Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board agrees to place proposed battery and solar zoning laws on next agenda; public hearings to follow
Summary
After extended discussion on setbacks, safety testing and zoning structure for battery energy storage and solar projects, the Grand Island Town Board voted to place draft battery and revised solar laws on the next agenda for referral to the planning board and public hearings.
The Grand Island Town Board agreed to place draft battery-storage and revised solar regulations on its next agenda for referral to the planning board and eventual public hearings after an extended Q&A about safety standards, setbacks and infrastructure limits.
Bridget, who presented the draft language to the board, summarized zoning elements and technical requirements and sought the board’s feedback on whether to allow battery energy storage via existing zoning rules or to create an overlay district for renewable energy. “The main … things that I’m looking for feedback from you guys is where do you want them and how far back do you want them,” Bridget said, describing proposed setbacks between 100 and 200 feet for battery units depending on district and use.
The proposed battery law carried multiple technical and safety provisions carried over from the town’s existing solar standards: decommissioning fees and deposits, setback and lot-size rules (a one-acre placeholder in a draft for a particular district), and screening and emergency-response requirements similar to the solar code. The draft also proposes that applicants demonstrate compliance with established battery testing protocols used by New York City and FDNY for installations on buildings; Bridget said she included that requirement as a way to rely on an already rigorous testing regime rather than inventing a local standard.
Board members asked several safety and operational questions. A town official said the local fire department would not require additional specialized apparatus to respond to a battery incident but should receive education and training on thermal runaway and response procedures. An engineer recommended pads of compacted stone or concrete and a clear, low-vegetation perimeter to reduce fire risk; Bridget said tests and modern enclosures make runaways less likely and that many systems include compartmentalized cells and integrated suppression.
The board discussed how battery projects interconnect to the grid and how existing transmission and substation capacity limit project scale. Bridget said utility estimates for new substations can vary widely and cited ranges developers have reported (roughly $9 million to $42 million) if a project requires a new substation to interconnect.
Several commercial representatives and applicants were present during parts of the discussion. Jim Terrell of Rick Energy and others described potential project locations the town map shows as clustered areas. The board asked staff whether it makes more sense to use an overlay district — a special zoning overlay that would apply to a contiguous area — rather than handling approvals on an ad hoc, parcel-by-parcel basis.
After discussion, the board instructed staff to put the existing draft battery law and the proposed solar revisions on the next regular meeting agenda so the board can consider a referral to the planning board and set public hearings. No ordinance was adopted at the meeting; the board’s next step is referral and the public hearing process.
The board also discussed practical next steps for emergency responders and the potential benefit of having fire-department training and an industry presentation after referral to the planning board and concurrent public outreach.
