third-party professional engineer who has expertise in the removal of Battery Energy Storage Facilities. Salvage value shall not be considered when determining the estimated decommissioning cost. 2. The full estimated decommissioning cost shall be guaranteed by escrow at a federally insured financial institution, irrevocable letter of credit, or surety bond before a building permit is issued for the project. The decommissioning cost guarantee shall remain valid until the facility has been fully decommissioned. If the facility owner/operator fails to remove the installation in accordance with the requirements of this permit or within the proposed date of decommissioning, the County may collect the bond or other surety and the County or hired third party may enter the property to physically remove the installation. 3. The decommissioning cost estimate shall be recalculated every five (5) years at the facility owner's expense by an independent third-party professional engineer who has expertise in the removal of Battery Energy Storage Facilities or by a third-party professional engineer approved bythe County. Ifthe recalculated estimate exceeds the original estimated decommissioning cost by 10% or more, the facility owner/operator shall increase the guarantee to meet the new cost estimate. If the recalculated estimate is less than 90% of the original estimated cost of decommissioning, the County may approve reducing the guarantee. 4. Tier 2 Battery Energy Storage Facilities which have reached the end oft their useful life or have not been in active service for a period of one (1) year shall be removed at the facility owner/operator's expense. This period may be extended by the Zoning Administrator: if evidence is provided that the delay is due to circumstances beyond the facility owner/operator's reasonable control. 5. The facility owner/operator shall notify the Zoning Administrator by certified mail of the proposed date of discontinued operations and plans for removal. 6. The facility owner/operator shall have twelve (12) months to complete the decommissioning oft the facility. 7. Decommissioning shall be performed in compliance with the approved final decommissioning plan and shall include removal of all battery energy storage system components, structures, equipment, pads or foundations, cabling, roads, security barriers, transmission lines, and any other associated facilities from the site, SO that any agricultural ground upon which the facility and/or system was located is again tillable and suitable for agricultural uses. All materials removed from the property, including hazardous materials, shall be disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal law. Any contaminated soil, as determined by independent testing, shall be removed and disposed ofi in accordance with local, state, and federal law. Disturbed earth shall be graded and re-seeded. However, the landowner may request that access roads, stormwater management features, or other land surface areas not be restored. Approval of such landowner requests shall be at the zoning administrator's discretion. 10-24-16. Application Requirements for Tier 2 Battery Energy Storage Facilities. Prior to submitting an application for a' Tier 2 Battery Energy Storage Facility, applicants shall have a pre- application meeting with the Zoning Administrator or his/her designee to discuss the location, scale and nature ofthe proposed project and the application review process. Applications for Tier 2 Battery Energy Storage Facilities shall include the following items: 1. A completed Charlotte County Conditional Use Permit Application 2. A detailed project description including an overview of the project location; approximate capacity; description of proposed equipment including the approximate number of batteries and containers, information on the technology being used, and equipment safety features; description of screening and fencing methods; expected footprint ofthe equipment to be installed, and buffering; and a breakdown ofthe project land by type, with associated percentages (i.e., planted pines, forested, agricultural, pasture, etc.) 3. Aerial imagery showing the proposed location, fenced area and driveways with the closest distance to all adjacent property lines, dwellings, and places of assembly specified. 4. Fourteen hardcopies (11"X17" or larger) and one electronic copy of a preliminary plan prepared by a licensed professional engineer including the following: a) Parcel numbers for the proposed site and adjacent properties b) Property lines c) Existing roads d) Existing buildings and structures e) Proposed roads, buildings and structures including preliminary layout of the facility and related equipment, fencing, driveways, internal roads, structures and the location of points ofi ingress/egress. f) Distances from proposed battery energy storage systems to property lines g) The location of proposed buffers and screening elements h) Location of substation and means of connecting to the substation, ancillary equipment, buildings, and structures including those within any applicable setback. 5. A draft decommissioning plan as specified in Section 10-24-15; a final plan shall be provided as part of the site plan review process. 