Great Barrington Planning Board Meeting Summary – October 22, 2026

The Great Barrington Planning Board met Thursday, October 22, 2026, beginning at 6:00 p.m. Members approved two sets of meeting minutes, voted a positive recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a special permit at 110 Cottage Street, and continued discussions on zoning amendments for clean energy siting and seasonal communities. The meeting adjourned at 7:44 p.m.

Consent Calendar / Minutes

• The board unanimously approved the October 8 regular meeting minutes as amended, on a motion by Jonathan seconded by Jackie.
• The board unanimously approved the October 15 special meeting minutes as amended, on a motion by Jonathan seconded by Jackie.

Special Permit Review and Comment – 110 Cottage Street

• The board reviewed and commented on an application by James Zuko to the Zoning Board of Appeals under Sections 5.7 and 10.4 of the zoning bylaw for a larger garage on the same nonconforming footprint as the previous structure at 110 Cottage Street. Under Section 5.7.3, a special permit is required because the reconstruction would exceed the gross floor area of the original nonconforming structure.
• The applicant said he had already moved forward with construction and did not realize the added square footage triggered the permit; he wants to add a second level for storage. The building height remains below the zone limit.
• A board member reported visiting the site and hearing from a nearby neighbor that the project was an improvement to the current appearance.
• The board recommended downward-facing lighting rather than floodlights.
• Motion by Jonathan, seconded by Jackie: positive recommendation to the ZBA. All members voted in favor; none opposed. The conservation agent was to follow up with the applicant; no wetlands are apparent on the site.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Vivian, an Agricultural Commission member, asked during the clean energy discussion whether the Agricultural Commission’s role in solar siting and pollinator-friendly planting recommendations would continue. Town Planner Chris confirmed that the existing bylaw already requires solar applications on farmland or prime farmland soils to be submitted to the Agricultural Commission, which has 30 days to comment before the Planning Board may act.
• Vivian also raised concerns about data centers, citing Governor Healey’s executive order subjecting data center projects to local approval and New York State’s one-year moratorium. She asked the board to consider a local moratorium and coordinate with neighboring South County towns. The board said the issue was not currently on its agenda but would keep it as a future discussion point.

Discussion Items

Clean Energy Siting Zoning Amendments

• BRPC staff member Shredil joined to continue the board’s review of the state clean energy siting law. The board had received an earlier overview at its May 14 meeting. Under the new consolidated permitting process, small clean energy facilities—solar and battery energy storage systems—can be reviewed through one consolidated permit, with all town boards completing their reviews within one year. A developer may choose this process or the town’s existing permitting process. The threshold was described during the meeting as ‘under 25 megawatts,’ though the chair’s opening description said ‘under 20 megawatts’; the transcript is ambiguous. Above the threshold, projects may go directly to the state Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) and bypass local review.
• If a consolidated application is denied, the developer may appeal to the EFSB. The one-year clock does not start until the applicant submits a complete application after a pre-application phase, during which the town can specify what information is required.
• Board members clarified that small residential rooftop solar remains by right and subject to site plan review, and that small residential systems are unlikely to use the consolidated process.
• The board discussed Great Barrington’s current solar bylaw (Section 9.12), which does not address battery energy storage. The state’s model bylaws for solar and battery storage were in the meeting packet. Shredil and board members noted that battery storage is treated as a protected use under state law, so a town cannot prohibit it or regulate it unreasonably, but can impose reasonable setbacks, decommissioning, emergency planning, noise, and mitigation requirements.
• Board members expressed concerns about battery fire risk, emergency response capacity, transformer noise, and the ability to limit system size. Another member cautioned against treating battery storage as inherently dangerous without fact-finding. Shredil noted that the consolidated process gives towns more control through mitigation, offsets, and requirements for detailed emergency and maintenance plans.
• Shredil agreed to check with state Department of Energy Resources representative Doug Finn on whether the law covers nuclear/microreactors, anaerobic digestion, and other technologies, and to clarify whether a town that does not mention battery storage in its bylaw can deny it. BRPC will compare Great Barrington’s existing solar bylaw with the model bylaw and suggest redline changes.
• The board also noted that transmission and distribution projects are part of the state process, and grid hosting capacity may limit local projects. The board plans to consult the fire department as part of the bylaw work.

Seasonal Community Zoning Amendments

• The board continued its review of zoning amendments needed for the state’s Seasonal Communities designation. To comply, Great Barrington must allow tiny homes as year-round principal dwellings anywhere single-family homes are allowed as a primary use. The town currently allows tiny homes only as accessory dwelling units, so amendments will require a new Table of Use Regulations entry, new definitions, and possibly a new residential-use section.
• The state model defines a tiny home as a dwelling unit up to 400 square feet built to the building code. Board members distinguished fixed tiny homes from movable tiny houses/RVs/manufactured housing built to a different code, and discussed whether movable tiny homes should remain subject to existing ADU restrictions. No decision was made; Pedro agreed to review building code minimums.
• The second zoning requirement is to allow attainable housing units—income-restricted up to 250% of area median income and year-round—on undersized lots in single-family residential districts. The board discussed that this applies primarily to existing nonconforming lots; creating new undersized lots is optional under the model bylaw and was referred to as ‘the Eileen question.’
• Board members raised concerns about how deed restrictions and income limits would be enforced and tracked over time. No decisions were made.
• Members are to send suggested edits to Chris by December 1; Chris will compile a redlined working draft for further discussion at the December 10 meeting.

Board Member Updates and Next Steps

• Chris reported that the Affordable Housing Trust is continuing to work on a draft RFP for the Rising site; the current concept discussed at the Community Preservation Committee is a 12-unit cluster housing project. The draft is not ready to share publicly yet and will be discussed further at the Housing Trust’s November meeting.
• Community Preservation Committee step one applications are due November 6 at 4:00 p.m. at Town Hall.
• At the next meeting, the board will act as special permit granting authority for 425 Park Street, with a 5:15 p.m. site visit followed by a public hearing; the board may also discuss meat processing as a potential zoning amendment.

Key Outcomes

• Unanimously approved the October 8 and October 15 minutes as amended.
• Unanimously voted a positive recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the 110 Cottage Street special permit.
• Continued the clean energy siting and seasonal communities zoning amendment discussions; BRPC will draft comparisons and the board will return to both topics on December 10.
• Agreed to keep data centers and possible moratorium discussion as a future agenda item.
• Adjourned at 7:44 p.m.