Public forum spotlights litigation claims, permit dispute and opposition to AI data centers

Several public-comment speakers used the council’s three-minute forum to raise legal, permitting and development concerns. Philip Laffette told the council the city sued him and that after he mounted counterclaims the city sought dramatically larger damages; he said the court dismissed the city’s initial suit and set a jury trial, and he warned the city’s potential liability could affect a planned $26 million bond sale. Laffette said, “the city subsequently sent a demand letter to me for 2,300,000.0 and then we preset to 17,000,000.” That allegation was presented as a citizen’s account of active litigation; council did not respond during public comment.

Marley Thompson described what she called inconsistent enforcement of design guidelines and permit requirements for her property at 914 College Street, which lies within Montgomery’s historic preservation district. She cited Code of Ordinances section 98‑347 and asked the city either to enforce violations uniformly or reimburse her for permit and reinspection costs related to work she says the city required but that the guidelines do not mandate. Thompson asked for clarification of remedies and consistent application of rules.

Krishna Chondasepro urged the council to oppose construction of AI data centers in Montgomery County, arguing they would consume substantial water resources and produce noise that would disrupt residential neighborhoods. He told council members that “water is a very valuable resource” and that AI data centers could threaten summer water availability, urging the council to deny construction permits or certificates of occupancy where appropriate.

Council accepted the public comments for the record; staff and councilors referenced these concerns later in agenda items that addressed development, water capacity and procurement.