Zoning Board Delays Decision on Controversial Battery Storage Facility After Safety Concerns
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.
The Full Story
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.
The heart of Bollinger’s appeal centered on safety concerns and zoning violations. She cited Environmental Protection Agency guidance recommending a 330-foot hazard buffer for large lithium-ion battery facilities to account for gas dispersion, including hydrogen fluoride and carbon monoxide, explosion potential, and firewater contamination. According to Bollinger’s analysis, several structures fall within this recommended safety distance, including the Knights of Columbus building on the same parcel, King Collision (approximately 120 feet from the battery fence), a car dealership lot (approximately 100 feet away), and homes on Shipyard Lane (approximately 250 to 300 feet away).
Chris King, owner of King Collision Centers, told the board his facility stores damaged electric vehicles and operates a paint shop with hazardous waste at the rear of the building—closest to where the battery facility would be located. “If one of those cars catches on fire, there’s probably not any putting it out,” King said, noting his shop recently purchased specialized equipment to handle EV fires.
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.
Lindsay Deane-Mayer, representing Palmer Management Corporation, responded that the company is actively working with the Pembroke Fire Department on safety documentation. “The planning board approval is actually contingent on receiving a permit from the fire department,” she said. Deane-Mayer indicated the company would provide a hazard mitigation analysis, code compliance documentation, and work collaboratively with the fire department on an emergency response plan.
However, this ongoing process frustrated many residents. “I have an issue with some of the notifications, some of the research, and it’s the fact that we’re giving approvals before we have the answers,” said Howard Szklut, owner of South Shore Therapies, a neighboring facility that treats autistic children and children with sensory processing disorders. “It seems backwards. It seems like we should have these questions answered before we say it’s approved.”
Noise impacts emerged as another significant concern. Despite testimony from Szklut that low-frequency transformer hum and cooling fan noise could disrupt therapy for children with sensory processing disorders, no independent noise study was required by the Planning Board. The project manager from Palmer stated that a sound study suggests noise levels reaching adjacent property lines would be between 40 and 42 decibels, but residents questioned whether frequency levels—which can be heard by sensitive populations even when general decibel levels seem low—were adequately addressed.
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.”
Before continuing the hearing, the board also heard Case 7-25, an unrelated variance request from Leah Graham of 153 Chapel Street to construct a garage with an eight-foot setback instead of the required ten feet. After discussion about the property’s topography limitations, the board approved the variance with a modified condition requiring a 10-foot setback instead of the originally requested eight feet, effectively reducing the garage width from 24 feet to 22 feet.
Why It Matters
The proposed 24-megawatt-hour battery energy storage system would be one of the first utility-scale battery facilities in Pembroke, potentially setting a precedent for similar projects. For nearby residents and businesses, the facility raises legitimate concerns about fire safety, property values, and emergency response capabilities. The appeal tests the balance between state mandates to facilitate renewable energy infrastructure and local authority to impose safety conditions. Residents on Brick Kiln Lane and Shipyard Lane, businesses including South Shore Therapies and King Collision, and patrons of nearby restaurants and facilities within 1,500 feet of the site all have a direct stake in whether adequate safety measures can be implemented at this location. The outcome will also clarify what level of documentation and safety analysis must be completed before—rather than after—project approval.
Meeting Minutes
Key Motions & Votes
Motion: To allow Case 7-25 (Leah Graham, 153 Chapel Street) variance request with modified setback of 10 feet instead of 8 feet. Outcome: Approved. Vote: Not recorded as roll call. (Timestamp: 19:53)
Motion: To close and deliberate on Case 7-25. Outcome: Approved. Vote: Unanimous. (Timestamp: 19:19)
Motion: To continue Case 8-25 (Susan Bollinger appeal regarding 48 Schoosett Street BESS) to December 15, 2025, at the community center. Outcome: Approved. Vote: Unanimous. (Timestamp: 1:40:50)
Motion: To approve meeting minutes from October 20, 2025. Outcome: Approved. Vote: Unanimous. (Timestamp: 1:42:02)
Public Comment
Extensive public comment was received on the battery energy storage system appeal. Susan Bollinger presented a detailed case on behalf of more than 60 residents citing safety concerns, inadequate notification, zoning violations, and missing documentation including EPA-recommended 330-foot buffers, plume modeling, make/model/chemistry specifications, fire safety plans, and noise studies. Additional commenters included Chris King (King Collision owner concerned about proximity to damaged EVs and paint operations), Howard Szklut (South Shore Therapies owner concerned about noise impacts on autistic children), Pam Knight (abutter concerned about property values and emergency access), Jill Aiello (concerned about evacuation plans for nearby schools), Debbie Flanagan (questioned town liability and insurance impacts), Bob DeMarzo (questioned land ownership and urged traffic study), Jim Avitable (recommended smoke plume modeling), Paris Bollinger (questioned profit motive and urged alternative siting), Bob Kenney (requested clarification on safe distance standards), and Dale Southworth (warned about fire spread risk through wooded areas). One commenter noted the project’s proximity to the North River, approximately 1,500 feet away. Several residents stated they never received certified mail notification despite living within 300 feet of the proposed site.
What’s Next
The Zoning Board of Appeals will reconvene on December 15, 2025, likely at the new community center pending logistics confirmation. Palmer Management Corporation agreed to submit draft documentation before that meeting including non-site-specific emergency operations plans, code compliance documentation, hazard mitigation analysis addressing chemical compositions, and site-specific sound studies including frequency analysis. The board will also seek input from the Pembroke Fire Department regarding safety requirements and emergency response capabilities. All submitted materials will be made available as public record through the town’s planning department. After reviewing the additional documentation, the board will decide whether to vacate, modify, or uphold the Planning Board’s site plan approval.