Planning Board Meeting Minutes – BESS Application

Based on the excerpt provided from the Town of Islip Planning Board proceedings for the November 30, 2022 meeting regarding KCE NY 29, LLC (PB 2022-028), 220 Rabro Drive, Hauppauge.

Project Overview

• Applicant: KCE NY 29, LLC / Key Capture Energy (represented by John Anzalone, Harris Beach, PLLC).

• Location: 220 Rabro Drive, Hauppauge (SE corner of Rabro Drive and Wheeler Road / Route 111).

• Request: Special Permit for a Tier 3 Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) under Town Code §68-456(F)(3).

• Additional request: Waiver of fencing requirements under §68-456(G) to allow a 12- foot visual/sound barrier wall; site plan modifications may also be requested.

What the Applicant Presented

• Interconnection: Project would tie into LIPA’s high-voltage grid via an underground connection to the existing LIPA substation north of the site across Rabro Drive.

• Purpose/justification: Applicant argued siting is constrained by the need to be near high-voltage transmission, substations, and load centers; stated project benefits include grid reliability, renewable integration, and peaker replacement.

• Company experience: KCE described itself as developer/owner/operator with projects in NY; referenced state energy-storage goals and studies asserting cost and emissions benefits.

• Technology and safety framing: Described modules, sensors, battery management system (BMS), and suppression equipment; discussed remote monitoring and an unmanned facility.

• Site plan highlights (as described): Demolition of an existing office building; construction of a large BESS with 276 battery units and 35 power conversion system units; project substation and control building; perimeter 12-foot sound/visual barrier wall; landscaping buffers and drainage improvements; minimal expected traffic roughly one maintenance visit per month).

Planning Staff Report

• Site details: 6.5-acre Industrial 1-zoned parcel; proposed 150 MW Tier 3 system; tallest structures noted were lightning masts at ~55 feet.

• Operations: 24/7/365 operations; daily/weekly remote inspections plus periodic on- site inspections.

• Noise: Staff cited estimates that noise would comply with Town limits; background noise increase at residential receptors estimated at ~1–3 dBA.

• Wall/fencing waiver: Staff explained the code’s standard is a 6-foot fence with self- locking gate; applicant proposed a 12-foot wall (with some chain-link fencing still on portions of the site).

• Conditions to be refined: Staff recommended approval in concept but emphasized working out enforceable conditions, including superior landscaping, decorative exterior finish for the wall, and a site-specific (not generic) decommissioning plan; staff also suggested limiting the number/height of containers

Key Board Questions and Notable Answers

• Maintenance/Staffing: Board clarified the site would be unmanned; applicant said monitoring is remote and physical maintenance would be about once per month, typically 1–3 people, depending on task.

• Battery life & augmentation: Applicant stated ~20-year operational life with periodic augmentation every ~3–5 years to offset battery degradation, using preplanned pads and conduits.

• Commercial arrangements: Applicant stated there was not yet an executed purchase agreement/PPA; discussion referenced contracting opportunities through utility RFPs and/or NYSERDA.

• 55-foot structures: Clarified as lightning masts (not light poles) to meet electrical standards for high-voltage equipment.

• Sound levels: Chairman asked for on-site sound levels; engineer later stated loudest spot on site was about 75 dB; applicant agreed to provide additional written sound info.

• Decommissioning: Chairman pressed for a site-specific decommissioning plan as required by code; applicant acknowledged the submitted plan was generic and needed more specificity; discussion referenced the code-required decommissioning bond and incorporating responsibilities into covenants & restrictions (C&Rs).

• Monitoring location: Board member asked who monitors the site and whether it is local; applicant could not specify the monitoring location at that time (said NY or elsewhere) and was asked to provide that answer in writing.

Public Input

No public speaker cards were submitted and no members of the public spoke on the BESS application in the excerpt provided.

Procedural Outcome / Action Taken

• The Planning Board voted to keep the public hearing open for two weeks and reserve decision.

• Purpose of reserving: allow time to review emails received, work on a site-specific decommissioning plan, refine covenants & restrictions (C&Rs), and obtain a written response about where the site would be monitored from.

Key Takeaways

• At this meeting, the Board did not approve the project; it kept the record open and reserved decision.

• Two recurring issues were explicitly flagged on the record: (1) the need for a site- specific decommissioning plan (and related bond/C&R language) and (2) clarity on the remote monitoring location and security response.

• The applicant emphasized landscaping/sound-wall screening and code compliance, while the Board focused on missing specifics (sound details, decommissioning, monitoring).