Duxbury’s Planning Board held an emergency session Friday evening to grapple with a potential 11th-hour expansion of the town’s proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) bylaw. The board, which had previously recommended Indefinite Postponement of the measure due to resident safety concerns, met to discuss a proposed amendment from resident Jim Lampert that would significantly increase the areas of town where these facilities could be sited.

The amendment, first suggested on the floor of a recent Select Board meeting, would allow BESS facilities in the Residential Compatibility (RC) district. Planning Director Matthew Heins informed the board that while the current bylaw restricts BESS to roughly 10% of the town, adopting the amendment would expand that footprint to approximately 37%. Chair Kristin Rappe noted that the shift comes amid warnings from Town Counsel. Rappe explained, I think Amy [Town Counsel] was concerned about us having so many restrictions that it looked like we were intentionally trying to exclude as much of the town as possible.

The debate highlighted a growing tension between local zoning desires and tightening state regulations. Member Tag Carpenter alerted the board to new Commonwealth regulations finalized on February 27, which allow energy developers to apply for consolidated permits and waivers from local zoning through the Energy Facility Siting Board. The company proposing the BESS can basically apply for an exemption for all local zoning, Carpenter warned. I don't want to give people the assumption that this is going to put controls on this when in fact they can just grant a blanket waiver.

Member Matthew Ray voiced concerns that the public may not realize how little leverage the town actually holds under state oversight. I do think there's a misconception or misunderstanding throughout the town that we have full authority to draft what we want and don't quite understand that we're severely limited... walking the tightrope of what the AG [Attorney General] will approve, Ray said. This sentiment was echoed by Member Steve Gandt, who lamented the lack of public outreach regarding why a restrictive bylaw might be better than no bylaw at all. To me, it's a recipe for an awful lot of confusion and I'd be very concerned about taking it up for a vote at special town meeting, Gandt said.

Vice Chair Wayne Dennison, who joined the meeting in progress, expressed skepticism about endorsing a change to a bylaw that the board had already effectively shelved. I have real concerns about voting on an amendment the text of which has yet to be finalized, Dennison stated. I don't see why the planning board would take a position on something that they haven't seen.

The board also debated whether the town should lead with its most restrictive offer. Director Heins questioned the necessity of the expansion, asking, Why should we offer the AG 37% when we could start at 10%? Our starting offer can be 10%... it's possible that 10% might be enough. This discussion reflects the board’s recent pattern of prioritizing traceability and strict adherence to town standards to maintain community trust, even as state energy mandates exert increasing pressure on local control.

Ultimately, the board reached a consensus to maintain its current recommendation of Indefinite Postponement rather than voting to support the Lampert amendment ahead of Town Meeting. The board will meet again Saturday morning at the school cafeteria to finalize their strategy before the article moves to the floor. The outcome will determine if Duxbury attempts to implement limited local protections now or leaves the town unregulated while a more robust bylaw is drafted for a future meeting.