Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Battery Energy Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents voice safety concerns over proposed Hartley Road battery storage; planning board review under way
Summary
At the Aug. 14 Town Board meeting, residents raised safety and aquifer concerns about a proposed battery storage project on Hartley Road; board members confirmed the application was referred to the planning board and not approved.
Residents urged caution on Aug. 14 about a proposed battery energy storage facility planned near Hartley Road, saying they remain concerned about safety, fire response and proximity to a local aquifer.
"I know everybody says it's safe, but I'm just really concerned about the unknown," Jen Evers, a resident, told the Town Board. Evers said Montgomery has a temporary ban on similar battery projects while officials there gather more information.
Board members and staff responded that the project had been referred to the planning board and that no approvals have been granted. A board member noted the town has not yet approved the proposal and emphasized the planning-board process remains underway.
Why it matters: Battery-energy-storage systems (BESS) are increasingly discussed at municipal planning boards as developers propose siting near residences and critical groundwater resources. Residents at this meeting specifically cited the site's proximity to an aquifer and questioned whether local emergency services and equipment are prepared to respond to a BESS fire or other incidents.
What was said: Evers described information she had reviewed asserting safety concerns and the need for more local review. She also said she understood units would be contained in enclosed storage containers but remained concerned about accidents or fire risk and long-term effects near an aquifer. Town officials clarified that the matter remains before the planning board and that no town approval has been issued.
What’s next: The application is under planning-board review. Board members indicated any future approvals would follow planning and permitting procedures; no vote or permit decision occurred at the Aug. 14 meeting.
