Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

All right. Ladies and gentlemen, good evening and welcome.

to the September 1st, 2020-26 meeting of the Rome Planning Board. I'd like to call the meeting to order. And the meeting is called to order. Gonna review our first item on the agenda is review and approval of the 11 August, 2026 meeting minutes.

Make a motion to approve the 2nd of all those in favor.

I all those opposed motion carries unanimously. I'm going to press pause and rewind real quick. I forgot introductions Marcus on the chair vice chair. Joe is here. Eric Gonzalez, David Smith, Brittany is not here this evening. To my left your right? We have Garrett Wyckoff from community economic development. Jim Rizzo from corporate counsel for the city attorney, and Danielle Salisbury from community and economic development. We hit item 1 on the agenda. Item 2 is upcoming meetings. This is a public service announcement. Our dates are set. It's usually the first Tuesday of every month. We set them in December of the year prior. Our next meeting is the 6th of October and then the 3rd of November. There's holidays and things. Tax Grievance Day, we sometimes don't do the first Tuesday of the month. So we just put a public notice. These were decided in December of 2025, just public notice the next two meetings.

I'd like to make a motion. Yes. Um, I'd like to rearrange agenda and we move item five, six and seven up three and four down.

Can we get a second?

All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed motion carries unanimously. Okay. So for the time being, we're going to bypass items three and four. We're going to come back to them later. Um, item five is, uh, five and six go together, uh, environmental seeker review request by first source credit union to lot minor subdivision Rome Tabor road. And item six is the, uh, subdivision review, uh, request of that same property. We've got a motion regarding items five and six.

I make motion to remove items five and six from the table.

all those in favor aye aye all those any opposed motion carries unanimously Joe are you good no no I heard that but you had a look on your face I thought maybe no okay we're all good okay I just wanted to make sure okay petitioner for first source Byron Elias thank you gentlemen and lady what we have is a two lot subdivision

It's a 10.8 approximately acre parcel. And we'd like to cut off a 1.69 acre parcel, plus or minus. There's the picture. It'll have 266 feet of frontage. And it's a two lot subdivision.

Okay.

So wait. Five and six.

Environmental Seeker Review and then the subdivision. Okay.

Just got a question about the driveway. How's that driveway?

Right now, we're working on that. It'll be depending on what the DOT wants to do, but we have access. We have a permanent easement on the driveway for ingress-egress.

On the existing driveway. Yeah, are you trying to put another cut there, or are you going to continue to plan to use it?

We plan on using that, but we'll let DOT tell us if they want something different. Okay, thank you.

Yeah, the curb cut on the state road, they're probably not going to want to mess with that, right?

We did get a permanent easement for the existing driveway.

I guess just curiosity more than anything. Have you looked into water sewer powers everything look good you've done like a preliminary make sure the sewer line is adequate and i mean you're going to be a small load on water and sewer but i i have not done that but i know that there was an architect in syracuse that looked at the site i can't answer whether he actually looked at those items or not Yeah, I don't think it's germane to what's before us tonight, but before you get too far down along, just make a couple quick inquiries, make sure that, I can't imagine that you're just going to be a small office, power, water, sewer is going to be very minimal.

No, but it's an excellent point and we'll bring it to their attention.

Yeah, I just want to throw that out to you. Of course, of course.

We'll do that while we're in the due diligence phase.

Of course. Um, anything else you think you would need to tell us about, uh, environmental seeker is in front of us. Um, have you done anything in environmental seeker? I guess, you know, you're gonna, it's already an impervious surface. You're gonna put a building and.

We've had a, right now we've had a wetland study done. They're delineated. Our intent is to discuss with DEC how they'd like to handle it, but it looks like the site can stay out of the current hundred foot buffer, but we'll see. You never know until you know, but it's part, it'll be, we're going through the due diligence. We had an environmental phase one done. We found nothing. Okay.

And for what it's worth down the line, this would come for site plan review once things get further on, and it would be a separate seeker for the site plan. This is just for the division of the property, yeah? Right, right.

Okay. All right. Any other points you'd like to tell us on the seeker and the subdivision? I think we're good.

Today, like you said, it's just a subdivision. There's no application for a building yet.

Any board members who have any questions for Mr. Byron? I'll give an opportunity, members of the community. We're talking about items five and six on our agenda. Environmental SECA review request, first source credit union, minor two lot subdivision 5781 Rome-Tayburg Road, and a subdivision review request, first source, and this is a minor, so it'll become a... After we approve here. Right. Okay. And a subdivision review request for two lot minor subdivision members of the community, non-heard, community economic development.

