Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Storage Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mount Kisco ZBA upholds inspector's finding that proposed battery system is not a public utility, 4-1; hearing continued to Sept. 17
Summary
The Mount Kisco Zoning Board of Appeals on July 16, 2024 upheld the Building Inspector’s determination that New Leaf Energy’s battery energy storage system is not a public utility by a 4-1 vote and continued the hearing on the project to Sept. 17, 2024.
The Mount Kisco Zoning Board of Appeals on July 16, 2024 voted 4-1 to uphold Building Inspector Peter J. Miley’s determination that New Leaf Energy’s Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) at 333 N. Bedford Road is not a public utility, a ruling that affects how the project is treated under the village zoning code.
Attorney Robert Gaudioso of Snyder & Snyder LLP presented on behalf of North Bedford Energy Storage 1, LLC and discussed a recent order and competing definitions for “public utility.” Gaudioso and New Leaf Energy representatives Corina Solis and Nick Petrakis were present for the board’s review. No public comments were received at the hearing.
Member Jacqueline Broth moved to uphold the Building Inspector’s determination; Member Ken Goldberg seconded. The motion carried 4 to 1, with Member Alex Roithmayr casting the lone dissenting vote. The board’s action affirms the inspector’s finding that the applicant’s BESS does not qualify as a public utility for zoning purposes, as recorded in the meeting transcript.
Village Counsel Lisa Cobb provided an explanation of existing standards relevant to the board’s decision. Attorney Gaudioso addressed safety considerations for the BESS; Building Inspector Peter J. Miley told members that the project has not undergone a substantial review beyond the question of use in the zoning district. After the votes, Member George Hoyt moved to adjourn the hearing on this application to September 17, 2024; the motion carried 5 to 0.
The board’s determination on the public-utility question resolves an interpretive threshold that will shape any subsequent review; the transcript does not record final approval of construction plans or permits, only the interpretation and the continued hearing date.
