2026-09-30 - Ordinances Licenses and Legal Affairs Committee

04:30City C

04:33city council committee on ordinances lic

04:35and legal affairs cop with the committee

04:37of a whole will meet in person Wednesday

04:39September 30th 2026 at 6 pm for the

04:42purpose of discussing an ordinance to

04:44amend an ordinance relative to zoning

04:47data centers. This meeting will be held

04:49in the city hall council chambers, 93

04:51Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts,

04:53second floor. Please click on the

04:55webinar below. Password 983980

04:58or telephone number. In person shall be

05:01the primary method of public access to

05:03such meetings. A secondary method of

05:05public access may be provided if

05:07technologically feasible through Salem

05:09access television or remotely through

05:12Zoom.

05:15So tonight again we are ordinance to

05:17amend an ordinance relative to zoning

05:20data centers. From the committee I have

05:22councelor Halapa, councelor Hapworth,

05:25councelor Pnuski. From the committee of

05:27a whole we have president council

05:29council president Merkel,

05:32councelor Sedoriaak, councelor Davis,

05:34councelor Terowski

05:37and from the city we have

05:41we have I'm sorry Robin Stein from KP

05:44Law uh representing our legal team here

05:47as well as planning [snorts] board

05:49member Josh Turiel joining us as well.

05:53And just to make sure see on Zoom here

05:56we also have from the committee whole

05:58councelor King also joining us as well.

06:01Promote you to panelist.

06:04Okay. So, so what we have in front of us

06:07here is

06:10so just to give this a little bit of

06:12context this is we we passed this last

06:15Thursday first passage

06:17uh with this going to committee before

06:20second passage. What was added to the

06:25ordinance was [snorts] or to our

06:28discussion was a amendment uh and a

06:34recommendation from our planning board

06:37and that recommendation was to add a

06:43aggregate power of 2 megawws at the end

06:46of the first sense of data center. I

06:49just want to quickly let everyone know

06:52that when it comes to what was proposed

06:56which was an outright ban of data

06:59centers uh we definitely have to be

07:03mindful of what discussion we can have

07:06within the four corners of this

07:08conversation.

07:09So, I know that there's talk I know with

07:12the planning board there was talk about,

07:14you know, issuing special permits. There

07:16was talks about how we get a little more

07:18specific about data centers. To be

07:21honest with you, we have to be very

07:24careful about what we propose uh

07:26tonight. I I think that even the

07:29amendment from the planning board uh

07:31could be within outside of the four

07:33corners of the conversation. I think

07:36this just leads to a a another

07:39conversation later. Uh so with that, um

07:44I'll start out with the council and then

07:48we'll uh we have our expert here which

07:51would be or the the gentleman who made

07:52the amendment with the planning board,

07:54Josh Turiel. So under discussion,

07:56councelor Habworth.

07:58>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. If uh the chair is

08:00willing, I'd like to have uh former

08:02councelor Turiel join us just to uh just

08:04talk through the um the thought process

08:07on the planning board and uh and maybe

08:09even his own technical expertise. He has

08:11some around uh mega wattage.

08:13>> Thank you, Mr. Tio. Take it away.

08:15>> Sure. Thank you. Um

08:18so we were in a bit of a corner as when

08:21this was put forward initially because

08:24of the way it was written. It was

08:27written as an outline outright ban with

08:30no definitions. And within that we were

08:34faced with a problem in looking at that

08:36the planning board which was

08:39as it was written it would ban

08:41essentially any

08:44intensive data usage. Things like server

08:46rooms in a corporate office were

08:48potentially covered by that. um if you

08:51had to do any kind of buildout within a

08:53building in order to make and literally

08:57just to build a room even smaller than

08:59this one with servers in it, you were

09:02looking at that potentially being a not

09:03allowed use or considered to be a data

09:05center under the initial language. So

09:08what we tried to do at the planning

09:09board level was staying within the four

09:12corners as best as we [snorts]

09:15as could with some discussion and we had

09:17some discussion prior to the meeting

09:19with legal as well um before we went

09:22there.

09:23But the intent that we had was to come

09:27up with a definition that would

09:30cover any extremely large intensive

09:34uses. And and frankly the way this is

09:37written this is also some this is also

09:39flawed in theory but it's enough to at

09:43least make routine use of data

09:46processing equipment legal and that was

09:48the major goal is to make that legal

09:51without allowing the real I guess

09:55villain of the discussion which is the

09:57large hypers scale data centers and

09:59close to them. So we that was our

10:02objective there and the 2 megawatt

10:04definition is generally used in a number

10:08of other places including in something

10:10that I had provided uh today that's on

10:13everybody's desk which is the recent um

10:16bylaws change in the town of Mansfield

10:19to define what the differences are

10:22between classes of data center and

10:25aggregate usage um or total electric

10:29usage um size

10:32and what their typical use patterns are.

10:35In fact, um so the goal here in what we

10:40recommended to you is

10:43this kind of covers our uh basis for the

10:46short term, but it is something that

10:49we'll have to come back in with a

10:51rewritten ordinance that's I think

10:54should probably some be somewhat similar

10:56to what again what I've submitted from

10:58the town of Mansfield and I think they

11:01did a pretty good job of it. So [snorts]

11:04that would be the best usage for us to

11:08do, which is take this through, put this

11:11on the books, and that kind of covers us

11:13for the short term. And then we work on

11:17redoing this properly with different

11:20tiers, different permitting standards,

11:22what is and what is not permitted. Um,

11:27and yeah, make that the kind of the

11:29version 2.0 of this. Our our whole

11:32objective here is we want routine like

11:34and at the planning board level and I

11:36suspect mostly at the council level

11:38[snorts] we want routine data processing

11:40uses to be legal and permitted. Um what

11:43we don't want is large

11:46very resource inensive hypers scale data

11:49center facilities built in Salem. Now

11:52it's not that easy to build something

11:53really large. the what was proposed at

11:56Shetland um very recently is small by

11:59the by hypers scale data center

12:01standards but it's very large by city of

12:03Salem standards which is why it was

12:05problematic

12:07um so coming up with a happy medium

12:10where there's a you know there's a

12:13simple by something that could be

12:15allowed by right something that could be

12:18allowed with a special permit if granted

12:20you know at the discretion of the city

12:22and then something that would be banned

12:24and entirely I think is ultimately the

12:26way we should go and I like I said what

12:27I've given everybody here is I think a

12:31good place to start

12:36uh thank you uh council to um I guess

12:38the the question I would have is um why

12:42use a a measurement to determine a use

12:45would it have been would it not have

12:47made sense to just outline what a server

12:49room is as an incidental use to

12:52something uh rather And I guess I I just

12:54worry about like does that leave too

12:57much wiggle room at the 1.9 megawatts.

13:00Um I assume that we as a city would say

13:02that a data center even at one even with

13:04this amendment of 2 megawws would still

13:06probably be illegal, but I think someone

13:08could make a case there. Um and I wonder

13:12if maybe we just outline what it is

13:14we're trying to allow to remain legal.

13:17Was that conversation had on the

13:19planning board?

13:19>> Yes. Um, and that conversation was had

13:21on the planning board. But what we

13:23found, and this was I had some

13:26discussions with uh you with our city

13:28solicitor and our past city solicitor

13:30about this going into it, we were kind

13:33of constrained as to what we could add

13:35to this because of the way it was

13:37written initially

13:39>> to stay within the four corners of the

13:40order as it was submitted. Got it. Okay.

13:42So,

13:42>> yeah, that that was the rationale. So if

13:44we were to say something like a data

13:46center shall include shall not include

13:48server rooms or related equipment etc.

13:50and say that it's it must be incidental

13:52to a primary use that in her view that

13:54was or his I'm sorry in his view that

13:56was outside of the four corners of the

13:57ordinance to start going down that path.

13:59>> Yeah. To start going down there would

14:00have taken it out of what we noticed and

14:02held the public hearing on. So that was

14:05the that was the caveat for us.

14:07>> Got it. Thank you.

14:09>> Thank you. Before we get a little too in

14:11the weeds asking Mr. material questions.

14:13I'd like to bring Miss Stein up here.

14:16Um, could you speak to how the ordinance

14:18was proposed and what we could

14:22effectively do within the four corners

14:24of what is proposed in front of us

14:26today?

14:28>> Sure. Good evening everyone. Robinstein

14:29with KP Law. Um, I

14:32>> Oh, sorry. Is that better?

14:34>> Okay. Sorry. [laughter]

14:35>> I don't want to crowd you out.

14:38>> Okay. Um, so I can't necessarily speak

14:40to the the process behind getting this

14:42to you. I think that'd be more a

14:43question for James. But um, you know, I

14:46can talk to your second question. And

14:48you know, if you look at the first

14:50sentence of the proposed definition, it

14:53says a facility or portion thereof

14:55primarily designed or used to house

14:57computer servers and related

14:59information. So it it does sound like in

15:01the first instance and the intent was to

15:03regulate data sets as a principal use.

15:05And so I think that you could probably

15:08add some version of language that makes

15:10clear that this is not meant to regulate

15:12when similar technology is used as an

15:15accessory use and still be within the

15:17four corners because the original intent

15:20as I read it was only to regulate

15:22principal uses, primary uses. So if

15:24you're adding some clarifying language

15:26to the definition where you said look

15:28it's a facility or a portion thereof

15:30primarily designed and used to house to

15:32do these things and then you say however

15:35we're essentially clarifying that if the

15:39facility

15:40or the equipment if the primary purpose

15:43of that isn't just housing those things

15:46it's those things are accessory to the

15:47primary purpose I think you could put

15:49some clarifying language in and you'd

15:50still be within the four corners um you

15:53You know, a concern I have with the way

15:55the ordinance is written is if you

15:58if you

16:00specifically define data centers at a

16:04certain megawatts and I don't have the

16:05technological background. I certainly

16:07defer to the experts on what the right

16:09level is. It's going to create

16:11potentially create kind of a gap, right?

