Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grand Island board votes to apply environmental review process while drafting battery storage law
Summary
Following resident concerns that an early attorney draft omitted environmental protections, the Grand Island Town Board voted unanimously to follow the town's environmental-review process (referred to in the transcript as "Seeker") while developing a proposed battery storage law. Board members said further review will inform mitigation language before adoption.
Councilman Kilmer moved and the board approved a motion to apply the town's environmental-review process to the drafting of a new battery storage law, following public comment that the initial attorney draft lacked protections addressing fire, water and human-health impacts.
Why it matters: Residents and board members said an environmental review at the law-drafting stage would identify potential adverse impacts and allow mitigation language to be written into the ordinance rather than added later. That step, advocates said, could reduce the need for costly revisions to attorney-drafted text.
At the meeting, resident Jim Daigler urged the board to ensure "someone takes this proverbial hard look objectively and honestly to determine what are the potential adverse environmental impacts," saying a recent negative declaration for a solar project did not adequately address wetlands and other impacts. Council members discussed timing and whether the environmental-review step requires a draft law to exist before SEQR-type review can begin. Kilmer introduced the motion "that we follow the process of Seeker while implementing and developing this new law on battery storage." The board then held a roll-call vote; all voting members recorded aye.
What the board decided: The motion directs staff and the town attorney to ensure the town's environmental-review procedure is applied during preparation of the battery storage ordinance so that identified adverse effects can be considered and mitigated in the draft language. Board members said they will work with advisory boards and the town attorney to incorporate feedback in the next draft.
Next steps: Board members scheduled follow-up discussions with the town attorney, the planning board and the Conservation Advisory Board to review comments and produce a revised draft for future consideration. The board did not adopt the ordinance at this meeting and no final vote on the law occurred.
Attribution: Public remarks by resident Jim Daigler and statements by council members during the board discussion were recorded during the March meeting. The transcript repeatedly used the term "Seeker" to reference the town's environmental-review process; the board discussion indicates the review will be applied to the law-drafting process.
