Planning Commission for August 17th,
2026. Roll call. Mlan
>> here.
>> Bradshaw
>> here.
>> Uh Curtis is here. Visser
>> present.
>> Cutler is here.
>> All right. Need a motion for the
consideration of the meeting agenda.
>> So moved.
>> Moved by Cutler. Support by
>> support.
>> Mlan.
Need further discussion. All those in
favor say I. I.
>> All those opposed. We have a agenda at
this time. We will have a public comment
period brief up to two minutes for
anything uh anyone would like to talk
about. Please note we will be having a
public hearing for the item 6A public
hearing in consideration of a special
land use um for homebased business uh at
a later time. So if you are here to talk
about that, there's a separate time for
that.
» Please don't move. Okay. Hello. Good
evening. I'm uh Danielle Grassid and
I've only been to the Gaines Township
meetings. So, I'm just going off of what
I think I'm supposed to do. So, I I live
in Calonia Township on 7010 Patterson.
I'm right across the street from Gaines
Township, though. So, I've been going to
their meetings about the data center
ordinance discussions.
And um I I just noticed yours recently
and I skimmed through it quick. Uh
something I noticed was you didn't have
anything specific to the DBC and tonal
noise and it sounds like someone in the
audience is going to have some
information for you on that. I have a
preschooler that's going to be going to
Dutton Elementary. And so you guys have
residents and a school really, really
close to that border. And so I'm just
trying to get maybe your township to
help their township also meet some like
stringent ordinance numbers to make it
so we all enjoy our properties and our
students aren't annoyed during the day.
Yep. Okay. Thanks.
>> Thank you.
» Uh name is Greg Cummage. C O M E G YS
live on 92nd Street. Been a resident of
the township here for 40ome years, I
believe. Now, uh on the on the subject
of noise, um I want to address that
later. five minute sessions, but I'd
like to just um um sort of tell you
about an experience my wife and I had
with respect to noise. Um I had a high
school reunion in South Meshawaka a
couple weeks ago and on the way home I
told my wife I said let's just swing by
Dwag because it's in the news and people
are suing because of the uh the sound
situation. So we drove through through
Dwajak and u located the site there and
uh as soon as we opened the windows and
we were parked on the street right in
front of the residential area. Soon as
we opened the windows our vehicle would
just fill with this screeching whining
uh noise just continuous noise. And uh I
have a little app on my phone that
measures dB with in the vehicle with the
windows closed, the engine off. It was
like 60. I got out and I walked into the
facility. I didn't go beyond the uh the
imposing uh gate and the red light and
all that. I stopped short of that, took
some pictures of the facility, and then
measured the noise. It immediately
jumped up to about 90 dB right there. Uh
I hadn't been there too long. security
guard worked his way across the parking
lot and um confronted me and said,
"You're on private property." And I
said, "Well, I'm behind the gate." I
said, "Okay." And he said, "I don't
care. You're still on private property."
Now, I went about 50 ft from the road on
the little entrance drive to it. And he
uh he said, "You're on private property.
You're going to get out of here." So, he
escorted me all the way back to our
vehicle and then waited until we left.
So, the noise is very palpable. This is
a fairly small data center. compared to
some of the monster ones.
>> I'm sorry, your time is up.
>> My time is up. All right. You You'll
hear from me in five minutes time, too.
>> Thank you, Greg.
» Hi, I'm Kaylee Doring. I live at 5858
Lawnmore Court in the Greymore
neighborhood.
Um, and just seeing that air data center
ordinance discussion is on the agenda
today, we sorry, I just want to
reiterate the fact again that while that
data center ordinance is very important,
it's also important to remember that we
still have the ability to look at our
master plan. Um, well, you have the
ability to look at the master plan and
make some decisions on that and maybe
just look at changing what the plan says
instead of making some of those zones
light industrial and maybe making them
mixed use instead and making our
community a better place to be as
opposed to a place where we are inviting
things like data centers or other things
in light industrial zoning um to places
like next to our neighborhood.
Um, I also have
uh
a letter here that has been drafted just
to kind of give some more information. I
think some
um things just to consider when going
over that ordinance if I'm allowed to
approach and give it to you. Is that
allowed? Is that okay? Or I can give it
to you, Miss Lenny.
Thank you.
So, I just want to um make clear that we
will not be allowed to make comments uh
during the discussion of the ordinance.
Is that what I'm understanding?
>> It's not a public hearing. No.
>> Okay. And you won't make an exception
for such?
>> It's not a public hearing. No.
>> Okay. Well, great. I'll head right to it
then. Um so, number of issues. Deb
Steady, by the way, uh resident There
are a number of issues that need to be
strengthened in this draft ordinance. I
will deal with one important aspect,
noise and vibration. Um, I'm going to
pass out what was provided to me uh by
pen future as a model ordinance and I
think you can see the deficiencies in
how this ordinance is dealing with
noise. Um, specifically the application
requires a detailed acoustic study to
minimize noise and achieve a neutral
impact on adjacent and neighboring
nearby properties. How is neutral impact
defined? Um, maximum overall noise limit
is not specified. Section 3.61. Does
this mean an equivalent continuous sound
level? How will this be measured? Over
what time frame will this be the same
for all types of properties surrounding
the data center? See the sample
ordinance. Um, the use shall not exceed
the decibel levels in the designated
octave bands below. I couldn't find the
octave bands below in that draft. Um
same paragraph maximum overall noise
limit shall be 60 dbas. The dBA scale uh
scale only registers sound in the
audible range. Um this eliminates the
recording of pressure impulses below 20
hertz referred to as infrasound
significant health impacts on humans and
animals. Section page 13, section 8, PC
may authorize other or different
alternative regulations and conditions,
blah blah blah. An unelected
commission should not have this
authority. Any modification should
require public hearings and township
board approval. You got to clean up the
setbacks on page five and 10. Um there's
discrepancies in what each of those
areas are presenting. Um
>> thank you. Your time's up.
>> Well, thank you.
So what I will do is pass the model
ordinance.
>> Just excuse me. Excuse me. Stop.
>> Give it to Miss Len and she will
distribute it
>> during the discussion or
>> your time is up. Please give it to Miss
Len and she will distribute it.
>> I will persist and hand this out. Thank
you
>> for you as well. Attorney might be very
interested.
ordinances if you like to see it. You
can throw it over your shoulder. Thank
you.
» Seeing no other public comment, we will
close the brief public comment period.
Uh at this time we need a um considerate
a motion for the consideration of the
meeting minutes for July 20th, 2026.
>> So moved.
>> Moved by Cutler, support by
>> Yes, sir.
» Any other changes, comments?
All those in favor say I.
>> I.
>> All those opposed? Motion passes.
Conflict of interest. Does anybody have
a uh conflict of interest for any agenda
item
on tonight?
Seeing none, we'll move to item 6A, new
business. This is a public hearing in
consideration of a special land use for
a homebased business called Platinum
Ponds. Special use enables a larger sign
in the RR zoning district. Applicant is
Ryan Parno, address 5380 with a parcel
412331209.
[snorts]
The applicant has asked us to
uh postpone
this item until a meeting in September
due to a conflict. As the public uh um
hearing was noticed, we will hold the
public hearing at this time and likely
at the next meeting as well.
So if anybody's here to speak about
item 6A,
happy to hear.
» Hold on. Hold on.
» I mean, you both can come off at the
same time.
>> Okay. Right.
