I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I got to head this one right hand side. Welcome everyone to the March 20th, 2025 work sessions of all mechanic planning commission. Not now. Turn it over to Ms. Mead. Good morning. Welcome everyone. Before we get started, I'd like to make one announcement to announcements. One is to call attention to your agenda. We have a different setup. We have to break up the work session and the evening session separately. So you'll see that you have your work session today. If you click on the agenda review, that takes you to the agenda for the evening. And this morning we are being live streamed. This evening we will not be live streamed. The Board of Supervisors supervisors is having their budget public hearing so we can only stream one meeting at a time so that one will be streamed I will be presenting at that meeting this evening so Adam will be sitting in this. Okay with that said we'll go ahead and go down the agenda this evening you will adopt the agenda approval of the minutes. Were there any comments on the February minutes? Hearing none. Hearing none. We'll take you into the one public hearing that you have this evening and that is a zoning ordinance text amendment for energy storage facilities. Ms. Creighton. Good morning. Welcome. Thank you. So this his zoning organ's text amendment to establish a new use category for battery energy storage systems. This was initiated by the Board of Supervisors in May 2024 and the Planning Commission has held work sessions on this topic in November and in February. As discussed last month, there's been one application for an energy storage facility with Summer Sweet Energy Center. This was processed as a category 20 special exception for an Energy Storage Facility as an electrical substation with a comprehensive plan compliance review. This application is still pending before the Board of Supervisors anticipated to be reviewed at their April meeting. Staff has considered ordinances from other jurisdictions, industry research and guidance, the Falkure County requirements for utility scale solar facilities, and the planning commission speedback at both work sessions, and to consideration in developing the draft ordinance for battery energy storage systems. Across jurisdictions, there are similar definitions for these systems, all generally derived from industry guiding documents. Some include a tiered approach in their definitions. Staff has proposed a definition consistent with these guiding documents and other jurisdictions, including the tiered approach based on the kilowatt hours stored in types of technology used. Tier 1 systems would be site specific with a capacity of less than 600 kilowatt hours. These would typically be supplemental power supplies for a residential or commercial use and permitted by right in all zoning districts. Tier 2 systems would be utility scale with a capacity 600 kilowatt hours or greater, only permitted with special exception approval, following a comprehensive plan compliance review in the agriculture industrial park, industrial general and business park districts. These districts are consistent with those for utility sales scale solar, with the exception of business park. We've included that to accommodate any potential battery energy storage systems in conjunction with the data center. Other additional standards for battery energy storage systems include construction, operation, and maintenance, compliant with all industry standards, the fire code, the electrical code, and the building code. A maximum height of 15 feet. Based on research, the battery enclosures are generally no more than 12 feet in height. Setbacks from property lines, residential uses, public facilities, and corridors of statewide significance with the exception of public facilities. These setbacks are all consistent with the utility-scale solar requirements. Following the February work session, staff has added language to allow the board to modify the setback from corridors of statewide significance upon demonstration, that the facility will not impact the view shed from the corridor with the special exception application. The facility shall be surrounded by a minimum six foot tall fence with an anti-climbing device and secured gates. There shall be a 50 foot wide landscape strip around the entire perimeter of the facility. The facility shall be off a road designated as a major collector or hire with the ability for the board to find a lesser standard road is appropriate. This is intended to minimize the impacts of construction traffic. Avoiding sensitive environmental areas in historic archaeological and cultural sites, all new utilities shall be placed underground. An emergency response plan shall be provided and approved by the Falker County Fire and Rescue System. Following the February work session, we've reached out to the Fire Marshall's Office to discuss this plan and what they would like to see with it and the language has been modified to require a draft plan be submitted with the first site plan submission and the final plan be approved at least 30 days prior to commercial operation of the facility. We've also included a requirement that the plan be updated and approved annually by the Fire Rescue System with a copy provided to the zoning administrator within 30 days of approval. And then the last change following the work session staff has updated the language regarding a change of ownership or management to reflect a change in ownership of the property or management or operation of the facility be reported within 30 days of the change rather than the originally proposed 90 days. There have been four comment letters provided in addition to those from the work session last month. Two expressing general support of the ordinance, one of which was printed for you this morning. One from Dominion Energy providing additional comment on their requested change in language for historic resources that they provided with the work session and continuing to request a height of 20 feet. And then another letter from East Point Energy, which is the developer from the Summer Sweet Energy Center proposing several changes to the language, and I'm happy to go through each of those comments and get your feedback similar to what we did in the February work session. Starting with Dominions, kind of the gist of their comment regarding DHR was that if they were digging, if they were to find a brick on the property that DHR wouldn't consider a