Proposed subdivision is compliant with minimum lot sizes and the dimensional standards for the C2 local commercial district. Our department recommends issuing a seeker negative declaration and approving the proposed plat as presented. Okay. GET A MOTION? WE'LL DO THE SEEKER.

OKAY. I MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO ISSUE A NEGATIVE EFFECT. SECOND THE MOTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. HOW ABOUT THE MINOR? MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

SECOND THE MOTION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL SEE YOU BACK NEXT MONTH, COUPLE, THREE MONTHS?

NO, IT'LL BE A LITTLE LONGER THAN THAT. Okay. Right, right. Good luck.

Battery energy? Yes. That's items three and four that we moved to the end. We wanted to get you. You're more than welcome.

Okay.

Yeah.

You're welcome to stay.

And regard to your project. Any questions? Get with Garrett.

Yeah, and he'll he'll get with us and we'll, you'll get a copy, you'll get a copy of the record decision and an action letter talking about next steps and all that tomorrow.

You're welcome. All right, item seven, site plan review request by Peter Jones for the construction, 7,250 square foot single story private landscaping equipment storage and maintenance building at 7871 Rome Westernville Road. And we don't have a seeker.

Correct. This item was before the ZBA for a use variance and an area variance. And the ZBA completed the seeker as part of that process.

Excellent. Petitioner? I think this microphone didn't... It's working. Whatever you're more comfortable. You can go in the back. You can come up front. And I think on that one, you're probably going to want to take it out of the holder because you're probably not going to sit at the desk. Wherever you're more comfortable.

I'm Aaron Kolb, architect for Peter Jones, 4349 November Lane, Syracuse, New York.

What was your name, sir?

Aaron Kolb. Aaron? Yes, sir. K-O-L-B. Thank you.

Yep.

So Mr. Jones is looking to construct a 70 250 square feet single story storage facility for his landscaping business that's immediately adjacent to this property. This would house his plowing equipment, trucks for the landscaping business. And then would have this would be kind of the back behind the curtain operations. So not really the public facing side of the nursery business. It would be more for employees, storage of his fleet of vehicles.

Okay, got the gravel drive and then the asphalt that was approved by the CPA, right? setbacks and everything are good um anything else you wanted to talk about the building the i guess the water all that is good it gets got an elevation here Is this oil water separator washroom for washing the vehicles?

Yep. So any oil that... Yeah, our engineer will have to design a system.

Tool room off to the side. So you have the main building, and then that's almost like a little extension roof for the tool room. Got a little head there for... Mechanicals, shop area.

three big roll-up doors and the rendering looks great looks really nice thank you uh they make colors and all that does that apply no no no there are no specific uh design requirements for colors or anything along those lines or striping in the same way that's a griffiths district uh thing thank you um

All right, so this is all what steel sided building ceiling. He had a little concrete knee wall. Board members any questions. Members community comment community economic development.

This project required and received variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for gravel parking slash driveway surfacing and for the proposed use within the R18 zoning district. The proposal appears otherwise compliant with the applicable zoning requirements. The ZBA completed the secret process for this project. We therefore recommend approving the proposed site plan as presented. OKAY. MOTION?

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. I THINK IT LOOKS REALLY NICE. YOU GUYS PUT A LOT OF THOUGHTS. AND I'D MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

I SECOND THE MOTION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. GOOD LUCK. HOW'S BUSINESS BEEN WITH ALL THE TRAFFIC AND THE... WELL, THAT'S GOOD. HASN'T HURT YOU TOO BAD?

SLOWED SOME DOWN A FEW HOURS, YEAH.

WENT THROUGH SCHOOL.

Well, good luck to you.

Yep. Thank you.

I think we're going to just leave it on the table for three and four. So now we're going to go back and hit items three and four. Our petitioner is joining us virtually. I think... Hello, Scott and Michael.

Welcome. Thank you. Can you hear me okay?

Yeah, we can hear you. How about the other mic check? Did we get a check on mic? Mic check on mic.

Can you hear me okay?

Yep. Loud and clear. Lima Charlie. All right. So I think we're going to leave these two items on the table, but let you all talk. And, you know, we'll kind of have a little dialogue and then kind of Figure out what we're going to do. So this is a secret review and site plan review request by land holdings, LLC, construction of approximately 4.97 megawatt battery energy storage system at 600 canal street.

