Southampton planning board narrows BEST bylaw options, asks for mapping, noise and wellhead clarifications

The Southampton Planning Board continued deliberations June 24 on a draft battery energy storage (BEST) zoning bylaw, focusing on where batteries could be sited and how the town would measure and limit noise and water‑supply risks.

Richard, the board’s planner/consultant, summarized edits after receiving suggestions from residents and board members. Jeff Boder had proposed moving some RR and RN tier‑2 uses from site plan review to special permit, which would require a higher discretionary review standard. Richard warned that combining that change with an outright prohibition of BEST in the town’s water‑supply‑protection overlay could leave very little land where these systems would be allowed, and he told the board, “I would not be surprised the attorney general just throws out the entire bylaw” if the restrictions proved to be effectively prohibitive.

Board members asked Richard to produce a short mapping analysis showing the area available for tier‑2 and tier‑3 facilities under the proposed rules. The board discussed practical options: limit prohibitions to state‑mapped zones one and two, which the state mass mapper shows, or keep the town’s broader water‑supply overlay but document the acreage and rationale for town meeting and the Attorney General’s Office.

Noise standards also drew sustained discussion. Members debated whether to use a numeric, decibel‑based standard similar to the town’s solar bylaw (which references 310 CMR 7.10 and a metric of 10 dB over ambient) or to rely on a nondimensional ‘‘excessive noise’’ test tied to the town’s Chapter 206 nuisance bylaw. Some planners argued the decibel approach mirrors state guidance and gives measurable criteria; others said the town lacks routine ambient noise monitoring and certified noise‑measurement capability, making enforcement harder.

The board also reviewed recent state guidance about wellhead protection (references discussed to 310 CMR guidance) and agreed the draft should explicitly treat zone‑one areas as off‑limits unless directly needed for public water systems and to require compliance with state wellhead protections for zone‑two areas. Members asked for concise drafting that cites the state rules and clarifies how local overlays relate to state maps.

Next steps: Richard will revise the draft to (1) incorporate the solar‑bylaw noise language where appropriate, (2) add explicit references to state wellhead protections, and (3) run a quick overlay analysis to show how much land remains available under different prohibition scenarios. The board agreed to advertise a public hearing on the revised draft after those materials are circulated, targeting a July/August hearing and a written report for town meeting/AG review.