A proposal to build a battery energy storage facility at 1281 Pulaski St. drew skepticism from members of the Riverhead Town Board Thursday, with concerns centering on the project’s proximity to neighboring homes and a proposed access road within the town wetlands jurisdictional area.
The proposal, known as Pulaski Street Storage, calls for construction of an approximately 5-megawatt, 20-megawatt-hour battery energy storage system on a 1.03-acre parcel at the corner of Pulaski Street and JT Boulevard in the town’s Light Industrial zoning district. The project is a standalone use, not part of a solar project or another development on the site. In the town planning staff’s review, the battery system is described as the principal use of the property, not an accessory use.
The proposal was first aired in April 2024, as previously reported. At the time, planners said processing and review of the plan would be delayed while the town worked to conclude its comprehensive plan update. Senior Planner Matt Charters told the Town Board Thursday that the application has been under review since last year and was referred out for agency comments in June and July 2025.
Charters told the board the application requires special permit approval from the Town Board and site plan approval from the Planning Board. He said the battery infrastructure itself is not proposed within the town wetlands jurisdictional area, but the gravel access road is.
Planning staff recommended moving the access driveway to Pulaski Street, rather than JT Boulevard, to remove it from the wetlands jurisdictional area. The staff report says the applicant must also provide a letter of non-jurisdiction from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Council Member Bob Kern said he was surprised the Conservation Advisory Council had not pushed the project farther from the wetlands.
“I don’t want it near the wetlands,” Kern said, adding that he was surprised the advisory council had not sought to move it farther away.
“I definitely am not thrilled about the road in the wetlands,” Supervisor Jerry Halpin agreed.
Council Member Joann Waski raised concerns about the project’s proximity to homes near the site.
“I do not think that this project belongs on this property so close to the neighboring residents of the town,” Waski said. “It does not belong right outside of a neighborhood.”
Planning staff noted in the review that the property abuts parcels zoned for or containing residential uses, with residences to the south. The staff report says the project meets the zoning requirements for side and rear yard setbacks, including where a battery storage facility is adjacent to residential property.
A representative of the applicant’s safety consultant told the board the nearest residential building is more than 300 feet from the nearest Tesla Megapack unit and said the equipment complies with New York’s 2025 code requirements for battery storage systems. He said Tesla has conducted extensive fire testing and that hazardous off-site gas concentrations would not be expected beyond the site boundary in the event of a fire.
Council Member Denise Merrifield questioned the impact of fumes on nearby residents should a fire occur at the facility.”
Nick Petrakis, an engineering consultant with Energy Safety Response Group, said there is “nothing exotic” about the smoke from a fire at a facility like this. He said air quality monitoring after fires at other battery storage facilities substantiates that.
Council Member Ken Rothwell questioned the timing and methods of the previous air quality monitoring. “Being so close to residential homes, what kind of air quality can we be absolutely certain of … the air quality is concerning … where it’s seniors and you already have people with pre-existing conditions, and if their windows are open on a July afternoon and this thing goes up… that’s a concern of mine,” Rothwell said.
Petrakis said air impacts are not substantially different from other structure fires.
Charters told the board the hazard mitigation plan has been provided to them. He noted that the updated New York State code is “probably the most robust in the country,”
“We’re putting this next to someone’s home … and so that is a greater concern of us, of something that could be moved that — and not inside a neighborhood — and that specific community is one that that is typically more affordable in our our community,” Halpin said. “And so I think that these questions are— I understand where the logic is going, but it does at the end of the day. I don’t think it’s landing, and so I think that we need to come up with something better…” Halpin said.
Petrakis referred the board to the manufacturer’s hazard mitigation analysis.
The town’s staff report says the Suffolk County Planning Commission recommended approval of the special permit and site plan, with conditions. Those conditions include obtaining any required state or local permits for construction of the temporary access road and ensuring stormwater runoff is managed on site.
The report also notes additional items still to be addressed, including relocating the access road out of wetlands jurisdiction if possible, revising the plans to reflect current zoning references and providing additional details on site equipment and approvals.
The application is expected to go before the Planning Board for site plan review as the approval process continues.
The survival of local journalism depends on your support.
We are a small family-owned operation. You rely on us to stay informed, and we depend on you to make our work possible. Just a few dollars can help us continue to bring this important service to our community.
Support RiverheadLOCAL today.
