I. A Battery Storage Project Four Years in the Making
The proposed Fraser Energy Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) in the Town of Hamden, Delaware County, New York, is being presented to the public as a major energy infrastructure development intended to support electric-grid reliability.
According to the developer's project materials, the proposed installation would have a capacity of 125 megawatts and a four-hour storage duration, equivalent to 500 megawatt-hours of stored energy.
The facility would use lithium-iron-phosphate batteries and occupy approximately 33 acres of rural residential land at 552–682 Cobbe Cross Road, Hamden, New York 13782.
The project is being developed by EDF Power Solutions through Fraser Storage, LLC.
What the developer's public presentations do not fully explain is the history of the contractual arrangements through which EDF secured rights to this property years before Hamden enacted its battery storage zoning law.
An examination of recorded documents in the Delaware County Clerk's Office reveals that EDF obtained an exclusive, irrevocable option to purchase the proposed BESS property in December 2021.
The option was subsequently amended in November 2024, extending the developer's potential acquisition rights for additional years.
These agreements raise questions concerning the property's ownership, the developer's legal authority to pursue the project, the financial arrangements underlying the proposed development, and the responsibilities of the landowner who made the property available.
II. Who Owns the Proposed Fraser BESS Property?
The Town of Hamden's 2026 Final Assessment Roll, page 44, identifies the following property:
| Property information | Assessment-roll entry |
|---|---|
| Address | 552–682 Cobbe Cross Road |
| Tax Map Parcel | 191.-1-4.22 |
| Acreage | 38.12 acres |
| Property classification | Rural residential |
| Assessed value | $229,700 |
| Listed owners | Brett M. Miller and Thomas D. Parrotti |
| Deed reference | Book 1215, Page 30 |
The assessment roll identifies two owners.
However, one of them has been deceased for more than five years.
Thomas D. Parrotti died on February 14, 2021, according to his published obituary. The obituary identifies Brett Miller as his surviving husband.
To understand the legal significance of that fact, it is necessary to examine the original deed.
The 2008 deed: Joint tenancy with right of survivorship
On April 28, 2008, Archie L. Miller executed a warranty deed conveying the property to Brett M. Miller and Thomas D. Parrotti.
The deed was recorded on May 12, 2008, in Delaware County Deed Book 1215, beginning at page 30.
As to the signature on the deed of the notary public John F. Lambert, Esq. - PAY ATTENTION.
Attorney John F. Lambert, Esq. has been counsel for one of the parties to these underlying deed.
Since then, John F. Lambert, Esq. became the Otsego County Judge, and Acting Supreme Court Justice presiding over Delaware County Supreme Court cases.
Be aware that the 6th Judicial District assigns judges to cases even where the judge is a DEFENDANT in the case - I wrote about it on this blog.
Naturally, the District will not think twice before assigning Judge Lambert to a case where Judge Lambert was formerly an attorney on the underlying transaction and a material witness.
The District recently assigned such a witness-attorney-judge (Joseph A. McBride) to my case and refused to remove him.
Just be aware and raise the issue timely, otherwise the appellate division will tell you you "waived" it.
Back to the "BESS property" deed - it expressly identifies the grantees as:
“Brett M. Miller and Thomas D. Parrotti, as joint tenants with the right of survivorship.”
This language is legally consequential.
Joint tenancy by the entirety is 100% ownership of the property from the very beginning by both joint tenants. Thus, when one joint tenant dies, the other simply continues his ownership, and ownership of the deceased joint tenant is extinguished, no need for probate proceedings.
Accordingly, upon Parrotti's death in February 2021, Miller simply became the sole owner of the property.
No probate proceeding or new deed is necessary to effectuate that survivorship transfer. The only thing that would be needed is to take the deceased tenant off the deed - which was not done. I reviewed records in the online registry of Delaware County Clerk's office - there is no new deed filed.
Hamden's 2026 Final Assessment Roll continues to identify both men as owners.
The assessment roll thus appears not to have been updated to reflect Parrotti's death and the resulting change in ownership.
The discrepancy does not itself invalidate Miller's title. It does, however, illustrate why assessment records must be examined alongside the actual recorded conveyances.
