The Planning Board’s meeting was dominated by deliberations over an amendment to city ordinances concerning battery energy storage systems. These systems, which store electricity for later distribution, have been a topic of contention due to their potential environmental hazards, particularly when located near water resources. The proposed amendment aims to prohibit such facilities within the Water Resource Protection District and enforce a significant buffer zone to protect the aquifer from contamination risks associated with battery fires.

Concerns were voiced about the hazardous materials in lithium-ion batteries, which can release harmful chemicals like hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen cyanide in the event of a fire. These chemicals pose substantial risks to both human health and the environment, with the potential to contaminate soil and water. The board noted that past issues with PFAS in local water supplies underscore the need for rigorous safety regulations. The amendment proposes that any battery storage or generation facility must be at least 150 feet from property lines in the industrial A zone and completely barred from the Water Resource Protection District.

Public comments during the meeting reflected strong opposition to the placement of battery storage systems near sensitive water areas. Residents and city officials alike expressed concerns about the safety and environmental impact of these systems, with some referencing incidents in New York where battery fires led to water contamination. One resident highlighted the “huge liability” these systems pose, while another stressed the importance of community action to prevent potential environmental disasters.

A significant portion of the discussion focused on the appropriate size of the buffer zone. A proposal for a 500-foot buffer was initially suggested, but the idea of extending this to 1,000 feet gained traction among board members and the public. The board considered the risk of contamination too severe to allow installations near water sources, and some members argued for an outright prohibition of battery storage systems within the district. The potential for state-level intervention in local zoning decisions was also a concern, with fears that the state might override such prohibitions.

The board debated whether to require a special permit for battery storage systems, acknowledging the complexities of balancing local control and safety concerns. While some members were wary of making zoning too restrictive, which could paradoxically bolster cases for state exemptions, others emphasized the need for regulations to safeguard water resources. Ultimately, the board recommended adopting the amendment with the thousand-foot buffer zone and maintaining the special permit requirement, with a consensus reached to support these measures.

In addition to battery storage systems, the Planning Board also addressed a special permit request for an electronic message sign by Next Gen Roofing on Southampton Road. Business owner Randy Goth presented the proposal for a digital sign that would change messages every 10 seconds, intended to advertise the company’s products and services. The board scrutinized the sign’s potential impact on traffic safety and aesthetics, expressing concerns about the proliferation of electronic signs in the area. The permit was approved with conditions, including message duration, prohibitions on animations, and required dimming after hours.

The meeting further touched on a zoning amendment for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), with the board preparing to forward updated regulations to the city council. Discussions included the implications of state regulations on ADUs, focusing on maintaining common ownership to ensure units remain accessory. The board also reviewed a rental registration ordinance aimed at creating a database for long-term rental properties, though it was noted this ordinance was more a courtesy for review than a zoning matter.

Lastly, the board deliberated on the topic of cannabis social consumption establishments. They discussed the existing ordinance prohibiting onsite consumption and acknowledged the need for any changes to require modifications to this ordinance. Concerns were raised about maintaining local regulations to prevent potential loopholes.