Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Residents and health officials press Southampton Planning Board on battery‑storage zoning
Loading...
Summary
At its April 15 meeting, the Southampton Planning Board took public comment and technical guidance on a proposed zoning amendment to address battery energy storage systems (BEST/BESS). Board of Health Chair Caitlin Rooks and multiple residents raised groundwater, noise and emergency‑response concerns; the board will draft language and hold a May 20 hearing.
Southampton — The Planning Board on April 15 gathered residents and technical advisers to discuss a proposed zoning amendment that would add rules for battery energy storage systems, a topic neighbors say requires clearer local protections.
Caitlin Rooks, chair of the Board of Health, told the board she is worried that large installations “being installed over Zone 2 water protection areas” could threaten local groundwater and called for permit thresholds, operation-and-maintenance plans and emergency‑response provisions. Rooks said she had spoken with the company BlueWave and that the company had not yet submitted operations or emergency plans for a nearby proposal, which she said made neighbors uneasy.
Why it matters: battery‑storage facilities can include large inverter pads, transformers and cabinetized battery arrays that residents and the Board of Health say raise questions about water protection, long‑term site maintenance, noise and local capacity to inspect and enforce conditions.
Richard Harris, the board’s consultant and former town planner for South Hadley, urged the board to move deliberately but to coordinate timing with the town administrator because the board has 65 days to hold a hearing and issue its report to town meeting once a bylaw amendment is referred. “We have 65 days in which to not only hold the hearing, but also make your report to town meeting,” Harris told the board, and he recommended using existing tools — for example G.L. c. 53G third‑party review or the town’s stormwater peer‑review clause — to require applicants to fund independent inspections and reduce pressure on the town budget.
Neighborhoods and noise: several residents described on‑site visits and noise they said came from inverter pads and cooling equipment. Richard Adams (40 Pleasant Street) said he could hear humming at a site he visited and warned a Pleasant Street proposal with multiple inverters and battery cabinets could “produce an astronomical amount of noise” for nearby yards. Jeff Boder (46 Pleasant Street) told the board such facilities “should not be in a water supply protection district” and questioned whether the current use table and site‑review tracks in the draft bylaw effectively would prevent large installations near houses.
State regulations and local options: a nonresident commenter, John Pepe, briefed the board on recently finalized state siting and permitting regulations (chapter 209) that include advance notice requirements, mandatory public engagement, common performance standards and mitigation mechanisms. Pepe said municipalities may adopt the state regulations as a local process if they cannot finalize a local bylaw prior to the state rules taking effect.
What the board will do next: the board agreed to draft proposed bylaw language reflecting public comments, circulate a draft on the town website and by email, and schedule a public hearing for May 20. The board asked residents to submit concise bullet points by email to the planning board address so staff can incorporate written comments into the draft and the public record.
The planning board did not vote to adopt any BESS regulation at the April 15 meeting; members said the hearing process and potential attorney general review will follow the public comment and drafting steps.
