Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Battery Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident warns board about fire risks of proposed battery storage near 430 Hurley Avenue; asks town to seek involved‑agency status
Summary
A resident presented a draft resolution urging the Town of Hurley to notify neighboring jurisdictions and oppose siting a large lithium‑ion battery storage facility at 430 Hurley Avenue, citing thermal‑runaway fire risk, proximity to residences and lack of nearby fire response; board members discussed SEQR involvement and follow‑up.
A Hurley resident urged the town to oppose a proposed large lithium‑ion battery storage facility planned near 430 Hurley Avenue, reading a drafted resolution and outlining safety concerns at the board’s public‑comment period.
Tim Kelly, who said he lives at 119 Griffin Drive, told the board he had distributed a draft resolution that urges the town to notify the Town of Oliser and local planning authorities that, while Hurley supports grid‑scale battery storage generally, the specific Coleman High School site at 430 Hurley Avenue is not suitable because of its proximity to residential zones. “This facility poses fire, explosion and environmental risk to the adjacent residential areas,” Kelly said, citing the risk of thermal runaway, a chain reaction in battery cells that can cause self‑sustaining fires that are hard to extinguish.
Kelly said he had discussed the matter with other local officials, prepared a white paper documenting incidents at other sites, and argued the site would better serve multifamily housing or light commercial uses. He noted the lack of a nearby fire substation and the town’s likely need to rely on mutual aid from neighboring communities in the event of a major incident.
Board members later discussed whether the town should seek “involved agency” status during environmental review (SEQR) for the project so Hurley could receive notice and comment on the applicant’s filings. One member urged the board to request involved‑agency status and to coordinate with the town of Bolster and county review staff; another suggested awaiting additional documentation before adopting a formal town resolution.
No final town resolution opposing the project was adopted at the meeting; the board asked staff to collect Kelly’s supporting materials and consider next steps, including possible involvement in state or county environmental review processes.