significant cultural resource, that if that brick was found, they would then have to go through the whole study process rather than allowing DHR to make that determination. And they said that was just a time and financial expense on their part. Go ahead, Karen. Sorry. So they're saying if they were to find something inconsequential, say a brick or two bricks, they would prefer just to make the call themselves, like just to say this is insignificant, rather than going through the proper channels. For DHR to be able to say that that's insignificant, rather than doing the whole study that would be required to, I'm not overly familiar with what that process would involve, but so what they have said, we offered an amended to the ordinance language because the standards for conducting historic resources, surveys in Virginia, define historic to be anything 50 years of age or older. This applies to standing structures as well as archaeological and material remains. The standards further define an archaeological site as a minimum of three items related either temporally or functionally and located within a spatially restricted area. So a structure home built in 1975 or a concentration of two old brick fragments in one piece of broken glass would fall under those definitions and thus be subject to avoidance by the ordinance as currently brick. So they're saying, well, you know, two bricks and a piece of glass may not be, DHR may not consider that significant. They would have to avoid that area entirely as a part of that. I think they were fine keeping the languages it was. they would just have to go through the study process with the HR which would be more time on their end. But we can certainly leave it as is currently drafted or we can explore further. I guess my concern is that if whoever the digger-upper, if youarths small components of a dwelling or a settlement or something, and then they get on the phone and they call D.H. And they're like, yeah, so we only found this one piece. And maybe a piece of glass is that OK? Like, I just, I want my concern is that DHR is taking the word of whoever the land disturbance, land disturber is versus DHR actually putting eyeballs on and doing their full wrote evaluation of the entire site. Because as we all know, you could find small pieces of whatever here, but then 100 yards away is the bigger component of what used to be. I don't know. I just, I would recommend to believe it is drafted then. That's your concern. That's my concern. I can't speak for everybody else, but that's my concern. Leaving it as we've drafted it, not incorporating any of the language originally provided by team members in regards to that. Taking Dominions, Dominions for what's historic is not kind of in mind, then their other comment Excuse me overquest was 20 feet for the height of the enclosures They have indicated that their current Specifications on other systems that they've installed the enclosures are nine and a half feet excluding their HVAC equipment 14 and a half feet with the zoning ordinance, does have the provision that if the HVAC units don't take up more than 25% of the roof area that that doesn't have to count in the height, they have not done the analysis to determine whether their equipment takes up more than 25% of the roof area, but it is still under the 15 feet that we have. Karen, in this picture that we have in front of us, I don't see an HVAC in on top of any of these. No, this was, this is not a dominion project. I think some of them put them in the front area and some of them choose to put them on the top. Different developer. Yeah, I was just leaving the 15 first line. Then they can design them to where they are on the end instead of being on the top. And certainly should the technology change in the future where they are, you know, the enclosure standard is a different height. The ordinance could be amended if that becomes the new standard. with other ordinances on building heights and what buildings have to come in under based on what zone a building is going in or whatever or what area of the county is going in, do we make allowances like, oh well the building can be, the school building can be 14 feet, but then you can hike it up with all of the HVAC equipment or I don't know. So we're panels. So the building actually becomes 22 feet. So if, again, if anything, covers more than 25% of the roof is included in the height of the building. Okay. So in a RA district, the typical height is 35 feet. In the business park it goes up to 45. I1 is 45. I2 is 65. That's the height. The only way to vary the height is with a rezoning amendment and that's for data centers only. Or a variance would or a variance through the BCA but there has to be some kind of hardship or reason for it through the BCA. I would prefer to keep it as we've written it. Great. We will do just that. The East Point Energy Comments I would look through just their drafted ordinance language rather than their email. Their first request was including RR2. We discussed this last month. We are not in support of that. It's a two-acre minimum loss in RR2 zoning. It's significant existing residential development that staff does not believe this would be an appropriate use as a part of. Unless there was a change in heart from last month, I would assume that today's as is. Their second was under additional submission requirements for C, an estimated development schedule rather than construction schedule. That's kind of just semantics we could change it to development or leave it as construction, whatever you would prefer. Next, under additional standards for battery energy storage systems, two and three they have proposed adding enclosure to the end of. We don't have any objections to that. That makes it clear that that's what it should be heightwise and set back from. They have proposed 100 foot set back to the parcel boundary rather than the project boundary. We are not in support of that. The 100 foot set back from the project boundary would mean any area that is the fenced project area that that fence must be 100 feet rather than an enclosure being 100 feet would be closer to the property lines. And then 500 set back, 500 foot set back, they've proposed to a public facility building rather than a property line of a public facility. Again, we would not support that change as you know, it thinks it's closer. They had question on the project having access to a major collector or hire and what the intentions with saying that this is not a