Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Millis updates zoning to define battery storage tiers, bans data centers after debate
Summary
Town meeting added definitions for battery energy storage systems (BESS) and data centers, adopting state-tiered BESS definitions and passing an amendment to prohibit data centers in all districts; proponents cited state deadlines and the need to control siting, critics raised water, noise and planning concerns.
Town meeting adopted Article 17 to add definitions for Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) and data storage centers to the Zoning Bylaws and added BESS tiers to the use table. After lengthy public comment, the meeting adopted an amendment to change the proposed special‑permit treatment for data storage centers to a prohibition in every zoning district; the article as amended passed by the required two‑thirds vote.
Nicole Riley, chair of the Zoning Bylaw Review Committee and Planning Board member, said the state’s 2024 Climate Act establishes the three tiers and a streamlined permitting process for storage systems up to 100 MWh, which takes effect July 1. “The Massachusetts... Climate Act of 2024 has established these 3 tiers,” she told the meeting, explaining the tiers and the committee’s reason for adding definitions so the town can control where BESS are allowed.
Residents asked about scale, water usage and visibility of installations. A questioner cited the very large water demands of commercial data centers and urged caution; other residents asked what a tier‑1 battery would look like near a house. Riley and Planning Board members explained tier‑1 devices are residential‑scale (for example, powerwall‑type units) while larger tiers are addressed through location and permitting in industrial districts.
An amendment was moved and seconded to prohibit data storage centers in all zoning districts; the motion to amend passed unanimously and the article as amended received the two‑thirds majority required for the zoning change.
Supporters framed the change as a proactive zoning measure: without definitions and a use table, Riley said, large facilities could locate in places the town had not intended. Opponents asked for additional technical study; the planning board and others said the amendment was intended as a starting point and that further bylaws and outreach would follow.
