Orangetown planning board votes to require environmental review for DataBank Orangeburg Phase 2 after widespread public concern

The Town of Orangetown Planning Board voted July 8 to issue a positive declaration—meaning an environmental impact statement is required—for DataBank’s proposed Orangeburg Phase 2 site plan.

The 1‑item meeting centered on a presentation from the applicant and consultants, lengthy discussion by the board about technical gaps in the record, and more than two hours of public comment. Lino Scharretta, counsel for the applicant, said the project had been reduced in footprint from the originally proposed mirror image of Phase 1 to roughly 77,000 square feet for the new building and that the applicant seeks preliminary site plan approval and a negative declaration so it can proceed to the Zoning Board of Appeals for variances. "This is not a popularity contest," Scharretta said, asking the board to base its decision on the record.

Why it matters: AKRF, the town’s consultant, told the board it had signed off on some items but still recommended the board consider an EIS because outstanding concerns remain about energy use, air emissions and noise. AKRF’s summary identified the proposed action’s large electricity demand and flagged the need for additional analysis of air quality and cumulative impacts. The board voted to require the EIS so those topics are addressed through a formal scoping and public review process.

What the applicant presented: Databank and its consultants said the reduced Phase 2 would not require a new substation, that Orange & Rockland had issued a will‑serve letter and completed some upgrades, and that the facility’s generators are intended for emergency use with maintenance‑testing limits the team described as consistent with prior approvals. A company presenter said the proposed incremental annual electricity use for Phase 2 would be roughly 107,222 megawatt‑hours (described in the presentation as about a 10 MW increment), and that a closed‑loop cooling system would consume, by the applicant’s permitting estimate, about 607,725 gallons a year (about 1,665 gallons per day) based on a 69‑occupant-permitting assumption. The applicant also emphasized commitments to dark‑sky lighting and a vegetated buffer.

Board concerns and missing items: Board members pressed the applicant on several record gaps. Questions included why pollutant fields in the FEAF (environmental assessment form) part 1 were blank for diesel generator emissions and how pre‑construction air permit material (Article 19 references in the DEC letter) was being handled. A board member said the FEAF must be complete before a proper SEQRA determination; the applicant agreed to transfer emissions calculations from Part 3 into Part 1 or submit them as an exhibit. The board also requested explicit map notes or resolution conditions for generator‑testing hours, dark‑sky lighting commitments and landscaping for any land‑banked parking scenario.

Public comment: Dozens of nearby residents, engineers and attorneys spoke during the three‑minute public comment period, voicing concerns about power demand on the grid, potential rate and reliability impacts, diesel emissions and testing, noise and light intrusion, wetlands and a reported bald‑eagle nest, groundwater and reservoir risks, and the fairness of tax incentives tied to phase 1. Steven Jackson, a nearby resident, told the board the proposal represents much higher power density than older approvals and urged a year‑long pause for zoning and policy updates; he said, "The 40 megawatt data plan they’re looking for now is more like Jeff Bezos’ half‑billion‑dollar yacht." Several commenters asked that the town require on‑site renewable generation or battery storage and binding mitigation funds to cover monitoring and community harms.

Votes at a glance: The board moved, seconded and then conducted a roll call on a motion to issue a positive declaration (require an EIS). The motion carried with board members voting in favor and none recorded as opposed; the chair explained that the next steps are for the applicant to provide a draft scoping document and for the town to hold a public scoping meeting.

What happens next: The positive declaration starts a scoping process to define the EIS topics and information needs. The applicant indicated it will prepare and submit a draft scoping document to the board’s consultants, and consultants will publish a scoping notice and schedule public scoping opportunities. The board must receive additional technical materials—AKRF specifically identified energy, air quality and noise as topics expected to be covered in the EIS.

Context and background: Phase 1 of the DataBank campus previously received approvals and is operational. The Phase 2 submission revises an earlier larger concept down to the current footprint; town documents in the record include EAF parts, sound studies, DEC correspondence and hundreds of public comments filed before and during the meeting. AKRF’s summary noted that the proposed project’s total electricity demand (Phase 1 plus Phase 2) was characterized in consultant materials as equivalent to the annual use of thousands of homes and that cumulative grid and off‑site impacts warranted further study.

What the board asked of the applicant: Provide emissions calculations in the FEAF Part 1 or as an exhibit; add explicit plan notes or resolution language about generator testing schedules and lighting specs; submit a draft scoping document for the EIS; and include any additional technical documentation AKRF or the town engineer deems necessary for scoping.

The meeting adjourned after board housekeeping items and approval of prior minutes. The board did not take final site‑plan action; instead it directed scoping and additional information before any final environmental finding or site‑plan approval.