Montgomery adopts ordinance banning data centers and detention centers after contested hearing

The Montgomery Township Committee voted unanimously June 16 to adopt Ordinance 26‑1779, which amends the township land‑development code to prohibit data centers and detention centers within municipal boundaries.

Supporters told the committee the ordinance is preventive and necessary. Mary Reese, chair of the township environmental commission, said data centers ‘‘are wholly incompatible with the character, the resources, and the long‑term well‑being of our community’’ and warned of strain on the electric grid and local water supplies. Mike Pesaro, policy director for the Watershed Institute, told the committee that large data facilities can require massive water and energy inputs and said state‑level oversight has lagged: ‘‘We are in week 28 of a drought,’’ he said, arguing that the township should not accept added risk to drinking water or watershed health.

Speakers in favor also raised social concerns tied to detention facilities and urged local rules preventing municipal property from being used to support civil immigration enforcement. Dawn Cohen, a resident speaking in support, said the ordinance would ‘‘protect my family, protect our Montgomery community’’ and prevent surprise uses like the recently proposed detention proposal in Roxbury.

Opponents — including legal counsel for an economic‑development applicant — asked the committee to slow the process. Craig Giannetti, representing Econ Development, asked the committee to reject or at least table the ordinance to allow further analysis and described the potential for a lawful application at the Kenview site. ‘‘An outright ban requires that the prohibition bear some reasonable relationship to a legitimate planning objective,’’ Giannetti told the committee, urging tailored standards instead of a ban.

A representative of the site owner, Peter Kilty of Econ Development, described on‑site infrastructure he said reduces typical community impacts: dual 69‑kV electrical feeds, existing substation redundancy, fiber access along railway rights‑of‑way and a closed‑loop cooling system that he said ‘‘does not use water’’ in the way older systems did. Kilty also said modern designs include noise‑mitigation measures and acoustic engineering to meet municipal limits.

After hearing more than a dozen public speakers and review of competing technical claims, the committee closed the public hearing and adopted the ordinance by unanimous roll call. The motion carried with Committee Member Martin, Committee Member Ahn, Deputy Mayor Patricia Taylor Todd and Mayor Singh voting yes.

The ordinance changes the township code to prohibit two categories of uses; the committee did not adopt site‑specific amendments for Kenview during the meeting. Committee staff said the ordinance will be codified and posted to the township website. The committee also directed staff to track any state developments and local redevelopment applications that could be affected by the ban.

What happens next: Ordinance 26‑1779 will be incorporated into the municipal code; any pending or future site applications that claim preexisting nonconforming status will be handled under existing municipal and state land‑use law and may trigger additional administrative or judicial review.