high traffic use. And as I mentioned in my presentation, that's to address any traffic construction impacts. And with the previous application, and I would imagine with any other applications going forward similar to solar facilities, we include the post pre-end post-construction evaluation of the road that it's off of, so we would include that going forward with any of it. Yes, certainly. Right. I mean, yeah. I guess one of the benefits of a major collector road that a lot of people may not understand about our counties, that we have a lot of roads that aren't paved or They're passable by one and that's it and so you have to have that major collector And there is the provision that it's the board board to believe that it should be off of lesser based on the project That there is that provision in the standard so true absolutely So it's both for the access to major collector and a thousand foot setback board could modify. Yeah. A thousand foot setback from a quarter of statewide significance. We added in the language that the board could find lesser with a special exception application and then the major collector and its lesser finding is a standard in many other use categories of the ordinance. or last comment, I think, or second to last, that there should be training on an emergency response plan prior to commercial operation. That request is redundant. It's already included in the letters under number 10 for the emergency response plan. And then they have requested a surety bond or company guarantee, and as discussed last month's staff not in support of that either. Any questions? Comments, concerns? Do you think it's interesting with regard to the surety bond that by being able to save the company money or if the addition of allowing the company to take a shortcut on the bonding, if we don't, it gets passed on to the consumer. That statement that they left in there. When it comes to utility scale of battery storage, what do you all think of setbacks for heavily wooded areas? And does staff have any comment to setbacks for that? Traditionally in most applications, if there is existing vegetation that's proposed to remain, it would be required, typically included condition that any existing vegetation has to be put under easement. We have not included specific setbacks from that tree line. They would be required to have a 50-foot landscape buffer anyway from their facility, so we could add, you know, you have to have 100 feet from your enclosure to your landscape set back and then your landscape set back could end up. And if you have any thoughts on that? I'm asking the question. You could condition it as part of this special exception application. Look at it on a case by case basis. Typically, if the vegetation would be used as their buffer, the existing vegetation as much as possible, if it's 50 feet, at least 50 feet of it would, if you want to preserve it more than that, it would be had to be conditioned. Okay. What's other members think of that? I'm not sure I followed the whole. I do find it's we want to have buffers. We also, I was very impressed with the information that the Chairman gave us about the extent to which these battery problems and I personally have been concerned for a long time about lithium ion batteries just becoming fire hazards. So I don't know the solution to that. I do think that we want to have buffers, and it's possible that smarter people than they could figure out between where the fence area is and the buffer area if you require more distance. I don't know what the distance needs to be. I brought it up because we're in the process of adopting a brand new ordinance. Right, right. Why not think about everything that's a possibility here. And definition of battery might be one of them. And also if they have to plant landscape buckers that are the easiest and most common content for that is evergreen trees, which are very flammable. Yes. Buffer trees are typically evergreen because they actually screen. And the deciduous are usually the front-yard buffers for prettiness along the corridor. So the zone where it's wood required 30 foot evergreen buffer the way it is written. So if you would want something different than evergreen tear, what would have to be written into this? Or again, it could be conditioned during this special exception, a different buffer than the ordinance requires. So we leave it that should we put something in there that where we will review these on a case by case basis, based on where they're played, we don't put that in there. That's an automatic. Yes, that's good. Commissioner Mathers. But one of the requirements that in BF is that they show the areas of native vegetation and cultivation. So I guess there could be something added that the existing native vegetation must be preserved. The maximum scent practicable or something like that could be added to try and preserve the existing native vegetation. That would change how they'd cite things on the property. Yeah, I'm more concerned about what the SEPAC is because of course, every of the most common. And undergrowth. Yes. So I think the key here is not dictating what kind of buffer it is, but what the setback is. And I agree with that. And I can look at the way it's drafted. What we're talking about is a minimum setback from the battery of quitmuch to X, Y, or Z. The project boundary, existing residential dwelling, appropriate with a public facility. And then... the project boundary, the existing residential dwelling, a property with a public facility, and then there isn't one from the vegetative buffer. There's no setback for fire. Care walk us through on the fence line is not the area that we are having a setback or is it the container? The container is not the area. It's a fence. Correct. project area would be any of their individual enclosures, plus their circulation ways around it, all of that would be what is encompassed as their project boundary. And then per condition five, standard five, the vegetated buffer landscaped strip, at least 50 feet wide measured from each boundary line of the project around the entire perimeter. Typically your immediate fencing would be screened outside of the fence rather than screening inside of the fence. And so where does it say the distance from the container to the fence? It would be the hundred feet. If you're saying the fence is the product boundary, the fence to the property line would need to be a hundred feet. The fence. Container to the fence. The way this is written is