Committee approves 16‑acre easement for battery storage project after contested SEQRA/lead‑agency debate

The committee spent an extended portion of its meeting discussing a proposed battery energy storage system (BESS) to be sited on roughly 16 acres of county‑owned property on Paradise Lane in the town of New Paltz. The package included two related resolutions: one (Res.297) asking the county to declare intent to act as lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and another (Res.298) authorizing an easement to KCEN NY5 LLC (Key Capture) to build and operate the facility.

Director Doyle and deputy staff briefed the committee on process options: the town could change zoning, treat the use as a permitted public utility, or consider a balance‑of‑public‑interest test that could grant zoning immunity. County staff said they had discussed the options with town officials and indicated the town had expressed a preference that the county act as environmental lead if the town pursued the balance‑of‑public‑interest path; staff also noted the apparent efficiency of the county acting as lead agency given county interests and regulatory touchpoints.

Legislators raised multiple concerns. Several members asked for clarity whether the proposed agreement granted an easement or a lease and how long exclusive rights and operational control would be conveyed; the committee amended draft language in both resolutions to replace the word "lease" with "easement." Members also asked whether the county, as landowner and potential recipient of revenue from the project, can be an independent lead agency. Director Doyle said the county has acted as lead agency on comparable infrastructure projects in the past but acknowledged the circumstances are unusual because the county owns the land and the private developer will receive the easement.

Opposition coalesced around process and perceived proximity. Legislator Bardi said she opposed the lead‑agency resolution because "I just think the county is too close to this and if I was a resident of New Paltz, I would want my elected town board to protect me." Another legislator asked for a county attorney opinion about whether the proposed document is legally an easement or a lease in substance, not just in title.

After amendment, the committee adopted the lead‑agency resolution with recorded no votes from two members who said the arrangement raised transparency and legal‑defensibility concerns. The companion easement resolution authorizing execution of the easement with Key Capture passed on a subsequent vote (members recorded some dissent on Res.298 as well). Committee discussion also covered tree clearing (the developer said the project footprint would need roughly six to eight acres and that mitigation or tree replacement could be discussed) and Brownfield Opportunity Program considerations for remediation and liability.

What’s next: County staff said they would continue permitting and study efforts, coordinate with the town on a balance‑of‑public‑interest petition if that avenue is pursued, and consult the county attorney regarding the legal form of the conveyance and conflict‑of‑interest concerns. Both resolutions will move to the full legislature for final consideration.