16:13Where what happens then when someone

16:15comes in with something that doesn't

16:16reach that level but doesn't really fit

16:18within any other definitions that the

16:21city has? Does it change how things are

16:23interpreted? So, you know, if you're

16:24going to do that, I just encourage you,

16:26you know, sooner than later to come back

16:27and revisit and do more of a full um an

16:30ordinance because again, some of it goes

16:32into what the intent is. I mean, is the

16:33intent to have an outright ban of any

16:35kind of um facility where the principal

16:38use is really just server storage or is

16:40the intent to allow for some of that on

16:41a smaller scale but not a larger scale

16:43depending on resources. Um, but you

16:46know, I think that you could, and again,

16:48it's it's more of a policy decision for

16:50you folks, but I think that instead of

16:51going with the megawatt limit if you

16:53wanted to, um, you know, you could just

16:56put some clarifying language in that, I

16:58think would, you know, accomplish at

17:00least the protection of saying, "Hey, we

17:01have a bank and they have servers. We're

17:02not turning them into a data center."

17:04And just making it clear that the data

17:06center is not including when that

17:08equipment is accessory to the same

17:11on-site use, not being used to service

17:12third parties. I think that falls within

17:15the original language of primarily

17:17designed or used. Um I think there's at

17:19least an argument that you know adding

17:21that clarification is not really

17:22changing the meaning. It's just

17:24clarifying the original meaning that you

17:26had. Um and as so long as adding that

17:27language the intent isn't to change what

17:29you originally proposed and it doesn't

17:30sound like it is. It just sounds like

17:31it's to clarify it further. Um I think

17:35you could argue it's within the scope.

17:37>> Awesome. Thanks mine. Under discussion

17:40councelor Alopa then councelor King.

17:44Thank you, Chair Varela. I've got an a

17:47good amount to say on this. Um, I'll

17:48start with some comments before I get

17:49into any questions. I just want to say

17:52for the record that, you know, at least

17:53from my own perspective, the concern is

17:55not only hyper data hypers scale data

17:57centers. I think the the concern and

17:59this is maybe where some of the

18:00megawattage discussion came from is the

18:03impact of specifically high heat and

18:06high noise uses in our industrial zones

18:09that are near residential areas. Uh, as

18:12was referenced before, there was a

18:14recent uh, attempt to build a data

18:16center in Salem. It was uh, ultimately

18:19shot down, which I'll talk more about in

18:21a minute. Um, but that was at Chetland

18:23Park, pretty large industrial space.

18:25It's somewhat separated from the rest of

18:27the environ, the rest of the

18:28neighborhood around it. We have existing

18:31industrial zones that are full of

18:33residential houses right now. I can

18:36think of four or five that are in my

18:37ward by itself that I would be very

18:39concerned with. a company coming in if

18:43we allow things that are less than two

18:45megawatts and putting a effectively a

18:47data center that they've managed to get

18:49underneath the threshold of power-wise

18:52right next to someone's home. Uh and my

18:55understanding the zoning is it'd be

18:56allowed to do that. Um I think there are

18:58a few things that I have concerns with.

19:01Um I do want to mention on the Shetland

19:03point, let me come back around to that.

19:05Um it was not allowed not because it was

19:07too large by Salem standards. It wasn't

19:09allowed because right now it's not a

19:10permitted use in our zoning and so

19:12therefore it is not allowed. So if we

19:14don't do anything with this, if we don't

19:16pass this ordinance, data center is not

19:18allowed in Salem. That was the building

19:20commissioner's decision, the zoning

19:21officer as well as uh what the ZBA found

19:24in that case. So at a high level, you

19:28know, my concern really is that it would

19:31probably be better to do nothing than to

19:33do this wrong. And it sounds like we're

19:36coming in with half an ordinance. Uh and

19:40I would rather not do anything than um

19:44than move something forward that is

19:46flawed. Um a few other thoughts that I

19:48had on this. You know, I want to make

19:50sure that we also are not forgetting

19:51about our principal uses which is part

19:53of our zoning. You know, I think that

19:55there's a way maybe to write this which

19:57is clear that the hospital can still

19:58have a server room because that's not

20:00the principal use. The principal use is

20:02the hospital. uh we have existing uh

20:05definitions and uses in our zoning table

20:07about essential services which colors

20:09telecom about research and laboratory.

20:11So I think if we're trying to find the

20:13way to make sure we're not excluding

20:14some of these things I think we really

20:17probably should start from the ground up

20:19on this and have this entire

20:21conversation together with all these

20:22different uses and understand how this

20:24interacts with with what we have um and

20:27what we want. I mean what I'm hearing

20:29from residents is that they do not

20:30they're very concerned about this. They

20:32do not want these things in their in

20:34their backyards, in their neighborhoods,

20:35and I think for really good reasons and

20:38I would rather us just come back to this

20:42when it's ready.

20:43>> Thank you.

20:44>> Before I get to,

20:44>> Mr. Chair, if the if the

20:46>> one second just just so we're clear,

20:48just so everyone knows,

20:50>> when it comes to the zoning use, when it

20:52comes to the hospital or anyone that is

20:54currently has a server room, that would

20:56be if we did pass something tonight

20:58that's considered non-conforming

21:00to the use. So it wouldn't affect their

21:02use, but obviously if they want to get

21:04another permit to do something bigger,

21:05it could be problematic. Go ahead.

21:07>> A clarifying point. Now, my

21:09understanding, and maybe our legal

21:10expert could clarify, my understanding

21:12is the hospital's primary use is

21:13hospital and it would not be just

21:16because you have uh a computer or a

21:18server room in your facility does not

21:20mean that the principal use of that um

21:24that land that that business is data

21:27center. It just means that that is an

21:28accessory or an incidental use.

21:31So if if the chair doesn't object, I'll

21:33go to one of the seats over here, the

21:35open seats.

21:36>> No problem.

21:38>> So just to I think that's the point of

21:40of you know putting a clarification in

21:42about what you mean about primary. It's

21:44just that you're saying we're not trying

21:45to get at existing businesses that have

21:47these technologies on site that have a

21:50primary use technology support as

21:53opposed to a business where this is the

21:54business, right? That server storage is

21:56the business. Um, one point I do want to

21:58make and and I appreciated your comments

22:01is, you know, we don't know if that ZBA

22:03decision is going to be appealed yet.

22:04So, there is a risk out there that if

22:06the decision is appealed, the court

22:07disagrees. And so, while, you know, I

22:09understand the city's position is is

22:11that, you know, section 3.1 of your

22:13zoning ordinance says if a use isn't

22:15listed and allowed, it's not allowed.

22:17And this is a different use and it's not

22:18listed. And, um, you know, that's

22:21certainly the city's position. You're

22:22also going through this process to clear

22:24up that fight, right? To clear up any

22:26confusion. And so, um, you just we don't

22:28know, you know, what's going to happen

22:29with that, um, if it gets appealed,

22:31depending on what a court does. So, if

22:33the council has concerns it wants to get

22:35ahead of, you know, it it can choose to

22:37do so. But, um, yeah. No, I mean, I

22:40think having a clarification that again

22:42that you're looking at the primary use

22:44here as opposed to a hospital or any

22:47lots of businesses have servers, right?

22:49But they're to service their business on

22:51site. I think that's a distinction to be

22:53drawn. Um,

22:54>> stole the floor.

22:55>> Yeah. Thank you for that. I'm curious if

22:57you have a recommendation on how we can

22:58do that because the way that I read this

23:00ordinance is this where where put data

23:03center in the table was in the principal

23:05use table in the industrial side. Uh

23:08which to me maybe is too implicit that

23:10we're talking principal use there and

23:12then in the definition it does say

23:14primarily designed or used. So is a s is

23:16do you have a more specific suggestion

23:18on how we can be more clear with that

23:21language to that end? Yeah, I mean I

23:23think again you're you are regulating it

23:25as a principal use. So it belongs on the

23:27use table in the principal uses. Um you

23:29know and then in the definition you

23:33could use the word principal instead of

23:35primary. I guess you could play with the

23:37definition, but um you know I did the I

23:40know um councelor Hapworth had some

23:42suggested language and I think you know

23:44more or less something to that effect

23:45where you just add a sentence to the

23:47definition that says to the effect that

23:49you know a data center doesn't include

23:53um you know server rooms technology

23:55equipment that is you know onsite to the

24:00primary use that is accessory to the

24:03primary use on you know that same

24:05premises

24:06and um you know it but would apply if

24:12you know that equipment was there as a

24:15principal use of service. So, I mean, I

24:16think you can work with that language a

24:17little bit. Um, you know, and you want

24:20to be we want to be clear, too, um, in

24:24just making sure when you're referring

24:25to what it's accessory to or on the

24:27premises that you're contemplating, you

24:29know, you do have, you know, lots within

24:32the city that have multiple uses. And

24:34when you say the premises, you mean like

24:35that specific unit or that specific

24:37business, not like the whole property.

24:39But no, I mean, I think that I think

24:41that you could work with this language a

24:44little bit to just make clear that

24:45within the definition when you're

24:47talking about what it's primar the

24:50primary purpose is. If it if the primary

24:52purpose is the technology storage data

24:55center use, that's a data center. If the

24:57primary purpose is some other allowed

24:59use and this equipment exists accessory

25:01to that, it's not. And I I think you can

25:02work that into the definition given the

25:04way that it's already written and given

25:07the context within the use table itself.

25:10>> Thank you. And I I I appreciate that. I

25:12also want to come back to what you were

25:13mentioning a moment ago about the ZBA

25:15appeal.

25:15>> Sure.

25:16>> Um

25:16>> well, I don't know whether there will or

25:17won't be one. I just wanted to make

25:18clear that's on a final final.

25:20>> So when I when I said the appeal, I

25:21meant the one that got appealed to the

25:22ZBA.

25:23>> Yes.

25:24>> Yeah, of course. Yes.

25:25>> But I was wondering if you could tell us

25:26what does that look like? So this

25:28organization that ultimately got their

25:30appeal denied, what is the path forward

25:32to them, if they were committed to to

25:35trying to get this uh to come to Salem.