all battery equipment, a hundred feet. And the battery equipment is not the fence. No. So the battery would have to be a hundred feet from the fence. And then the landscape barbers 50 feet from the fence to the property liner, 50 feet outside of the fence. So we've got, we're here. It's 100 feet from your battery to your fence and that's where the landscape was started immediately on the other side of the fence. All right, look at 2004, number three, the following additional minimum setback shell applied from all battery equipment. It's the interpretation of that provision and how it relates to the landscape buffer that I'm struggling with. So it's going to, you will have your battery, you will have 100 feet fence, and then the 50 foot buffer. Got it. Does that make 50 feet is the buffer. Buffer. Buffer. Buffer. Unless you'd rather be the setback shall apply from the project boundary, and it's 100 foot setback to the property line, so everything would be from outside of the fence. So you would look at your setbacks from your project boundary. So you'd have to we would change a to be a hundred foot setback to the property line so fence to property line would have to be a hundred feet a hundred and fifty foot setback to any existing residential dwelling would mean fence has to be a hundred feet from any existing residential dwelling 500 feet from a property line with a public facility so in the case of summer suite their fence has to be 500 feet from a property line with a public facility. So in the case of Summersweet, their fence has to be 500 feet from the property line that adjoins Mary Walton Church. But then there's a lot of property between their project area and the property of the south. There's Mary Walton on one side, right? Yes. And the church on the O's. Church is across the road, yes. Church would not be considered a public facility with this, though. We're going taking public facility as the use category in the ordinance of public facilities. That would be institutional, a church. Which we could include if you wish. And where you get, where the fence is, on number four, the last sentence says, this shall be installed at the interior of any buffer. So it has to be fence, then buffer. So, I think the definition is for the project that would be the use area shown on their special exception plan. Where is that defined in this audience? Not specifically defined in the ordinance. That would... My concern is that we're setting down the risk of dissonance from the time of this up and down in the ordinance. I'm struggling with that. Well, they define their project boundary. They have a lease area. That's their project. That would be their project boundary. And so that's they define what it is and where it is on the property. We're set, we're providing setbacks that will dictate where in the property it can go. But again, their project boundary could be one acre, it could be five acres, it could be ten acres, depending on what they're leasing. In essence, their area of disturbance would be their project boundary. Correct? Okay, let's put that in this ordinance. Okay. As a definition. Does that make sense? I mean, I'm trying to read the document and it says, shall apply from the project boundary, the project boundary, which is not the same as the parcel boundary. So, George, are you saying that A should be from the property boundary? No. No. No. No. No. No. My concern in the Mayor Walter one was much less than the parcel down there. You know, so I don't want, I'm concerned. I spent some time with this not as much as I wanted to, and I'm having a hard time understanding it. And we are writing something for the first time. And I think we need to be as clear as we can possibly be. And for me, it would be helpful to know what the project boundary is since we're defining distances from it. My suggestion correct me if you would like otherwise would be revising three. The following additional minimum setback shall apply from the project boundary which shall be defined as the area of disturbance on the special exception. No. Was I good until I kept going? Well, we'll work on it. I think we know what your what your concern is and we will work on change. Do we have some definitions? What's wrong with putting it in the definitions? There's an article 15 which applies to everything in the ordinance, not just battery storage. Okay. Is there any way carrot to get Okay. Is there any way, Kara, to get, I mean, the way that I'm a visual person, so I drew this out for myself and now I know that's not, my numbers aren't right, but is there a way to get a, you have the property line or the parcel line and then 50 feet from that is the fence which is a hundred feet from the project boundary like so is there any way to make a Definitive and I don't know maybe this goes against the zoning But is there any way to say the fence like of the project shall be x from the property line? And then? Is that what's inside the building? That's where I think you may better cover what you're asking to change three from battery equipment to project boundary. And then we will change three a to property line instead of projects that I use. I think that would cover then your fence is 100 feet from from your property line or 150 that's what you wish right okay well that's from the property line or from the fence going under our standard of project boundary would be their fence area okay it would then be a hundred feet from the fence to the property line is what I suggest. And then I think what I've also heard you say is that you want the fence to be a certain distance from the batteries. Yes, yes, as well. Absolutely, yes, absolutely. Because your buffer is in between the property line and the fence. Yes, yes. All Alright, and that's what we're concerned with of igniting. Yes, right. So I think I'm sorry. I think we can get rid of the word product boundary altogether than the way you all are talking because these are minimum setbacks. So if their product is 200 feet from the property line, they're a minimum of 100 and they have a minimum 50 foot buffer, so they exceed what the ordinance says. So we can just take out the word project boundary if we do it that way. If anything, now that we've established with, we understand that you have your property line, you have your buffer, and then you have your fence. I think our biggest concern is the distance from the fence to the battery storage. Yes. Right? Am I? Which we can change, Project Boundary to Fence or Project Fence. Can we look at item three again? Where it says, following additional minimum setback shall apply from all battery equipment. That's what we're going to work on revising to bring back. Thank you. And so when we're talking about taking away the word project boundary, how do we know that the battery equipment, how are you going to measure from that? Are they going to be showing you where the battery is actually on? We say that in child development. The difference, the distance from the fence to the battery equipment instead of project boundary. Okay, so you're defining the battery instead of saying I shall apply. 