DUXBURY - December 22, 2025 - A massive, multi-year effort to modernize Duxbury’s zoning code hit a legal wall Monday night as Town Counsel warned that a “delete and replace” strategy could expose the town’s entire bylaw to state rejection. Simultaneously, the Board faced a ticking clock to pass a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) bylaw. Without new local rules, officials warned that Duxbury could be defenseless against industrial-scale battery facilities following a landmark court ruling.
The Full Story: Zoning Recodification Stalls
For years, the Zoning Recodification Working Group has labored to reorganize Duxbury’s “messy and confusing” zoning bylaw [00:02:06]. The goal was to centralize definitions and fix formatting without changing policy.
However, Town Counsel Amy Kwesell dropped a strategic bombshell: presenting the recodification as a complete “delete and replace” amendment would trigger a comprehensive review by the Attorney General (AG) [01:00:01].
“If the Attorney General is going to look at this in a comprehensive way... those sections of your bylaw [that are disapproved] are not legal... Your sign bylaw will be disapproved.” — Amy Kwesell, Town Counsel [01:02:42]
Kwesell explained that older bylaws—specifically sign regulations and inclusionary zoning fees—likely violate current Supreme Judicial Court rulings. If the town “deletes and replaces” the code, the AG must review everything, potentially striking down these enforcing laws immediately.
Deep Dive: The Battery Storage “Gun to the Head”
While the recodification issue is administrative, the Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) discussion represents an immediate impact on the town.
The Legal Mandate: Town Counsel briefed the Board on the Tracer Lane Supreme Judicial Court decision, which ruled that towns cannot effectively ban solar or energy storage facilities. Kwesell advised that to survive a legal challenge, Duxbury must allow battery storage facilities by right or by special permit in roughly 10-20% of the town’s land mass [01:52:53].
Tiered System & Location: The proposed bylaw divides systems into two tiers:
Tier 1: Residential/Small-scale (e.g., Tesla Powerwalls for homes).
Tier 2: Industrial/Commercial (e.g., Shipping container-sized grid storage).
The friction point lies in where Tier 2 facilities can go. To hit the required land mass targets, the town cannot restrict them solely to the small industrial zones. They may need to be allowed in residential districts, likely under a Special Permit process [01:46:10].
The Noise Fight: “Crickets” vs. 50 Decibels: The most contentious debate centered on noise pollution. The draft bylaw proposed a limit of 50 decibels (dBA) at the property line, consistent with state DEP standards. Board member Tag Carpenter argued this was far too loud for Duxbury, where nighttime ambient noise is often near zero.
“50 [decibels] is loud... If you have a low ambient [noise level], 50 is ear-splitting. It’s a buzz saw.” — Tag Carpenter, Board Member [02:28:20]
Carpenter pushed for a 40 dBA limit, noting that the constant “hum” of battery cooling fans is different from intermittent traffic noise. Counsel Kwesell warned that while 40 dBA is defensible if unchallenged, developers often sue over “unreasonable” restrictions. However, she noted that other towns have successfully codified 40 dBA limits [01:55:19].
Fire Safety & “Thermal Runaway”: Safety protocols were also scrutinized. The Board discussed “thermal runaway”—chemical fires that are nearly impossible to extinguish. The Board agreed to mandate a “incident management plan” and ensure the bylaw references NFPA 1, the most current fire code adopted by the state, rather than just the older NFPA 855 standard [02:37:10].
Why It Matters
The “Wild West” Risk: If Duxbury fails to pass a BESS bylaw at the upcoming Town Meeting, the town defaults to state law (Chapter 40A, Section 3). This effectively creates a “Wild West” scenario where a developer could propose a battery farm in a residential neighborhood, and the Planning Board would have very limited grounds to deny it [01:41:40]. The bylaw is the town’s only shield to enforce setbacks, screening, and noise caps.
Official Minutes & Data
Key Motions & Votes
Motion: Direct the ZBRC (Zoning Bylaw Review Committee) to remove italicization of defined terms in the draft bylaw.
Outcome: Passed
Vote: Unanimous Roll Call (Carpenter, Gandt, Rappe)
Motion: Centralize all definitions in the front of the bylaw.
Outcome: Passed
Vote: Unanimous Roll Call
Motion: Adjourn the meeting.
Outcome: Passed
Vote: Unanimous Roll Call
Public Comment
Jake (Rosewood Court): Questioned the strategy of the zoning update if it risks invalidating the sign bylaw. “I didn’t hear until five minutes ago that our sign bylaw would be at risk.” [01:12:53]
Jake (Rosewood Court): Asked if the town’s previous denial of a project is now moot due to the Tracer Lane case. (Counsel confirmed it likely is). [02:05:38]
What’s Next
AG Consultation: Town Counsel will contact the Attorney General’s office to see if a simple “reorganization” triggers a full legal review of all bylaws.
BESS Revisions: Counsel will revise the Battery Storage bylaw to incorporate NFPA 1 fire codes and potentially lower the noise limit to 40 decibels.
Warrant Deadline: The Board must finalize draft articles for the Town Manager by December 31, 2025.
Source Video: Duxbury Meetings: Local Seen Streaming Channel
Superb reporting on this regulatory bind Duxbury's facing. That 10-20% land allocation requiremnt from the Tracer Lane ruling basically forces towns to pick between writing their own guardrails or getting steamrolled by default state regs. The noise debate captures it perfectly, trying to balance legitimate residential concerns with what'll survive a developer's legal challenge. Seen similar standoffs in other municipalities where energy infrastructure mandates colldie with local character preservation.