25:37>> So once the decision is filed with the

25:39city clerk, they have a time period in

25:40which they can appeal it to court and

25:42they can put the question to a court.

25:44>> Um then a court will interpret the bylaw

25:46as they do any law or statute and and

25:48you'll get an answer of what you know at

25:50that time the court either agrees with

25:52the zoning board in the city or

25:54disagrees. Um, but I just wanted to note

25:56that it isn't kind of like the final

25:58decision on that potentially.

26:00>> So, if if you know when hypothetically

26:02and if this this uh group were to do

26:04this, what does the what role or or um

26:09how much work does the city have to do

26:10to sort of come to court with that to

26:12defend that? Is that done without anyone

26:15from the city or is that something that

26:16takes time and effort on staff or

26:19special counsel to do that? No, that's I

26:21mean because it's a denial decision, the

26:23city would have a like a a main role in

26:26defending um but certainly if something

26:29is filed then there could be executive

26:31sessions to kind of discuss

26:33>> how that all happen. So I don't want to

26:34get too far down to it but it would be

26:36the state's responsibility you know to

26:38defend the decision.

26:39>> Thank you. And and I think that's an

26:40important thing that we need to consider

26:41with this is that where the AI industry

26:44is right now is trillions of dollars

26:47coming in here. It is an egregious

26:49amount of money and what we heard what I

26:51heard at the the ZBA meeting from the

26:54organization that was trying to put this

26:55appeal forward is that they had a lot of

26:56money on the line and I think this when

26:59we're talking about changing our zoning

27:01like this we need to be very careful of

27:04how much we are allowing some of these

27:06businesses and organizations that have a

27:08vested interest who are willing to spend

27:10money if they are going to come in and

27:12try to steamroll us and make the city's

27:14life really difficult to get something

27:17like this through. I don't think that's

27:18unrealistic. Uh and I think it's more

27:21concerning is if we are passing language

27:23that we think our legal experts thinks

27:25is less defensible. So my understanding

27:28is with with zoning uh the the sort of

27:32use-based zoning pieces of that have

27:35been litigated up to the Supreme Court

27:37for over a hundred years now of you're

27:39not allowed to do this because it's this

27:41use. Does that sound about right to you?

27:46I mean, I'm not exactly sure you can

27:49talk in those generalizations. I mean,

27:50you know, the zoning act general chapter

27:5348 empowers cities and towns to through

27:56their zoning ordinances and their bylaws

27:58decide what uses are allowed and what

27:59uses are not allowed. Um, subject to

28:02other protections within the act. So,

28:03483, for example, has a whole host of

28:05specially protected uses. Um, but if you

28:08aren't specially protected, then you're

28:10generally subject to being regulated.

28:12And I can say um there are a couple

28:15different examples of so in case folks

28:18aren't don't know um the city's

28:20ordinances don't get reviewed by the

28:21attorney general's office but town

28:23bylaws do get reviewed by the attorney

28:25general's office. So if we're often

28:27looking for to start with defensible

28:29examples we'll see what the ages

28:30approved recently in Mansfield was

28:32approved. So that's oh sorry sorry

28:35Mansfield the example um that you oh

28:38sorry that you heard of earlier it was

28:39approved. So that is at least from the

28:41AG's perspective something that's

28:43lawful. Um doesn't mean if it's

28:44challenged in court, you know, that's a

28:46different story, but it gives us a good

28:47starting point of you can regulate data

28:49centers, you can prohibit data centers.

28:51Um you know, we're seeing a lot of

28:53different examples out there of what

28:54communities are doing between bans,

28:56moratoriums, regulating them in tiers,

28:58which is what Mansfield did. Um so you

29:01know we'll get more guidance over time

29:03but um it's a new use and you know

29:06anytime we have new uses we kind of have

29:08to wait and see um what courts say about

29:11them. It was similar to say short-term

29:13rentals right it was a new use and you

29:15had folks fighting well is that within a

29:17single family use is that a different

29:19use and eventually we got some helpful

29:21guidance from courts on that and that

29:23helped us then regulate those uses. I

29:25see this happening the same way.

29:28>> I have one final question. This might be

29:30outside your area of expertise. So if it

29:32is, just just let me know. But I'm

29:34thinking to communities like LOL that

29:36recently had a data center go in and the

29:38way that their zoning works as an

29:39industrial zone in the middle of a

29:40residential zone. So as you might

29:41imagine, some of the residents are quite

29:43um been out of shape about the impact of

29:45that. From your knowledge of an instance

29:48like that, not necessarily at LOL. Do

29:51you know like are there things that you

29:52can think of of what the neighbors could

29:54do to try to mitigate the impact of

29:56something like that once it's already

29:57been permitted and put in place?

29:59>> Yeah, I mean I'm really not I'm not in a

30:01position to talk about that, but one

30:03thing that Salem could do, you know, is

30:06potentially look at this from like an

30:08overlay regulation at some point. You

30:10know, maybe there are parts of overlay

30:12or commercial districts where it would

30:14be more acceptable to have even a

30:16smaller scale level that isn't closer to

30:18and maybe you put in some kind of data

30:19center overlay district where it's

30:20allowed. And you really do the planning

30:22work to look at um you know where in the

30:25city would we be able to at least

30:26tolerate some of these and have the

30:28services they provide. And maybe it's

30:30not the whole industrial district, you

30:31know, maybe it's a portion of different

30:32districts. And that's another way you

30:34could look at regulating it over time.

30:38>> Thank you. And and you know, I think

30:40what I'll end with is um I think there's

30:42time for us to do something here in the

30:44future. I don't think we have to rush

30:45for it. Um and I mean what I'm hearing,

30:49what I'm seeing, not just in this room,

30:50but outside is once these things go in,

30:53there's there's no getting them out and

30:54residents end up suffering from it. And

30:56I really want us to be intentional with

30:58whatever we pass because none of us want

31:00to be put in that position. Thank you,

31:02>> Council King.

31:05>> Thank you, Chair Val. not being a member

31:07of the committee. Um I just want to

31:08clarify um some of the the Okay, so what

31:13Attorney Stein, thank you for being

31:14here. Um so I just want to clarify in a

31:17scenario where we don't pass anything

31:20like if we were just to dispense this

31:21without doing anything. Um, it sounds

31:25like from the discourse that you just

31:27had with the W six counselor that even

31:29though data centers are not technically

31:32in allowed use in Salem, that is a shaky

31:36legal argument to stop data centers from

31:38being in Salem. Am I correct in how I'm

31:40interpreting that?

31:41>> I wouldn't call it shaky. Okay.

31:43>> But I would certainly say it may be in

31:44dispute.

31:46>> So, it's something that is appealable in

31:48court.

31:48>> Sure. So it it I don't want to talk too

31:51much about a potential actual piece of

31:52litigation, but essentially you have an

31:54applicant arguing that their use does

31:56fall within a use on the use table and

31:58you have the city saying we don't think

31:59it does. We don't think it fits within

32:00that use. We think it's a use that we

32:03don't allow for and so there may be a

32:06dispute or you know it may or may not

32:08end up in court. I just didn't want

32:09anyone with the impression that like

32:12that was off the table and you had a

32:15final answer. It's it's a gray area. An

32:17inherent and gray area is risk.

32:18>> Well, I mean saying it's an area that

32:20may be disputed.

32:21>> Okay. Um and then when it comes to

32:25discussion around amendments to this

32:27language, it sounds like there's there's

32:29realistically two types of conversations

32:31around amendments. There's taking the

32:33language as it is today. um possibly

32:37with amendments that have to do with

32:38accessory uses. It's kind of the the

32:41high level thing that it sounds like

32:43from your legal opinion that would be

32:47closer to within the the four corners of

32:49the language if we were to do something

32:50that had to do with

32:53carving out the accessory uses.

32:55>> Yeah. I mean, I think adding clarifying

32:57language that

33:00if the technology use is accessory to

33:03some other principal use on your use

33:05table, it's not a data center would be

33:08fine

33:09>> because the way the ordinance already

33:12reads. There could be overlap anyway

33:14between uses and you have to kind of

33:16pick the right one sometimes. But again,

33:18this talked about a facility or portion

33:20there that was primarily designed or

33:21used to do to house these things. So I

33:25think it already is susceptible to an

33:27interpretation that that only meant when

33:29that's the principal use. So clarifying

33:32that isn't changing what it already

33:33meant. It's just offering clarity.

33:35>> I see. Um that makes that makes sense.

33:38Um I do worry about the possibility for

33:43like a loophole where someone is able to

33:45argue my technology business is not the

33:48principal use. We just need all these

33:50server racks. I don't know. Um, but I I

33:53see why it I see to your point why it's

33:54not um outside of the four corners. The

33:58language that was proposed by the

34:02planning board to add the 2 megawatt

34:04limit, it sounds like that is possibly

34:07outside of the four corners. I'm just

34:08confirming that with you.

34:09>> Um, you know, I don't know that it I

34:13don't know that I would say that it

34:14definitely, you know, is outside the

34:16four corners. I think it's a refinement

34:18of what you're saying. And I think the

34:19issue more of that is if you're now

34:24defining data center at a particular

34:26level of use, it may be creating even

34:29more

34:30ambiguity in the rest of the bylaw. I

34:32think that's more the issue.

34:34>> I see.

34:34>> Um, you know, in my opinion, it would be

34:36more outside the scope if all of a

34:38sudden you guys wanted to change some of

34:39these districts to special permits

34:41because that's an example of something

34:42where it was a ban to begin with. No

34:45member of the public would have thought

34:46there was a possibility of any avenue to

34:48an allowance. If you were amending some

34:50of these nos to yeses, I think that'd be

34:53a scope issue.

34:53>> Yeah. And I think that that is your

34:56point about the if we added the 2

34:58megawatt limit that takes it from what

35:02we assumed was a ban before to what was

35:04in front of us, which is a full ban to

35:06actually allowing it. It essentially

35:08allows zero to me.

