LIST OF CONCERNS - WHY WE FEEL THIS SITE IS THE WRONG PLACE FOR A BESS

🔹 Zoning & Legal Defects

·      Not a permitted use: A stand-alone Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) is not allowed in either the Residence A or Business B districts under Pembroke Zoning Bylaw §§ IV.1 and IV.4.

·      Not solar: The project has no solar panels and is therefore not covered by § V.12 (“Solar Photovoltaic Installations”).

·      No Special Permit issued: If treated as an “accessory use,” it would still require a ZBA Special Permit under § VI.D with supporting findings—none exist.

·      Even the town’s peer reviewer (Merrill Engineers) stated:

“The construction of Battery Storage Units is not an allowed use within the Residence A or Business B Zoning Districts”.

🔹 Proximity & Land-Use Conflicts

·      The site sits on a residential/commercial border, only ~53 ft from King Collision’s property line and ~250 ft from the nearest home at 51 Shipyard Lane.

·      King Collision regularly stores and repairs electric vehicles and chemicals, adding fire load and ignition risks within deflagration range.

·      The parcel abuts wetlands and the North River corridor, with runoff flowing toward sensitive habitat—yet no post-incident containment or sampling plan is provided.

·      Access is via an already-busy commercial lot shared with South Shore Realtors, creating mixed public/industrial exposure.

🔹 Safety Gaps

·      Until proven otherwise, the project lacks every element of a proper safety package:

·      No published make/model/chemistry of the battery units.

·      No UL 9540 listing or UL 9540A full-scale fire/gas test reports.

·      No Hazard Mitigation Analysis linking test data to gas detection, auto-venting, or firefighter entry protocols.

·      No HF or CO plume modeling to show safe evacuation or shelter-in-place distances.

·      No fire-water/runoff containment or cleanup plan protecting nearby wetlands.

·      No signed Emergency Response Plan with Pembroke Fire or commitment to drills.

·      No financial assurance or insurance naming the Town.

🔹 Site & Infrastructure Concerns

·      Nearest hydrant: ~615 ft from the battery pad area—well beyond ideal proximity for high-energy fires.

·      Only one access point via a parking lot—not suitable for simultaneous fire and EMS operations.

·      Multiple waivers granted (landscape plan, lighting plan, traffic study, impact statement) mean the Planning Board did not evaluate environmental or neighborhood impacts.

·      The yard sits over a gravel pad with shallow grass basin, not a hardened containment slab; any fire-water runoff would flow toward wetlands.

·       

🔹 Broader Risk Context

·      Similar-size (8–40 MWh) BESS sites elsewhere have caused explosions, toxic gas plumes, and multi-day evacuations.

·      The McMicken, AZ 2019 explosion showed that undetected off-gassing can lead to deflagration when doors are opened, severely injuring firefighters—underscoring why gas detection and auto-venting must be proven before siting near homes.

🔹 Bottom Line

48 Schoosett St is the wrong place for a high-energy industrial battery yard.

It sits between homes, wetlands, and small businesses, lacks zoning authority, and has no demonstrated safety data.

Until full, site-specific safety proof and permitting are public, the project should not move forward.