Amherst holds public hearing on zoning rules for battery energy storage systems

Amherst held a public hearing July 6 on a proposed local law to add a new section to chapter 203 of the town zoning code to regulate battery energy storage systems (BESS), a planning official said.

Daniel Tchaoski, assistant planning director, introduced newly hired assistant planner Greg Dion, who described the proposed text amendment (new section 612) and three tiers of BESS: Tier 1 accessory residential systems (around 100 kilowatt-hours), Tier 2 commercial accessory systems, and Tier 3 principal/utility-scale installations (over 600 kilowatt-hours). Dion said the amendment would allow smaller accessory systems in all zoning districts with only building and electrical permits, while larger, principal-use installations would be limited to the General Industrial and Research & Development districts and would require major site plan review.

"So what are battery energy storage systems? They're essentially clusters of batteries that provide backup power to either a specific user or to the electrical grid," Dion said during his presentation, explaining both grid-scale and accessory uses.

Why it matters: Dion cited New York State's energy storage target (6,000 megawatt-hours by 2030) and said NYSERDA and utilities have put significant incentives and projects into motion. Staff described both the potential grid resiliency benefits and the increasing development interest that prompted a local regulatory framework.

Key provisions presented: Tiering based on capacity; a 500-foot minimum setback from residential zoning districts for principal-scale installations (reducible by the planning board if a hazard mitigation analysis supports a smaller buffer); a 100-foot setback from roadways; required emergency management plans signed off by local fire inspection offices; acoustical and air-quality assessments when near sensitive uses; fencing and landscape screening; decommissioning plans reviewed by the town attorney; and a surety bond (staff described a bond requirement to cover decommissioning costs).

Board questions focused on safety, timing and process. Supervisor Lavin pressed staff about whether the new rules would delay projects and whether the town has capacity to handle site-plan reviews. "I'm a major fan of predictability," Lavin said, noting concern that new regulations not add undue time to projects. Dion and Tchaoski said the standards are intended to make reviews more predictable, not slower, and that the planning staff aims for review timelines near 90 days for complete applications.

Safety and technical questions: Board members asked about fire hazard history, cooling and water use, noise and the potential for installations in flood-prone areas. Staff said modern battery-management systems and recent fire-code updates have reduced many historic risks and that internal cooling systems typically do not use potable water. On acoustics, staff said inverters and power conversion equipment can produce humming and requested acoustical analyses to be included in site plans so mitigation can be documented if needed.

Public commenters raised siting, failure plans and disposal. Resident Tasha Holland asked explicitly, "how long do the batteries typically last, and what are the plans to dispose of them after the fact?" Staff answered that decommissioning plans and surety bonds are required and that the town would expect removal and site restoration at end of life.

Staff also showed a developer’s possible project at the corner of Worley and Youngs — a 10-megawatt, 40-megawatt-hour example — and emphasized the difference between output (megawatts) and capacity (megawatt-hours) when discussing service duration and scale.

Board action and next step: Supervisor Lavin said staff should consult with the town attorney about adding a five-year review or similar refresh clause because technology evolves quickly. The board left the public hearing open, voted to adjourn the hearing to allow additional written comment, and set a decision/vote for the July 21, 2026 town board meeting.

The hearing record shows staff will require emergency management approval from fire officials, an acoustical analysis where relevant, and a decommissioning plan with financial surety as part of site-plan review for larger installations. Any applicant seeking a reduced setback must provide a hazard mitigation analysis that convinces the planning board the lesser setback will protect public health, safety and welfare.

Provenance: The presentation and board Q&A appear beginning with the staff introduction and slides (topic introduced SEG 119–SEG 137) and continue through staff responses and public comment (topic discussion and public hearing adjournment SEG 119–SEG 903).