III. December 2021: Miller Grants EDF an Exclusive, Irrevocable Option to Purchase
Less than ten months after Parrotti's death, Miller entered into a contractual arrangement with EDF Renewables Development, Inc.
The recorded Memorandum of Option Agreement to Purchase Real Property identifies:
Optionor: Brett M. Miller.
Optionee: EDF Renewables Development, Inc.
Property: Tax Parcel 191.-1-4.22, containing 38.12 acres.
Effective date: December 16, 2021.
Recording date: July 26, 2022.
Recording reference: Delaware County Clerk, Book 1720, Page 197, Instrument No. 5814.
The memorandum identifies EDF's right as an exclusive, irrevocable option to purchase the property.
That is a significant contractual commitment.
An option to purchase gives the option holder the right to acquire the property according to the agreement's terms and conditions.
An irrevocable option generally prevents the property owner from unilaterally withdrawing the contractual purchase right during its enforceable term.
An exclusive option also restricts the owner's ability to grant competing acquisition rights inconsistent with the option.
The option is not itself a completed sale. Title remains with the property owner until a conveyance occurs.
However, the option creates an enforceable contractual relationship concerning the property's future disposition.
The original option period
The recorded memorandum provides for an initial two-year option period, with three consecutive one-year extensions.
Thus, the original arrangement contemplated a potential five-year option period.
The Delaware County Clerk's indexing information identifies consideration of $40,000 in connection with the recorded instrument.
The memorandum does not disclose the complete financial arrangements, and the recorded consideration figure does not establish the amount actually paid to Miller or the ultimate purchase price.
Those terms are contained in the underlying Option Agreement, which was not included in the recorded memorandum.
IV. November 2024: EDF Obtains Additional Time
The contractual relationship did not end with the original 2021 agreement.
In November 2024, Miller and EDF executed a First Amendment to the Option Agreement.
A memorandum of that amendment was recorded in the Delaware County Clerk's Office on December 6, 2024, in Book 1803, Page 267, Instrument No. 9006.
The amendment expanded EDF's extension rights from three to five consecutive one-year extensions.
Together with the initial two-year period, the amended arrangement contemplates a potential seven-year option term.
Measured from December 16, 2021, that period could extend through December 2028, assuming the contractual extension conditions are satisfied.
The Clerk's indexing information identifies consideration of $125,000 associated with the amendment.
The memorandum also acknowledges changes to the financial terms of the original agreement.
However, those changes are not reproduced in the recorded document.
The underlying First Amendment remains essential to determining the actual payment obligations, option conditions, and contractual rights of the parties.
Can Miller withdraw from the agreement?
The word irrevocable has legal consequences.
If the option remains enforceable, Miller cannot simply cancel EDF's contractual right because he no longer wishes to sell the property.
If EDF properly exercises its option and Miller refuses to perform, EDF could potentially seek remedies for breach of contract, including specific performance compelling conveyance of the property.
The precise rights and remedies depend on the complete agreement.
Thus, by November 2024, Miller had reaffirmed and extended a contractual commitment concerning the proposed BESS property.
This occurred more than a year before Hamden enacted its battery storage zoning law.
V. The Developer's Property Rights Predated Hamden's BESS Zoning Law
The chronology of the property agreements and municipal proceedings deserves particular attention.
December 16, 2021: EDF's original purchase option becomes effective.
July 26, 2022: The option memorandum is recorded in the Delaware County Clerk's Office.
September 21, 2022: According to the developer's NYSERDA project summary, engagement with Hamden begins.
November 2024: Miller and EDF amend the option, extending its potential duration and modifying financial terms.
October 28, 2025: EDF representative Drazen Gasic appears before the Hamden Planning Board. The minutes record that EDF had already submitted a draft site-plan application for a BESS facility on Cobbe Cross Road.
November 25, 2025: Town Attorney Kevin Young reviews Hamden's proposed Battery Energy Storage Law with the Planning Board.
December 3, 2025: Hamden adopts its Battery Energy Storage Law.