So, yeah, so please go ahead. Okay, hello, as you know, my name is Scott with meter lane holdings in development. I guess I wanted to first start by thanking the planning board for the serious and thoughtful consideration it's given both our application and the broader question about how battery storage should be regulated. I understand that the Board recommended regulation rather than a complete prohibition and provided substantive recommendations to the Common Council, and I appreciate the effort that the Board invested in developing an analyst approach that would protect public safety while allowing responsible projects like ours to proceed. um tonight you know if the board and its council determine that the board has a lawful authority to act we would request that the board complete any secret determination um that it's allowed to make and in grant site plan approval with any condition that you guys feel necessary um in order to feel comfortable with the project So, you know, as you know, battery storage projects involve specialized fire safety, engineering, environmental, emergency response and utility issues. And properly addressing those issues requires coordination among engineers, equipment providers, safety experts in the fire department, National Grid and other agencies. We began the process of doing many of those things, including retaining experts in preparing that information early, because we wanted to respond thoroughly to every concern that you might have as raised by the board and city staff. As you can imagine, that work takes time, and while our goal is not to rush any technical review, we're also we're not our goal is also not to ask the board and not asking you to waive any fire safety engineering environmental building code or permitting requirement our goal here today is to ask you to preserve the project while allowing those requirements to be completed carefully through specific and enforceable conditions Um, we understand that ordinance for a, um, may not have been signed by the mayor. It may not actually be effective yet. And if the prohibition is not effective to might, might be the board's only opportunity to act on the pending application under the existing law before the legal landscape changes. So a favorable vote tonight could be critical to preserving our position project, uh, that the project was approved or remains entitled to. continue treatment under the law existing before the prohibition becomes effective. So I'm not suggesting that vote tonight automatically resolves every grandfathering or best of rights question, but if the board has lawful authority to act, postponing the action until after the prohibition becomes effective might eliminate an opportunity that exists now. So again, we're prepared. to to you know meet any conditional requirements that you have so like submission of final plans um you know having a conditional approval subject to submission of final plans final approval you know submission subject to final approval of those plans at a later date subject to approval by the fire department or fire marshal subject to compliance with all building fire electrical and energy storage codes subject to engineering approval with grading drainage stormwater containment utilities and access subject to final approval of equipment specifications and any other approvals that you might feel fit to require prior tests actually building the project okay um thank you scott for your your thoughtful comments i i appreciate the

uh, the kind words on, you know, what I wrote up and read into the record, uh, last month. Um, you know, again, I, I don't, to me, bands aren't, uh, my opinion as, as chair, not speaking for the board, but, um, you know, my opinion as the planning chair is, uh, Bans should be a final and last resort. And for lawful purposes, the code should address, contemplate, address and put restrictions in place that protect the interests of the community. You know, right now there's a lot going on. As you alluded to, the council has passed a ban and it's still in a 10 day period waiting on a decision by the mayor. So I think also at the last meeting we had asked for, I think it was three or four things like a fire safety plan, and generic plan.

Yes. So on all that.

Yes. Danielle, maybe can you find that quick? Eric, what documents it in?

If you go into the planning board projects and the folder on the reviews, you'll see our staff review memo.

I appreciate your patience while we look this up.

yes and i you know i don't know a little further discussion while they're looking for that i don't think it's i don't think

I don't believe there's any fire suppression, but I think we asked for an engineer.

Yes.

We'll see if we can call up what we asked for, because I don't recall exactly what it was. The fire department, I don't think, has equipment to... Yeah, they issued...

They wanted additional technical information and design requirements and issued... Basically... echoed what you should see on the screen in a moment here from the staff from UVM that we sent.

I think what the plan would be is a setback and then I think they would just contain while it burned out because I don't think, you know, we don't have any foam or equipment to be able to extinguish. I think this was a lithium ion project. But, you know, I don't think our fire department has any ability to deal with that other than from a perimeter to contain and let it exhaust again i'm not an expert but that's my uh

Scott, did you have any? That's correct. So first of all, as you know, we have a little bit of an unusual situation. So the reason that I didn't provide that information to the board is because we're in the process of getting experts that could give you very thorough versions of all of that type of thing. But in order to do it correctly and do it with even more weight, That takes time. So we were in the process of doing that. Obviously, given the unique circumstances of this matter, we came earlier than what we anticipated. But yes, that's correct. To my knowledge, and again, I always must preface with the fact that I am not an engineer and I'm not an expert. To my knowledge, they have... they are designed so that if there is a problem, there's individual components that are designed to be segmented from the other individual components. And then the whole unit as itself is designed to be segmented from the other unit so that it would essentially burn out.

