Cheektowaga ZBA tables use‑variance for proposed battery storage at Superfund site

The Cheektowaga Zoning Board of Appeals on Nov. 19 tabled a request from AC Power, on behalf of the property owner Ingersoll Rand, for a use variance to install a battery energy storage system on roughly 1 acre of a remediated Superfund property at 3695 Broadway.

Project counsel Peter Sorgy told the board the company seeks a use variance because the privatized battery storage use is not defined or permitted in the town’s manufacturing/light‑industrial zoning code. Project representatives said the installation would occupy a small footprint — “barely 1 acre” of an approximately 7‑acre site — and that the system would store electricity to relieve demand on the grid during peak hours.

Residents raised safety and neighborhood concerns throughout the hearing. One resident pointed to a recent fire in nearby Lackawanna and said, “I’m concerned… I don’t want it in my backyard,” while others asked whether the project would worsen contamination on a Superfund parcel and whether local emergency services would receive training. An owner of nearby property also asked about potential impacts to property values and noise.

AC Power’s technical representative described multiple layers of safety and monitoring planned for the project. He said the developer intends to use lithium‑iron‑phosphate chemistry rather than the more flammable lithium‑ion chemistry, to enclose battery racks in fire‑rated containers with gas detection and automatic suppression inside the containers, and to run 24/7 remote monitoring so the fire department would be alerted to any anomaly. “These batteries… are not going to be lithium‑ion batteries,” the representative said, and added the company would provide training for local firefighters.

Board members and counsel noted that granting a use variance would not complete the project. The panel must still rely on separate approvals — including DEC sign‑off to change use at a Superfund site and town site‑plan review — before construction could proceed. Counsel for the applicant said the environmental advisory committee recommended a negative declaration for the variance only and that more extensive environmental and fire‑safety review would occur at site plan.

After public testimony and board questions, a motion to table the application carried. The board’s vote followed repeated requests from residents for additional detail and confirmation of outside approvals and emergency‑response planning. The applicant may return with further documentation; the board emphasized that zoning relief is only the first step in a longer approvals process.