Residents press Norton council for answers on proposed data center, LNG turbines at former PPG site

Residents urged Norton City Council on Sept. 2 for public forums and detailed answers about a proposed data center and an on-site liquid natural gas (LNG) power plant at the former PPG property, citing concerns about water use, safety, noise and transparency.

The appeals came during the public-comment portion of the council meeting, where neighborhood residents and business owners said the scale and technical details of the project remain unclear and requested an opportunity to question developers and city staff in a public forum.

"We are here tonight because we have many concerns and many questions about the proposed construction of a massive data center and liquid natural gas power plant on the old PPG property right in the middle of our community," said Kate Raymond, a resident and representative of neighbors who live near the site.

Raymond and others listed specific concerns: she told council the proposal calls for "6 natural gas turbines, essentially creating a liquid natural gas power plant on-site" and asked whether fuel would arrive by rail or pipeline, and how carbon-capture and air-quality monitoring would be enforced. She also said data centers "consume vast amounts of water annually, hundreds of millions of gallons," and asked what protections would be in place to prevent local wells from going dry. "What assurances would we have that our water will be protected, never diminished, and kept clean from pollution?" she asked.

Aaron Burnett, another resident who spoke earlier during public comment, said he supports the administration’s broader economic strategy but acknowledged that details were scarce.

Council members and city staff told residents they have limited factual information because negotiations between the administration and the developer are ongoing. "Council doesn't know hardly anything on this project," said the Council president (speaking during the meeting). "There's a lot of things that are going back and forth between the developer and the administration... we only know what's told by the administration and the administration only knows what they've been told by the developer."

City planning staff and other city officials detailed the public-review steps that remain. According to city staff, the project previously received preliminary site approval at a Planning Commission meeting and the Board of Zoning Appeals approved a height variance, but a final application for additional Planning Commission review has not been filed. "They need to come back to the Planning Commission for 1 more meeting, and they have not applied yet to be on the agenda," said a planning staff member.

Officials told residents the next formal opportunity to review site plans would be a Planning Commission meeting; staff said applicants must submit materials at least 10 days before a meeting and that the commission holds two meetings a month. City staff also said that an existing agreement from the early 2000s would still allow a hydroelectric plant at the site unless council approves a different development.

Residents asked for a town-hall or public forum to obtain direct answers from developers. Council members said they would consider such a meeting but only when the administration or the developer can provide substantive information. "I've asked for a FAQ list, and it's yet to come out," one council member said; staff said a FAQ was in preparation and being shared with the developer.

The public-comment period included repeated requests that the city provide data on groundwater impacts, noise mitigation plans, transportation of fuel (rail versus pipeline), water-consumption estimates and timelines for construction. City officials encouraged residents to sign up for agenda notifications on the city's website to be alerted when Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals items are scheduled.

No formal council action, vote or land-use approval on the data-center proposal was taken at the Sept. 2 meeting; city officials said that any development other than the already-authorized hydroelectric plant will require further approvals by council.

For now, residents said they will continue to press for public meetings and more detailed, written responses from the developer and the administration before any final approvals are considered.