Okay. So it's segmentation and protection and kind of minimize and mitigate to the maximum extent practical with like you said, you're not a engineer or designer of the system, but just your understanding, which is fair.

Yeah. And these, these are all UL rated, very widely used equipment in safer equipment that, that, uh, in, in what my engineers tell me are the safest equipment for this type of, of project that they have available. Okay. And that's the Tesla, the Tesla. Tesla Powerwall. Yeah, the Tesla.

Suggest additional comment, signage in accordance with BES model law.

Michael, I'm so sorry to interrupt. Michael, were you going to add something to that?

That's okay. I was just going to reiterate that we have this list of comments from the board, and we have a list of comments from the fire department as well. And since we were before you at a prior meeting, we've been working with electrical engineers and civil engineers to provide detailed civil plan and emergency response plan um to address all of these comments but as scott said that work takes time um and it's something we've we've been working through as best we can and um you know we have plans to provide all of this but of course with um with the recent um a ban that was proposed. That's why we're bringing this all up again tonight to assure that we will provide this documentation when it becomes available to us through our engineers. And we're not looking to bypass any of this, but just preserve the project and provide this information at a later date.

Yeah, I can understand and appreciate that. And it's a tough situation that you're in. But by the same token, without having this information and where we're at with legislation being passed and not yet signed by the mayor, I don't think it would be prudent for the board to vote on these considering the lack of information. And we're kind of in between legislative action being signed by the executive of the city. Oh, Joe? Yeah, I mean...

If you guys came with this information, you know, as you're looking for a boat, came with that information, I can see somebody coming to something. But I mean, and I understand why you didn't. You didn't want to spend the money because you don't know what the fate's going to be about. There's so many unanswered questions for us to get, you know, any type of information. Even on the site, none of them. Because it's so incomplete. There's too many questions to grant. In my eyes. And I don't agree with the council.

Their answer is to ban it completely.

I can't speak for everybody else, but the way that they came up with their answers. They just slapped it on them. Elaborate on what they're not banning. So I see your frustration, but this board can't act without that information being covered. And you've had quite some time to do it. You submitted on June. I mean, that was 90 days ago. I understand you've been going through a lot, but there's just too many unanswered questions. And I don't see any type of problem.

I apologize if I sound like I'm cutting you off when I'm trying to... The feed all of a sudden is a little bit hard for me to hear all the words. But what I wanted to ask is, again, our goal is not to push anything off, but our goal is to do everything the right way. And we could have came with something a lot sooner, but we wanted to get experts in every... People that... Paul Haney, You know, we want we just want to make sure that we did it, you know right and we still are planning, you know we still are planning on doing it fully, but is there any my question for for for the board is, is there any way that. you could you know is there any condition that we could put in there now that will preserve our right to do all those things for you so that you really don't have to worry about it not being done because you'll have full control over the project still but you're just saying hey we have a condition you know conditionally assuming that you we get all these things to our benefit um then we'll allow the project to go and to the entire board satisfaction right right um

Yeah, they would provide all those things to our satisfaction, but that's kind of so basically what are we giving approval to? We're giving approval for them to do what we asked for 90 days ago. Yeah, well, and then we never yeah. I'm really not comfortable. I think it can stay tabled.

There's no formal. automatic removal like there is for common council. Um, it can theoretically stay table for as long as the board is willing to entertain it. Historically speaking, the board has, has, uh, rejected without prejudice items which have sat on the table for six months without substantial progress. I don't know that that precedent would really necessarily apply here if the reason it hasn't moved is because of legislation as opposed to an action. And it's been three months.

I'm okay with leaving it on the table.

