Residents press Cabot officials over nearby crypto-mining site as city cites limited authority

Residents asked Cabot officials on Monday night for help with noise and other impacts from a cryptocurrency-mining operation sited just outside the city limits, but officials said the city’s authority is limited by county jurisdiction and a 2023 state law that restricts local governments’ ability to ban such facilities.

Darlene Bird, who said she lives about three-quarters of a mile from the site, told the council she can hear the operation from home and asked what the city planned to do to mitigate sound and other effects. “I sit in my recliner every night. I hear the traffic on the interstate, I hear the train, and if it’s going to increase that level of sound 24/7, we’re in a lot of trouble,” Bird said during the public-comment period.

City officials said they have been reviewing submissions to the county and consulting with the city attorney and neighboring elected officials. Ben (the city attorney) told the council the facility sits in county jurisdiction and that the city has begun the process to extend its planning jurisdiction so similar future projects would go through the city’s planning-commission review. He emphasized, however, that such a change would not retroactively halt an already approved project.

“Even with planning jurisdiction, the city does not have the authority to stop this,” Ben said, saying the city could require a planning process for future developments but could not unilaterally ban the current site.

Officials described additional limits arising from state law. According to council remarks, a state law enacted in 2023 prevents local governments from banning crypto-mining facilities in residential areas. Council members said they are seeking changes at the state level but that, for now, the city’s options remain limited to mitigation measures such as noise ordinances and the planning process for future projects.

Residents and officials also raised technical concerns about the developer’s submission to the county. The meeting record indicates the developer’s noise document was not prepared by an acoustical engineer, did not include counts of generators or stamped mechanical-equipment plans, and may not have been filed or served in full compliance with the county’s 30-day submission rules.

City and county officials suggested legal remedies for property owners. Ben and other officials advised residents that private causes of action — including enforcement based on subdivision covenants or a property’s bill of assurance — might allow neighbors to seek injunctions or other relief, and they urged affected residents to consult private counsel promptly to avoid forfeiting rights.

County Judge Doug Irn L (who introduced himself during his remarks) described steps the county has taken and the limits of enforcement under current law. He said the county had used a cease-and-assist order where excavation occurred in a floodplain without required permits; he also noted that some penalty provisions and new enforcement tools are not yet in force and that further state-level action is expected before March 2025.

What’s next: Officials said the city plans to bring a proposed change to its local code and planning-jurisdiction extension to a January planning meeting; residents were advised to consult private counsel if they believe subdivision covenants or other private restrictions apply. County enforcement and any legal challenges remain the primary tools for addressing activity already underway.