Residents Push Back On Battery Site Near P.S. 128
By MOHAMED FARGHALY
mfarghaly@queensledger.com
With chants of “Protect our kids” echoing down 69th Place, residents and local lawmakers gathered Feb. 26 to denounce plans for a lithium-ion battery storage facility proposed for 64-30 69th Place, a site directly across from P.S. 128 and just steps from a daycare, preschool and animal hospital.
Organized by the Middle Village Property Owners and Residents Association, the protest drew families, elected officials and community advocates who argued that the proposed site is inappropriate for a dense residential neighborhood.
NineDot Energy, a Brooklyn-based clean energy company founded in 2019, began the process last April to build the facility. The company has developed similar shipping container-style battery storage sites across the five boroughs. According to government data, there are 83 such facilities citywide, including 20 in Queens.
The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority says battery energy storage systems capture and hold energy for later use, strengthening the state’s renewable energy grid. But residents raised concerns about safety, noise and transparency, pointing to a battery fire in Warwick, New York, that burned for more than three days in December.
Paul Pogozelski, president of the Middle Village Property Owners and Residents Association and a father of three, opened the rally by thanking attendees and police for issuing a sound permit.
“Let me be clear, we are not against clean energy,” Pogozelski said. “We are against the placing of a lithium battery storage facility in the middle of our residential neighborhood directly across from the school.”
He emphasized that Middle Village is home to “families, seniors and small businesses,” not heavy industry.
“NineDot Energy says this project is safe,” he said. “Fine, then let’s prove it.”
Pogozelski formally invited NineDot to attend an upcoming association meeting to provide “a full public presentation and answer questions, not pre-screened, but for both leadership and residents, because our community deserves real answers.”
He posed a series of concerns: Who would be responsible for emergency response and long-term environmental impacts if a fire broke out? Who would remove and dispose of batteries at the end of their life cycle? If the company were to go under, would there be a reserve fund for removal? Who would pay for property damage?
“These facilities have fans that run all day and transformers,” he said. “This is going to be a noise complaint from all the neighbors that live right there. It’s going to be a hindrance to our children as well.”
He also criticized what he described as a lack of outreach.
“While permits were being filed and plans were advancing, our community was told nothing, no public meetings, no notice, no transparency,” Pogozelski said. “That is not representation, that is silence.”
Raimondo Graziano, chief of staff to State Sen. Joseph Addabbo Jr., said the opposition is focused on location, not the technology itself.
“We are here today because location matters,” Graziano said. “We are opposed to the siting of this facility directly across from P.S. 128.”
He noted that proposed battery storage systems must meet strict safety standards and receive FDNY approval.
“This is not about questioning the legitimacy of the technology. It is not about using charged language, and it is not about opposing clean energy,” Graziano said. “It is about siting.”
Battery storage, he added, is part of the state’s broader energy strategy. “We need reliable power. We need a modern grid. But that does not mean every proposed location is appropriate.”
Placement adjacent to a school community, he said, should face a particularly high threshold.
“Parents deserve to feel comfortable. Educators deserve clarity. Residents deserve meaningful input before major infrastructure is placed in their immediate environment,” Graziano said. “This is not the right location.”
Council Member Phil Wong echoed that message, framing the rally as a direct appeal to city officials and the company.
“We’re here to deliver a really simple message that we don’t want a lithium ion battery plant here. We don’t want it. It’s that simple,” Wong said.
He criticized what he described as limited public disclosure under the city’s zoning and permitting processes.
“They don’t have to tell us anything if they have the permits,” Wong said. “So why are we here? Because we don’t want it.”
Wong cited the presence of P.S. 128, a nearby annex where teachers are trained, a pre-K center and an animal hospital.
“All it takes is one incident to burn down this whole neighborhood,” he said. “FDNY cannot even put them out. They just let them burn.”
Wong said he has met with federal, state and local officials, including members of Congress and the borough president, and that a joint statement opposing the site was issued. He added that a constituent has proposed purchasing the lot from NineDot at “dollar for dollar,” and that alternative vacant sites near the Brooklyn-Queens border have been offered.
“So far, they’re in good faith,” Wong said of the company. “They are negotiating. They’re still talking.”
For some parents and local community members, the issue is personal.
Rick Saleh, who attended the rally with his daughter, said he learned about the project only a week earlier.
“My kids literally go to school across the street,” Saleh said. “How something that could affect kids so bad is being slid underneath the carpet without nobody knowing about it, this should have never even been a thought in anybody’s idea, whether it’s the people that are buying the property to build it or the people that are approving them to do it.”
Cynthia Stubbs, a Maspeth resident who works as a tax preparer and could not attend because of work, said she was struck by what she viewed as a lack of school representation. “I thought that was very strange,” she said, referring to the absence of school officials despite the project’s proximity to P.S. 128. Stubbs said she does not believe the facility belongs “in such a residential neighborhood” and has sought more information about potential alternate sites mentioned by Council Member Phil Wong. After calling his office to request a list of proposed alternatives, she said she was told the request would be passed along. “I don’t think they’re going to make that list available,” she said. “I don’t think they want to be that transparent.”
Linda Lena, a longtime Middle Village homeowner who owns two properties and helped her son purchase a home near the proposed site, said her concerns are both personal and practical. “I’m really concerned,” she said, noting the location directly across from a school. A teacher herself, Lena questioned why no school officials appeared at the rally and said she contacted the school seeking clarity on its position. “There’s something going on,” she said, adding that she has encouraged others to email administrators.
As the rally concluded, organizers repeated their central demand: move the facility to a more industrial area and provide greater transparency.
