Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grand Island planning board delays vote on draft battery storage ordinance after safety and drafting concerns
Summary
Board members questioned drafting, outside-contractor influence and technical gaps in a proposed battery energy storage law, including inconsistencies with NFPA 855/55 and unclear tier definitions; a subcommittee of board members and technical experts will reconvene to produce a consolidated draft before further action.
The Grand Island Planning Board spent its longest discussion of the night on a draft battery energy storage ordinance (referred to in the meeting as the 'Grand Island Reset' or battery storage code) and voted to table formal approval while a smaller working group and town staff consolidate redlines and reconcile standards with national fire and safety codes.
Members raised several substantive concerns: inconsistent definitions (tier two and tier three read the same in the current draft), lack of clarity about whether larger facilities are a primary land use or accessory use, inadequate cross‑references to existing solar law and zoning chapters, and the need to require specific NFPA standards and professional certifications. "If we don't do something, they will be permitted with no regulation whatsoever," said Dave, a planning board member, summarizing why a local regulatory framework is needed.
Technical speakers including a representative from CAB and others said multiple sections of the draft are inconsistent with NFPA 855 and NFPA 55. They urged the board to require a commissioning plan, hazard‑mitigation analysis, an emergency‑response plan, pre‑construction certification and a post‑construction commissioning report signed by a licensed New York State professional engineer. The CAB representative said the current draft both omits required NFPA items and in places contradicts the standard, and recommended the town adopt clearer third‑party review requirements for complex installations.
Board members also discussed siting and zoning: the town's existing solar code uses a 500‑foot separation from residences for solar parks, and members questioned whether large battery facilities should be permitted in residential districts. Noise limits, visual impacts, fire department notification and maintenance/operational reporting were raised as items that must be tightened. Several members recommended that tier two and tier three not be permitted in residential districts, and asked the town attorney to clarify how the draft should supersede or interact with Chapter 296 (solar law) and Chapter 407 (zoning) where battery provisions overlap.
Given the number of unresolved technical and drafting issues, the board agreed to form a small subgroup of planning members, technical experts and town staff to produce a single consolidated draft that incorporates NFPA requirements and clarifies definitions and siting. The item was tabled until that draft can be reviewed and likely will return at a future meeting; members suggested a public hearing would be required before final adoption.
