The Appeal of a 24-Megawatt-hour Battery Energy Storage System

PEMBROKE - November 17 - The Pembroke Zoning Board of Appeals continued a heated public hearing on the appeal of a 24-megawatt-hour battery energy storage system proposed for 48 Schoosett Street after neighbors raised significant safety concerns, questioned proper notification, and challenged the appropriateness of the residential location. The board will reconvene on December 15, 2025, after receiving additional safety documentation from the applicant.

Susan Bollinger of Fox Path appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals on behalf of more than 60 residents, abutters, and local business owners seeking to vacate the Planning Board’s site plan approval for Palmer Management Corporation’s battery energy storage system (BESS). The large crowd filled the small meeting room at Town Hall, reflecting the intensity of community opposition to the project.

Bollinger’s appeal challenged the Planning Board’s decision on multiple grounds. She argued that the public process was rushed and inadequate, with only 14 days between the two Planning Board hearings. “Many businesses and residences never received notice before the first Planning Board hearing,” Bollinger stated. “Some did not learn of the project until after the second hearing.” While certified mail was reportedly sent to abutters within 300 feet, several residents at the meeting said they never received notice.

Bollinger also challenged the Planning Board’s authority to approve the project, arguing that standalone battery storage is not listed as a permitted use in the Residence A or Business B zoning districts where the property is located. “Section 5.12 applies only to solar photovoltaic systems, and this project has no solar panels,” she stated. “The Planning Board effectively issued a special permit it had no authority to grant.”

Town Counsel Alex Weisheit countered this argument by citing recent case law, specifically the Duxbury Energy Storage LLC versus Duxbury ZBA decision. According to Weisheit, Judge Reznick at the land court ruled that battery energy facilities are protected under General Law Chapter 40A, Section 3, which exempts structures that promote solar energy from local zoning restrictions. “Unless there’s some legitimate safety concern that can’t be addressed through conditions, then the facility is subject to the protections of 40A3 under current case law,” Weisheit explained.

Several residents raised concerns about emergency response capabilities. Dale Southworth, who lives at the end of Brick Kiln Lane—a dead-end road with only one exit—warned that if emergency vehicles block Schoosett Street during an incident, families could be trapped. He also described the wooded area between his home and the proposed site as “filthy” and “filled with debris and broken branches, years of kindling,” raising concerns about fire spread if the batteries experienced thermal runaway. “If they can’t put the fire out and just let it burn...it’s going all the way down to my house,” Southworth said.

Pam Knight of Brick Kiln Lane pointed out the irony that her property sits on a scenic road where she cannot remove a tree or stone without town permission, yet “this BESS got approved without our permission.” She emphasized that residents are not opposed to renewable energy but believe “this is simply the wrong site.”

Questions about the project’s public benefit also arose. When asked whether the facility benefits Pembroke, Deane-Mayer responded that “the project, like any other development in town, benefits through property taxes” and “will allow more solar to come online because there will be a place for it to go.” Paris Bollinger challenged this characterization, noting Palmer Management Corporation is involved in developing renewable energy projects valued at over $2.65 billion and questioning why such a large company couldn’t “find industrial, instead of placing this in somebody’s backyard because of profit.”

Board Chair Frederick Casavant acknowledged the complexity of the appeal and the need for additional information. “It went through site plan approval with peer review,” he noted, “but we weren’t part of the planning board process. This just lands on our desk.” After conferring with fellow board members Chris McGrail and David Lee, Casavant indicated the board wanted to hear directly from the fire department and review additional documentation on fire safety and noise impacts before making a decision.

The Planning Board’s decision included 14 conditions, including Condition 14 requiring the applicant to “obtain an energy storage permit from the Pembroke Fire” and “comply with all applicable codes and regulations including but not limited to NFPA 1, Chapter 52, and NFPA 855 for energy storage system installations.”

The matter was scheduled to be continued until the next Zoning Board meeting on December 15, 2025.