The board took up the agenda out of order. At the start of the meeting, the board voted to move the two battery storage items to the end of the agenda, and to bring the other items forward. The rest of the night's business was handled first.

First Source Federal Credit Union can split its Rome-Taberg Road property. The credit union asked to divide a roughly 10.5-acre commercial property at 5781 Rome-Taberg Road into two lots, carving out a 1.7-acre parcel with about 266 feet of road frontage and leaving 8.8 acres behind. The item had been tabled from August, when a board member's recusal left too few votes to act. First Source already has a Rome branch on Black River Boulevard and wants to build a second one here. The applicant's representative told the board the property has a permanent easement for access to the existing driveway, and that final arrangements will depend on what the state Department of Transportation wants. He said a wetlands study has been completed and delineated, that the project appears able to stay outside the 100-foot wetland buffer, and that an environmental Phase One study found nothing. Board members suggested he verify that water, sewer, and power capacity will be adequate before going further, though they noted it wasn't part of the night's decision. City staff said the proposed lots meet minimum size and dimensional standards for the C-2 local commercial district. The board issued a negative declaration (the finding of no significant environmental impact) and approved the subdivision. Any building would return later for a separate site plan review and its own environmental review.

A landscaping business won approval for a storage and maintenance building. Peter Jones received site plan approval to build a 7,250-square-foot, single-story storage and maintenance building at 7871 Rome-Westernville Road, next to his existing landscaping business. Architect Aron Kolb told the board the building would house the company's plowing equipment and truck fleet with three large rollup doors, a tool room, a mechanical shop area, and a wash area with an oil-water separator. The steel-sided building would stand about 32 feet at its highest point on a 7.2-acre lot, with seven passenger vehicle spaces and 21 spaces for landscaping vehicles. The Zoning Board of Appeals had already granted variances on August 5th for the gravel parking and driveway surface and for the proposed use in the R1-8 zoning district, and had completed the environmental review as part of that process, so no environmental review was needed here. The board approved it unanimously.

The battery project stayed on the table, with the ban awaiting the mayor's decision. Scott Aaronson, who has led the proposal for a roughly 5-megawatt battery energy storage system at 600 Canal Street, appeared by video along with a colleague. He thanked the board for recommending regulation rather than prohibition in August. He asked that because Ordinance 9884 (the citywide ban) had been passed by the Common Council but not yet signed by the mayor, he argued the ban was not yet in effect, and that the meeting might be the board's only chance to act on his pending application under existing law. He said he was not asking the board to waive any fire safety, engineering, environmental, building code, or permitting requirement, and offered to accept conditions covering final plans, fire department approval, code compliance, engineering review of grading, drainage, storm water and utilities, and equipment specifications. He acknowledged a vote would not automatically settle every question about whether the project could be grandfathered in.

Board members said the application was still incomplete. The board had asked in June for items including a fire safety plan and engineering details, and city staff confirmed the drawings had not been updated since the initial submission. Also unaddressed were a decommissioning plan and comments on landscaping and fencing design, which the waterfront industrial district requires meet a certain standard. Aaronson said the delay was because he was retaining experts to provide thorough documentation, that the work takes time, and that he had come earlier than planned because of the ban. He said the batteries are UL-rated equipment designed so that individual components and units can be segmented from one another if a problem occurs, while noting he is not an engineer. His colleague said they have been working with electrical and civil engineers on a detailed civil plan and emergency response plan. Board members responded that without that information, approval wasn't possible. Asked whether a conditional approval could preserve the project, board members said the conditions would effectively be approval to do what was requested three months ago. Staff said there is no automatic deadline for tabled items, though the board has historically rejected items without prejudice after six months without substantial progress. The items stayed on the table.

A city attorney explained where the ban stands. Assistant Corporation Counsel James Rizzo told the board the ordinance was still sitting on the mayor's desk as of a few hours before the meeting, according to the city clerk. Under the city charter, the mayor can sign it or veto it, which the Common Council could override with a majority plus one, described as a 5-to-7 vote. If 10 days pass without a signature, it takes effect automatically. Rizzo said that technically the ban is not in effect yet, that he is researching the issue including recent case law, and that this is the first such system proposed in Rome. He recommended the board keep the items tabled if it did not intend to act, and cautioned that approving a project with conditions leaves open questions about what will be done and when.

The chair asked the Common Council to publicly explain what the ban actually covers. Before adjourning, board members asked on the record for clarification from the council on how the city went from a proposed six-month moratorium directly to a full ban, and on exactly what the ban prohibits. They specifically asked whether it reaches home battery systems, solar-paired batteries, or car charging equipment. Rizzo, reading from the ordinance, said it defines Tier 1 systems as those with a capacity of 600 kilowatts or less using a single storage technology in an enclosed area, and Tier 2 systems as those above 600 kilowatts or combining more than one technology, and that the prohibition applies to both tiers in all zoning districts. He said the ordinance defines a battery energy storage system as one or more devices assembled to store energy for later use, specifically excluding standalone 12-volt car batteries and electric motor vehicles, and that existing systems would be treated as pre-existing nonconforming uses that cannot be expanded or modified. He noted he was not involved in drafting the ordinance and could not speak to how those definitions would apply in every case.