A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to the regulation of solar and energy storage facilities, particularly concerning their permissible locations within different zoning areas. The board grappled with whether such installations should be confined to industrial zones or also allowed in residential areas. While solar farms are currently permitted in rural residential zones, concerns were raised about the safety and implications of locating energy storage systems near residential structures. This prompted a debate on appropriate acreage requirements, with suggestions to impose a minimum of three acres for tier one installations and ten acres for tier two, to ensure adequate distance from residential properties.

Ownership and land use for these facilities also featured prominently in the discussions. Clarifications were sought on whether energy storage systems could be installed on leased land or if ownership by the developer was necessary. It was confirmed that while land ownership is ideal, control of the land suffices under current zoning regulations, leading to further considerations about rules for leased or shared land scenarios.

The board also focused on fire safety standards within the ordinance, particularly the use of fire suppression foam. Concerns were voiced regarding the phrase “to the extent they are commercially available” when referencing non-PFAS fire suppression foam. A proposal was made to mandate the use of non-PFAS foam explicitly, without exceptions, to ensure community safety and environmental compliance.

In light of ongoing regulatory discussions, there was a strong consensus on the necessity of a temporary moratorium on the approval of new energy projects. This moratorium, suggested to extend until October, would allow the board time to develop comprehensive regulations that reflect both safety considerations and technological advancements. The board agreed to propose this moratorium to the Zoning Planning and Development (ZPD) committee, recognizing it as a critical step for thorough assessment and regulation crafting.

Decommissioning of energy facilities emerged as another vital topic. The board discussed the requirement for facility owners to provide a bond covering decommissioning costs before construction commences. Questions were raised about the development of decommissioning estimates and securing bonds during the approval process. The board referenced existing precedents in the town’s cell tower ordinance for managing bonds and emphasized the importance of this safeguard to ensure financial accountability for facility removal once they become obsolete.

The potential shelf life of energy storage systems and the responsibilities for their removal also prompted discussion. While removal requirements are part of the ordinance, concerns were expressed about enforcement if the responsible entity ceases to exist. The bond requirement was reiterated as a critical measure to mitigate these concerns.

Fire department preparedness for handling incidents related to energy storage systems was another concern. It was noted that the fire department might be committing to responsibilities without fully understanding the extensive training and equipment required to manage such incidents, particularly those involving battery storage systems. The board acknowledged the need for the community to ensure its fire department is equipped with specialized training as these technologies evolve.

The discussions concluded with an emphasis on using the moratorium period to refine regulations and adapt to technological advancements. The board recognized the importance of transparency and community input in the planning process, citing examples from other municipalities that faced public backlash over energy projects. The meeting ended with a motion to adjourn, with plans to continue these discussions in future sessions, including addressing the topic of onsite consumption for marijuana as suggested for the next agenda.