The Duxbury Planning Board met to address a growing conflict between state renewable energy mandates and local zoning controls. Chair Kristin Rappe opened the discussion on a proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) bylaw, which aims to regulate where large-scale battery facilities can be located. Ideally a battery energy system would make more sense in an industrial part of town, and unfortunately Duxbury doesn't have that, Rappe noted, highlighting the challenge of placing industrial-scale technology in a primarily residential community. Town Counsel Amy Kwesell warned the board that the Attorney General's office is scrutinizing such bylaws for unreasonable restrictions. Kwesell flagged the town's proposed 200-foot setbacks and noise limitations as potential points of failure, stating, The Attorney General will be looking at what is unreasonable. They are looking at these bylaws with a microscope.

Public testimony revealed deep concerns regarding the safety and placement of the systems, particularly in sensitive areas like Hall’s Corner and Snug Harbor. Resident Siobhan Paric argued that the town was moving too quickly, saying, Putting an industrial use in three of our most important districts in town is just ludicrous. In contrast, Alternative Energy Committee Chair Wendell emphasized the technical necessity of the grid, explaining that in theory we do believe that the [systems] are necessary if you're going to be relying upon renewable energy because the production of renewable energy is intermittent. Finance Committee member Jackson Escat Junior added that the principle the state's operating on is that because the renewable energy is variable, the batteries are a necessary component. Board member Tag Carpenter questioned the ambiguity of state standards, asking, What is reasonable in an industrial area not a regional residential area? How do we divine that? Motion Made by J. Turcotte to continue the public hearing for the annual town meeting zoning article for the proposed battery energy storage system bylaw to February 23, 2026. Vote Passed 5-0

The board also grappled with a dispute over a proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) at 161 Winter Street. The project is stalled due to a disagreement over whether an interior stairway should count toward the 900-square-foot limit. Applicant representative Buzz Artiano argued, Our opinion is this stairway falls under enclosed porches and similar spaces and does not count towards the gross floor area. However, Building Commissioner Jim Walley countered that the rules are clear: The stairway is included. It's an egress path to get to this building and it is included as an interior space. Planning Director Matthew Heins noted that while the board handles footprints and setbacks, usually planning boards don't get too deeply involved with actual floor plans or what happens kind of within buildings. Motion Made by J. Turcotte to continue the public hearing for the administrative site plan review for 161 Winter Street to February 23, 2026. Vote Passed 5-0

To prevent future confusion, Walley suggested that ADU applicants should receive a size determination from the building department before appearing before the Planning Board. Member Matthew Ray agreed with the procedural shift, stating, I think in practice we can certainly tell every applicant that we strongly urge you to apply for the building permit about a month before you apply for the site plan approval to us. Member Steve Gandt expressed frustration with the limited land options for the battery storage bylaw, noting that a lot of these parcels aren't on the menu because they don't work. Who's going to do that math? Jennifer Turcotte, participating remotely, supported keeping the public discourse open for the upcoming Town Meeting, saying, I would propose that we keep it open until Feb 23rd. Motion Made by S. Gandt to extend the decision deadline for the 51 Road subdivision to March 20, 2026, and to continue the public hearing to February 23, 2026. Vote Passed 5-0

The meeting was adjourned at 6:47 PM