>> Um, good evening. My name is Aaron. Um,
I'm a resident of Calon. I live on Farm
Grow Court. Uh we've lived there for a
decade now. Um I I I was born and raised
in West Michigan. Uh love Calonia area.
A big reason uh that we moved here is
the familyfriendly atmosphere. We have
five children. My youngest is four. Um
and I am here to speak and respectfully
request that uh the board consider
denying the motion. Um,
my backyard butts up to that property
and my youngest is four and I don't want
him to, you know, have to play in a
backyard with commercial business right
there. I I think that it goes against
the
uh the atmosphere of our neighborhood.
Um,
and uh
I I find it frustrating. I feel like as
soon as they built there, they put up
the sign and I believe it's more of a
asking for forgiveness than permission.
And so I would respectfully ask the
township to consider declining that
request. Thank you for your time.
>> Yeah. Thank you, Erin.
>> Thank you.
» My name's Christine Broberg. I live on
Farm Court as well. Now, the property in
question does not come all the way into
my backyard. We were caught off guard by
the notice because we all saw the sign.
Based on what I'm reading though, I need
more information to know what it is
exactly he wants. Does he just want a
bigger sign or are we gonna are we
talking about having gigantic machinery
in the backyard that is actually making
it look like it's almost like a
construction type business that's in our
neighborhood? and there wasn't enough
information presented yet for us to have
any sort of ability to research or
understand what it is that's being asked
because according to what I'm reading in
the agenda, it looks like he just wants
a bigger sign.
And so that's we're just looking for
more information before we would even be
able to give a proper
opinion on what it would what we agree
with or not. So that's what we're
looking for. at least a chunk of us.
>> Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you.
» Hi, thank you for um hearing my
comments. My name is Laura Burr. I'm
Aaron's wife. Um I am almost a lifelong
resident of Calonia. We moved to Calonia
when I was eight. I grew up at 491
Johnson in the old um Fingfinder
farmhouse there. Um and really have
lived in in Calonia outside of the time
that um we lived in Cleveland when Aaron
was in law school. Um I understand that
the the um the farm that's right behind
us sold that property um for the house
that was then built there. That's fine.
That's the farmer's prerogative to do
that. But, um, I I kind of, as Erin
said, I I it feels like they're asking
for more forgiveness for this zoning,
um, than permission because the sign's
been up for quite a while. The business
address on Platinum Pal's website is
listed at that location. It's already
listed there. So, that doesn't sound
like we had a business, we have a
business elsewhere that we're going to
move here. And it's been in business
since 2015. Um, so I don't know where
they were operating prior to the last
year or so, but um, it it just doesn't
feel great that that's right behind us.
That, as Aaron said, that affects my
family. That affects our property
values. Um, too, having a commercial
zoning site directly behind us. Um, and
Calonia has changed a lot in the the
years that I've lived here. Um, we used
to call it Cowonia affectionately when I was younger because it was such a
rural community. Um, and I I get that
the wheels of time continue to move and I'm not arguing against, you know,
certain in general the fact that
development continues to happen. Um, but
we don't always have to say yes. It
doesn't always have to happen. Um, and
especially on on my street when it
affects me directly in my backyard, I
would really respectfully request the
township um deny the the uh reszoning of
that property. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Can I put a new item? Hold on.
>> Not in the middle of something else.
» Uh well, I have to close it. Um at this
time, we'll close the public uh hearing
for item 6A. Uh no action is planned on
that tonight. Mr. this.
>> Uh, new I'd like to add an agenda item
for discussion. Um, if I can for next
meeting.
>> Yeah, let's get that at the end.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> I thought you meant tonight. I'm like
that time pass. [clears throat]
» Any other
>> um I I don't know if you want to have
Len do any brief introduction on it. I
know. Yeah, I mean we have people who
want to kind of know about it. So, can
you do the five minute quick
what's
>> Yes. And I don't have my whole file
here, but um the applicant has requested
to postpone this uh hearing item until
the September 21st meeting. So, he was
going to be out of town tonight. So,
requested that this continue into the
September date. Uh my understanding is
that the applicant does have an
accessory building on site. There are um
there's a dumpster he plans to keep on
site, he said to to enable him to, you
know, uh
dispose of items from other sites where
he builds ponds and pools. Um the zoning
inspector has been out to the property
because we did get a complaint about the
sign. So, a sign was put up. It's larger
than we allow in the residential the RR
zoning district. The only way to have a
larger sign is through the homebased
business process. Um he claims that he
is not conducting a homebased business
despite the sign being there and all of
the you know Google documentation and
research we've done that uh ties the
business to his home. He has materials
stored on the property. Um, and he has
provided us a plan for building his own
pond/pool
on the property and said that the
materials that he has there he bought on
discount on sale at the end of the
season and they're stored there for his
project at home. He did provide in his
application that he rents space for his
business um in Wyoming and somewhere
else in Kentwood where he stores
equipment for the business there. Um we
have not visited those sites. Um he did
mention he has two employees but he said
that they do not operate out of the home
on 100th Street. Again, we're not out
there at all hours of the day inspecting
that and verifying that. Um, that's just
the information that we have today. Um,
so the purpose
is, you know, whether whether we grant a
homebased business there is is number
one. And if he has a homebased business,
then this uh special use because
homebased business is a special use that
you can also consider a bigger sign. I
don't think we could just allow a bigger
sign unless we say yes to the homebased
business too, right? They go together.
Um so that's the information we have
today. Um, we can provide any other
packet information for neighbors. Um, if
you stop by our office or send an email,
we can we can share that with you. Um,
but that's what I have. I think the rest
of it we will look at um in September.
» All right, Christine, if you want to
grab that from Miss Len at some point.
Um, it's just the application so you can
actually read it. Um, all right. At this
time, I will make a motion to I've
learned postpone
um item 6A
>> until the September
what meeting?
>> 21st meeting.
>> Motion to postpone item 6A to the
September 21st meeting per the
applicant's request.
supported
>> motion by Bradshaw, support by Visser.
Any further discussion on this?
>> All those in favor of postponing say I.
>> All those opposed, motion to postpone
pass.
>> All right. The data center ordinance we
have in front of us. I'm assuming
everybody has read through it. I have
seen a lot of red marks. Um I think
we'll just start right into the red
marks. Miss Len, I think that's the
easiest thing.
>> Sure.
>> To do it.
>> Um
so
>> also, Mr. Chairman, just go ahead. Our
attorney Ross Leman is here
>> um to provide support and some guidance
and best practice. He's been working
with other municipalities in uh northern
county also on this topic of the data
center. Um, our draft is modeled after
draft ordinances that uh, Ross and his
team have been working on in um, a
couple other communities similar to
Calonia Township. I did provide Ross
with an overview and the minutes from
previous discussions from planning
commission. Um, I know at our last
meeting we talked about buffering and
um, sound panels. That was the topic. Uh
the the difference between I1 and I2 and
whether this use could or should be in
I2 versus I1. Um there were questions
related to decommissioning.
There were questions and concerns about
battery fires and so I had him look at
that in our code as well as utility
upgrades and extensions. And so, um, he
did look at those items. He can speak
further on that. Um, but I know that you
also have things you want to talk about.
And so, now is a great time for us to
utilize his expertise
um, for the conversation today.
>> Great.
>> Yeah.
>> Thank you, Ross. Um, so, let me start
off. There's [snorts] there's really two
ordinance sections. There's the 3.61
and the
Sorry, the 16.55.
>> Correct.
Yes.