Well, I'll add in too if I can, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

So just to reiterate a few things, which I think the board is aware of, and I did have a conversation with Mr. Aronson yesterday and at his request, but he'd also he'd been trying to reach me probably for obvious reasons just to see what was going on with the legislation. We were unaware that the council was intended to act at their last meeting on Wednesday. And I only say that because I think there was some, as far as leaving this item on the table, Obviously, there was a moratorium in effect, but there was some optimism that they might have actually passed regulations in the meantime, actually passed legislation regulating these systems. So then there would really be no harm done as far as leaving it on the table. with that being said and as i told the board at the pre-meeting um my opinion is i i'm still um because it's just happened with the council um i was informed by the city clerk a few hours ago that to his knowledge the mayor it's still sitting on the mayor's desk um it hasn't been signed that we're aware of yet so the mayor does have a time period where he if 10 days goes by where he doesn't sign it it's a basically it's a veto period or it's a waiting period he could sign it the next day after the council meeting and it's effective it would be effective that day so you could sign it at any point um if he vetoes it then it would be a majority uh plus one of the council which is a five seven vote would be needed to override the veto um i'm not aware that that's going to happen i just mentioned that as a simple just what the what our charter says Um but if he um if the 10 days passes without his signature then it then it goes into effect automatically. So um that's my understanding is the time period that we're in so that technically the ban is not in effect at this point. Um with that being said um My recommendation would be for the board to, at least if you don't intend to act on it tonight, to keep it on the table. I certainly intend to do research much sooner than later. Basically, I've already been doing research, but it's quite a bit to take in being a new, this is the first one being proposed in the city of Rome. And there is a fair amount of case law out there, including some very recent cases. So it's definitely an evolving issue, as was mentioned earlier, that has become somewhat of a hot button issue throughout the state. and uh so with that being said i do think as far as the information you're provided of course then the board's discretion but at the same time being being such a new system with with really right now no clear regulations in place and we have state models at least to go by and things like that but but i do um i know the board generally does due diligence and i would just certainly encourage you know further due diligence as you go forward um before the main issue with approving things with conditions is you just you don't know exactly what's what's being done or how far out in the future that's going to be and that kind of thing or if the agencies come back if there's back and forth you know that they require more this and that then then it's somewhat beyond the board's control right as far as once it's out there um it just leaves a lot of unanswered questions for everyone, for both the community and the board and obviously the whole city administration. So with that being said, the legal status is somewhat, I'd say it's still in limbo, but at the same time, I know a decision needs to be made on the effect of the ban much sooner than later. But of course, once it's fully in effect, then we'll have, that'll force the issue much quicker as well.

Okay. Jim, thank you. That's very helpful. So yeah, I think we'll just leave those on the table till next meeting.

Is there anything in the site plan? My question is, come back with all those items.

Anything else that needs to be talked about?

Other than, I mean, did the decommissioning plan get talked about at all?

Yeah, we'd want to... A decommissioning plan was one of the items that was recommended as part of the comments. There are also a couple of comments that we provided related to landscaping, design of fencing. There's a requirement for a certain level of... Aesthetics for fencing in the waterfront district, which is what this is in the waterfront industry. None of those were addressed. We haven't gotten, there hasn't been any update to the doc, the drawings since the initial set that we received when they did their initial submission.

I just want to emphasize that, that, you know, we have been in, it wasn't like we just didn't listen and say, and didn't respond in time. We have been in, in constant contact with the city and, you know, in, in discussing stuff, but we. You know, we've again, you know, it was it wasn't originally our plan to come today, but given the circumstances, that's why we're here. So so, you know, it's we've been in contact with the city with actually significant amount of contact back and forth with the city in an attempt to get that. It's just, again, it hasn't been done. But again, it hasn't been done because we had certain insurances by the city that we could be tabled until a different point. Without those insurances, we probably, if we knew that there was an issue without those assurances, we would have probably worked to get you something a lot quicker.

And I will echo on here sort of to what Jim mentioned is that we didn't have any indication or awareness that the board, the council was attending to act on the prohibition prior to it. It caught me as off guard as I think it caught a lot of members of the board. So we, uh, in those discussions, I will confirm that they have been very responsive. They have been in an ideal scenario where we're not talking, you know, there, there aren't these deadlines from outside forces. They would come for a preliminary, like pre-review, uh, we'd give them this and they'd come back six months later, something like that with, with all the drawings, things along those lines. This is kind of a very unusual. timeline as a result of those external factors.

Joe, to answer your question, I would want to, you know, have them come and present again. It's been three months. We don't have answers to our thing, you know, to other questions that the recommendations we made last time. So basically.

meeting with them with you know work on that list and make the site plan you know it won't see you for 30 days it does get reversed or whatever you know what you have to work right you know the site plan is basically incomplete also you know pretty much but i appreciate you guys you know go ahead oh i'm sorry i didn't mean to cut you off

Thank you. We're worried about a scenario where we stay on the table with the plans to bring the requested information. And in that time, we're then subject to a ban.

