Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council adopts ordinance to prohibit data centers pending state rule clarity
Summary
Council introduced and voted to adopt ordinance 26‑21 to add a definition for 'data center' and designate data centers as a prohibited use in commercial, business and industrial zones, citing state planning and local concerns over energy, water and community impacts; one council member voted No citing the ordinance's broad definitions.
The East Brunswick Township Council on July 27 introduced and approved ordinance 26‑21 to amend township zoning (chapter 228) to add a definition for "data center" and to prohibit data centers in all commercial, business and industrial zoning districts.
The council framed the change as a temporary local pause while state regulations and a recent state comprehensive plan are finalized. As the council president summarized, the intent is to "let the legislation catch up" while municipalities retain bargaining power. The ordinance text as presented lists concerns including "electricity consumption, noise, air quality, water use, community character, and long term municipal planning objectives."
Councilman Wendell urged more specific thresholds (for example by storage or electrical capacity), warning a wide definition could unintentionally capture ordinary office buildings. He said the ordinance "needs to be much more tightly defined" and recommended further legal review. The township attorney and other speakers noted the definition includes accessory components (transformers, generators, environmental controls) and that the ordinance is intended to target facilities whose primary purpose is large‑scale housing of computing infrastructure, not typical municipal or office functions.
Councilman McAvoy voiced support for the ordinance and referenced public opposition, saying a recent Gallup poll found "74% of Americans oppose the construction of data centers in their local communities," to underline constituent concern. After discussion and a roll call, the ordinance advanced with a recorded majority: Councilman Wendell voted No; other members recorded Yes votes.
Council members discussed that the ordinance can be repealed or revised as state law develops and that legal staff had reviewed the draft, though some members asked for an additional two weeks of refinement and consultation with other jurisdictions before final adoption.