>> 3.61 is by right. 16.55 is special land
use. Correct.
>> Yep. Chapter 16 is our special land use.
Section 3.61 is is our general
provisions and general provisions apply
to any uh any use in any district if if
it's applicable.
>> Um. Yep.
>> All right. So,
Mine is just I focused on the
differences between the two sections
that were conflicting
>> that that needs to be addressed. Um and
I can pass these notes later. Um
uh 3 point the first note I have is 3.61
limits digital mining operations to 9
to5 but 1655 does not repeat that um and
allows us to set
Um that
and
in 361
there's a we need to cl my opinion we
need to clarify whether the fix section
3.61 digital mining hours apply to
medium scale and hypers scale digital
mining special land uses whether 1655
allows different approved op there's an
operating hour issue. On a more
interesting note, um if the high utility
usage is during the daytime hours,
so if the confliction is if if the
there's two conflictions going on. Um
one, we want to have the noise during
the day, but then on the flip side,
um why you're looking at me?
>> I just don't feel like I have the same
paper that you do. I printed it off from
online.
>> Okay. So that's probably why. [laughter]
>> Um, so we want we want the noise during
the day, not at night, but the electric
usage
in general is higher
>> to the grid during the daytime than it
is at night. So I just question the
hours and what we're trying to
accomplish and make sure we have
consistency
>> between the two.
Um in the 1655
um there's some setback issues that
conflict with 3.61
that we just need to make sure that
we have those
um in alignment that we have.
>> Do you have like page numbers? I can't
keep up with
Sorry, I had to summarize it a lot
because it's all over the place because
they're in two different spots.
>> So, there's setbacks on page five.
>> Yep. Setbacks are on five and then again
they are on page
» I mean the the solution isn't to solve
it tonight. It's just to point out that
there's
>> and page 10
>> and 10.
» So we have 1,000 ft and 500 ft.
Um
but we need to understand if in 361 if
it is different.
Um
there's a I believe an incorrect cross
reference in 361 because it refers to
339 C and D. Um
which may not be the right cross
references. [snorts]
Um
1655 prohibits
trying to get there for you Tim. um
private wells
um for general cooling or processing
purpose. And 361 just requires a
disclosure of the water source and
cooling method without prohibiting
private wells.
You follow me? I know.
Okay.
>> Um
1655
requires a connection to public water
that allows alternative water and sewer
facilities if water water usage is low
water usage is demonstrated.
361 requires a disclosure and analysis
of the water supply but does not require
public water and sewer
connection.
Um then the issue of noise
um which was brought up um
they're not aligned
um as to how between the the two
sections.
Um
361 requires
water cooled systems to use the closed
cooling system. 1655 adds that open
evaporative cooling towers are
prohibited. So in 1655 it's prohibited
but 3.61 it's not specifically
prohibited.
Um
>> so the special land use is only for the
h the not all of these go to special
use. Right.
>> Right.
But if we're going to have stringent
requirements, they should be
matched up. Like if we're going to not
allow
cooling towers,
>> per se,
>> why do we allow it in a special land use
or vice versa?
>> Yeah.
Um
361 requires operational equipment to be
located within uh cooling and power
generation to be located in an enclosed
building or structure and less weigh.
1655 requires roof mounted equipment to
be screened on four on four sides.
Clarify whether the roof mounted may
remain outside in a closed building if
screened or whether they should not be
um
battery. There seems to be a confliction
in the
NFPA
um requirements.
Um 1655 doesn't expressly reference NFPA
855.
Um
annual inspections.
um
requires an agreement for that that's
reimbursed.
Um
and clarify 1655 is the annual
inspection and reimbursement
requirements and check 3.61 for
periodic.
One's annual, one's periodic.
Do we want to have them
Again, I'm not advocating for a change.
I'm just saying there's a difference
between the two. Do we want annual or do
we want periodic? And is periodic fine.
>> All right, that's all I have. Just
differences between the two.
Pass that.
>> You might need it for conversation. I
don't think you want to give it away
yet.
» Um
Okay, that was a lot.
>> Yeah.
>> So, the what I'm hearing is the
clarification between what's required
and the general provisions for all all
of these uses at whatever scale like
small, medium, hyper versus what we have
in the requirements for special use
standards where we treat the hyper scale
and medium scale.
Do we want to have separate or do we
want them to be the same requirements
>> because it's we seem I mean you're going
to have the same
equipment maybe just not the same
quantity of equipment.
>> Right. Right.
And in your mind are you feeling like no
matter how small, large, hyper,
it should be consistent?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Consistency is much easier to
um a quantify and b there's no well I
thought this I thought that at a later
point in time
and I read in one of the comments that
even the small scale five megawatt um
at least in the account here is that
it's sufficient power
sufficient to power 750 homes
for one megawatt. So a 5 megawatt no
exponential yeah 3 to 4,000 homes
and their opinion is that not no data
center project regardless of megawatt
size should be allowed as a use by
right.
So that's a, you know, back to you as a
planning commission. Would it, do we
even want to have any of them be by
right or just move them all to special
land use?
» I just have a question here.
>> Going back to section 8.4,
looks like there's been an addition. It
says building size. We did add something
on building size. Yes.
>> Okay. So, 20 thou 200,000 square feet.
That's four acres. Just a little over
four acres.
Then the minimum lot size has to be 40
acres. Is that right? So, that's a 10%
coverage ratio. And the max that they
can do, it's got a building height, so
of 25 ft. So, you got a million cubic
feet.
Um,
I don't know. I just I think that should
do it. I mean, nobody's going to come
here and do that project.
[laughter] That should about wrap it up.
I mean, as far as I'm concerned,
make it you can make it as of right. You
can, you know, make [clears throat] it
special land use permit. It's done. I
mean, you just you add that to it and we
ain't got to deal with anything.
>> I mean, at the end of the day, again, it
goes to consistency.
special eight section 8 like you said in
the by right you know
>> I'm just telling you that practically
speaking it don't matter
>> I understand
>> yeah so
» yes
>> sorry I can't see your eyes
>> um page two under um item number nine
medium scale data center um goes
megawatt and 99.
Should we take that up to 100 so that
it's we have consistency between
um
the different sizes? We don't have hole
in the middle of it.
>> Yeah, it's not 99.5.
>> Yeah.
I saw that too.
>> It should be up to
>> 100
more there.
>> Yes. And that's consistent within item
number 12.
So I do have a question on the digital
mining as to why we're treating that
separately.
Um
because Some kid could be doing that in
his house. Are they now,
>> you know, under that ordinance?
>> Yeah, go ahead.
>> I I can comment on that if you want.
>> Yeah, please.
>> Um, so digital I'm not an engineer. Uh,
but um what uh we've been hearing out
there a lot is that actually the noisy
ones like the guy said he went to that
was really noisy. often that ends up
being the digital mining that there's a
big big noise difference with the
cooling that's required in the fans and
that between digital mining and regular
data centers. So that was actually one
thing I was going to note when you were
talking about noise uh that as these
ordinances have developed is they've
even made um greater treatments and
distinctions of digital mining versus
other data centers because other data
centers tend to be quieter. Uh and so
for example, one thing you could
consider is saying all digital mining
shall occur only in small scale or
medium scale and not on a hypers scale
basis. That is just too much. So that
that's why digital mining is referred to
differently. And again, I'm not an
engineer, but that's been something
fairly consistent um that you want to be
more restrictive and take extra steps
because digital mining is noisier.
