The Hubbardston Planning Board spent the bulk of its meeting reviewing proposed zoning changes for battery energy storage systems, focusing on definitions, permitted locations and safety and forestry provisions.

Board members and several residents debated a tiered approach that would exempt small residential batteries while subjecting larger “grid-scale” systems to permitting and siting rules. Planner Alec and volunteers said the working draft would define tier 1 systems as those under 0.5 megawatt (500 kilowatt) capacity and apply permitting only to tier 2 and tier 3 systems above that threshold.

Why it matters: The town’s existing zoning left battery storage unlisted and therefore effectively prohibited, but an earlier attorney general review had “blue penciled” (removed) restrictive language and left battery storage allowed by right in all zones. The board said new bylaw language is intended to restore reasonable local controls—such as limiting large facilities to areas with three‑phase power and commercial zones—while exempting typical rooftop or home storage.

Discussion and outcome
- Resident Robert Fernandez (148 New Westminster Road) told the board he supports regulation: “if there's no regulation at all… anybody can come in and install one of these things” and said a bylaw is “a step forward.”
- Volunteer Tim Holly (35 Mount Jefferson Road), who assisted staff on the draft, recommended tier 1 be defined as greater than 0.2 megawatt‑hours and less than 0.5 megawatt‑hours and reiterated that smaller systems remain regulated by building, electrical and fire codes.
- The board agreed to remove specific, technology‑by‑technology battery lists (lead acid, nickel, lithium, etc.) in favor of a definition that covers “electrical storage” generally, citing rapid technological change.
- Several board members stressed siting limits. Planner Alec and speakers noted grid‑scale systems require three‑phase power and are most appropriate in commercial zones or areas with existing infrastructure. Fire and access standards discussed included minimum site access widths, vertical clearances and gate sizes requested by the Hubbardston Fire Department.
- The board discussed proposed compensatory forestry language (a requirement that an area equal to twice the forest removed be maintained) and expressed concern it could be rejected by the attorney general; members favored changing that prescription to a more flexible “managed forestry” requirement supervised by a professional forester.

Next steps: The board voted to continue public review (the hearing remains open) and directed staff to reconcile the working draft with the attorney general’s blue‑penciled version of Article 4, confirm which version is on file with the town clerk, and return with a revised draft for the next meeting.

Ending: Board members said the draft is closer to a form they can put before town meeting after staff resolves the Article 4/attorney general inconsistencies and finalizes the tier thresholds and managed‑forestry language.