The Leominster City Council continued a public hearing on a proposed zoning amendment to regulate battery energy storage systems, citing outstanding referrals and unanswered safety and siting questions.

Councilwoman Susan Shalafuzefra, chair of the council's Legal Affairs Committee, opened the hearing on petition 15-26, which would amend the city's zoning ordinance to address battery energy storage systems. Elizabeth Wood, director of planning and development, was not present; the council reported that the Planning Board will hold its own public hearing on Oct. 20 and that referrals are pending from KP Law (city solicitor), the Leominster Fire Department and the conservation agent.

The hearing drew sustained concern from councilors who said the draft ordinance was vague and that the state's regulatory framework remains unsettled. "This is a big, serious issue," said Councilor Freda, who urged the council to press the Planning Board for clearer language. Councilor Artinger said he would oppose siting such facilities in the city under many circumstances and asked about toxic off-gassing and fire suppression.

Representatives of prospective developers and property owners said they want a predictable, case-by-case zoning path and offered technical materials. Charles Jenkins, who identified himself as a representative of Blue Sky Utility, said projects are privately financed and described industry safety features: "There are quite robust redundant systems to monitor any heat, any overheating, and we'll shut everything down," Jenkins said. He offered to provide detailed letters and materials to the council and planning staff and said Blue Sky had identified potential sites that are nonresidential and not adjacent to water supplies or wetlands.

Shannon Boyce, representing 21 Jungle Road LLC, said parcels in MU (mixed-use) districts -- vacant, nonresidential properties with highway access -- could be suitable for battery facilities and urged inclusion of MU districts in the ordinance amendment.

Council members and a developer asked local fire officials and the state fire marshal to review training and equipment needs and who would bear those costs. Jenkins said the company has worked with other cities to provide materials and training information to local fire departments and that questions about training and equipment could be answered after additional review.

Because the Planning Board's recommendation and legal and fire-department referrals were still outstanding, the council voted to continue the public hearing. The council scheduled the hearing to remain open and set a continued public hearing for Nov. 10 at 6:25 p.m., and encouraged residents and applicants to attend the Planning Board hearing on Oct. 20 before returning to the council.

The council and speakers repeatedly emphasized that the draft ordinance in the packet was not yet a final plan and that further detail on setbacks, buffers from residential areas and proximity to water supplies would be expected before any formal vote.