Palmer Management Corporation has asked the Land Court to end its lawsuit against the Pembroke Zoning Board of Appeals without a trial, arguing that Susan Bollinger, the resident who challenged the company's proposed battery storage facility at 48 Schoosett Street, never had the legal standing to appeal the project's approval in the first place.
Palmer's motion was filed on August 10, 2026, and asks the court to declare that Bollinger lacked standing when she appealed the Planning Board's site plan approval to the ZBA in October 2025, that the ZBA had no jurisdiction to hear her appeal, and that the board's April 13, 2026 decision remanding the approval for further safety review is void. It also asks the court to declare that the appeal period for the site plan approval has expired and that no new appeals may be brought.
The filing reveals that a settlement reached between the ZBA and Palmer on July 16, 2026 has not taken effect. In that settlement, the town agreed that Bollinger lacked standing and that the ZBA's April remand to the Planning Board should be annulled.
Bollinger, who is representing herself, is now the only active defendant in the case. She said she intends to oppose the motion and expects to file by the court's September 9 deadline. "Palmer and I disagree about both the legal issues and aspects of how the administrative record is being characterized," she said, declining to preview her arguments before filing. She said she brought the appeal because she believed there were serious questions about whether the project had been approved in accordance with Pembroke's zoning bylaw, and that she was working alongside nearby residents, abutters and local businesses with concerns about the project.
Palmer's argument rests on a distinction in state zoning law between residents in general and those personally harmed by a decision. Under G.L. c. 40A, only a "person aggrieved" may appeal, and the harm must be specific to that person rather than shared with the community. The company's motion notes that Bollinger lives more than three miles from the site, is not an abutter, and told the ZBA in November 2025 that she was appearing on behalf of more than 60 residents, abutters and local business owners. Palmer argues that representing others is not a recognized basis for standing.
Palmer's motion also invokes a 2024 change to state law, which requires someone appealing a zoning decision to court to "sufficiently allege and must plausibly demonstrate" a measurable injury to a private legal interest "through credible evidence" (G.L. c. 40A, § 17). That change, part of the Affordable Homes Act, took effect August 6, 2024, more than a year before Bollinger filed her appeal. Section 17 governs appeals to court, and Bollinger's appeal was to the ZBA, which is governed by a different section. Palmer's motion argues the standard is the same in both settings, citing a 1984 Appeals Court decision.
Bollinger said that the standing question came up during the ZBA process, but that the timing and circumstances would be addressed in her filing. She said she does not recall being told during the open public hearing portion that she needed to present evidence of a specific personal injury for the board to hear her appeal.
Bollinger objects to Palmer's request to end the appeal window on the project approval, stating that "Actual abutters and nearby property and business owners participated in the ZBA proceedings, and they are not parties to this Land Court case." She said she is not claiming any particular person currently has a right to appeal, calling that a legal question for the court, but said she does not believe the independent rights of people who are not before the court should be unnecessarily decided through a case about her standing. She said she was also concerned that town counsel had agreed to a proposed judgment seeking that broader finality.
If the court grants the motion, the case would end without any finding on the fire safety questions that prompted the ZBA's remand. Those questions remain open by another measure as well. Condition 14 of the Planning Board's approval requires Palmer to obtain an Energy Storage Permit from the Pembroke Fire Department and to comply with applicable fire codes. In the July stipulation, Palmer agreed to comply with all conditions of the Planning Board's site plan approval. Fire Chief Jason Viveiros said Palmer has not applied for that permit and that he has had no correspondence with the company or its representatives since the ZBA proceedings.
The legal backdrop for how municipalities can regulate solar energy systems shifted shortly before the settlement. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided Sunpin Energy Services, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Petersham on July 14, 2026, the same day the ZBA met in executive session to discuss litigation strategy. The board signed the stipulated agreement two days later. The court held that a town may deny a permit for such a project only where doing so is "necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare," and that boards must conduct a site-specific analysis rather than rely on generalized concerns. It described the standard as a "narrow ambit," but confirmed that boards retain authority to act within it, and it sent the Petersham case back to the local board rather than ordering the permit issued.
Town counsel advised the ZBA in November 2025 that the project was protected under state law, citing a Land Court decision involving Duxbury, according to Palmer's filing. In that case, decided June 23, 2025, Judge Lauren Reznick ruled that a battery storage facility qualifies for the same protection state law gives solar projects, even when it is not connected to solar panels. The protection comes from a provision of the state zoning act, G.L. c. 40A, § 3, that limits how much towns can restrict certain uses, and which covers structures that facilitate the collection of solar energy. Reznick is also the judge presiding over the Palmer case.
Reznick declined to send the Duxbury case back to that town's board. She noted that Duxbury had no zoning rules at all for battery storage facilities, which left no standard for the board to apply on a second review, and she distinguished cases where towns did have site plan review standards in place. Pembroke conducted site plan review of the Palmer project, but does not have zoning bylaws specific to battery storage facilities. The Duxbury ruling came from the Land Court, a trial court, and no higher court in Massachusetts has ruled yet on whether battery storage facilities get that protection.
A separate Planning Board effort to draft a battery storage bylaw for Pembroke, which board members hope to bring to fall town meeting, is proceeding on its own track. PCJ will report on that process separately.
PCJ covered the judge's response to the joint stipulation and aerial imagery of the site in last week's report.
Editorial Note: Susan Bollinger and Fire Chief Jason Viveiros provided comment for this report. Palmer Management Corporation's counsel at Foley Hoag LLP responded to PCJ's questions but spoke only on background, meaning the information could not be attributed. No statements from that conversation are quoted or attributed in this report. Town counsel KP Law did not respond to questions by the deadline for this article. PCJ will continue to follow this case in future coverage.
