Planning Board Meeting ~ January 15, 2025

2025-01-15 · Planning Board · 2:26:30 · watch on YouTube →

Planning Board special meeting given over entirely to the draft battery energy storage system ordinance. The board took public comment, heard the fire chief, and then worked through written comments submitted by three people by email, going section by section. It agreed a series of drafting changes for George Thebarge to make, including rewording the emergency operations plan paragraph so the plan must be approved by the Durham fire department rather than only comply with NFPA 855, striking the site plan review reference for tier one systems, and replacing the six separate battery chemistry thresholds with a single 70 kilowatt hour threshold subject to the fire chief's review. It declined the requests it had received to cut the 100 foot setback, relax the fencing and vegetated buffer, raise the noise limits and extend the 90 day abandonment period. The chair said plainly that no vote was being taken and that the vote on a final draft would come at the February 5 meeting; the board then went through the March public hearing schedule for four separate ordinance items ahead of the April 5 town meeting.

What was discussed

1. 0:16
   Roll call, quorum and agenda

   All five regular members were present, giving a quorum, followed by the pledge of allegiance. There were no amendments to the agenda and no old or new business, leaving the battery energy storage regulations as the only item. The chair gave the date as January 15, 2024; the meeting record dates it January 15, 2025.

2. 0:16
   Public comment: battery fire risk and fire department training

   Steven Brazinski (?) of 52 Quaker Ridge Road (?) said an NTSB comparison he had read put gasoline and diesel vehicles at roughly 70 times the fire rate of electric vehicles, which had made him more comfortable. His concerns were that battery fires are hard to put out and that the facility owner should be required to hold proper firefighting gear and chemicals and to train the fire department, since the department will be on scene in 20 minutes while the owner could take an hour or more.

3. 5:32
   Public comment: capacity thresholds by battery type

   Michael (?), of a Pond Road address, questioned why section 5.7.2 sets different thresholds for different chemistries, giving sodium nickel chloride at over 20 kW against lead at 70 kW, and said he could not see the safety rationale. He said the 30 kW lithium ion threshold is too low because a typical home battery is 15 to 16 kWh and a house uses about 30 kWh a day, so anyone wanting more than half a day of storage would be caught by the ordinance, and suggested raising the figures to 60 or 70.

4. 5:32
   Public comment: snow removal

   A third resident asked who is responsible for snow removal after a heavy storm, whether the operator would get there in time, whether access could be blocked, and whether public works would be checking that it had been done.

5. 5:32
   Response on training and how the draft was written

   George Thebarge said every project will be required to have an emergency response plan coordinated with the local fire department, which sets out the training and other requirements. He said the draft follows an ordinance from Carver, Massachusetts, informed by the New York interagency task force report, and that the town had no budget for a consultant, so the work was done without that expertise. On the differing capacity thresholds, he said his understanding is that some chemistries are more susceptible to thermal runaway than others, but that he is not qualified to give an expert explanation.

6. 16:29
   Whether to set thresholds by size rather than technology

   A board member argued for a single size threshold rather than a list of chemistries, on the grounds that the technology changes and a list will go out of date. George Thebarge said tier one is defined as under half a megawatt and is allowed by right in all zoning districts, so the intent is not to regulate in-home systems at all.

7. 21:47
   Site plan review reference in 5.7.4

   Members read 5.7.4 as requiring site plan review for any tier one system, which would catch a household adding storage to a rooftop solar array. The board agreed the words referring to site plan review should be struck, leaving tier one subject to the other applicable provisions of the ordinance and the state codes.

8. 21:47
   Fire chief's comments on the draft

   The fire chief said he has a call in to the fire chief in Carver, whose department resembles Durham's in being volunteer, rural, and short of water. He said the road width, grade, weight limit, gating and monitoring provisions are all workable for the department.