100% back to all battery equipment. We'll add another setback from the property line to the buffer, private line to the fence, and then the fence to the battery equipment. So it'll be 100 feet from the fence, to the battery equipment, 100 feet from the fence, to the property line, and then a 50 foot minimum buffer from the property line. And the battery equipment is 200 feet then from a property line. I'm trying to ask you what it is. What it is. Battery equipment, you know, for the simple-monded, it could be actually batteries or is the container. It's the enclosure. Is that defined on here, Kara? So we're going to say, is it now one of the suggestions that one of the consultants has said it changed it to enclosure? Yes, yes. So we'll change it to enclosure. I think that would be helpful. I mean, at to know where if you're gonna take where to start with the measuring tape, you know, okay? So to understand what Yes, yes, that is what I was visualizing. Yes, so what carried throughout is Sorry property line 50 feet Yes 50 feet then your your battery 100 feet to the fence 50 foot of landscape buffer from your fence and another 50 foot from the edge of your letter to your property line. So in essence your battery would be 200 feet from the property. Yeah, but that didn't get us where we wanted to be. These setbacks from what's one of those? The setbacks from the highway to what? would you rather it be to the property or well 500 footstep act to any property with a public facility? It's whether you want the fence to be 500 feet or you want the battery enclosure to be 500 feet. I'd vote for the battery enclosure to be that much, you know, at least that much. And if what we're saying is the battery enclosure to the fence. That wouldn't mean your fence could be 400 feet from your property line with a public facility. I think you want it to be 500 feet to the fence. Right. Yes. Yes. Yes. Right. So our setbacks will add in the setback from the fence to the enclosure, and all other setbacks will be from the fence. Measure from the fence. Measure from the fence. Yes. OK. And our biggest concern is how close the batter equipment is to the landscape. It would be 100 feet. That's hundred feet and I is there one happy with a hundred feet Which which which which is actually the end of the beginning of the fence there are the same The edge of the landscape buffer is the fence. Mr. Chairman, I would like your advice about what the distance ought to be, because given your concern is obviously the fire danger. Yes. And I don't know enough about, do we have informed information about how it, about this? I would think that probably the far marshal would be the best to ask if they are comparable with 100 feet from ignitable vegetation. That's what I mean. Wouldn't you think? Yeah. That would be the avenue to take. We do say that we want them to all have, you know, fire and rescue drilling and understand how to treat powder and fire that they're at. Is it possible to get that information before the seat? I can call them and ask them. And say are they comfortable with 100 feet to ignitable vegetation right And if they're not only greater and if they're not Founded with distance. They are happy with well I would be inclined to just say right now that we're gonna go with with at least a hundred or larger if the my our Marshall says Whatever the Marshall says as long as as long as he does say 75. Exactly. It has to be at least 100, at least 100, and anything more than that. Right. Can I mention something? Please. And then the different topic. Same, same. All same, same ordinance, but different topic. Yeah. Okay. Sure. Please. Carol, when it says what, or when it says access to major collector road, what does that mean? The comprehensive plan has a chart and a map that has every road, if it's not listed on that, it's then considered a local road. So access means the entrance? The entrance. Yes. So the one that we were doing down in Morse though? Shipstraw was in autumn, I think. Was not. Yeah. Okay. Well, I do like that because like Georgia said, it gives better access for emergency vehicles. But you know, because we could have a proliferation of these things if we're not careful, because the first thing they're going to do is send a letter to everybody and down along the transmission life and southern folk here. And just to the journey in Georgia though, I talk about the transmission lines, and that means he's doing North-Verse South thing at all. Because I love more than Folk View, I go there all the time, and I spend sometimes, you know, several hours just driving around looking at North-Folk Viewers. I don't mean to do that when I say that, but unfortunately we did get stuck with the transmission lines, which means we're getting stuck with the solar complex application. We're getting stuck with the data center applications. Now we're going to get stuck with these things. So anyway, so that you helped me explain it to me. I think it's vital to keep the access to major collector road in there. And piggybacking what you just said, this is reason why I think having these things real close to heavily vegetated areas is not a good thing. I think we need to be careful how we have these utility scale. Private can have their own container, and there's nothing that you do about that. But utility scale, we have some say-so about. Right. And it's not just the facility itself. It's a natural wildfire. The buffer catches the umpire and then goes from there. And you don't have to apologize about talking about North-Burkey's side. Because you all did get stuck with transmission on. We need to take care of that. Cara, I do have one question number six with regards to the major collector. The Board of Supervisors could determine, oh well, it's just one right turn and's you know the major collector is 500 yards or whatever or not even a quarter of a mile