But if I'm
buying server time,
you know, in the in the data center, I
can use it for
when I'm using I mean, I might use it
for digital mining and people might not
even know.
>> Yeah. It's just not as efficient. Right.
>> Right.
>> I mean, that's the problem is like the
chips, you know, it's like a Nvidia chip
and just takes more cooling load than
the other like a server. So you could mine crypto uh colo server.
>> Right.
But it's not you know
>> it's not going to pay. It just doesn't
make sense. So people just don't do it.
And so they do this because you know
they get more processing power per
kilowatt.
>> Yeah.
>> But policy you could take it out. You
could say we're just going to regulate
data centers and we're not going to
distinguish it. That's the reason
>> that I've heard and that we've been
putting into different ordinances is
because of the no different in noise
level.
>> So if it's
and maybe I missed it if it's a digital
mining
do we have
noise requirements
and I missed it. While we're digital
mining are
>> we're using the same for digital land
>> right
>> data centers
>> correct
» so it should be like the lesser
noise like not more noise but the one
requiring less noise.
» Yeah.
Are you guys in in your experience are
there
like are they putting more cell towers
or any sort of digital like data
transmission stuff like alongside or
next to or you know with data centers at
this point in time? Is there any
progression towards that
like microwave towers you know any like
a cell tower that would basically hook
that directly into a data center?
>> Uh I've not run into that. There's been
a lot of talk about um energy generation
affiliated with data centers, you know,
and you know, whether they're going to
have um whether they're going to grab it
all off the grid or if they're going to
have um well, you already have it where
your generators have to be for non
generation. But if you could have solar,
you could have wind, you could have
diesel,
>> um you know, different on-site
generation type thing. And they tend to
want to locate them by substations and
other things like that. I've not heard
much about um uh cell towers, but I
would think if it would come then your
general cell tower regulations would
apply just like probably right now the
way it is. If somebody comes and wants
to do a solar project with it, you
probably have to meet all your solar
regulations in addition to the data
mining ones
or or the data center and the digital
mining. I was going to comment on your
comment about um the different
standards. Um the reason for that um is
the thinking behind that is you have a
general section just like you do for
accessory buildings or something like
that that provides your base regulations
and that that primarily is dealing with
um small scale and accessory and
anything that would fall between the
cracks. And so those tend to be more
consistent with the regulations that you
do for other businesses. Um and and
actually maybe one thing you might want
to do is lower the I guess I've not
heard it that that a 5 megawatt data
center will power thousands of homes.
>> Uh but I have heard that you know it
does more. But the idea is that the
small scale and the accessory are more
similar to other businesses and so they
would be treated more consistently with
other businesses. And that your medium
scale and your hypers scale then have to
come in for special land use. And so
they have um a lot of additional
requirements that aren't necessarily
reasonable if somebody's coming in, you
know, to do something that's similar to
a different business that you wouldn't
require that for. But I also have seen
uh and have done it for townships that
would prefer to make all of them special
land uses. Just say if you're doing
anything data centerwise, it's a special
land use period. Um so that's and and
the way you would do that is you the
same structure, but you would just have
a general section defining it. And then
um say if you want, you know, to
actually get it approved, you got to
come in for special land use.
So that that is if you like that model
better, you can do it. It's it's fairly
similar. But the idea of this is to
provide,
you know, some distinguishing
characteristics for things that might be
more consistent. Whereas the medium
scale and hypers scale are kind of
things of their own.
>> It's almost I don't know like you have
the accessory data center is
at someone's data center at their
business type of level and then we have
the other the small medium large
extra large
the general maybe cover just accessory.
» Um, if I can chime in to Don's question.
So, when switch first went in, whatever
it was, 13, 14, 15, long time ago. Um I
was the city engineer at Kentwood at the
time and it's not necessarily your
question was more about like cell towers
and um through the air transmission but
every fiber provider that I think exists
in Michigan put fiber in along East
Paris. So East Paris is either somewhere
between a three and five lane road
depending on where you're driving. But
when it comes to fiber infrastructure
it's like 131. It's the super highway.
there is so much data running north and
south and I think that 60th is similar
but that wasn't under my permitting
jurisdiction for like an east west
route. Um so yes there's lots of other
implications to move all of that data to
get it to and from you know building in
the center.
» Um and I guess
>> want to continue to have the floor. Um,
I'm going to try to go through mine like
page number and section and just kind of
work through it. That works better for
me to follow along. So, my first comment
is on page four, uh,
section
I guess C10
D
six. It's a big uh jump down, but it's
just that a community impact analysis is
required. That's not really defined
anywhere in the draft ordinance. And
generally, I just find that to be vague,
like what what are we looking for? So,
let's be a little bit more clear on what
that is and what we want.
Um
>> I'm thinking schools um public safety
traffic management construction.
» Okay.
>> It is.
>> I think so. Okay. Well, maybe I didn't
catch it because I kept reading. Yeah.
>> Um
>> I keep going in that same section. And
um item number nine, a detailed
emissions and air quality impact
analysis including backup generator
usage. And in my, you know, again, I'm
not an expert in these things yet,
getting a little bit better every month.
But I feel like we need to include
temperature changes at discharge.
From the reading I've done, it sounds
like depending on scale, especially
hypers scale data centers, they kind of
make small heat islands. And depending
on which way the wind blows, now it's a
few degrees warmer at your property all
the time because of the heat that's
coming off these things.
Um,
continuing on that same page at the
bottom of page four, talking general
regulations and noise levels sub I, we
talk about the maximum overall noise
limit shall be 60 dva during daytime
hours and 45 dva during nighttime hours,
which are 1000 p.m. to 7 a.m. at the
property line. Um,
I'm a nerd. I volunteer and do the
soundboard at my church. We have a
little meter because we want to make
sure that it's not too loud for people
while they're singing the songs and that
the pastor isn't too loud with his
microphone. So 60 is kind of 65 is like
the target for when the pastor's
speaking and the music is closer to 80.
Um I feel like 60 even during the day is
way too high. Like
that's how can that be okay at a mall to
constantly have background noise this
the volume of a conversation at your
home. I can't get the yes. Um so I feel
like we need to look at something lower
whether that's 55 or 50. I I don't know
what's a more reasonable threshold but
60 seems very high.
Um
Continuing to the top of page five, sub
item two. I feel like maybe we should
define daytime hours to be 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. It's been a long time since I
had little kids, but um even this time
of year back when they were little, they
might already be in bed at 7:30 and I
don't want them to wake up if they're
already in bed. So, and sometimes in the
summer it's light out till 9:45. So,
let's be specific.
Um,
sub item three, right below that,
if they're not complying with the
ordinance, what are our tools in the
toolbox? Do we go out there with a
decibel meter and say, "Well, geez, it's
65 dB at the property line. We just
write them a municipal civil infraction
ticket for $75 or whatever that is
allowed to be. [clears throat]
How do we police this?
Um, that's everything that I have on
page five. Got some little minor
spelling things on other pages. I'll
skip those.
Um,
must be page seven. Yep. At the bottom
of page seven under safety talks about
the equipment used in any data center or
digital mining use shall be house
nanometered electrically grounded blah blah and it needs to resist an
internal electrical fire for at least 30
minutes. I am not an expert in the fire
code but 30 minutes for a building of
that magnitude and risk and danger seems
super small. Um residential homes are
usually one hour if it's an apartment
complex with you know multi-use
dwelling. There's a lot of two-hour
rated walls. I'm just not understanding
how we're 30 minutes for a data center.