9. 27:20
   Water supply for firefighting

   The fire chief's one objection was the provision allowing a hydrant or alternative water supply within 500 feet. He said pumpers carry only 1,000 feet of supply line, so 500 feet plus a turn down an aisle would leave the department close to out of hose, and asked for 200 or 300 feet. He also asked for more than one source, on opposite corners because of prevailing winds, and for redundancy because a plow can crack a dry hydrant and put it out of service. He noted the emergency response plan could legitimately say let it burn, so long as it says so in writing.

10. 32:58
    Whether the ordinance must stand alone

    Members repeatedly noted that contract zoning could add requirements later, and George Thebarge said the ordinance has to work on its own in case contract zoning is not approved at town meeting. The board agreed the standards had to be solid in the ordinance itself.

11. 38:32
    Specific water standards or approval by the fire chief

    George Thebarge offered two options: write specific water supply standards into the ordinance, or state that the water supply must be acceptable to the fire chief. Members leaned to the second and then broadened it, saying the whole fire plan, inside and outside the units, should be approved by the chief rather than water alone. It was noted that the site plan review escrow lets the board hire a fire protection engineer at the applicant's cost, so the chief would not have to judge an unfamiliar system unaided.

12. 54:10
    Rewording the emergency operations plan paragraph

    Members said paragraph K reads as though compliance with NFPA 855 is all that is required, and that a developer could stand on that. George Thebarge agreed to rework the paragraph so that it is clear the plan must be approved by the Durham fire department and can go beyond NFPA 855, and to add wording under the list of required contents covering other procedures such as water supply.

13. 59:45
    Fire department permit and fee

    A comment from Rachel Walker (?) asked what a fire department permit is. The fire chief said the town has no fire permit and no fee schedule for fire review, although other municipalities charge for it, and that his role is to review the plan as he does other site plans.

14. 1:05:12
    Emailed comments from Jason Queen (?)

    The comments referenced systems in California and elsewhere, a large water tank and hose hookup on site, and a suggestion that the town mandate manufacturers whose equipment has been heat and fire tested and rated. The board found the testing point already covered by the codes listed in 5.7.3(d) and did not want to limit manufacturers.

15. 1:10:42
    Emailed comments from John Simo (?)

    Three points: adding battery energy storage to the table of land uses, which the town attorney has drafted for all zones aside from RA; the use of kilowatts where kilowatt hours is meant; and the phrase all weather surface, which George Thebarge had already changed to reference town standards. The board settled on kilowatt hours, after a member of the public explained that a flow battery is a liquid based battery type rather than a reference to flowing current.

16. 1:10:42
    Wording of the permits and permit type provisions

    The board accepted Rachel Walker's suggestion to reword 5.7.3(a) as all permits required by federal, state and local codes, dropping the including but not limited to list. It also agreed that special permit should read conditional use permit.

17. 1:10:42
    Setback and fencing

    The board rejected the request to reduce the 100 foot setback, saying these sites are not industrial parks or mill sites and 100 feet is consistent with other non-residential development in Durham. On the request for a seven foot chain link fence with barbed wire, it kept the eight foot minimum and noted the draft does not preclude chain link, unlike the solar ordinance.

18. 1:16:22
    Vegetated buffer

    Asked to reduce the buffer on the grounds that vegetation is itself a fire hazard, the board kept it. George Thebarge said the visual impact analysis will determine which sides need screening, and that the 100 foot setback contains a 50 foot buffer with a further 50 feet before the fence, plus a required 30 foot clearance of combustible vegetation.

19. 1:21:47
    Noise limits

    The board rejected the request to raise the daytime limit from 55 to 80 decibels, noting the sawmill it approved cannot exceed 55 at the property line and that these sites are in rural areas with low ambient noise. George Thebarge said a contract zone could set a higher level for a specific location, and that sound attenuation is available.

20. 1:21:47
    Decommissioning security

    Asked to specify how the bond is calculated, the board kept the general wording requiring financial security acceptable to the town, the same approach used for solar. The applicant would submit an estimate and the town would have it checked, at the applicant's expense if necessary.