December 16, 2025: EDF submits its site-plan and special-use-permit application materials identifying 552–682 Cobbe Cross Road as the proposed project location.
March 4, 2026: The Hamden Town Board approves an escrow agreement and conflict-of-interest agreement concerning EDF's project.
The March 4 conflict waiver acknowledges that Young/Sommer LLC represents both the Town of Hamden and Fraser Storage, LLC in specified matters connected with the development.
It authorizes the firm to continue providing Fraser with advice concerning environmental permitting and development while representing Hamden in its municipal review, subject to stated restrictions.
This creates a separate question concerning the independence of the Town's legal representation during the regulatory process.
The developer had secured contractual rights to acquire the proposed project site nearly four years before the BESS zoning law was adopted.
The public record therefore invites examination of how the Town developed its regulatory framework while the developer was already pursuing the project.
VI. The Complete Purchase Agreements Are Missing From the Recorded Instruments
The two documents available from the Delaware County Clerk are memoranda of agreements.
They establish the existence of the contractual relationship and disclose certain important provisions.
They do not reproduce the complete underlying contracts.
The original Option Agreement and its First Amendment would answer questions that the recorded memoranda leave unresolved.
What is the purchase price?
The Clerk's records contain consideration figures of $40,000 and $125,000, but those figures do not establish the final purchase price or the complete payment arrangements.
What must EDF do to exercise its option?
The recorded memoranda do not disclose the precise notice requirements, exercise procedure, closing conditions, or contractual deadlines.
Does EDF have rights to enter or develop the property before purchasing it?
The memoranda establish acquisition rights. They do not disclose the full extent of any pre-closing access, testing, construction, or development rights.
Can EDF assign the option to Fraser Storage, LLC?
The complete agreement would establish the relevant assignment provisions.
Are municipal approvals conditions of the purchase?
The recorded memoranda do not disclose whether EDF's obligation or decision to purchase depends on obtaining zoning, environmental, or other governmental approvals.
These questions are directly relevant to understanding the proposed development.
The complete agreements have therefore been requested from the Town of Hamden under the New York Freedom of Information Law, together with records establishing site control and landowner authorization.
VII. Why the Landowner's Participation Matters
The proposed Fraser BESS facility is not being developed on land acquired through an involuntary taking.
The recorded instruments establish that Brett M. Miller voluntarily entered into an agreement granting EDF exclusive contractual acquisition rights.
He subsequently amended that agreement to extend the developer's option period.
This places the landowner's participation squarely within the history of the project.
It also raises the question of potential liability for landowners who authorize industrial uses that may create foreseeable risks to neighboring properties.
A recent Texas appellate decision
On April 9, 2026, the Texas Court of Appeals issued its decision in Clements v. McBroom, No. 03-25-00442-CV.
The case arose from a proposed 200 MW battery energy storage facility on property leased by the McBroom landowners to a developer.
Neighboring property owners brought suit alleging that the proposed facility threatened their property interests through battery fires, environmental contamination, inadequate emergency-response capabilities, and other foreseeable hazards.
They sought prospective injunctive relief, including measures addressing fire containment, contamination prevention, and emergency preparedness.
The trial court dismissed their lawsuit.
The appellate court reversed, holding that the landowners had sufficiently pleaded a legally cognizable claim involving prospective nuisance and a potential entitlement to injunctive relief if their allegations were proven.
The decision did not establish liability or grant the requested injunction. It permitted the claims to proceed.
The Fraser transaction involves an option to purchase, while Clements involved a lease. The legal consequences of those arrangements differ.
Nevertheless, Clements demonstrates that courts are being asked to consider the responsibility of property owners who make land available for potentially hazardous battery storage developments.
The question deserves examination under New York's own nuisance and property law.
VIII. The Suffolk County BESS Fire: Why the Risks Are Not Merely Theoretical
The environmental implications of BESS facilities have already become the subject of litigation in New York.
On May 29, 2026, the Suffolk County Water Authority filed Suffolk County Water Authority v. East Hampton Energy Storage Center, LLC et al., No. 2:26-cv-03246-ARL, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The lawsuit arose from a May 31, 2023 fire at a lithium-ion battery storage facility in East Hampton.