>> And just to pause there because I had
flagged this one. I don't understand.
You shall be housed in a metered
um metal in case I don't know what a
meter metal enclosure is.
>> Yeah, I I assume it's metering power in
and out, but
[laughter]
Yeah, take the meter out of there. I
don't think it Who's paying for it?
» It was It That's small minor, but it's
» um I think I only got a couple more. So,
almost done. top of page eight under sub
item four, right before item 15, it just
talks about
uh any applicable local, state, or
federal laws, rules, or eight
regulations. I I don't know what the
eight regulations are.
>> Okay.
So, I think that's a typo.
I think it's code section 8 is the
player code if I remember right, but I
might have it wrong.
>> Uh toward the bottom of page eight under
decommissioning requirements sub item
one, a financial guarantee bond or
escrow shall be required to ensure
adequate funds for decommissioning. Feel
like we need to add as determined by the
township and
even that makes me a little leery. um
you know, how are we going to accurately
understand the cost of what it's going
to take to knock this thing down or
decommission it so that it can be re
reused to be something else potentially.
Um
there's a lot of complexity to that and
that would be hard for me to try to
guess at the right number.
» Perhaps hire somebody from Consumers
Energy. Well, then it's free.
Be like, "Oh, yeah. Volunteers will be
out tomorrow."
Um,
and then I just said there's a lot of
like little tab indentation
typo things that I felt like on page 14.
And
that was my main comments,
but I think
we've made good progress from the first
time we had a draft ordinance. I feel
like we still have a lot of progress to
continue to make. This is really complex
and important. Um, and we want to make
sure that we're happy with it before
it's done.
» Yeah, because we have time to get it
right.
» Do we have something in here about the
architectural standards, too?
We already have architectural standards
in the ordinance for industrial
buildings. So they would have to conform
to that.
>> Okay.
>> That's in general.
>> Do we want them to conform to
is this is this I guess structurally
speaking is this coming down as a
subpart of industrial or are now we
setting up basically an entirely
different
zoning district which is for data
center. We're not doing that. So it's
under industrial. Okay.
>> Correct. Right now it's light
industrial.
>> What if we put it under office?
>> We don't have an office district. We
have light industrial, heavy industrial.
>> We have commercial.
>> Well, what do we what do what do we do?
All the architectural standard work
is for it's in general provisions and we
regulate it for commercial, office,
industrial.
>> Okay. So any any use in industrial would
have to conform to the architectural.
>> Okay. Which then and that's the ones
that we just did two months ago we
finalized with industrial architectural
standards. Correct. Correct.
>> Okay. Cool.
>> Yeah. So that's like
>> that stack.
Yeah. Right.
>> So this is like that jigsaw that we're
piecing together.
>> So they have to meet all those
architectural standards as well.
>> Correct.
along with the height and the square
foot and lot coverage and
>> they'll be they'll they'll be all right
with all that.
>> Yeah.
» Mr. Mlan,
did we beat it up or do you have
>> You did good.
What is the feeling about I think we
still need to talk about whether we move
these all into special use. I think
there's also that question we want to make
you to decide are we keeping it all in
the light industrial where it is today
or there was a question about moving it
into heavy industrial. I shared We only
have one parcel heavy industrial. It's
where the concrete plant is. It's
smaller than 40 acres already used by
someone. Um
so there's that concern that we're
writing an ordinance that
has nowhere to go.
>> Exclusionary.
>> Correct.
Which, correct me, Mr. Attorney, because
I'm a lean engineer, exclusionary
ordinances are not allowed. Correct.
>> Uh, that's correct. Although it looks
like right now you're putting in your
light industrial and you have a lot more
light industrial land. Um, they don't
have to line up exactly,
but I think Len has a fair point. uh
uniquely to your situation that your I2
there's nothing available, you know, so
that that might be a little bit of a um
of an issue. Um but uh for most of the
digital mining data center stuff that's
going in,
um there aren't lands that large, so
they're going to involve reszonings, you
know, so it's it's kind of a blended
scale. Um, so anyway, but the
I2 district for you guys might be an
issue unless you're going to do some
changes
>> unless we expand it.
>> Yeah,
>> essentially is what you're saying.
>> Yeah,
>> I don't know that any of us are really
excited about that. Yeah, I mean I'm
torn because I do feel like the I2 use
much better aligns with the data center,
but I don't know that we have a desire
for a bunch more I2 use in the community
or need. So, um
I think it kind of is what it is with
the current system
>> and that that's kind of the dilemma
these things all the way around.
>> Yeah. in
um the little bit of reading I've done
on Selen Township, you know, they had
exclusionary zoning and got sued and
lost and had a court agreement and now
they have a data center that they didn't
want. So, I don't think that approach
was successful for them. I don't know
that that's what we want to try then.
No,
we have enough uh of uh those little
areas just for development
around here.
>> Yeah. We have a lot of legacy.
>> Yeah.
We prefer not to do anymore.
Um because under the consent agreement,
it's just whatever the court decides and
>> we live with it.
>> I think their buildings are 550,000
square feet each.
Yeah.
Um
>> I want to circle back to Len's question.
So for me um you know even five megawws
you know I did some googling it's
depends on what your overall energy your
average house uses but it's anywhere
from 800 to 5,000 homes and you know
that's half of our community. So to me
that's absolutely a special land use if
you're using that much power even if
you're a little one. So personally I
would say all data centers should be
special in uses in mind.
>> I I like that as well because we can
like consolidate it all into one spot
and not have general and specific. It's just
specific.
>> Yeah. And then I I mean I do think we
need to address the accessory data center so we're not
um excluding that. But I also think that
the accessory data center with uh you
know power up to 5 megawws is a little
larger than an accessory
as well.
» Um I guess the question for me would be
how would we know if something were
accessory
would be
you said it's associated with a business
» well I mean just going by the definition
where it says a data center that is
ancillary to the principal use of a lot
parcel which is typically used solely to
store otherwise support an individual's
business data and technology needs,
>> right?
» I mean, policing it's easy because when
we get the the plans, it's going to have
the
uh transformer size on it. I mean, 5
megawatts, you pretty well have to have
substation type equipment added.
>> So, it would probably
to a principal use, you know, that's
approved and we have a site plan for it.
And
» yeah, I don't want to prevent somebody,
you know, from
um what's the fire protection company?
Brigade, not brigade. Who does
>> fire pros? No over in South
can't they manufacture the sprinkler
heads like if they want
>> Thank you Viking like if they want to
build you know a data center for their
business use
I mean maybe data center is not the
appropriate term for that either right
it's
>> um but we have to have some lever that
allows a business to actually
Yeah, I mean
>> network equipment.
>> I work for Kent County and I manage a
bunch of buildings and we have two data
centers in two of the 15 buildings that
I manage and those use a lot more power
than the average building because it
takes a lot to take care of moving all
that information back and forth just for
our county use.
>> Yeah. So, we don't want to restrict a
business from moving their own data,
>> right?
I you know it's that we want to have you
know I think there's a big picture we're
talking about data centers but we have
to remember we can't have unintended
consequences of
this impacting what we're not intending
it to either or vice versa
>> I guess speaking about the enforcement
question about you know sound and you
know ticketing
I'm curious are we able to have
different
enforcement thresholds or thresholds by
use
» I I would Any data center enforcement
litigation would be circuit court
lawsuits, not municipal civil
infractions.
>> But would it I mean it's got to start
with some infraction, right? Otherwise,
you know, what are we here to argue
about in court? Got to be a violation.