21. 1:26:51
    Equipment specification sheets

    The comment was that a developer cannot name the exact units at application, because equipment is bid after permits. The board found 5.7.6 already handles this with a preliminary specification sheet at application and a final one before the building permit, with any later substitution going to the code enforcement officer to confirm it still meets the codes. It also agreed to say building and other permits, since some units may not be structures.

22. 1:32:15
    Abandonment period

    Asked to extend the 90 day abandonment trigger to 12 months, the board kept 90 days. Members said 90 days without operating is a long time for an asset, that a system down for battery replacement or a regional power outage is still operating, and that the owner can stop the decommissioning process by telling the town what it is doing.

23. 1:37:33
    Which requirements apply to tier one

    Members noted that 5.7.5 says its requirements apply to all tiers except where marked for tiers two and three, but that several, such as the 50 foot landscaped strip and the decommissioning fund, plainly should not apply to a tier one system. George Thebarge agreed to go through the lettered requirements before the next meeting and either separate them or mark which apply to tier one.

24. 1:43:00
    A single capacity threshold

    The board discussed replacing the six chemistry-specific thresholds in 5.7.2 with one figure, and whether to define residential use instead. Members were concerned that a number stated as residential could be used to put in a large system and sell power. A figure between 70 and 100 kilowatt hours was discussed, with the point made that 60 kWh would give a typical house about two days off grid.

25. 1:48:43
    Agreement on 70 kilowatt hours

    The board agreed in principle to strike the list of chemistries and make the ordinance apply only to systems exceeding 70 kilowatt hours, and to put that to the fire chief before it is finalised. The chair said plainly that the board was not voting and that the vote would probably come at the next meeting.

26. 1:54:06
    Where these installations may be sited

    Asked whether the ordinance could restrict where the systems go, George Thebarge relayed the town attorney's advice from the previous night that it cannot without contract zoning, because the systems fall within essential services, which are permitted everywhere except shoreland zoning and resource protection, where they are a conditional use.

27. 1:59:28
    Proposal to remove tier three

    A board member asked about allowing only tier one and tier two, so that nothing over one megawatt could be built even by contract zoning, citing rural character in the comprehensive plan. Other members disagreed, saying one megawatt is small, that the contract zoning process gives the board the ability to say no to a site, and that a proposal the town did not want could be voted down at town meeting. Tier three was left in.

28. 2:05:07
    Noise wording correction

    A member said 5.7.5 as drafted reads as permitting an increase in ambient noise of 55 decibels rather than a limit of 55, which would allow 110. The board agreed to strike the words about any increase so the provision matches the land use ordinance limits of 55 and 45.

29. 2:05:07
    Deer Creek items coming to the next meeting

    George Thebarge outlined two Deer Creek amendments for February 5. The first removes the plan note barring lot sales and building permits until the infrastructure is complete, the work being about 90 to 95 percent done on a package of more than $600,000, in exchange for a performance guarantee of about $72,000 for the remainder. The second removes an errant note that would require both sprinklers and a fire pond when only the pond was intended; the fire chief still needs the pump test done.

30. 2:10:42
    Contract zoning and historic preservation handover

    The select board has worked through contract zoning with the town attorney and is passing it to the planning board. On historic preservation, George Thebarge said the attorney has concluded the town's current system does not comply with state or federal law and will present draft changes to the select board on January 28. He said that because of the moratorium timetable there is no time for the full public participation process the board normally runs, and that the expectation is a formal public hearing rather than a fresh process.

31. 2:16:06
    Whether to hold a public information meeting first

    The chair said he was uneasy about taking contract zoning straight to a public hearing when most of the town does not know what it is, recalling an earlier proposal that failed at town meeting for lack of transparency, and said he would ask Joe Roy (?) what the select board expects. The likely course discussed was taking public comment on contract zoning and historic preservation on February 5 and passing any comments back to the select board.