35:10>> You know, it's the problem is it's just

35:11leaving a gap at that point. That's my

35:13concern. And whether that comes down I I

35:15can't say if a court would say that was

35:16a scope issue. My concern is that it

35:19took it from

35:21the we're banning all types of data

35:23centers. We're banning all uses that are

35:25primarily that the principal purpose of

35:28use is this to only some and then we

35:31still have silence. So was the inference

35:33from that the other ones are allowed or

35:36is the inference that they're still not

35:37allowed and regulated because only this

35:39type is prohibited. And so my concern

35:41more is about the potential ambiguity

35:44that could come from that. Um, yeah, I

35:46mean, I guess it could be a scope issue.

35:49I think you couldn't tell if it's a

35:50scope issue until you until defined

35:52whether or not that was implying

35:54allowances.

35:55>> It sounds like it's the ambiguity

35:56created by adding that is the same

35:58ambiguity that exists today with no

36:00language for those those that group

36:02basically because we just wouldn't be

36:04addressing that group. It's a diff it's

36:06a different ambiguity but but I think it

36:08creates an ambiguity.

36:10>> Okay.

36:10>> So I mean if there if the goal is and

36:12again these but these the original

36:15language the two megawatt language and

36:18then um councelor Hapour's language you

36:20know they're all kind of getting at a

36:22little bit different of a policy

36:23decision and that's something for you

36:24guys to think about. Right. So the

36:26original was we want to ban data centers

36:28and then potentially we'll do more work

36:29on this maybe come back and work on

36:31again. the 2 megawatt is only banning

36:33certain types which is going to leave

36:35open and may shift the conversation

36:38around the question about what about the

36:39rest of them. So I do think that

36:41intentional for creating ambiguity but

36:43that's specifically really only banning

36:45certain things which could lead to the

36:47scope question. Um adding the

36:49clarification is a policy decision that

36:52you're still just saying we're banning

36:53them all. We just want to make clear

36:55that when we're doing that we're not

36:56trying to inadvertently capture things

36:58that really aren't data centers. So

37:00you're not trying to capture every use

37:02in the city that has on-site servers or

37:04on-site you know electric whatever you

37:06know supports. You're just trying to

37:08capture the businesses that are

37:10principally designed simply to provide

37:13server you know storage

37:16redund and again I'm not the technology

37:18person so um you know I'm trying with

37:20the words here but they're policy

37:22decisions right I do think that the the

37:24aggate power demand part really it does

37:27is a policy change in what you

37:28originally proposed so to the extent

37:30that someone could argue that's a scope

37:32issue I guess that would be a risk.

37:34>> Um thank you. No, I I um I'm aligned

37:36with the uh former W five counselor um

37:39and the planning board discussion uh

37:41regarding just long-term having a more

37:44nuanced solution to this, but I'm just

37:46trying to think about like what's the

37:47best solution in the short term for our

37:49short-term needs. And it sounds like um

37:53passing this asis

37:55has some benefits and also some risks to

37:58the existing, you know, server

38:00infrastructure that we want to keep.

38:02passing it with the language. Uh it

38:04sounds like councilor Hworth's

38:06amendments uh address the accessory uses

38:07a bit. Um that might be a more

38:10reasonable way to get something on the

38:12books short term that helps to address

38:14the concern right now while we figure

38:15something else out.

38:18>> Thank you councelor. I want to hear from

38:19councelor Hworth about some clarifying

38:20language after that. Planning board

38:22member Tiel if you may. Thank you.

38:24>> Just just for our discussion so we

38:26understand what language we're talking

38:27about. Uh at some point in this

38:29ordinance it says for purposes of this

38:31ordinance a data center shall not be

38:33considered an office warehouse

38:34manufacturing or research use. And then

38:36I would add after that um a data center

38:39shall not include server rooms or

38:41related equipment that primarily support

38:43and are incidental and subordinate to

38:45another lawful principal use on the same

38:47premises. This exception does not cover

38:50a separate business providing data

38:51storage, server hosting or computing

38:53services to third parties.

38:56And hopefully that uh that addresses the

38:59the concerns and questions we have about

39:01not wanting to inadvertently outlaw

39:04something that um seems very reasonable

39:06to be happening, but also not wanting to

39:08open the door on 1.9 megawatts and lower

39:11and what that what that may entail.

39:15>> Councelor Merkel and then

39:19>> Thank you, Chair Varela. Uh really

39:21quickly for those that's that takes a

39:24little longer to interpret this

39:26discussion. Uh I just want to ask

39:28councelor Hapworth to repeat that and

39:30just a little slower.

39:32>> Thank you.

39:33>> Sorry. Um so after warehouse

39:36manufacturing and research use I would

39:39add a data center shall not include

39:42server rooms or related equipment that

39:45primarily support and are incidental and

39:48subordinate to another lawful principal

39:51use on the same premises.

39:54This exception does not cover a separate

39:57business providing data storage, server

39:59hosting or computing services to third

40:01parties.

40:09And I apologize. I did this maybe an

40:10hour ago and sent it to Robin. I would

40:13have put it out to you all. But

40:17>> Mr. Ter,

40:20>> thank you, Mr. Chair. Um so just to also

40:23to give you guys a little bit of um you

40:27know measurement that you can use the

40:30data the the power demand of a single

40:34server running a uh running a current

40:37state-of-the-art NVIDIA AI processor is

40:40approximately

40:414,000 watts um for a single server.

40:45That's the server processor which is the

40:47major draw. That's about 3,000 of the

40:49watts right there.

40:51and then uh about another thousand watts

40:53to run storage and the server's internal

40:56cooling and all the stuff that goes

40:58along with it. So you're looking about

41:004,000 watts per ser per server. So when

41:04you're talking about a server

41:06specifically dedicated to to AI

41:08inference work,

41:10um more routine server uses like uh web

41:14hosting servers, the the servers that

41:17are running over in Amazon data centers

41:20that handle your online shopping, all

41:22the things like that. Those individual

41:24servers generally are in the,00 to 1500

41:27watt range and they don't require the

41:30same kind of concentrated cooling and

41:34um you know power delivery that um the

41:37that the larger AI inference servers do.

41:40So that that's a differential

41:43right there. And also most of those ser

41:47most AI servers because that that's

41:49let's be honest that's what the biggest

41:51concern is from from most people. I'm

41:53not saying it is for everybody here but

41:56um those because of the nature of the

41:59processing work that they do they're

42:01mostly they're doing a lot of mass

42:03training on data and those are the

42:06servers that run that you need for them

42:09to work efficiently. you need hundreds

42:12and thousands of them in a single

42:13building. And that's why those buildings

42:16are generally built fairly far away from

42:19most people and most things where

42:20they're connected to, you know,

42:23connected to water and power supplies

42:25and are relatively remote, most of them.

42:28Um, that's that's just a difference in

42:30the nature of them because there's only

42:32so much uh space available to build a

42:35data center anywhere, whether it's in

42:37Salem or anywhere else. So that that's

42:40one thing. uh councelor Hapworth's uh

42:42language to define principal use versus

42:45you know to refine principal use versus

42:48accessory use um or incident of the

42:50business that that generally makes a

42:52good amount of sense

42:54um because

42:58a business in there there are business

43:00there there's I can name right within

43:03about a quarter mile of this fac of here

43:05less than that there's something that

43:08fits the data center definition that's

43:10in here either which way that fits it

43:12perfectly. It's the Verizon building

43:14right behind the post office and that is

43:17filled with coll-located equipment from

43:18multiple telecommunications carriers. Uh

43:21it's filled with Verizon's own

43:23equipment. There are generators on site.

43:25They're not doing extensive water

43:27cooling because they're not doing that

43:28high density high power draw service,

43:32but they have all the other assets of a

43:34data center and it's there. It's an

43:36existing use and for the most part

43:38people don't really notice it because

43:39it's not gigantic. It's not a massive

43:41hypers scale data center. Um the

43:45building next to it that's now uh was it

43:47centerpoint the the former Holio

43:49building I don't know if it's been

43:51decommissioned or not but that building

43:52has a mass because I used to work there.

43:56That building has a massive power backup

43:58power system with a big generator in the

44:01basement and a diesel supply and all

44:03that. But also that's a building where

44:05there's no spec, you know, they're not

44:07drawing huge amounts of water for

44:09cooling. They're not running tons of

44:11processors. They're actually powering an

44:12entire building with that. Uh as well as

44:15the data use that used to be that used

44:17to happen in there that I ran for a

44:19bunch of years back when computers used

44:22even more power than they do today. So

44:25it it's

44:27there's a lot of varying degrees on what

44:31is a server room, what is a data center,

44:34what is a hosting facility. Um and host,

44:38you know, simple hosting facilities are

44:40generally smaller in scale and

44:44used pretty routinely and there are

44:46businesses here in Salem that do that

44:48today.

44:49So, and I think e w whe whether we

44:54add councelor Hapworth's proposed

44:56language or not or whether we or whether

45:00we keep the uh megawatt definition those

45:03would all everything that's going on

45:04today would likely fall under that

45:10um that defined you that definition in

45:12here. But I do think that like we've

45:16said re um returning this returning with

45:20a more nuanced definition that extends

45:23things out um like what's the AG cleared

45:26for Mansfield and they passed would

45:28probably be the best course of action

45:30for us ultimately. Uh we may tweak what

45:33they did but what they did is pretty

45:35good.

45:39>> Thank you. Under discussion,

45:42councelor love it.

45:44>> Thank you, Chair Varela. Well, having

45:46heard all of that, uh, I have to say

45:48that I really like council Hapworth's

45:50language. I think that's excellent. Um,

45:53I like that language with the original

45:55language as so without the 2 megawatt

45:57amendment.

45:59Um, I think that covers most of my

46:02concerns that I had because many of

46:04those were related to the wattage and I

46:06appreciate the attempt to make sure

46:08we're not really making someone's day

46:10miserable who's just trying to run their

46:11business. Uh I won't be any making any

46:14motions yet, but I just wanted to voice

46:16my support.

46:17>> All right. Thank you. Anyone else?

46:19Councelor King.

46:21>> Thank you, Chair Varel. And not being a

46:22member of the committee, I would

46:24encourage the members of the committee

46:25to have a discussion about that um

46:29amendment because I would also support

46:30that if it came before the full council.