So, is it there's got to be some ticket
written initially to start a
>> um no you you can when you when you
enforce an ordinance, you can do a
municipal civil infraction district
court. You can always bring an action in
circuit court for an injunction
which you know sometimes you do that
with mining cases or other larger
operations. You don't do the district
court file a complaint and do the whole
thing in circuit court.
[clears throat] Can we put the like
first violation is this second violation
is that third violation tear it down. Is
that can you do that in an ordinance?
>> We already have the violations process
in our code.
>> But is that sufficient for this?
>> Yeah.
So it sounds like when we bring this
back, we want to move all of the uses
except for accessory to special use.
That would help with some of this
consistency issue. However, we are going
to have accessory data centers still
have to abide by the general provision
section which will have its own
standards. Um,
and then
I think that's the big change. And then
these other comments,
maybe we can get a better definition of
what a sizewise,
you know, uh,
what's the word again? Sorry, I lost it.
the accessory data center.
I mean, even a megawatt's way too much.
But again, I'm just guessing at that,
you know, what what is can we define
that?
» I don't know. Well, I mean I think you
say if the accessory is larger than the
five then it becomes um
» special but maybe five is too high.
>> Yeah, I I'm thinking maybe five is too
high. I mean maybe the small starts at
one.
» I mean that's a lot of power. Yeah, I'm
confident that the counties are way less
than one and we still you can there's an
energy difference in our electric bill.
>> Exactly. You know, maybe it's 500 K 5
500 KW, you know, half a megawatt
um is where the small I I think we need
to get a handle as to where the small
starts because I think small at five is
actually still quite big.
Because the utility will always say,
"Oh, we have the power and it's not
going to cost cost any money anymore."
And then they go to the public service
commission and ask for more money.
» [clears throat]
» And there's a lot of work that's gone
into it. I think we have a
quite a bit to go on it as well.
I mean,
reviewing the noise [snorts]
requirements and
um
in hours of operation, whether the noise
should be consistent.
You know, why should it be allowed to be
louder during the day than it is at
night?
Ross, do you have any other questions or
comments for us?
>> No, there's a couple other things that I
could um that day and I were talking
about that, you know, maybe some things
on that infrastructure things need to be
paid for. There are some provisions in
there, but clarify that they'll pay for
things that maybe you normally wouldn't
do and maybe the enforcability of that
is um
not part of the discussion as much as
sometimes you put it in there and
they'll pay it.
you know that if you need to upgrade
your fire equipment, if you need to do
different things and there's a
requirement in there,
>> um that you have a basis for arguing
that.
>> Um and there were a couple other
comments just that we were talking
about, but you know, um I have seen the
range of
um what's allowed as small scale go down
it seems like as these ordinances
develop over time. So just what you're
saying that they've gone they've gone
down in the kilowatts. I've also seen
them where they've done that and only
for small scale added a maximum building
size that's consistent with other uses
in that district. You know that it has
to be under this or that building size.
So, so really exactly what you're
talking about, you guys are kind of
right there on where these things are
developing.
» Yeah, I guess I would piggyback that
that's one thing that still makes me
uncomfortable is the maximum building
size being
000 square feet. I mean, I'd have to
Google how big a Costco or, you know,
Meer Super Center is, but I think it's
smaller than that. Um, and
because we don't have additional room
left in industrial, the little bit of
land that we have in the community, not
necessarily a desire to change to add
more. Um, I just feel like a building
that big is in conflict with light
industrial but we need to provide
provision for all these things and that one in particular I just can't
solve there's conflict seems too big but
we need to allow something
but you said you put that's 200
over 40 acres
» page 10 Yes.
>> Okay.
150.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. I was going to say they're like
100 to 200.
Um yeah. So the minimum lot area is 40,
but the maximum
building you can put on it. A total of
200.
Correct.
>> Right. That's what it says right now.
>> So if you split it up into four
buildings, you 50,000 square foot
buildings.
>> I don't think That's what that's saying.
That's just saying that the maximum
building size is 200,000.
>> You could have multiple buildings.
>> No. Well, that's not how I read it at
all. I I read it as basically the
maximum
square footage under a roof to be
200,000 square feet.
>> You could have multiple roofs.
>> See, that's not how I read that.
>> It's Yeah, he didn't. He He read it. It
has a lot coverage of 10%.
>> Right.
>> Plus or minus.
>> That's the
for lot
of buildings and the total square
footage under roof per
» well it okay again to me that's how it
read so you know if we need to make that
you know more
clear
>> that you know it's a maximum 10% lot
coverage in addition
and you know, 200,000
square feet,
you know, is a total. That's what I read
it to me, too. And I And to me, that's
I mean, that's going to be pretty
protectionary. You're not going to have
any There's not a whole lot of data
center developers, I don't think, that
are going to be interested in paying
that much for dirt and then having that
kind of density. It's just
>> Yeah, because Yeah. Now, reading it the
other direction, I initially read it,
how you read it, which again goes back
to we always have to be clear on what
we're
>> saying. So, I appreciate that it was
brought up because if you take the 40
acres minus 1,000 square feet around the
outside, just winging the math, that's
30 acres. I mean, but this thing's going
to be, you know, you do this, it's going
to be set up like four knocks, right?
>> You know, where you got a building in
the very middle, it's 200,000 square
feet and you're going to have, you know,
thousand foot you know, maybe 2,000 foot
sight lines all around the building, you
know, assuming they put it in the middle
of the property, right?
>> Yeah. You don't want to see, you know,
say the 40 with a,000 acre setback or
thousand foot setback makes it 30 just
>> so I think this is all kind of
consistent
>> because we're talking about again like
all these noise type things and you know
what is because again I think you know
they have they have the right to
have noise on their own property, right?
If they wanted it, if they could put it
in a cylinder and shoot it up to space
and nobody around them could hear the
noise and it was 400 dB
to the airport and that's dangerous. We
should do that.
>> Yeah, exactly. So, I mean, so, you know,
I just I think this is consistent with
basically, again, we're trying to keep
noise, pollutants, you know, all sorts
of things from even visual you know,
offenses from omitting to the edges of
the property.
>> Well, let's pull that string and go down
that road a little bit. Um, so if we say
the minimum lot is 40 acres, let's just
start. Does anybody have a any big issue
with that?
>> Okay. Then
>> how many buildings?
>> It wouldn't matter. I think as many as
it would. Well, that's Do we care?
>> Not really. They want to put it in four
buildings or they want to put it in
>> Yeah, but you're we're saying the 200
they can do four buildings. Is that what
you're okay with? Okay.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm
>> You want the 40 acres? No more than
200,000. No matter how if they do
>> uh 20
>> 20 buildings, right?
>> They built like Bill Gates's house and
they decide that they want to put, you
know, 15,000 feet underground and then
just have a little couple popups here
and there above the ground you know they
want to put a grass rose on them and
live like a hobbit that's fine you know
I think but they just get you know you
got they got 200,000 square feet that
they can use so I mean to me it's going
to be again economically I think it's
going to be incredibly restrictive
from an economic standpoint but I think
it you know from our you know standpoint
of trying to community, you know, what's
the public, you know, the wealth
interest of welfare. I mean,
>> reason
I I'm not disagreeing because I read it
the same way as you.
>> Yeah.
>> I just want to make sure that
>> Yeah. But it would have to be clear to
the world that, you know, it's 200,000
square feet is
>> total
>> the total developable under
>> because I'm not just calling up
>> we interpreted it differently. Correct.
