Westfield City Councilor Nicholas Morganelli discusses a proposed amendment to the zoning laws aimed at restricting lithium battery energy storage sites in Westfield.
Photo credit: Westfield Community TV
WESTFIELD — The gallery was filled at the Westfield City Council meeting on March 6, for the continued public hearing on an amendment to city zoning laws aimed at restricting lithium battery energy storage sites in Westfield, and prohibiting them in the Water Resource Protection District.
Councilor Nicholas Morganelli began the discussion at the hearing by asking if all of the public in attendance were there for the hearing. A show of hands confirmed that they were there for the amendment.
Morganelli said the purpose of the amendment to the ordinance is to add a definition of battery energy storage systems, which are a relatively new technology and not included in local zoning ordinances. The amendment also requires a special permit and 150-foot buffer in Industrial A from any property lines, and lists BESS as a prohibited use in the Water Resource Protection District.
Morganelli said the Planning Board had recommended increasing the buffer zones in Industrial A from 150 feet to 1,000 feet from any property line, which he said could be discussed in committee. He said some communities have done more than that, requiring buffer zones of a quarter mile and a third of a mile. He said other communities have also specified where lithium batteries can be stored or where these energy systems can be located.
Morganelli said the main concern is the toxic chemicals in the batteries that are dangerous when they catch on fire and can spontaneously combust. He said the city’s Fire Department is concerned about the safety issues “because there’s no way to put these fires out. It’s a chemical fire, and really doesn’t need oxygen to keep going. It’s just a chemical reaction and it’s going to burn and burn and burn and emit toxic chemicals, not to mention that they burn very hot as well.”
Morganelli also said the amendment does not refer to any particular business or any battery energy storage system that’s been proposed, but is intended to make sure that local zoning covers the new technology. He said his objective was to close the public hearing and refer the zoning amendment to the Zoning, Planning and Development Committee and to the Law Department. “We need to do what we can do as a City Council to protect our residents,” he said.
Councilor Dan Allie then spoke, holding up a photo of a burning battery energy storage site in another location, and said the fact that battery energy storage systems were not listed as a permitted use in Westfield zoning was enough to seek an exemption from the Department of Public Utilities.
Allie also said that fumes from a lithium plant fire can travel 35 to 50 miles, and due to the valley’s topography, smoke and air pollution from such an event would spread across the surrounding areas due to the low elevation. “We’re not going to confine it … I don’t think any special permit would make it a safe use,” he said.
Councilor Kristen Mello said she was concerned that the amendment refers only to battery energy storage systems and not other uses for lithium batteries, such as backup energy systems for power. “I just don’t understand how we would allow large amounts of lithium batteries in Westfield without the proper fire suppression technology. We can’t put these out. They just have to burn themselves out,” she said, and asked City Planner Jay Vinskey how much latitude the council had in adding to the amendment.
Vinskey said the zoning amendment was crafted for standalone facilities and did not consider backup systems, which he said is another issue that could be explored in the future, but would require another public hearing and rewrite.
Vinskey also responded to an earlier question from Brent Bean as to whether passage of the amendment would impact any current projects. He said generally a zoning ordinance will apply to any future project that does not have its permit in hand. “Once it’s been noticed and advertised as this has been, any future system will have to conform with whatever comes out of this,” he said.
Councilor Ralph Figy said the reason the public hearing was continued was to hear from Westfield Gas & Electric, to make sure the amendment doesn’t have unintended consequences in their work.
Karen Fanion, chair of Zoning, Planning and Development, said she had reached out to Joe Mitchell, assistant general manager at WG&E. “I did let him know that there was a question raised about this proposed ordinance and how it would affect the Westfield Gas and Electric, and he said that they were fine with the way it’s being proposed,” she said.
Opening the hearing to the public, many of the residents in attendance expressed their gratitude to the councilors for taking action, as well as their opposition to locating battery energy storage projects in Westfield.
Among them were former Councilor Marianne Babinski, who said the amendment prohibits the storage systems over the aquifer, but she would like to see it strengthened to include any part of the aquifer. She said other prohibited uses, such as self storage systems have been allowed when the site is only partially over the aquifer. She said restrictions should apply to the entire lot to remove the possibility of a special permit exemption which weakens protections to the zone.
Barbara Rokosz, a resident of Lockhouse Road and longtime advocate for environmental concerns on the north side, said the city seemed to always be trying to fix its ordinances around the aquifer. “Why don’t we pass an ordinance that says no building whatsoever over the aquifer or in any recharge area? We’re putting money ahead of our safety and our water’s quality. Let’s pass one so we don’t have to think about this anymore. No building period. Thank you,” she said.
Fred Connor, a councilor in West Springfield, also returned to express his opposition to siting a battery energy storage system in Westfield, which he said could impact his town as well as the whole area. He said he would not be opposed to a moratorium, and also suggested that Westfield consider prohibiting lithium batteries in favor of less dangerous alternatives.
After a second show of hands in the room indicated that there was no one to speak in support of siting a battery energy storage site in Westfield, remaining residents who had not spoken were invited to sign a paper indicating their attendance at the hearing. The public hearing was then closed.
Before the vote to refer the amendment to committee, Rick Sullivan asked the committee to ask the Law Department if the final draft of the amendment is too restrictive. “We have run into this problem in the past … where you totally prohibit it anywhere in the community, does it therefore strengthen the hand of the applicants moving forward … because the city basically banned it,” Sullivan said.
The council then voted unanimously to refer the zoning amendment to the Zoning, Planning and Development Committee and to the Law Department.