46:32Um I I guess this is more of a general

46:35comment. Um I am frustrated that we are

46:39left at a position of having to amend

46:41zoning ordinances as a temporary

46:43solution. Like I wish this had come

46:45through as a moratorum. We can't change

46:48that now. Um, but it I strongly agree

46:53with uh the the planning board member

46:55that that this is not a very nuanced

46:57solution to a very nuanced problem and

47:00putting this in the books with no end

47:02date in sight or like for no no

47:05mechanism by which to force us to have a

47:07conversation that is more nuanced is

47:09frustrating. But I understand that like

47:11the timing of the world is sometimes

47:14frustrating and and that that is what it

47:15is. But I I do think um I really

47:20think it's very important that if we

47:22move forward with this language as is

47:24that we very quickly move to think about

47:26a more nuanced solution to this just

47:29because it um this is really not I don't

47:31think changing zoning ordinances just

47:33reactionarily is is the best general

47:35practice.

47:37>> All right, Councelor Smith, go ahead.

47:42Um

47:43I also agree with everything uh

47:45councelor Lapa is saying um I did before

47:48but now I I do even more uh given that

47:52um with councelor Hardboard's language

47:54in there. I do have two questions and

47:56first question was for um planning board

47:59member uh Surio. Uh what would be an

48:03example of a use case for under 2

48:06megawws

48:08um that uh fits the definition of a data

48:11center?

48:17Um the I I would uh say

48:21really

48:23um a

48:25let's say um that a scaledown version of

48:28what was recently proposed and denied by

48:32the planning by the uh ZBA a scaledown

48:35version of that would fit within there

48:37uh because it's a use that is primarily

48:40being it's a computer services being

48:43sold as the primary use of the facility

48:50that would that would fall within

48:53>> the community to the businesses nearby.

48:56>> It would not be really sold to the uh

48:58business it would not be sold to the

49:00businesses. It would not be supporting

49:02the businesses that are already present.

49:05Um also let's say and we'll use the

49:09hospital as an example since that's been

49:11brought up a couple of times. Should the

49:14hospital right now it's an incidental

49:17use at the hospital for whatever they're

49:18using for on-site data. Uh and I'm not

49:21sure I believe their primary systems are

49:24cloud hosted. But that said, um if they

49:28were to

49:30want to build onto their facility and go

49:34out and get a permit, they were going to

49:36tear out a couple of floors of office

49:39use and turn it over to servers. that

49:41would uh potentially fall within here

49:43facility or portion thereof primarily

49:45designed or used to house computer

49:47service and related information

49:48technology.

49:50So

49:51>> okay,

49:52>> that could potentially be an issue if an

49:54existing business in Salem needed to

49:56build a new space within their within

50:00their existing building, get the permits

50:02accordingly to do it. That could be an

50:03issue. So

50:05>> thank you.

50:08with the total ban that would be that

50:10would be an issue for an existing

50:11business if they had to go out and get

50:13building permits to change their

50:15facility now. So that's where

50:20and is it likely that a situation like

50:23that is going to come up in the

50:25intervening time? Uh

50:28probably not. But still I I felt and as

50:32the planning board we we felt as a group

50:34far more comfortable having

50:37having a limit that you know a limit

50:39that was set on the low side from a data

50:42center perspective where if it's

50:43servicing an individual business even a

50:45large business like the hospital um it's

50:48pretty unlikely that they're going to

50:50put that kind of demand in the facility.

50:55So

50:55>> okay

50:56>> so we looked at it from that angle. The

51:00other side of it is regardless of the

51:03outcome of this, whether this language

51:05remains, whether councelor Hapworth's

51:07language is added, and I think that's

51:09excellent language and and would

51:11encourage that that be uh that that be

51:14added to this ordinance because it's it

51:16is further clarifying and I think it's

51:18really good like that. Um, whatever the

51:21outcome is,

51:23we should bring this back before council

51:26in the next uh in the next few months

51:29after taking a look at other language

51:31from other communities. Again, you all

51:34have this on your on your desks and we

51:38start this process over

51:41probably at the beginning of next year

51:44um or the end of this year, but probably

51:46the beginning of next year. We held

51:47this, we start this over, we have

51:49another public hearing and we pass this

51:51through again and the whatever we come

51:54out with that will supersede what's been

51:56done right now because we do need a more

52:01detailed solution to to this and again

52:04we we're in this because this is the

52:06language that was submitted to Start

52:08with not because we and it was submitted

52:11I think before this uh particular

52:13amendment that before this bylaw that

52:15I've shared is uh was passed

52:22Thank you. Thanks. I appreciate all the

52:23work you you put in. You're you're a

52:25credit to my seat. You're in right now.

52:28Uh quick question for attorney Stein as

52:31well. Um she's still there. The uh

52:36would the hospital use case just given

52:39by planning board member Turio Hill

52:41constitute a zoning board of appeals

52:43hardship?

52:46Well, before you before you get to that,

52:49um, you know, I think the intent of this

52:51was not to grab accessory on-site uses.

52:55And so, when this is talking about a

52:56facility or portion thereof primarily

52:59designed or used, I think again, and I

53:01didn't I can't first this part of this

53:04actually is very similar to the

53:05Mansfield definition. It's just that the

53:06Mansfield definition contains additional

53:08tiers. So, I do think that some of this

53:10was already modeled after Mansfield.

53:12this doesn't carry all their tears

53:13through because they've allowed some and

53:15prohibited some. Um, but I think the

53:18point of this was not to say the

53:21hospital would be a facility or a

53:23portion like not to say that rooms of

53:24the hospital would be a portion of the

53:26facility, but that you're talking about

53:28a structure and perhaps some verbiage in

53:30this could be different that um, you

53:34know, has independent units in it with

53:36different businesses and so you're

53:37talking about portions of those. So, I

53:40don't think that the intent of this

53:42originally was to say that if you have a

53:44lawful principal use that's already

53:45operating

53:47and they need servers for their own use,

53:50a data center was meant to apply. And I

53:52say that in part based on existing

53:55language within the zoning ordinance.

53:56Let me just pull up section three here.

53:58So,

54:00one second.

54:07believe there's language in your zoning

54:09ordinance that um you know kind of

54:11addresses when something could be in

54:12more than one use category. But in any

54:15event that would be to the discretion of

54:16the zoning enforcement officers to

54:18interpret and I think again if you're

54:21dealing with a situation and I can't

54:23speak for them that you have an existing

54:25use like a hospital or a bank or

54:28any existing principal use that's lawful

54:30under your table. the fact that they

54:32have technology and they use servers on

54:34site for their own purposes was not

54:36meant to be captured by this definition.

54:39So adding in some version of councelor

54:42Hapwith's

54:44um additional language I think just

54:46clarifies that it takes the you know the

54:48future fight off the table because I

54:49think that was the intent of this to

54:50begin with when I was talking about a

54:52facility or a portion of a facility.

54:54Basically, if the if the primary use is

54:58data storage,

55:00server storage, then this is what it was

55:02meant to grab. I just don't think it was

55:04meant to apply to those uses. Um, and I

55:08think that adding clarifying language

55:10now would be helpful.

55:12>> That's great. So, it sounds like council

55:14language is is within the intent, the

55:17original intent, and it just further

55:19clarifies it. And I think that's great.

55:21I'm definitely in support of that. Uh,

55:23thank you. I I will just say that I do

55:26think um

55:28you know how to unless unless we as a

55:31full council can completely understand

55:33what we're buying into with a 1.999

55:37megawatt uh facility and how much noise

55:42is carried hundreds of feet away to

55:44homes especially the low frequency stuff

55:46that you can kind of feel in your chest.

55:49And unless we understand the differences

55:50between inference and training and what

55:52that can possibly mean and how much uh

55:56all of the ins and outs that we need to

55:57know about what would be going on inside

56:00that building and uh how much heat would

56:02be generated, how much electricity would

56:04be used, something like 10% of all the

56:07homes in Salem is probably what we'd be

56:08looking at. Whether or not they're using

56:10water cooling, whether or not they're

56:11using air cooling, which they can some

56:13part of the year. Are they using salt

56:15water? Are they using fresh water? Where

56:17is that coming from? How is that

56:18returning into the system or into the

56:20ocean, whatever it may be, public the

56:22ocean, unless we can really understand

56:24that?

56:26I think the safest thing for us is to

56:28ban outright

56:31the data centers at any power capacity

56:34tonight because zoning laws, zoning

56:36ordinances can be amended. They can be

56:38changed. And if someone comes forward

56:39with a with a use case that is

56:41necessary, not only could they seek the

56:43hardship from the ZBA, but they can also

56:46seek to change the zoning ordinance. We

56:48we this is not going to be set forever,

56:50but until we understand all of this

56:52stuff, I don't think we can have any

56:55carveouts because we don't know what

56:56we're carving out. So that's why I

56:58completely agree with with uh councelor

57:01Laa, councelor Hapworth, councelor King,

57:02it sounds like all around the fact that

57:05we probably need this added clarifying

57:07language, but that we should not exempt

57:09anything that we don't yet understand

57:11what that could look like in our

57:12community. Thank you.

57:14>> So can I just offer a clarifying point

57:15because I I better understand the

57:17question about the ZVA part of it now.

57:18So your zoning ordinance doesn't allow

57:20the zoning board of appeals to all to um

57:23grant commercial use variances. So if

57:25somebody were

57:26>> Oh, right. react it would be

57:28>> wanted to do something they wouldn't

57:29have um varian route to the ZBA they

57:32could file an administrative appeal over

57:33the interpretation or they could come

57:35here and ask you to amend the ordinances

57:36but you are not

57:38>> yeah so it would go to the right so it

57:40would go to the uh maybe didn't

57:42understand the nuance of the question

57:44>> no that was my fault on that um but yes

57:46they would come to us and seek to change

57:49>> uh to change I mean they you know if

57:52something came to us that could be

57:53presented well we would seek to change

57:55the the zoning ordinance if we needed

57:57to. We always have that power. Uh just

58:00as we have that tonight and we'll

58:01hopefully pass this uh tonight and then

58:04at next council meeting. Thanks,

58:08>> Council Dor.