Right. already amongst you know six
people here we already interpreted it
different so that can't be that can't be
the final language
see you calculating
>> yeah I just was trying to figure out uh
if a 40acre parcel was a square it would
be 1 1320 ft for each leg of the square
and if we have a th00and foot setback
frankly that's not
if it's adjacent to residential. So
>> that that is practically difficult. I
guess that so maybe we have to
reconsider that the setback 800 foot
setback. I think we need to start
looking at 60 acres or 80.
>> Yeah. I mean, maybe we increase the
setbacks. Correct.
>> The setbacks. There's nothing wrong. I
agree. There's nothing wrong with the
setback, but
>> um you know,
again,
but then we have to define total
200,000,
>> right?
>> Or whatever the number is.
>> Well, then I guess I guess it is going
to have to be larger than, you know,
physically accomplish that. And I don't
have any problem pushing say 60 or
whatever, you know, or
that's
» because you end up with a lot of green
space,
>> right? A lot of green space, which is
great,
>> right? I mean, I think we had was all
surrounded by forest or surrounded by a
mow yard or whatever they choose to do.
as long as it's been a setback and you
know you I just think you're a lot less
issues
you know like given it that space
and there is nothing saying
that they can't plant trees and stuff in
the setback correct I just want to
do we have landscape requirements that
we need to tie this
>> we reference that
>> is Is it is it enough?
I I'm not asking you an answer now, but
it's just is do we have enough if if
we're going to 60 and 1,000 square feet,
do we have enough landscaping
requirements? And is the landscaping
requirements on all sides just the road
frontage?
>> It's the same. I mean, we'd say that it
has to comply with chapter 28 and then
our new architectural standards.
Um, also have the landscaping and
buffering standards. But we do say an
additional burn offering landscaping
shall be required along any property
shared with an adjacent property that's
in a residential district.
>> What if it's not zone res? I mean, maybe
we want to change it so it's just
adjacent to any
» this is what happens. We start pulling
strings and figure out other areas of
the ordinance that we need to address at
the same time. Well, as far as having
two or three buildings, I mean, we
regulate how many buildings will go on
residential lots and every other lots.
Why wouldn't we regulate how many
buildings they can have?
I'm I just, you know, personally, I
think that's fine. I go ahead and
regulated. I just think in my mind, it
doesn't really matter too much, you
know, how many buildings they're going
to do. They're not going to put up, you
know,
10 by 10,
you know what I mean?
>> Yeah. They want to do it in large
football field type things like you see.
to switch along east Paris.
» You think you have enough to go on this
one?
>> So, yeah, increasing the area as well.
>> I'd like another to look at the land,
you know, do we need the buring, the
landscaping,
>> all that
>> that we're doing to
Yeah, maybe it's like plant they got to
plant, you know, a row of trays, you
know, four feet, four trees deep.
» Yeah. Patter.
Yeah. So I think next steps are we get
it split look at the other different
sections [snorts] that we tal you know
that we talked about talk square footage
or acreage split foot and
then you know look at some of the noise
requirements
and get another
draft, I think. But I don't I don't
think even at our the next draft is
anywhere close to the final because
we're going to want to to Mr. Bisser's
point is to make sure that we all are
interpreting it the same way
>> when it comes to it because we don't want to have our
township attorney trying to explain
that's not what we meant. when we wrote
it
» and it's a rapidly changing environment
and even 30 days from now there could be
new and better information than exists
today.
>> Right.
So, it's
I mean I think we're getting
we're farther along than where we
started, but I don't we're not halfway
through the marathon yet.
Unless others have different opinion on
that.
>> We'd like to have a good draft for you
next time.
>> Yeah, that's what we do. Just keeping
closer on it and we'll get it
eventually.
>> And I know the township is not
interested in letting the moratorum
expire without having an ordinance in
place. So that will
progress. We're moving forward and we'll
make sure that we
>> Okay. So my I'd like just some agenda
items.
>> Oh, hold on. Hold on.
>> Maybe under number nine.
>> Okay. I'm anxious. I want
>> Did you [laughter] Did you write them
down so you won't forget?
>> It's right here. No, I didn't. I didn't.
That's why I got to get it out.
>> Might want to write them down.
All right. Any other discussion on 7A?
» Thank you, Miss Len and Ross for what
you've done into it. Sorry, we're giving
you a lot more work, but
we want to get it right.
All right, at this time we will do the
public comment for five minutes for
anyone who would like to speak.
You have five minutes this time, right?
>> Correct. Okay.
Um I'd like to uh visit the uh the sound
issue had some comments on that but
[clears throat]
um the if you followed what's going on
in the country in the area of sound in
the in the
uh data centers something called infra
infrasound is the new concern.
um in the minutes or in the section here
I see references to dB the sound level
with a parenthesis that implies very
rigorously that the sound equipment that
measured that simply used the 20 hertz
to 20 kHz the human human hearing band
most of us don't come anywhere near
hearing that range but it's the area
below 20 hertz that's referred to now as
infrasound
and it's you to measure that takes
different equipment and you'll know if
you see DB with a C in parenthesis that
that's included the entire frequency
band zero to 20 kHz. Um, it has to be
addressed because they're finding now
all over the country, in fact, there's a
lot of lawsuits now popping up against
municipalities and the data centers
because there are very very identifiable
physical ailments that are now
associated with this infrasound.
Um, it's not attenuated by the usual
methods. Um, walls won't do it. In fact,
data center in South South Dakota
discovered after spending $5 million on
special sound deadening walls around
their facility that it didn't help the
infrasound one bit. It was still being
propagated. The reason for that is it
propagates through the ground as well.
Um, it can travel great distance. We're
talking miles. We're talking 5 to 10
miles. Obviously, it gets less the
further away, but setbacks probably not
going to solve that unless you're
talking setbacks, and that's not likely
to happen. Um, basically it has to be
stopped at the source and the data
centers are wrestling, the builders of
the data centers are wrestling with that
problem. Now, uh, cooling towers seem to
be what it's related to. And anytime you
got rotating machinery and the machinery
gets out of phase a little bit, you end
up it ends up producing these subsonic
uh not subsonic but sub below 10 10 or
20 hertz down into the infrared or
infrasound region. And these have to be dealt with um usually
vibrations dampers or something like
that.
essentially a new design of the cooling
towers. And if you looked at any of
these big centers, you're talking maybe
a hundred of these cooling towers and
that's contributing to this this
infrasound. Um, I've got a name of a
good video, a YouTube video that we all of us here should watch. It's called
Data Center Noise, a smarter approach to
global problems.
Um, I've got a copy of the Alageney
County, Pennsylvania noise and
vibration. They address these issues,
the sound issues in four pages in their
um their documentation. I would I would
suggest that we all go back and maybe
look at that to see because they've got
tables, they address the DBC, they
address a number of other levels of
sound, too. And uh I think for this, you
know, for the safety of the community,
uh the township and you know, we don't
want to be subject to lawsuits. I think
we need to include that in our
specifications. Make sure that that's
because that's addressed and uh and we
may have to say let's give it six months
or a year to allow that to settle out
because it has to be settled out. And uh
and I think if we don't include that um
that that's a huge oversight. So
>> and that's what you passed out, right?