Understood. Understood.

Yeah, totally understand that. nothing to nothing. We don't have anything. There's just not enough information. Your plan is too incomplete. There's too many. There would be too many stipulation put in there to give you a to give you any type of right. Right. It's just it's just too incomplete. If it was one item, one thing a lot.

Yeah. And I think we fully understand the situation you're in. It's It's very unfortunate, but yeah, I don't think us passing something here is the prudent thing to do at this point. So I think, yeah, we're just gonna leave those on the table, not take one.

Right. Right.

We could reject with or without prejudice, right?

Anything different than what you've presented already, Mr. Aronson or Atkinson? I want to give you fair opportunity.

I think we've given you time and heard you out. But yeah, there's no desire to move forward on a vote to approve as submitted.

We appreciate you hearing us out. And again, I can't tell you how much we appreciate your comments. And I understand your position. And I really hope we could come come to some sort of way where we could all work together. Cause I think that these projects are really important in, in really great for the area. So I, I, I hope that this isn't the end of the road for us and, um, we'll do everything in our power to make sure that's not the case. And I hope we can work with you guys in the future.

Agreed. Um, thank you again for your kind words and good luck and, you know, you can exercise, you know, it's, it's all the process, right? The council does their thing. The mayor's gonna do his thing. and then you all can do your thing and seek remedies, and it's going to play out how it plays out. And there's not going to be any ill will here on my part. We'll look forward to things working out favorably, and we'd like to address the project on its merits. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you.

If no more comments, we'll do a motion to adjourn. I just want to go on the record with one thing. In our pre-meeting, talked about ban on battery systems. And I basically want to ask the council on the record, does the ban mean people's houses with battery systems?

Does it mean Tesla charging stations?

You know, the ban was just basically slapped in there with no information with it. And I have another question because I still can't get the answer is why it got to the point of a ban versus, you know, Put stipulations on it. How did it get right to the ban immediately from a six-month moratorium directly to a ban? Because there was no discussion at the council meeting that I watched. So I'm asking them to basically come forward to the public and let us know how we got there. and what the ban is what are they banning are they banning batteries completely are they banning you know battery systems that are on solar in the future are they banning you know people put solar panels on their house and have batteries in their house because the way it looks the band bans everything completely so i just want some clarification and that's why i wanted to ask on the record because i could not get that answer okay well mr chairman if i may

I'm not sure if I could give a clear answer because I'm not an engineer either, but I do have a copy of the prohibition in front of me. And there is wording. It does give a definition of tier one and tier two battery energy storage systems. And it also does exempt the ban on Tier one is defined as having an aggregate energy capacity less than or equal to 600 kilowatts. And if in a room or enclosed area consists of only a single energy storage system technology. And tier two systems are defined as having a capacity greater than 600 kilowatts or are comprised of more than one storage battery technology in a room or enclosed area. Now exactly what that applies to, I can't go further than that. But it also does exempt existing battery energy storage systems. So anything that currently exists shall be considered pre-existing non-conforming uses. And those systems shall not be expanded or modified in any manner, including but not limited to increases in their energy capacity. So that's and I can provide a copy of the ordinance that was passed by the council. But those are the only definitions that are in place.

So so it does ban prohibition is on both tier one and two though, right?

Uh, Correct, correct. A battery, the BESS, shall be defined as one or more devices assembled together capable of storing energy in order to supply electrical energy at a future time, not to include a standalone 12-volt car battery or an electric motor vehicle. so those two things are exempted um and then it's classified then it defines the tier one or tier two systems and then it goes on to say that the those systems shall be prohibited from being cited established or constructed in all zoning districts in the city of rome maybe i'm completely missing it but would that include cell phones then under that no well it doesn't include cars it doesn't include car batteries it doesn't include 12 volt batteries but a cell phone battery is neither a 12 volt battery nor is it a car battery well i i believe would have to follow within the tier one or tier two definitions on there but but again i i wasn't involved in the drafting of this so i can't say right where that where this even was derived from i just wasn't i wasn't the attorney involved Thank you. You're welcome.

Yes, thank you, James.

Make a motion to adjourn?

Second.

Second the motion.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries unanimously. We are adjourned.