58:10>> Thank you. Not being a member of the

58:12committee. Uh I just have two comments.

58:13One is just in support of councelor

58:15Hatworth's uh amendments. I think it

58:18does clarify in the way that it needs to

58:20be done um and strengthening this

58:22ordinance. And the second one is there

58:24are two recommendations coming from the

58:26planning board and we had a lot of

58:28discussion of um we need to actually

58:31come together and kind of define this

58:35within council um making it very

58:38difficult coming from the mayor's

58:40office. Uh they had very good intention

58:42but I think it just would have been more

58:44wellcraftrafted coming for us. And so I

58:47would say or I would encourage that

58:50whether it's the same council meeting

58:53that this is brought to us again perhaps

58:57that's just getting ahead of ourselves

58:59at least at the second uh the the

59:02meeting after that we should be setting

59:04up this committee. I think we're we're

59:06creating we already have the structure

59:08here through the recommendation so we

59:10can talk about how hey we have to

59:11actually sit down and have this

59:13conversation. I think we there there are

59:15sometimes that we say that we want to

59:18discuss a thing in the future and then

59:20we don't end up discussing it. I think

59:21we need to be very intentional in

59:23setting up this committee so we can let

59:25people know that this is just a step

59:28towards coming to a place where we

59:31ensure that we're supporting our local

59:33small businesses through the tools that

59:35they need while also ensuring that these

59:37large um data center corporations

59:40whatever you want to call them uh are

59:43not able to come in. So I just encourage

59:45that we jump on that sooner rather than

59:47later in a well-intentioned defined way.

59:49Thank you, Council Merkel.

59:54>> Thank you, Chair Varela, not being in

59:56committee. I just want to express first

59:58of all my thank you to to Miss Stein for

1:00:01for being here and being so helpful and

1:00:03to Josh Toriel uh for being here and um

1:00:06for the whole discussion tonight. I I

1:00:08think this is really informative and and

1:00:11really helpful. I feel like I have a

1:00:12much better understanding than when I

1:00:14when I came in tonight. And I also want

1:00:16to express agreement with with the

1:00:18conversation that we have heard and

1:00:20correct me if I'm wrong, Miss Stein, but

1:00:22you you had expressed about the um yeah

1:00:26the uh 2 megawatt uh definition

1:00:29allowance uh that you know that possible

1:00:32being pro problematic you know and

1:00:34creating a gap in the intent of the

1:00:36proposal and creating a little bit

1:00:38ambiguity for all the concerns that were

1:00:40expressed by others. Um that makes me

1:00:43nervous. you know, the entities that can

1:00:45want to bring these in have a lot of

1:00:46money and uh can be very in invested.

1:00:50So, I I would agree also I'm not

1:00:53comfortable with, you know, we're

1:00:55putting in a ban, but then we're making

1:00:57an exam exemption. I think that makes it

1:01:00murky. Um and also I I I do want to

1:01:03express uh I do understand, you know,

1:01:06the feeling, you know, that it just

1:01:07feels rushed. Um but I also understand

1:01:10we need to meet the times. We just

1:01:13sometimes we have to meet the times. Uh

1:01:16so I feel like you know with a ban

1:01:19making this step taking this step is

1:01:22meeting uh the times and I appreciate

1:01:24the suggestions suggestion for more

1:01:27clarity and I appreciate um the at large

1:01:30counselor's suggestion for that clarity.

1:01:34So, and thank you for the repeat so I

1:01:36have have an understanding of that and I

1:01:38I appreciate that as well that Lance

1:01:40Well may just want to express that.

1:01:43Thank you.

1:01:43>> Thank you, councelor Councelor Terroski.

1:01:47>> Thank you, Chair Veril being a member of

1:01:48the committee. Um, thank you attorney

1:01:50Stein and um, planning board member Tiel

1:01:53for coming to explain some of these

1:01:55things tonight. Um, I think it really

1:01:57helps to put um, a lot of perspective on

1:02:01the ordinance we have before us. I I was

1:02:03a little hesitant. You know, we have a

1:02:04letter of unanimous support from the

1:02:06planning board for the um amendment that

1:02:08they had proposed, but to hear you um

1:02:11planning board member Terry, I'll say

1:02:12that you're okay with the amendment, the

1:02:14language that was proposed by councelor

1:02:15Hapworth, um I think that's reassuring.

1:02:18Um I do support um removing the um

1:02:22greater than 2 megawatt carveout. I I

1:02:24think it's like if you if you have an

1:02:26ordinance, it's like having a wall, but

1:02:28if you put in that carve out, then you

1:02:29basically put a little door in that

1:02:31wall. Um, and it basically makes a place

1:02:33for somebody to try to break through

1:02:34that door. Um, so I think not having

1:02:36that door, but instead reclassifying u,

1:02:39making sure we have a good definition of

1:02:41what would fall under this restriction

1:02:43and what we would want to allow. I think

1:02:44that's the way to go and I would be

1:02:46supportive of those changes. Thank you.

1:02:49Before I get to you, council land board

1:02:52member Turiel.

1:02:54>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so just to uh

1:02:56give this a little bit of perspective

1:02:58and I my my preference would be if we

1:03:02both if we retained the the 2 megawatt

1:03:05uh definition and also added uh

1:03:08councelor Hapworth's proposed language

1:03:10as well. I think that's the suspenders

1:03:13approach. But um what I will say is two

1:03:17things from a

1:03:19just sort of a so everybody has kind of

1:03:21a reference point. The proposed facility

1:03:24at Shetland was uh six megawatts of

1:03:27power. So this would so that limit would

1:03:31be approximately one-third of the size

1:03:33where

1:03:34it's it is small enough it's large

1:03:37enough to allow for most uh most

1:03:40professional uses and small enough to

1:03:44avoid the

1:03:47dedicated uh the dedicated large scale

1:03:49hosting facility. Once you get up to the

1:03:53the five six megawatts of power, that's

1:03:55the point at which you need to also be

1:03:57introducing all sorts of auxiliary

1:03:59cooling, um, water consumption and all

1:04:02the like. A a typical server room is

1:04:06just air conditioning and that's part of

1:04:08the electrical draw as well. A typical

1:04:11server room is just air conditioned

1:04:12because it doesn't have the high density

1:04:15usage that you have in an you know in an

1:04:18AI data center or or a hypers scale

1:04:20center or even a large one like uh

1:04:22what's was built in l which is much

1:04:24larger than most facilities. Um in the

1:04:27prei days would be a massive data

1:04:30center. Uh now it's relatively small by

1:04:33data by massive data center standards.

1:04:36Um [clears throat]

1:04:38so that's as far from the power demand

1:04:41that's a uh significant part of it. I'll

1:04:44also point out that in the you know in

1:04:46the the language that I that we passed

1:04:49out here um a smaller facility that what

1:04:53they're consider what they've defined

1:04:54here and they they have the same first

1:04:56paragraph that we have but um they have

1:05:00what they consider tier one is a low

1:05:02impact data center maximum projected

1:05:04electrical demand of 2 megawatts or less

1:05:06at full buildout measured as the

1:05:08combined electrical load of all tenants

1:05:10and facility operations.

1:05:13Um, and that also includes an on-site

1:05:15generation.

1:05:16And that's that's about it's not likely

1:05:20that a facility like that would be

1:05:23placed in Salem, but it's within reason

1:05:28that there are legitimate non

1:05:32um non-host business uses for that sort

1:05:35of facility within another within a

1:05:37company's operations.

1:05:40It's not common but it is you know it is

1:05:43within reason. Once you get above that

1:05:46then you start making ex heavy demands

1:05:49on utilities you start making heavy

1:05:51demands on infrastructure

1:05:53and that's where the problems really

1:05:56start in planning these centers and uh

1:06:00that's also where you start having all

1:06:01the impacts. Um I don't know what the

1:06:05draw is of it but to use

1:06:08example in this area. Um there's a

1:06:11couple of hosting facilities over in the

1:06:15coming center in the coming center era

1:06:17complex. Um one of them I have clients

1:06:20who have uh systems there that are

1:06:22colllocated on the site and they're they

1:06:26have generate they have generation

1:06:28backup power equipment. They have

1:06:30extensive air conditioning. They don't

1:06:31have water cooling because they're not

1:06:33doing that kind of operation.

1:06:35But they have So all the stuff needed to

1:06:39handle things they are I can't tell you

1:06:42exactly but they are I believe well a

1:06:46good amount under the the two megawatts

1:06:48of power demand and it's it doesn't have

1:06:52specific impact on the complex as a

1:06:55whole and there are multiple facilities

1:06:57like that within there I just happen to

1:06:59work one of them my intervention

1:07:02so it's it's not

1:07:05data centers themselves aren't the

1:07:07boogeyman for us. It's it's very large.

1:07:11It's the large scale stuff that really

1:07:13is problematic. And we don't have as a

1:07:16city the resources. We don't have the

1:07:18power. We don't have the, you know, what

1:07:21it's, it was only just over a decade ago

1:07:23that we stopped drawing massive amounts

1:07:26of water for cooling purposes from our

1:07:28system because the old power plant was

1:07:31water cooled. and it and it went through

1:07:33an enormous amount of fresh water every

1:07:35day and poured it out into the harbor.

1:07:37So,

1:07:39we don't want to get into a position

1:07:41where we have another usage like that h

1:07:43happening within the city boundary

1:07:45because it's nice not using quite so

1:07:47much water in this city. But so that

1:07:49that's something that again in in terms

1:07:53of refinement um we would want to be

1:07:56very specific about those things as we

1:07:58as we go forward. And whatever we do

1:08:01whatever we do tonight, whatever the

1:08:02council has the will to pass or not pass

1:08:06next week is really an interim step and

1:08:09it was because of the way this was

1:08:12initially filed. Um there was no it it

1:08:16was filed on the let's prevent data

1:08:19centers, let's take some language, let's

1:08:21put it through council and it kind of

1:08:23put us into a bit of a corner as a as a

1:08:26city as to what we could do within that.

