Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pittsfield planners debate where to allow battery storage as state rules limit rejection
Summary
On Feb. 17 the Pittsfield Community Development Board reviewed a draft three‑tier framework for siting battery energy storage systems (BESS), weighing residential impacts, legal constraints under the Dover Amendment and mapping needs before returning with recommendations.
The Pittsfield Community Development Board on Feb. 17 discussed a draft zoning approach for battery energy storage systems, with staff urging the board to balance local siting preferences against state legal limits.
Kevin Rayner, planning staff for the City of Pittsfield, outlined a proposed three‑tier system and new state legislation that constrains the city’s ability to bar BESS generally. "We have to allow BESS on more than 50% of the municipal land to keep the city legally safe," Rayner said, noting systems above roughly 100 megawatts are regulated by the state and therefore beyond local control.
The draft tiers (Attachment B) described Small systems as under 250 kilowatt‑hours, Medium as greater than 250 kWh and under 10 megawatt‑hours, and Large as greater than 10 MWh and under 100 MWh. Rayner said permitting pathways could vary by size: by‑right building permits for some small systems, site plan review for medium systems and special permits for larger installations.
Board members pressed on siting and environmental concerns. Board member Libby Herland said size matters: "Small is about the size of a car; Medium can be multiple shipping containers and Large could be acres," and urged mapping to show where R‑20 and R‑43 parcels are concentrated. Herland flagged the potential for deforestation on those parcels if siting is not restricted.
Gary Levante emphasized neighborhood impacts and cautioned that permitting a medium or large BESS adjacent to dense residential areas may be inappropriate. Rayner said mitigation, emergency response and decommissioning plans would be required during site plan review to address nuisance and risk concerns, and that staff will overlay infrastructure maps to identify preferable sites near existing electrical infrastructure.
The board discussed allowing accessory versus principal BESS uses and whether to favor industrially zoned sites. Rayner said staff will reach out to developers for input and prepare maps for further board consideration; no formal zoning vote or petition to council was scheduled during the meeting.
The board did not take a final vote; staff will return with mapping, developer feedback and recommended permit language for subsequent review.
