Summit council adopts ordinance to ban AI data centers after heated public hearing

Summit's Common Council voted to adopt Ordinance 26-3390 on June 16, adding a new prohibited-use definition for "AI data centers" to the city's development regulations.

The ordinance, which the council moved to final adoption after a long public hearing, defines AI data centers by a three-part test: the principal use of a structure (training, developing, storing or deploying AI models for off-site users), the technology involved, and measurable impacts on utilities. The text says a facility that generates a total peak power load in excess of 20 megawatts, or that causes a distinct increase in water utility consumption compared with other land uses, meets the test and would be prohibited.

Land use manager Augusto Damaso told the council the language was meant to close common loopholes used elsewhere: "If a developer tries to call it a warehouse or a ‘computer center,’ the zoning officer can compare the design and use to our definition and recategorize it," he said (Augusto Damaso). He also said Summit's existing land-use pattern and infrastructure make large AI facilities unlikely on practical grounds.

The hearing drew a steady stream of residents from neighborhoods near the former Bristol-Myers Squibb campus and technical witnesses. John Hong, who said he works in AI data infrastructure, urged stronger and clearer language: "You shouldn't be trying to regulate this with arbitrary numbers or engineering triggers. The industry already uses closed-loop liquid cooling and other approaches that can evade a water-use trigger," he said (John Hong).

Neighbors described persistent, low-frequency humming and other noise from the existing server-type equipment on the BMS site and said the proposed 20-megawatt metric would leave smaller but still disruptive facilities exposed. "Noise does not magically become acceptable at 19 megawatts," a resident said, noting an approximately 11,000-square-foot operation on BMS that already produces continuous mechanical noise.

Other speakers asked the council to add campus-aggregate language so a developer could not subdivide a large property into multiple sub-threshold facilities that individually fall below the 20 MW line but collectively impose the same utility and noise impacts.

The city solicitor advised that recusal questions are fact-specific under the New Jersey Local Government Ethics Law and, based on facts presented to the solicitor's office, found no conflict that required recusal during the hearing.

Council deliberations balanced two concerns: several members argued the ordinance should be tightened now and returned to the planning board for any substantive changes; others said adopting the ordinance as an additional layer of protection and then sharpening definitions would be a pragmatic path. Council Member Boyer pressed to remove the numeric 20-MW threshold entirely; his motion to table the ordinance to rework language failed for lack of a second, and he later recorded a dissenting vote on final adoption.

On final roll call the ordinance passed with one recorded dissent (Council Member Boyer). Councilmembers who supported adoption said they would direct staff to pursue additional technical study and to propose subsequent language that addresses campus-aggregation, noise metrics and other loopholes raised by residents and experts.

What happens next: the ordinance is now adopted and will be enforced according to the city's development code and zoning procedures. Council members and staff said they will commission a technical study of power, water and noise impacts and continue to consult with peer municipalities to refine enforcement and add any necessary language to address campus aggregation, lower-threshold facilities and noise enforcement.