Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Battery Storage 118 Oakley topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board defers formal interpretation on battery storage; asks zoning board to seek fire and building-department conditions
Summary
A proposed 5 MW battery energy storage facility at 118 Oakley Avenue prompted the Planning Board to decline weighing in on whether battery storage constitutes a 'public utility' under local zoning and instead ask the Zoning Board of Appeals to request fire- and building-department submissions if considering a use variance.
The City of White Plains Planning Board on Feb. 18 reviewed a Zoning Board of Appeals referral about whether a proposed battery energy storage system at 118 Oakley Avenue is a "public utility" under the city's zoning code and whether an alternate use-variance path is appropriate. After hearing technical and safety testimony, the Planning Board voted to send a letter to the Zoning Board advising it not to weigh in on the interpretation but to request detailed submissions from the fire and building departments if the ZBA considers granting a use variance.
Robert Gordioso, attorney for the applicant (New Leaf Energy), said the company had an arrangement with Con Edison to feed energy into the grid and had filed both an appeal of the building commissioner's interpretation and an alternative use-variance application. Gordioso said several other Westchester facilities had been sited in recent years and that Con Edison had reviewed the proposal.
Paul Rogers, a consultant and former New York City Fire Department hazmat and code advisor, told the board that the regulatory and testing framework has evolved to limit propagation within a single cabinet if a battery cabinet ignites. "The whole goal is to make sure it doesn't spread outside the container," Rogers said, explaining testing standards and containment approaches used in recent installations.
Building Commissioner (Amadillo) told the board his department had submitted documentation to the fire department but had not yet met to discuss the specific Oakley Avenue location. The board’s legal counsel and staff noted the Zoning Board may request the Planning Board's advice, but the zoning board is the body that must interpret the ordinance or act on a use variance.
The Planning Board's formal action was to send a letter to the Zoning Board stating it would not offer an interpretation on whether the storage system is a public utility; instead the board recommended that if the ZBA considers a use variance it require specific submittals and conditions from the building and fire departments addressing life-safety, siting, access, monitoring, and operational controls.
The board also noted that any future site-plan or building permits would be subject to state and local fire and building codes and that the city may impose additional conditions beyond national standards as part of its review.