6. A draft emergency plan including the information specified in Section 10-24-14; a final plan shall be provided as part ofthe site plan review process. 7. A land management plan that includes a detailed description of plant selections for the landscaped buffer, maintenance ofthe "non-combustile"t buffer, weed control methods for the facility, and general site maintenance information. 8. Any additional items or information the County may require in order to assess compliance with this ordinance. 10-24-17. Community meeting. Within 30 days of the zoning administrator providing an applicant notice that their Tier 2 Battery Energy Storage Facility application is complete, a public meeting shall be held with the planning commission to give the community an opportunity to hear from the applicant and ask questions regarding the proposed facility. The meeting shall adhere to the following: 1. The applicant shall inform the zoning administrator and adjacent property owners in writing of the date, time and location of the meeting, at least seven but no more than 14 days, in advance of the meeting date; 2. The date, time and location of the meeting shall be advertised in a newspaper of record in the county by the applicant, at least seven but no more than 14 days, in advance of the meeting date; 3. The meeting shall be held within the county, at a location open to the general public with adequate parking and seating facilities that will accommodate persons with disabilities. Should a suitable location near the project site not be available, a location in a neighboring jurisdiction may be used as long as it 1S no greater than ten (10) miles from the project site. 4. The meeting shall give members ofthe public the opportunity to review application materials, ask questions of the applicant and provide feedback; and 5. The applicant shall provide to the zoning administrator a summary of any input received from members of the public at the meeting. 10-24-18. 2232 Comprehensive Plan Review. A 2232 review by the County is required by the Code of Virginia ($15.2-2232) for Tier 2 Battery Energy Storage Facilities. This Code provision provides for a review by the Planning Commission of public utility facility proposals to determine if their general or approximate location, character, and extent are substantially in accord with the Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. ARTICLE XI. DEFINITIONS Battery Energy Storage Facility. One or more battery cells for storing electrical energy, stored in a Battery Energy Storage System ("BESS") with a Battery Management System ("BMS"). Not to include a stand-alone 12-volt car battery or an electric motor vehicle or consumer products. Battery Energy Storage Facilities are classified as follows: A. Tier 1 Battery Energy Storage Facilities have an aggregate energy capacity less than or equal to 600kWh and, if in a room or enclosed area, consist of only a single energy storage system technology. B. Tier 2 Battery Energy Storage Facilities have an aggregate energy capacity greater than 600kWh or are comprised of more than one storage battery technology in a room or enclosed area. Battery Energy Storage System. A physical container providing secondary containment to battery cells that is equipped with cooling, ventilation, fire suppression, and a Battery Management System. Battery Management System. An electronic system that protects energy storage systems from operating outside their safe operating parameters and disconnects electrical power to the battery energy storage system or places it in a safe condition if potentially hazardous temperatures or other conditions are detected. A RESOLUTION REFERRING BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW WHEREAS, in response to a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors on October 9, the 2024, Charlotte County Planning Commission completed a review of zoning ordinance regulations for battery energy storage systems; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's findings recommended further review of three issues and, the Board voted to refer these issues back to the Planning Commission at their February 18, 2025 meeting; and WHEREAS, Virginia Code $ 15.2-2286 provides that the governing body may, by resolution, refer an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Charlotte County Board of Supervisors hereby refers battery energy storage system zoning regulations back to the Planning Commission for review of the following issues: 1. Seeking input from the seven fire department chiefs regarding fire risks associated with battery energy storage and determining whether fire risks need to be addressed by the county or the system applicant/operator 2. Regulations for Tier 1 systems (those 600 kwh or less) 3. Decommissioning BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Charlotte County Board of Supervisors understands a recommendation on this matter will be provided by the Planning Commission within 100 days of the next Planning Commission meeting in accordance with Virginia Code S 15.2-2285. Adopted this 12th day of March 2025. BY: Walter T. Bailey, Chairman