we can make an exception for that because it's just okay exactly okay just like with Taurus Tohms we had that same standard and yeah we would say it's this many feet this many miles from a major collector and you all would consider that and then the board would ultimately say whether they thought it was okay or not. And just to, I know we've labored this point, but with regards to the potential for wildfire and the increased potential as things continue to move along. And after action, reports that have come out about major wildfires across the country, even to include down in Madison a year ago to your zone. Two years ago, yes. I was glad you brought that up. You know, one of the things, there is a reason why we had fire roads throughout the Chanandoa because they do serve at they can serve They can serve they're not foolproof, but they can serve as a natural fire break You know, I it would mean we add more into this setback, but that could be a possibility of a maintained Firebreak now. I don't want to call it a fire road because it really wouldn't be a fire road the way, but I mean. And whatever, the other thing is that important, in this proposed 100 feet or greater, depending on the firemarsha says, there is to be nothing in that, as in nothing. You don't mean concrete or ask for or I mean nothing in the way of being able to travel through there. Vegetative. Vegetative. So you're saying whether it be vegetative, whether it be an apparatus of some sort that could be a post of anything you want to be able to have that clear path. Whatever that hundred feet set back is you want to clear path through there. Like gravel, obviously. Yes. Not moan grass. Right. Not moan grass. Right. I don't know. I'm not sure that's. We can add no vegetation inside the fence. I believe with the Summersweet application I'd have to double check. They did have, you know, the whole facility was gravel with their enclosures and I'm pretty sure they mentioned with their application that the intent was with their gravel between their units and the fence was it was supposed to act as a fire break. So similar to your fire road analogy, that would in essence serve that but we can certainly add there shall be no vegetation yeah inside that I think that would help from the battery point to the fence that that is gravel or it is concrete or it is asphalt but it is not because even I mean just last summer we saw dries out and it goes dormant, it becomes brown and it's instantaneously catchable. So... You comfortable with that? Yes, yes. I'm getting more woven fuzzy. I'm getting it. Any other comments? So the only thing you're trying to accomplish by this evening is to get in touch with the farm Marshall and see where we are with the setback. Right? He didn't touch with him to see what his thoughts are with vegetation, the distance between batteries and vegetation and then update the language in number three to reflect today's conversation. We actually kind of kick herself by morning to have the vegetation there for landscaping, for screening. But it's, so we weigh one against the other. Carrie, I did have one more question on a new part, a different number of this. Number nine, on page four, all newly installed utilities, including but not limited to electric fiber and telephone lines, serving the site, shall be placed underground with the exception of the main service connection at the utility company right of way and any new interconnection equipment including without limitation any polls with new easements and rights of way. Can you? They have to pull the power down and it can't go from however many feet up in the air immediately underground. So it has to be pulled down. They'll have a mini substation typically on the property that is how they are converting from the big lines to their units and then able to pull it you know back from their units into the little substation to send it back up to the lines. So somewhere within this buffer there's going to have to be that connection because the connection needs to be on their property or off of their property. It would probably depend on the property, which would be why we had the easement in right of way. And there would probably, there would be no buffer under that connection. So that's something we have to pull down power. We sure that we address that more. The connection made is a connection made inside between the fence and the battery or is it made outside in past the landscaping buffer? their substation, assuming their facility has a substation on it where they're transferring the... in the landscaping buffer. Their substation, assuming their facility has a substation on it where they're transferring the power, would be within their fence den area. Project specific, but it would, and then they had two fence den areas where they were then, you know, if they had one area that they had all their enclosures, they could run underground to a different fence than area with their substation. But then it would go okay. But, it's the same. We don't have anything in that 100 feet that is an obstruction to traffic. It would have to exclude the connection point if it is on their property. John, can you repeat that? If their connection point is within this hundred feet that care grew, drew between battery and the fence, then that connection point would be in what we have just said, we don't want anything within that hundred feet area. That would be on gravel. I know it would be on gravel but it would be something there. I was suggesting just no vegetation inside the fence. That's what I thought I was, yes. Okay. Rather than nothing. Because where else would a substation go if not but for that 100 feet? It couldn't go like in the middle of all of these battery packs, right? I mean, I know that's not the summer sweep project. But summer suites, I I believe was kind of off towards the side because they didn't want to have they wanted the maximum amount of their lease area to be for the enclosures and their substation was kind of more towards the existing more useful substation right kind of the lot of property line. So now you're facing the question if the battery is 100 feet from the fence, then how far do you want the battery from the substation? If it is within that area. Sorry, I didn't mean to stir this. I mean. Sir, like I'm the Morrisville, the Dominion site, I think Dominion a Jacob to it. Yes. Is what I'm understanding here is that now there's a substation and those people are starting to put battery storage