1:08:29So

1:08:30that's that's at least kind of the the

1:08:33backstory. Um you know moving forward we

1:08:37do need to definitely refine this much

1:08:39more. Um we need to come up with tiers.

1:08:42We need to come up with what a company

1:08:44can do just by getting a building

1:08:45permit, what a company can do by getting

1:08:48a special permit, um what a company just

1:08:50can't do in the city. And that's that's

1:08:53a further and much more involved

1:08:54discussion that we're going to need to

1:08:56have.

1:08:58>> Did you have anything to add, J?

1:09:00>> No. The only thing I will say is I don't

1:09:01know your process for tonight where

1:09:03you're going, but um and I might have a

1:09:06little bit of kind of suggested tweaks

1:09:07to the proposed language if you want to

1:09:09hear them tonight. I could always follow

1:09:11up.

1:09:12>> It's it's pretty much the same. It's

1:09:13just I trying to track and I know you

1:09:16just threw it together so I I don't mean

1:09:18this by any criticism. I didn't have a

1:09:20chance to print it out either before I

1:09:21came over, but if maybe um just kind of

1:09:24to track the language that the

1:09:26definition already uses, you would say

1:09:28something along the lines of um a data

1:09:31center shall not include computer

1:09:34servers and related information

1:09:35technology infrastructure equipment.

1:09:39that is accessory, incidental or

1:09:41subordinate um to anal law to another

1:09:45lawful principle use uh of the same

1:09:48facility or part thereof however stored

1:09:50and then that way you're just tracking

1:09:53like the com the um computer service

1:09:56related information technology

1:09:57infrastructure equipment language that's

1:09:58already in the definition so it's the

1:10:01same and then the only thing I would say

1:10:02in the last sentence is where you say

1:10:04the exception does not cover separate

1:10:06business providing data storage server

1:10:09hosting or computing services. I don't

1:10:11think you want to say computing services

1:10:13because that I think might open you up

1:10:15to like a help desk company or something

1:10:17like that. I think you may want to just

1:10:18say um does not cover separate business

1:10:21providing data storage server hosting

1:10:24maybe or similar technology or but I

1:10:27don't know that I think computing

1:10:28services might be too broad. You might

1:10:31then be really grabbing like a tech an

1:10:33IT services business like a real

1:10:34technology professional business. So,

1:10:37just something to consider in the

1:10:38definition.

1:10:40Um,

1:10:42>> awesome. Thank you, Attorney Stain.

1:10:44Under other discussion?

1:10:47Good. Okay. All right. So, we're up on

1:10:51an hour now. I would like to take public

1:10:53comment. Uh, so we'll start with

1:10:56everyone in the room. If you'd like to

1:10:57give public comment, it's not a question

1:10:58answer period. Uh, but you can come on

1:11:00up and Sorry.

1:11:04>> By all means,

1:11:16I think I'll get there. Thanks.

1:11:22Steve Capantis, Mysterio Street, Salem,

1:11:25Mass. Um,

1:11:28listening tonight, I think it's rather

1:11:30obvious that you guys aren't ready to do

1:11:33this, nor should we be. Zoning is not

1:11:36meant to be temporary in nature.

1:11:40It's very difficult to get zoning

1:11:42through. It requires the joint hearing.

1:11:44It requires twothirds votes to the

1:11:45council. So what I'm hearing now is you

1:11:48want to put something in place as

1:11:50quickly as you can but only temporarily

1:11:53until we can get back to it again in

1:11:55January. By definition that's called a

1:11:58moratorum. See under the law your

1:12:01moratorum can only be for a year long.

1:12:04You can do it for less. You could do it

1:12:06for six months. And that's what we need.

1:12:08If you want to ban data centers until

1:12:10you can get your straight then

1:12:12that's what you do, right? And for one

1:12:16counselor to say, "Well, I guess there's

1:12:18not much we can do about it." You know

1:12:20what? As one counselor, you do have a

1:12:22lot of power. You can bring forward a

1:12:24motion. Your deadline is Tuesday around

1:12:275:00 p.m. to file a motion for a

1:12:29moratorum. When this comes up on

1:12:31council, you can make a motion for it to

1:12:33be laid on the table and then take up

1:12:35the moratorum. You can have that

1:12:37conversation. I'm not saying it's going

1:12:39to happen, but if that's what you really

1:12:40want, don't talk about I can't do

1:12:43anything and then do nothing. Take

1:12:46action on what you can do. And then the

1:12:48other thing that needs to stop is some

1:12:50of the gaslighting and some of the words

1:12:53used by counselors. Things like these

1:12:56companies have trillions of dollars.

1:12:59That's an egregious amount of money.

1:13:02Egregious. It's a glaringly bad amount

1:13:04of money. I don't know when having money

1:13:06is bad. maybe with what you do with that

1:13:08money could be inferred to be bad. But

1:13:11the other thing is there are no

1:13:12companies that have trillions of

1:13:13dollars. The largest companies that we

1:13:15have in the United States have a market

1:13:18cap value of $5 trillion. People like

1:13:21Nvidia and Google are between five and

1:13:2410 million on a market cap. Certainly

1:13:26not cash. The largest companies that we

1:13:28have that have cash in this country are

1:13:30between tens and hundreds of billions.

1:13:34Let's cut the hyperbole out. Let's kite

1:13:37that out. Let's stick to the facts that

1:13:40you have in front of you.

1:13:42And why are we trying to ban data

1:13:44centers? It's not data centers we want

1:13:45to ban, especially again zoning,

1:13:47something that's going to be here for a

1:13:49long time, right?

1:13:51It's about really four key components

1:13:53other than the other things that zoning

1:13:55already addresses, meaning heights of

1:13:57buildings, square footage, things like

1:13:59that, right? The first one is noise

1:14:01generation. That's pretty easy to

1:14:03regulate.

1:14:04But there are data centers today that

1:14:06have very low noise generation. It's

1:14:08about power consumption. The way what

1:14:11was written by the planning board, they

1:14:12said aggregate power. So that means if I

1:14:15wanted to, I could put my own mini grid

1:14:18somewhere, which isn't that big. Think

1:14:21of three storage containers would allow

1:14:26me to generate with gas powered engines

1:14:29allow me to generate 10 megawws of

1:14:31power. Which means if you put a cap of 2

1:14:35megawatt aggregate power, I can generate

1:14:3810 megawws and run a 12 megawatt

1:14:41facility because guess what? I'm

1:14:43generating 10 and I'm only using two.

1:14:46That's what aggregate power is. But is

1:14:48that a bad thing? Maybe not. Maybe where

1:14:51the power plant is today, it's going to

1:14:53end of life of 2050. Maybe we go in

1:14:56there, maybe they generate their own

1:14:58power, not only for their data facility,

1:15:00but also to give back to our community.

1:15:04But that won't happen if we have a

1:15:06zoning law that says no data centers.

1:15:09You don't know what the future will

1:15:10bring. Regulate what you can. The other

1:15:12things, heat generation. Is heat

1:15:14generation a bad thing? Well, with some

1:15:16of these data facilities, it certainly

1:15:18is a bad thing. When you look at the

1:15:20change in temperature on the footprint

1:15:22of the building is like a 16 degree

1:15:24Fahrenheit change, and it can be as high

1:15:26as almost 4° within the neighborhood.

1:15:29But is it always a bad thing? No. Can I

1:15:32take that heat and recapture it back

1:15:34into energy? Can be done. Toronto does

1:15:38it. Paris does it. Can I use it to heat

1:15:41homes? Sure.

1:15:43We don't know what tomorrow is going to

1:15:45bring. It doesn't make sense to ban data

1:15:48centers, ban power consumption, ban

1:15:51water consumption,

1:15:53ban heat generation, and ban noise. So

1:15:56now you're covered not just with data

1:15:58centers, but you're also covered with

1:16:00somebody that wants to bring an

1:16:02industrial factory that's going to

1:16:04consume those same things.

1:16:07In the meantime, bring forth a

1:16:09moratorum.

1:16:14Thank you, Mr. Capantis.

1:16:18The room would like to speak in public

1:16:20comment. Seem like it. All right. So,

1:16:22we'll go to Zoom. Anyone on Zoom would

1:16:24like to raise their hand to give public

1:16:26comment. Now, the time would be uh No.

1:16:30Go ahead. Give you guys a few minutes if

1:16:32you'd like to speak about the topic of

1:16:34data centers.

1:16:37Going once, going twice.

1:16:42Okay. All right. So, here we are. So,

1:16:47end of public comment. There's a few

1:16:49things we can do here. Um, under

1:16:51discussion, councelor Halaba.

1:16:55>> Thank you, Chair Varela. I would like to

1:16:57make a motion.

1:17:00I move that we strike the language and

1:17:03has an aggregate power demand of 2

1:17:05megawatts or higher from the first

1:17:07sentence of the definition of data

1:17:09center.

1:17:11All right. So, council office has made a

1:17:13motion to strike the sentence of 2

1:17:16megawatts aggregate. I have a second.

1:17:20Second by council Hapworth.

1:17:23Under discussion.

1:17:24>> Thank you, Chair Varela. Uh, I've got a

1:17:26lot of concerns about this. So, just for

1:17:28background for folks, uh, I have a

1:17:30degree in mechanical engineering which

1:17:32handles things like fluid flow, uh,

1:17:34thermodynamics,

1:17:36uh, those sorts of things. since the

1:17:38first five years of my career was at

1:17:40heavy industrial manufacturing sites. So

1:17:42I've been to a bunch of stamping press

1:17:44uh stamping plants. I've been to power

1:17:45plants, steel mills, aluminum mills. Uh

1:17:49I have a very good knowledge of what it

1:17:51means to put out a bunch of heat and

1:17:53where you got to put it somewhere. And

1:17:55one of the concerns that I have with the

1:17:58notion of of the power aggregate here is

1:18:02how they're actually getting there.