The Authority alleges that chemicals associated with the fire and firefighting activities migrated through groundwater and contaminated public drinking-water wells approximately 2,500 feet from the facility.
The complaint identifies PFPrA, a PFAS compound, among the contaminants detected.
The Authority asserts negligence, public nuisance, trespass, and strict product-liability claims.
The allegations have not been adjudicated.
Nevertheless, the lawsuit provides a concrete example of the kinds of environmental and economic injuries that may follow a BESS incident.
For rural communities such as Hamden, where water resources, private wells, agricultural properties, and residential land uses are important, the potential consequences of fire, contaminated runoff, and groundwater migration warrant examination before a project is approved.
IX. The Questions Hamden Property Owners Are Entitled to Ask
The recorded documents establish that EDF has held contractual acquisition rights concerning the proposed Fraser BESS property since December 2021.
They establish that the landowner extended those rights in 2024.
They establish that the developer's contractual involvement preceded Hamden's adoption of its BESS zoning law.
And they establish that the complete financial and operational terms of the property agreements are not disclosed in the recorded memoranda.
As a property owner in the Town of Hamden, I am examining the potential consequences of this development for neighboring properties and the public environment.
The questions are straightforward.
What environmental safeguards will protect neighboring landowners?
Who will be responsible for contamination, fire damage, and other off-site injuries?
What financial resources will be available if the developer's operations cause substantial damage?
What rights has the developer already obtained from the landowner?
What conditions must be satisfied before the developer acquires the property?
And how has the Town ensured independent legal and environmental review of a project whose developer secured rights to the site years before the governing zoning legislation was enacted?
These questions concern property rights, contractual obligations, municipal government, and the protection of public resources.
They warrant answers while the project remains under review.
X. Conclusion: The Property Agreements Are Part of the BESS Story
The Fraser BESS project did not begin with its public presentation to the Hamden Planning Board.
Its documented property history extends back to December 2021, when Brett M. Miller granted EDF Renewables Development, Inc. an exclusive, irrevocable option to purchase the proposed site.
That option was amended in November 2024, potentially extending EDF's acquisition rights through December 2028.
The Town subsequently enacted its BESS zoning law and began processing the developer's municipal applications.
The complete purchase agreements remain unavailable in the recorded documents examined to date.
The landowner's identity is established. The property is identified. The developer's exclusive purchase option is documented. The extension of that option is documented. The complete contractual terms remain to be obtained.
For neighboring property owners, the inquiry does not end with the developer.
It also includes the landowner who made the property available, the municipality responsible for reviewing the project, and the legal arrangements through which a rural residential parcel became the proposed site of a large industrial battery storage facility.
The investigation continues.
Primary Documentary Sources
Delaware County Clerk, Deed Book 1215, Page 30: Warranty Deed, Archie L. Miller to Brett M. Miller and Thomas D. Parrotti, executed April 28, 2008, recorded May 12, 2008.
Delaware County Clerk, Book 1720, Page 197, Instrument No. 5814: Memorandum of Option Agreement to Purchase Real Property, Brett M. Miller and EDF Renewables Development, Inc., recorded July 26, 2022.
Delaware County Clerk, Book 1803, Page 267, Instrument No. 9006: Memorandum of First Amendment to Option Agreement to Purchase Real Property, recorded December 6, 2024.
Town of Hamden, 2026 Final Assessment Roll, Page 44: Tax Map Parcel 191.-1-4.22, 552–682 Cobbe Cross Road.
Town of Hamden Planning Board Minutes: October 28 and November 25, 2025.
Town of Hamden Town Board Minutes: December 3, 2025, and March 4, 2026.
EDF Power Solutions: Fraser Energy Site Plan and Special Use Permit Application Cover Letter, December 16, 2025.
Clements v. McBroom, No. 03-25-00442-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 9, 2026).
Suffolk County Water Authority v. East Hampton Energy Storage Center, LLC et al., EDNY No. 2:26-cv-03246-ARL, Complaint filed May 29, 2026.
No comments:
Post a Comment