Charlotte County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: 904. Daniel N. Witt, Clerk ) ( Board of Supervisors GINI Regular Meeting Staff Report Meeting Date: February 12, 2025 Subject Title: Planning Commission Findings Report - Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) SUBJECT HIGHLIGHTS Background Information The BESS review began when East Point Energy, acting as agent for a local landowner, submitted a zoning text amendment application, deemed complete in May 2024 and revised in July. The Planning Commission held a public hearing in September and recommended staff develop draft regulations. In response to concerns regarding the review timeline, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution in October, referring BESS to the Planning Commission for review. East Point then withdrew their application to reset the Planning Commission's review schedule. A draft zoning amendment was developed and presented to the Planning Commission in October. Additional revisions were then provided by Commissioners at their October, November, and December meetings. Planning Commission Findings The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the draft zoning amendment on January 21st. Following the hearing, the Commission voted 7-4 with all members present to recommend approval of the zoning amendment as presented with three additional recommendations: 1. The Board of Supervisors reach out to all seven fire chiefs to discuss the fire risks associated with BESS and determine whether fire risks would need to be addressed by the county or the BESS applicant/operator. 2. The Board of Supervisors refer regulations for Tier 1 BESS (those 600 kwh or less) back to the Planning Commission for further review to provide the Commission additional time to consider this issue. 3. The Board of Supervisors look into decommissioning of BESS. Notes Regarding Findings 1. Will Stembridge, Bacon District Volunteer Fire Department Chief, addressed the Commission during their public hearing, explaining the county's volunteer fire departments did not have sufficient manpower or equipment to handle a utility-scale BESS incident. Chief Stembridge also expressed concerns about water needed during an incident and associated runoff. While the draft amendments include measures associated with fire risks, implementation will involve the Public Safety Director and volunteer fire departments, and an incident would require a local response. 2. At the end of their December meeting the Commission revised the draft to allow Tier 1 battery energy storage by-right in General Residential & Village Center. At the public hearing, citizen Terry Ramsey expressed concerns about placing larger Tier 1 units in more densely populated areas and potentially adjacent to town residential areas. While there was interest in reviewing alternative approaches for Tier 1, the Planning Commission's deadline for making a recommendation prevented them from addressing this further. 3. The Commission discussed two decommissioning issues during their review. Miller Adams expressed concerns regarding obtaining accurate decommissioning estimates due to the newness of the industry. In addition, Andrew Carwile raised concerns regarding the need to include landowners as co-obligees on the decommissioning bond. However, legal counsel previously addressed the issue of co-obligees, providing a lengthy opinion in September, closing with, "My conclusion is that adding currently affected property owner as obligees in the surety bond would likely accomplish little, if anything, of substance. " Options The Board has until October 17, 2025, to act on this amendment per Zoning Ordinance $2-8-6.4. Options for action are as follows: Schedule a joint work session with the Planning Commission to work through these remaining issues prior to scheduling a Board public hearing. Refer Tier 1 BESS back to the Planning Commission with a 100-day review period. The Board could then either schedule a public hearing on Tier 2 BESS amendments for April, following a staff report on fire response and decommissioning in March, or wait for the Planning Commission's recommendation on Tier 1 before. scheduling a public hearing on all BESS amendments. Schedule a public hearing on the draft amendment as provided. Staff recommendation, if applicable: N/A Staff Review Record Exhibits: Draft Battery Energy Storage Zoning Amendment Charlotte County, Virginia RGINIP Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: March 20, 2025 Subject: General Staff Report General Staff Report 1. Approved Solar Project Updates: CPV County Line Solar - CPV met with staff in late February to discuss changes in their construction timeline. CPV was notified by PJM, the regional transmission organization that manages connections to the power grid, that the project must connect to a yet-to-be-built 230 KV line rather than the existing 115 KV line as planned. Construction of the 230 line is expected to start in September 2025 and is estimated to be 42-48 months. CPV intends to build the project after the 230 KV line is completed and has therefore withdrawn from its current position in the PJM queue. CPV has a $300K