within the substation footprint? No. These are going to be separate from the substation. The Summer Suite project so right next to the Morris spill substation they had their meany substation Which is how they were directly transferring their power up and down can these things Be transmitted straight up into the transmission lines or do they have to get through the substation? I believe they have to say it. Yeah, they have to convert. Okay., that helps. So, that means that these things can only be by substations. And it also means that they can only be by have access to major, click for roads unless the board waves that. And part of our, with the solar ordinance, there's the requirement that you have to be within a certain distance from transmission lines. And that was why we didn't include that with this one because they need to be close to them. Closer than the solar projects we need to be. We could change it back to, that was my thought with battery equipment originally, rather than battery enclosure was, right? Because in my mind, certainly it would be up to Amy's interpretation, but battery equipment was anything needed for the facility. It was my thought process with that language. Navemi disagree, so it can change that language too. Because you certainly couldn't have a battery storage facility that was two miles from a substation. Like they just couldn't, they could not make that work. It would have to be like not shoulder to shoulder. But all of the examples that I have seen of existing facilities or at East Point gave a whole list of facilities when they were proposing their application. And I looked to all of those and some others and I think they were all basically next to a substation across the street from a substation, maybe a parcel in between, but seem very infeasible to not be located that close. Okay. Okay. And where most of them existing substations already already, like we're not building brand new substations, just to satisfy energy storage facilities. Not from what I've seen. Okay. Do you have any concerns, Amy, about that? I do not, because they are going to have to meet whatever setbacks we require in the ordinance. They won't be able to put a substation within the setbacks that we have indicated. So I'm not concerned with that. So did you hear that John? They won't be able to put the substation within the setbacks. Okay. Okay. So my other question on number nine, sorry, the telephone line. So as far as like if they want to put a mini cell tower because that's how, like that is, that's what number nine is preventing. Correct. That's language that's in solar. That was just, any new lines should be underground with the exception of this connection. Okay. Fiber. Fiber. Okay, okay. All right, that's. Wow. Number nine turned it into something. So I'm just thinking off the top and head. It sounds like every substation that I can think of off the top of my head, which I'm sure is a small percentage of them in the county. They're all off of secondary roads, none of them are on, at least the ones I'm thinking about, none of them are on our major axis. So that means they'd have to, the board would have to approve each one in a case by case basis. It's Remington's substation. There's the Marsville substation, the Brewster's substation that you also, I'm not too long ago. There's one off of Elkron Road. There's one off of Roads Road. I think it's Roads in Blackwell Town. There's a Novak station in Suigo. And then there's another one. At the one at the fairgrounds. The one by the fairgrounds. There's another one that's north Kind of Prince William County line And then Opal is a new one at Cometans Corner. Mm-hmm. I Looked south. I didn't didn't look to see what may have been north Any other comments do we move on? I believe we do thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Okay. We'll make those revisions and bring them back this evening. I have a few announcements. Please. Last week, the board approved the abattoir while game processing on zoning ordinance text amendment. They approved a amendment to chapter 11 of the county code as it relates to DEQ guidance on ag activities and also a nomination for Ashby Gaff. Staff was working with the PEC and supervisor washer on this historic nomination for Ashby Gaff Next month for you all is quite the list. The bridge church in the Marshall district and you all should have received emails on these from planning staff. The bridge church is a expansion for a major place of worship. You have in the Scott district new you Baltimore Fire Hall. This is an adaptive reuse of the Fire Hall building professional office with six or less employees and a business and vocational school with 25 students. And I can email you a summary of this later today. And then in the Lee district there's Weaveraver'sville Road, a private individual sewage treatment system, which it discharges into an open ditch. Also in the lead district is Dear Ridge LLC. It's a special exception to waive the public street requirement for three new lots. Potentially, although I'm told this morning and this one is likely will not be ready in the Cedar Run District, the Church of God at Midland. It's a major place of worship with also events. And the Scott District is event hill self-storage, self-storage facility with an aggregate building footprint and excess of 50,000 square feet in the PCI-D. This is six self-storage buildings, totally 107,000 square feet. That's not, that's not an expansion, that's new. That's new. Okay. Review of committees, the Board of Supervisors initiated a text amendment to ask us to look at committees and what committees are required by the code of Virginia and what committees are not. So we are reviewing that. And then in the Scott Districts, Patonis pizza is having a 50th anniversary celebration, which requires a special permit for a temporary event. And then, Almeida did withdrawal their appeal yesterday on the two, the North and the interconnect and are at Banganivine the project. They sit to staff and then Data Center update Giggleam project is Second submission has been reviewed we expect to send comments out next week and the Convergent is just come in with their second submission. So these things are making their way through review Do either one of those have to go back to the board for any reason? After all this. They will after. Okay. Oh, sorry. These are two brand new ones. Oh, okay. Sorry. Convergent was in a couple years ago, but came out of the planning commission with a recommendation of approval and then just stalled.'s fine. Okay. Yes. Alright. We close that duty in activity and then. And where is the? It's in between the 220 and 29's. 29's. 29. Both in Remington. Over here two years ago. Yeah. Both in. