Residents press Kenilworth officials over CoreWeave data center as council says approvals limit local authority

Dozens of residents and outside experts packed Kenilworth Borough Hall and told the governing body on May 5 that an approved data center at the former Merck/Onyx site would threaten local health, property values and water supplies.

Mayor Karlovich defended the redevelopment, saying the project was being built on a site with existing infrastructure and that the company planned a closed cooling loop and its own power source. "There will be no contaminated water, no burnout, and no air cost," the mayor said, adding that the project would be "an $1.8 billion investment" that could create construction and permanent jobs and boost the borough's tax base.

But residents and experts disputed the mayor's assurances and pushed elected officials to act. Kaylee Henry, who identified herself as an ecology director with Climate Revolution Action Network, asked why state incentives were being given to a multinational company while the community might receive "0 benefit," and challenged officials to explain who would be held accountable if promises were not met. "Why does a company deserve a quarter billion dollars of handouts when the community is going to get 0 benefit?" she asked.

Several speakers highlighted three recurring concerns: notice and transparency, environmental impacts (especially water and noise), and limits on the borough's ability to intervene. Dr. Randolph Sanchez, a board-certified rheumatologist who identified himself during the public comment period, said his clinic will monitor for any unusual clusters of autoimmune disorders and urged ongoing surveillance. Young residents cited potential long-term economic burdens from higher utility costs; others described a humming noise they said could already be heard near the site.

Council members repeatedly explained that the planning board's May 2025 site-plan approvals vest rights and that, under current land-use law, the governing body cannot unilaterally undo those approvals. Borough counsel told the audience that the planning board is an autonomous body and that the council's options are limited once site-plan approvals are final. "Any law that's changed today does not affect and cannot affect an approval that was already granted by the planning board," the borough attorney said in the meeting.

At the same time, councilors acknowledged one remaining lever: the redevelopment agreement, which had not been signed at the time of the meeting. Council members said the borough could negotiate conditions when a redevelopment agreement is presented to the governing body and that the agreement could include enforceable measures addressing noise, water usage, monitoring and other mitigation.

Residents requested specific follow-up records and steps: copies of notices and return receipts the applicant filed for the planning-board hearings, title searches and deed-restriction documents affecting the property, and independent technical reviews of noise, water and emissions. Several commenters asked the council to press state agencies and the water supplier for clarity on hookups and capacity; officials said they would seek that information and look into independent reviews where appropriate.

The meeting produced no change to the planning approvals. Council members closed the public-comment period after several hours of testimony, voted to enter an executive session and adjourned. Councilors said they would continue to gather documents, follow up on public records requests and review potential redevelopment-agreement conditions when the applicant presents them for council consideration.

Next steps: the planning board retains regulatory authority over the site plan; the borough can still negotiate and potentially condition a redevelopment agreement when one is offered to the council. Members of the public said they will attend future planning-board and council meetings to press for further action.