payment due to the county in April 2025. NOTE: The 230 KV line has yet to be designed, and right-of-way has yet to be purchased; meaning construction may not begin until Q4 of 2025 or Q1 of 2026. Charlotte Solar 1 - Gibson Project - Developer New Energy Equity is pursuing interconnection and last stage development for this project. They anticipate additional findings from the utility in April and are optimistic that the project is still financially viable. Charlotte Solar 2 - Austin Goldman Project- The CUP has been terminated at the developer's request after the developer determined the project is not financially viable. This parcel is now part oft the Taro Solar application. Tall Pines Solar - This project is also being required to connect to the new 230 KV line that must be built. Construction is expected to begin in 2Q 2026 with operations beginning in 2030. Courthouse Solar - Dominion has been working with staff, our engineering consultant, and legal counsel to finalize plans and bonds required under the project conditions and obtain their land disturbance permit. Civil work is expected to begin in either March or April. Staff reviewed Dominion's woody debris removal plan to determine whether on-site burning will be permitted. The alternative option is chipping and hauling. Staff visited a site in Halifax County where an air curtain was being used to minimize smoke associated with on-site burning. Buring would significantly reduce the truck traffic leaving the site. Staff is looking at restrictions (distances from adjacent properties, types of woody debris, etc.) that may be needed. This project also must connect to the planned 230 KV line mentioned above. The current plan is to complete the civil work and, once the site is prepped and stabilized (reseeded), the site will sit dormant for a period of 2-3 years until the 230 KV line is available. The site is expected to be operational in 2030. Randolph Solar - Staff has no changes to report at this time. Phase 1 - 200MWs, Design is about 30% completed and is expected to be 90% completed by the end of 2025. Approvals and permitting are expected to be completed in 2026. Construction is expected to begin in Q2 of 2027 with a completion date of 2030. Phase 2 - 300MWs, construction schedule runs from 2028-2031. Phase 3 - 300MWs, construction schedule runs from 2029-2032. Dominion is planning the construction of a laydown yard on parcels 85-1-3 & 85-A-131. Both parcels are part of the CUP and have been purchased by Dominion. Dominion is working with VDOT to obtain a commercial entrance permit. Dominion has a $500K payment due to the county in April 2025. Quarter Horse Solar - Quarter Horse is also included in the PJM study that will require the construction of the new 230 KV line. As this CUP amendment was only recently approved, this will not impact the project timeline. Construction is expected to begin in 2026 with a completion date of 2030. 2. Other Solar Project Applications Red Oak Solar - No updates to report on this project. Last staff review was in October 2024, no resubmittal received. Taro Solar - The application was resubmitted on February 19th and staff has completed their review. Staff has been working with the applicant to resolve one final issue and expects a letter of completeness will be issued on March 14th. Other projects In recent months staff have conducted preliminary application meetings with Hodson Energy, Dominion, and Ampliform. There are at least three other inquiries regarding other potential solar projects. 3. Town Planning Commissioner Reappointments / Town Representation Administrator Witt met with all four town councils to obtain input on this issue but is waiting for one final response. (The Town of Charlotte Court House will be discussing this issue at their March 17th meeting.) The Administrator plans to report back to the Board at their April meeting. 4. Upcoming Public Hearings for Conditional Use Permits Staff expect to move forward with the Taro Solar comprehensive plan compliance (2232) review and conditional use permit review in the coming months. The Berkley Group's schedule will determine whether the Commission is able to begin the 2232 review in April. A landowner has also discussed a proposed open storage yard location with staff; an associated conditional use permit is expected in the next month or SO. 5. Proposed Solar & Energy Storage Legislation In the previous report, the state had one remaining piece of legislation (HB2126) that would have required localities to incorporate specific solar regulations in their zoning ordinances. That legislation failed in committee. 6. Certified Planning Commissioner Training Program We encourage all Planning Commissioners to complete the Certified Planning Commissioner Training Program. VCU's Land Use Education Program is offering the program virtually, with the opening session on April 7 & 8 and the closing session June 2 & 3. An in-person class will be held in Richmond in late July and September. Program cost is covered by the County. If you are interested in attending, please let staff know and we will assist you with registration. The schedule is available at htpsllCuravcueduleanduse-education/