Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ordinance committee continues public hearing on proposed ban of data centers after hours of testimony
Summary
The Holyoke Ordinance Committee on Feb. 24 paused debate on a proposed zoning amendment that would define and bar data centers citywide, continuing the public hearing to April 14 to allow time for planning‑board review and technical study. Committee members cited concerns about water, power and regulatory capacity; proponents argued a pause is needed to create enforceable rules.
HOLYOKE — The Ordinance Committee continued a contentious public hearing on Tuesday on a proposed zoning amendment that would add a definition of "data center" to the zoning code and prohibit the use in every zoning district.
"The idea is just stop them all now," Councilor Panitch, a sponsor of the order and a member of the planning‑board contingent, said during the hearing, urging a pause while the city establishes review and permitting tools. Panitch said data centers can create large, often unpredictable demands on water and power, present noise and equipment‑siting challenges and that the city currently lacks the regulatory toolkit to mitigate those risks.
Supporters of that approach — including Councilors Talheimer and Rivera — said a temporary prohibition (framed by supporters as a protective pause) would give Holyoke time to craft standards and avoid being exposed to projects that could be difficult to regulate under current site‑plan review rules. "We cannot safely give this order leave to withdraw and start from scratch," Panitch said, adding that a ban would buy breathing room to build an enforceable framework.
Developers and business representatives who spoke urged caution before blocking the use outright. A developer representative told the committee the local proposal would catch small‑scale, regionally typical projects with very different impacts from massive campus‑scale centers. "We're the evil monsters you're portraying," the representative said, arguing that smaller data centers can be compatible with municipal infrastructure when utilities and mitigation plans are in place.
Property owner Mark Samwick, who testified in the hearing, asked the committee to identify precisely what existing land‑use authorities fall short and cited a recent review process (an unrelated energy project) that had been handled thoroughly through normal land‑use controls. "I don't really understand where the existing land‑use regulations fall short here," Samwick said.
Committee members stressed that neither the hearing nor the proposal targets any single pending application; rather, sponsors said the measure is intended to prevent rapid approvals of projects the city cannot yet evaluate. Councilor Talheimer described the action as a pause to develop a deliberate local review process, not a permanent ban intended to block all future opportunities.
After nearly three hours of testimony and questions from councilors and members of the public, the committee voted to continue the public hearing to April 14 at 6:30 p.m. to allow the planning board, legal staff and utilities to provide technical recommendations.
What happens next: The planning board and legal staff will be asked to advise the committee on how to structure a regulatory framework or moratorium that preserves the city's ability to evaluate impacts on the grid, water resources and neighborhoods. The hearing was continued, not decided: no ordinance was adopted or rejected at Tuesday's meeting.