32. 2:21:23
    March public hearing schedule

    Four items will need formal public hearings before the April 5 town meeting: resource protection, battery energy storage, contract zoning and historic preservation. The hearings must fall no more than 30 and no fewer than seven days before town meeting, which puts them in March; the board looked at March 5 with March 12 and 19 available if a hearing has to be continued.

33. 2:21:23
    Solar thresholds under contract zoning

    Members noted contract zoning would also raise the question of what acreage or megawatt threshold should apply to solar, and that public comment on February 5 would help set it. It was said most commercial solar farms start at about 20 acres and run to 100, that one proposal had covered 600 acres, and that a 500 acre installation in Farmington was said to produce $17 million over its lifetime.

34. 2:21:23
    Adjournment

    A motion to close the meeting was made and seconded and the chair recorded it as unanimous.

What was decided

• 21:47
  Strike the site plan review reference from 5.7.4 so a tier one system is not caught by site plan review; agreed as drafting direction with no vote takenoutcome unclear
• 54:10
  Rework paragraph K so the emergency operations plan must be approved by the Durham fire department and is not satisfied by NFPA 855 compliance alone, and add wording covering water supply; agreed as drafting direction with no vote takenoutcome unclear
• 1:10:42
  Reword 5.7.3(a) as all permits required by federal, state and local codes, and replace special permit with conditional use permit; agreed with no vote takenoutcome unclear
• 1:10:42
  Keep the 100 foot setback and the eight foot fence minimum rather than reducing them as requested in the written comments; agreed with no vote takenoutcome unclear
• 1:16:22
  Keep the vegetated buffer as drafted, with the visual impact analysis determining which sides need screening; agreed with no vote takenoutcome unclear
• 1:21:47
  Keep the 55 and 45 decibel noise limits rather than raising the daytime limit to 80, and keep the general decommissioning security language; agreed with no vote takenoutcome unclear
• 1:32:15
  Keep the 90 day abandonment period rather than extending it to 12 months; agreed with no vote takenoutcome unclear
• 1:48:43
  Replace the six battery chemistry thresholds in 5.7.2 with a single threshold of 70 kilowatt hours, to be put to the fire chief before the final draft; the chair said the board was not voting and that the vote would come at the next meetingoutcome unclear
• 1:59:28
  Leave tier three in the ordinance rather than allowing only tier one and tier two; the proposal drew disagreement and no vote was takenoutcome unclear
• 2:05:07
  Strike the wording that reads as allowing an increase of 55 decibels over ambient noise; agreed with no vote takenoutcome unclear
• 2:21:23
  Close the meeting, moved and seconded, recorded by the chair as unanimouspassed

An outcome reads "unclear" where the recording does not state it plainly. The recogniser drops short words, and "the motion does not carry" is one missing word from its opposite.

Worth knowing

• 27:20
  The fire chief said the draft's 500 foot distance to a water supply is too far, because a pumper carries 1,000 feet of supply line and a turn inside the site would leave the department nearly out of hose. He asked for 200 to 300 feet, for sources on opposite corners because of prevailing winds, and for redundancy since a plow can crack a dry hydrant.
• 1:48:43
  The board agreed to drop the six battery chemistry thresholds and apply the ordinance only above 70 kilowatt hours, so household systems are not caught. The figure came from the point that a typical house uses about 30 kilowatt hours a day and 60 would cover roughly two days off grid.
• 1:54:06
  The town attorney has advised that without contract zoning the town cannot restrict where these installations go, because they fall within essential services and are permitted in every district except shoreland zoning and resource protection, where they are a conditional use.
• 2:21:23
  Four ordinance items, resource protection, battery energy storage, contract zoning and historic preservation, all need formal public hearings in March, no more than 30 and no fewer than seven days before the April 5 town meeting.

Elsewhere

← 2025-01-08 Planning Board2025-02-05 Planning Board →All meetings