1:18:04Because if they are talking about

1:18:06putting for example a

1:18:09uh a 2 megawatt uh capacity on this, if

1:18:13that's being generated by diesel

1:18:15generators, you're talking a much higher

1:18:18heat output, probably closer to 5

1:18:20megawws just in the area because 100% of

1:18:23the energy consumed by the chips turns

1:18:25into heat. And then diesel generators

1:18:28are at best on their best day 40%

1:18:31efficient which means 60% of the energy

1:18:33you're using is going straight into heat

1:18:36or in some motion. Most of it's heat. Um

1:18:39and that is in addition to what you're

1:18:41what you're spend what you're you're

1:18:42burning through your chips. So I I don't

1:18:44think it's complete enough with this

1:18:47language to really capture minimizing

1:18:50the impact of that. uh maybe there are

1:18:52ways to do that, but if we are talking

1:18:53about in the future, whenever that may

1:18:55be, having a longer term discussion

1:18:57around that, I think that's where this

1:18:58conversation should lie and it should

1:19:00not be included in this passage of it.

1:19:01Thank you.

1:19:04>> Okay.

1:19:05All right. So, just so I'm clear, you're

1:19:08making a motion uh to strike that has an

1:19:11aggregate power demand of two megawatts

1:19:13or higher. Correct. All right. Seconded

1:19:15by councelor Hapworth.

1:19:17No more discussion.

1:19:20be a roll call vote.

1:19:23Start with

1:19:25councelor Smith

1:19:30>> to strike the language. Sorry, need

1:19:32clarification.

1:19:35>> Yes.

1:19:35>> The motion on the table from councelor

1:19:37Halapa is to strike in the sentence has

1:19:41an aggregate demand of two megawatts or

1:19:43higher.

1:19:44>> Yes.

1:19:46>> Council meth is a yes.

1:19:49Councelor Hapworth,

1:19:50>> yes.

1:19:51>> Councelor Alapa,

1:19:52>> yes.

1:19:53>> Councelor Presnooki,

1:19:55>> yes.

1:19:55>> And Council Verma, yes. That's five in

1:19:59the affirmative. Uh, so the motion

1:20:00carries to eliminate and strike the

1:20:02language of 2 megawws or higher.

1:20:06Councelor Habworth.

1:20:08>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll make

1:20:09another motion to amend uh after um a

1:20:14data center shall be considered a data

1:20:16center shall not be considered an office

1:20:18warehouse manufacturing or research use.

1:20:21We add the language a data a data a data

1:20:25uh data center shall not include such

1:20:27computer servers and related information

1:20:30technology infrastructure that is

1:20:32accessory incidental and subordinate to

1:20:36a lawful principal use at the same

1:20:38facility

1:20:40or portion thereof however stored. This

1:20:44exception does not cover a separate

1:20:46business providing data storage, server

1:20:49hosting or similar technology to third

1:20:51parties.

1:20:52>> Right. Do I see a second?

1:20:54>> Second. Second by councelor Halapa.

1:20:56Under discussion

1:20:59council,

1:21:00>> I just ask Robin. I think the majority

1:21:02of this as we discussed back there is to

1:21:04to tie this back in with the with the

1:21:06the front of the ordinance and some of

1:21:08the definitions that we created to

1:21:09create further clarity.

1:21:11>> Oh, was that the question?

1:21:13Just want to make sure that we're

1:21:14clarifying that.

1:21:15>> Yeah. I I think the purpose of that

1:21:17language, at least my understanding of

1:21:18the original writing of this and the use

1:21:20of the word primary was that you were

1:21:22trying to get at principal uses, not

1:21:24accessory uses within other lawful

1:21:25principal uses. So if that language is

1:21:28just accomplishing that goal, then it's

1:21:30consistent with the original language.

1:21:33>> All right. Lord member Terry, if you

1:21:35have a comment.

1:21:35>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I would suggest

1:21:38that you add to that if you're going to

1:21:40if you're going to strike the megawatt

1:21:42uh limitation then I would suggest that

1:21:44to that councelor Hapworth's amendment

1:21:47you also add distributing processing as

1:21:49a use

1:21:51as a you know to the list of you

1:22:00take the mo take your motion you add

1:22:02distributed processing

1:22:06data storage, server hosting,

1:22:07distributed processing,

1:22:16>> would you be able to just uh just for

1:22:18all all of our um clarity just to

1:22:21expound on that just a little bit?

1:22:23>> Uh distributed processing is something

1:22:25that would cover uh CPU rental basically

1:22:28and that's where you get into

1:22:30distributed processing. That's where you

1:22:32get into um

1:22:35like large large scale distributed work

1:22:38over multiple processors, multiple

1:22:40servers. That's that covers AI usage and

1:22:43a lot of other usages as well.

1:22:49>> I don't feel I have enough techn

1:22:50technological knowledge uh or technical

1:22:53knowledge to um to make that

1:22:55determination. if anyone else on the

1:22:57council does otherwise I think I would

1:22:59just defer to the the um legal council's

1:23:02language

1:23:03>> under discussion

1:23:04>> keep that and add

1:23:06>> distributed

1:23:08>> councelor K I would agree with the our

1:23:10member of the planning board's

1:23:11suggestion um I'm I was a data scientist

1:23:14before I was this so thank you

1:23:17>> I'll I'll take that language

1:23:20>> councelor

1:23:21>> thank you chair I just hoping if you

1:23:23could maybe uh member expound on it a

1:23:25little bit more What's what's your

1:23:26intent with putting that language in

1:23:28there? What gap do you think that's

1:23:30filling?

1:23:31>> It's um if you could councelor Hapworth,

1:23:34if you could uh read that out with the

1:23:37So, this would say at the end uh this

1:23:39exception does not cover a separate

1:23:41business providing data storage, server

1:23:44hosting, distributed processing, or

1:23:46similar technology to third parties.

1:23:49Because without that um wi without that

1:23:52little addition theoretically you could

1:23:54somebody could come in and say well you

1:23:58didn't you know since it's since you're

1:24:00def since in this you're starting to

1:24:02define what is a use for hire for data

1:24:05processing.

1:24:06um adding that just sort of covers all

1:24:09the bases

1:24:11because there is renting storage, there

1:24:13is renting um you know there that's the

1:24:17most common use. There's renting actual

1:24:19systems. There's renting virtual

1:24:20machines. There's and there's renting AI

1:24:23servers and

1:24:26you know um I'm you know my my language

1:24:29skills are fading at this hour but um

1:24:33um for instance distributed uh math

1:24:36processing if you have a crypto mining

1:24:38things like that that are run over a

1:24:40whole fleet of processors would be a use

1:24:43that might otherwise be construed as

1:24:45lawful if you didn't add that to the

1:24:46exclusion. So distributed processing

1:24:48should cover that.

1:24:50Thank you. Uh just just a note for us as

1:24:52we're thinking about this just to bless

1:24:55you uh of of technical language. I think

1:24:58we do want to remember that our zoning

1:25:00uh officer is eventually going to have

1:25:01to interpret this pass it. And so

1:25:03something to consider if we want to make

1:25:05sure that the language is specific

1:25:06enough to avoid some of these problems,

1:25:08but also maybe not so specific that it

1:25:10becomes um incoherent to some folks.

1:25:15>> Excellent. All right. So there's a

1:25:17motion on the table. Council Harpworth,

1:25:19can you since we've kind of talked about

1:25:21and changed a little bit, can you please

1:25:23let us know your motion one more time?

1:25:26Uh so after um for purpose of this

1:25:29ordinance a data center shall not be

1:25:31considered an office warehouse

1:25:32manufacturing or research use. We would

1:25:34add the language a data center shall not

1:25:37include such computer servers um and

1:25:39related information technology

1:25:41infrastructure that is accessory

1:25:43incidental and subordinate to a lawful

1:25:46principal use at the same facility or

1:25:48portion thereof however stored. This

1:25:51exception does not cover a separate

1:25:53business providing data storage, server

1:25:56hosting. We'll be adding in distributed

1:25:58processing or similar technology to

1:26:01third parties.

1:26:02>> Excellent. You can add a note that says

1:26:04reach out to councelor Tural for clarity

1:26:06if you'd like.

1:26:08>> And that's seconded still by councelor

1:26:10Lapa. Seconded. All right. So

1:26:14under discussion, we're good. Excellent.

1:26:21Excellent. All right. So, we will go to

1:26:23a roll call vote

1:26:25on councelor Hworth's motion. Seconded

1:26:28by councelor Lapa.

1:26:29>> Councelor Smith.

1:26:31>> Yes.

1:26:33>> Councelor Hapworth. Yes. Councelor Hapa.

1:26:36>> Yes.

1:26:37>> Councelor Proski.

1:26:39>> Yes.

1:26:39>> And councelor Varela. That's five in the

1:26:41affirmative. The motion carries.

1:26:44Councelor Hworth. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:26:46I move to send this to the full council

1:26:48with a positive recommendation as

1:26:50amended.

1:26:51>> Councelor Hapworth will send this to the

1:26:53full council for a positive

1:26:55recommendation as amended. Seconded by

1:26:57councelor Alapa. Roll call vote.

1:27:01Councelor Smith.

1:27:02>> Yes.

1:27:04>> Councelor Hapworth.

1:27:05>> Yes.

1:27:05>> Councelor Halapa.

1:27:06>> Yes.

1:27:07>> Councelor Prosnki.

1:27:08>> Yes.

1:27:08>> And councelor Varela.

1:27:10>> Yes. That's five in the affirmative. The

1:27:13motion [snorts] carries.

1:27:15Entertain another motion. Councelor

1:27:16Hapworth move for adjournment. Councelor

1:27:18Her motions for adjournment. Seconded by

1:27:20councelor Halapa. Roll call vote.

1:27:23Councelor Smith.

1:27:24>> Yes.

1:27:25>> Councelor Hapworth.

1:27:26>> Yes.

1:27:27>> Councelor Halapa.

1:27:28>> Yes.

1:27:29>> Councelor Prosnki.

1:27:30>> Yes.

1:27:31>> And councelor Varel is a yes. Thank you

1:27:34everyone for your time tonight. Have a

1:27:35good night.