Summit council adopts ordinance to ban AI data centers after hours-long hearing

Summit Common Council voted to adopt an ordinance that adds a new prohibited-use definition for AI data centers to the city's development regulations, following a long public hearing and technical presentation by the land use division.

Councilmember Christopher Foley, who introduced the measure, said the ordinance follows a model recommended by the Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions and is intended to protect Summit's residential character. "We have a binary choice tonight: approve it as is and protect the city, or leave Summit unprotected," he said.

Augusto Dalmaso, Summit's land use manager, walked the council and the public through the ordinance's three-part test: the principal use of a structure (training, storing, deploying large-scale AI models for off-site users); the technology involved; and impacts on utilities. The proposal treats any facility that meets those criteria and has a peak power load in excess of 20 megawatts or a measurable, distinct impact on water consumption as an AI data center and therefore a prohibited use.

"AI data center facilities, as defined herein, are expressly prohibited in all zones," Dalmaso said, describing why the rules also define and limit the term "computer center" so long-established, accessory server rooms in offices, hospitals or research facilities remain permitted.

The city solicitor told council members the Local Government Ethics Law requires fact-specific recusal judgments and that, "based on the facts presented," the solicitor's office did not find a statutory conflict that would require recusal by a council member in this matter.

The hearing drew a large turnout from neighborhoods near the former Bristol-Myers Squibb campus, where residents say they already live with continuous mechanical noise. "This is not theoretical to them," said Delia Hamlet, a neighbor, describing a constant hum from a roughly 11,000-square-foot facility behind homes on Kent Place Boulevard. "Noise does not magically become acceptable at 19 megawatts just because an ordinance starts at 20."

Technical critiques also came from speakers with industry experience. John Hong, who said he works in AI infrastructure, warned that closed-loop liquid cooling can avoid municipal water triggers and that developers can use "warehouse pivot" tactics to convert permitted warehouses into high-density server facilities unless language is tightened.

Many speakers urged removing the numerical 20-megawatt threshold altogether and instead defining prohibited uses by purpose and campus-wide aggregates so single-site developers could not subdivide a large campus into multiple sub-threshold parcels. "If the intent is a true ban, then say that," one resident said.

Council debate after public comment focused on three practical questions: whether to adopt the ordinance now or table it for further technical edits, whether the 20-MW figure creates a loophole that would let smaller but clustered facilities proliferate, and how to add campus-level aggregate limits and stronger noise and enforcement language. One councilmember moved to table; the motion died for lack of a second.

When the ordinance came to a roll-call vote it passed with a single dissent. The city will continue to refine implementation language and the planning board must review any substantive changes for consistency with the master plan.

Next steps: the city solicitor and land use staff told the council they will work with resident groups and technical experts to examine noise, water and power implications and to draft any follow-up amendments. Council members said they intend to consider whether to remove or replace the 20-MW figure and to add language that prevents developers from circumventing limits by subdividing campuses.

The council's action places an explicit local policy on the books while the municipality and residents continue discussions over enforcement, noise standards and whether stronger language is needed to close potential loopholes.