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You can see it from above other side. I think it's going to be a good offer. I think it's going to be a good offer. I think it's going to be a good offer. I think it's going to be a good offer. I think it's going to be a good offer. I certainly do a site visit. And then I will send out a list of the ones that I just spoke to and any site visits you all would like just reach out and we can do them too off so we can do the whole commission. It also, a muscle memory it helps me to like just to refresh it. Yeah, that concludes my announcement. It's Commissioner's time. Anyone have anything I'd like to share? I just have this Alameda information is very hot news. I figured we're on camera and you've announced it, so it's public. Yes, ma'am. Okay. And they've said they've indicated they're not going to reconfigure. There were to abandoning the project. Okay. All right. Mr. Chairman is part of commissioners time. I've, we were talking about this a little bit before the meeting or just comment from me. I didn't have any experience with citing agreements when I was on the board of supervisors. They were not allowed. The statute that authorizes them is four years old. OK. I'm three or four years old. And I am concerned that what seems to be the pattern here, is that an applicant comes here, gets denied, goes and offers money to the board of supervisors, I mean in a public way, but money they didn't offer here, and then that's the proposal that then is under consideration, and it puts the supervisors in a difficult position. Does it then, and I'm asking a question now, does it then override all the planning and zoning decision making? Yes, by code, if the board enters into a exciting agreement that deems the project to be conformed to the comp plan. Last month, the Alameda team did a work session with the board supervisors and several of them expressed concerns over essentially negotiating the setting agreement without having made the determination that the project was in conformance of the comp plan. So that concerned much sharing with the board members. But if the offer was such so great that it changed the board's mind from planning commission's determination and the setting agreement that would then overturn the determination if it was not in plan to plan the comp plan. So if it were that a determination that the comp plan is consistent with the comp plan, we didn't make that. We decided otherwise. Then it would have needed a special exception. Correct. So if you look at the process is the same for batteries to origin, solar, particularly with this new order, it's the care is workingel working on. But the applicants have really two ways to proceed. One is to just move forward with the proposal of the site agreement, essentially bypass you all entirely. One applicant tried that, the SWEGO one, that was not well received by the board nor publicly. So no one else has tried that. The next step is to try the comprehensive compliance review with you all with the one in Wilton and Remington at the Luxembourg facility. You all determined it was compliant. The board didn't choose to overturn you all. They started the site agreement negotiation around the same time as the SE was being processed with the intention of marrying them both up at the board's public hearings so the board adopted both at the same time. With Alameda, you are determined it's not in compliance so the only really action is to appeal or pursue the site agreement with the board or abandon the project. And had they been awarded the citing agreement? Had the board agreed to a citing agreement? Would a special exception have been required? What's the zoning? Yeah, the special exception is still required. And the citing agreement does not commit you to approving the special exception. So it doesn't completely trump the zoning part of the planning and zoning decision making. That wasn't clear to me. Okay. Yeah. And then not to complicate things, but if you look at the Summer Street Battery Storage that you all acted on in November, that application has been appealed and they have applied for a citing agreement last month the board decided to not enter into a negotiation with the citing agreement. The appeal of the planning commission determination and especially exception application would be before the board next month. So we'll see what they will do but at this point they have to choose a not-too-negotiable site agreement. So the board decided not to negotiate a site agreement, but because the applicant had also appealed our decision. Correct. There still is a process that's going to wind up in front of the board of supervisors. Yes. So the board, I think it's 60 days, statutory to act on that, The applicant agreed to waive that 60 days, a couple of times to work on cleaning up the zoning violation of the property. Get the cars out of there. Yeah. It's just saying. So accepting new cars. Right. Yeah. Last week with the board we had had an item on their agenda to consider opening a public hearing to basically consider all three applications at the same time. The exciting agreement, the appeal of planning commission's termination and the special exception. Board did not authorize the public hearing on the site agreement but must the applicant withdraws the appeal and the exception they will need to act on those two. And Adam, that appeal, that public hearing will be next month or May. April. April, okay. Unless the applicant withdraws more further request delay. Okay, okay. Does that clear up the site agreement? I'm just on that one, the SE process, we didn't get that. You all made a recommendation at the time. I think you will feel the comprehensive lines of review. Yeah, so there is no SE anywhere yet. That application. That application was processed as a substation because we didn't have a battery storage ordinance yet, Okay. Which allowed the special exception and comprehensive compliance to run concurrently. So you all voted four to one to recommend a dial on the SE and to not find an income compliance with the car plan. So those two applications are still pending. Thank you. Okay. are still pending. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. See you this evening.