>> Is is that the one from uh
>> Alagany
Delaware and
» I'm I'll check you out afterwards. It's
a It's the one from Alageney Township is
rather u
rather technical, but it may be that
that's what it'll take. And there's ways
of measuring it. Um give you an idea
just an experience of infrasound. You
remember the days when we had the Boeing
727 with the two engines mounted on the
body and the back? DC9s are the same
way. If you ever flew on a Boeing 727
and sat in the back seat, flew for very
long, when you got off, your brain said,
"Don't ever do this again." Because
those engines, the spools on the engines
would get out of sync a little bit in
terms of RPM, and you'd end up with like
a one or a two second modulation, the
engine noise, and it's just a pounding
noise. I've experienced it. I think a
lot of you probably experienced that.
It's a pounding noise. You don't hear
that noise. you hear the engine noise,
but it certainly affects your brain and
your body and uh to the point where you
don't want to do it again. So,
>> thank you.
Greg.
» Didn't really want to follow him up
because I'm such an amateur at this. It
was really informative. Um, my name is
Melissa Katie and I live in Greymore. U,
most of what I've kind of I feel like
you guys addressed a lot of the things
that I was concerned with tonight. I
just had a couple things I wanted to
just maybe go over in my notes, but
definitely want to thank you for all the
hard work and time you guys have put
into this because it is even me googling
is feels like a ton of work. Um, I did
look at in my own research today, I had
looked at the size of buildings, what
you had to address for how big a regular
size building is. Like the typical Home
Depot is only 105,000 square feet.
Davenport's biggest building over by
where this property is that we're
concerned with is 140,000. So, it is a
pretty significantly large building if
it is one single building of that size.
So, um, it doesn't technically fit with
I wouldn't think the buildings around
it, especially with the residential
which are much smaller. Um, The other
thing was the obviously I like the
restrictions on noise but from
everything I've read data centers run
pretty much the same decibels all day
every day doing the same thing. The
generators seem to be what change like
they would have to run those during
certain times but everything I've been
seeing has been that they run a constant
same hum or whatever the sound is is
going to be through the day and night.
So if there are restrictions on time
periods are how effective are they if it
runs at these same levels all the time.
Um I also done some research on that
infrasound. Um not I don't know nearly
as much about it, but I did see things
um about the negative health impacts. Um
also that when you think of it in the
terms of a plane or something that
you're on for a short period of time,
these are 247 365 of this sound coming
through. Um the National Institute of
Health has a report on that also that
it's they're thinking that it causes
cardiac issues and affects people with
autoimmune diseases just people without
health issues causing all sorts of brain
fogs and all different headaches and
different things that are coming up and
because this is such an everchanging
industry um I was reading about this
again not an expert this is just
something maybe to let you guys go do
your own research on too that they're
moving from some crypto mining to I data
centers which are then using instead of
the average 300 megawatts the same
facility would use a thousand megawatts
and so I would just have questions on is
there I don't I don't know if there's an
ability to do this but a cap at some
point or you had mentioned before about
the residents getting the costs at some
point if they're just increasing their
usage in these same size facilities at
what point the only thing I could find
is that we would have to go as residents
and look up all of the reports for usage
data uh and then compare from year to
year and that just doesn't seem like as
residents we would have much power to
really fight that and even if we did
find discrepancies where we go with that
information and who would protect us. So
I was just concerned with seeing that
they're using more and more and more
they're not like scaling down with the
advance in technology they seem to be
increasing what they can fit into that
space. Um
oh the one question I had was on the
time frame for decommissioning is that
something that could take 10, 15, 20
years or is there a specific amount of
time because that abandoned building
could just be like rotting there in the
meantime while we wait for it? Um
especially like the properties we're
talking about are so close to our
houses. You don't want animals, people,
any kind of things that come with that.
Um the moratorum, I don't know if as far
as I know, it wasn't
discussed or anything. We I'm just
wanted to support still extending that
moratorium. there's so much more
research to do and just hopefully um you
guys get the time you need to be able to
do all of the research. Um and that's
really it. I just wanted to say great
job on everything so far and those are
my little notes.
>> Thank you.
Hello. Uh, Danielle again.
Um, so I'm the one that has a
preschooler going to Dutton.
And so I really just want you to take
what these people are saying in
consideration and your school is on the
border of Gaines Township who has
Microsoft
um, trying to put in a data center on
76th and Patter. And so if you guys
could make a committee, I've been to the
school board meetings and I've talked to
them like what can you guys do to talk
with gains to make sure that you guys
are doing a great job with some of your
really specifics? Um you know numbers and enforcement and
you're on I don't know what you guys can
do across township lines but that
Patterson and 76 area. Um,
so trying to like enforce like what you
guys would like to have either working
with Gaines and Dan Wells over there to
get them to maybe modify some of their
um specific specifics um for their
ordinance update because they're trying
to work on one as well um or encourage
them to follow your numbers because you
have residents budding up next to them.
Um but just for reference, the Amazon
building I has about a 400,000 a 400,000
square foot um footing. Um it's two
stories, so it's like 850,000 square
feet, but you guys have a limit to how
tall your building can be, which is
good. Um their burm is like probably a
24 foot burm, which is a decent size,
but they don't have enough trees. So, I
definitely would update your trees and
foilage and make sure they're at least
like 10 year old trees, lots of bushes,
because they don't have enough stuff on
that wall, that BM. Um, and as you hear,
you um should consider more information
about the DBC infrasound noise. Um,
especially with the school nearby. Um,
you know, and if you have the special
education students that are going to be
in that building or just outside during
playtime or inside trying to learn, um,
that's going to probably affect them
because of how close it is. And again,
it is 247 noise. Um, it's not Monday
through Friday, 8 to 5, right? It's all
day every day. So, I'm really glad that
you are trying to have like a daytime
noise limit and a nighttime noise limit,
but we should also be addressing the
vibration noise, the infrasound DBC or
DBZ. Again, I haven't been able to do
like really good research on the
specifics of that. [clears throat]
Um,
and maybe some more. I I saw something
about following Eagle standards in
there. I'm not sure if that includes
like water retention and because they're
going to because they may have a lot of
cement, see what what they would use for
like pesticide usage. I'm sure you have
rules about that for any other
commercial place. So, that's probably
covered. Um, and yeah, definitely what
happens if they don't comply. So, what I
saw you have like a spot for them to
have money set aside for when they don't
comply with your rules, but how are you
going to know they're not complying? Are
you doing regular testing and by whom?
[clears throat] And um
something in there about trying to use
the most clean energy available at the
time. So, like right now their diesel
generators have there's like different
versions of them and like Switch said
they're going to use the version four
diesel generator which better than what
Gaines Township has in their ordinance,
but who knows when this is going to
happen, right? Things are constantly
changing. So, have something in there
that says like the best of the best
available at the time. Maybe maybe leave
a little open instead of being too
specific as to like, oh, make sure you
use this diesel generator. And then in
10 years, it's like, oh, just kidding.
It's better now. And I'm sure you guys
can update your ordinances over time,
too. Um, but uh just um
Yeah. Um, so anyway, and I just
encourage you to maybe get in uh chats
with gains and the school board for the school issue that's going to be
right on the border next to the
Microsoft one. Okay.
>> Thanks.
>> Thank you.
» Okay. Hey, Deb Steady. Um, want to refer
to the document that I handed out and
um, this is a model ordinance. It
represents noise in about four and a
half pages. Think about what our current
draft how that addresses noise at this
point. So, the point was made, how are
you going to know how to comply? First
of the 60 DBA or the 55 or 45, it's
meaningless. It's It's what you
suggested. Somebody going up with a
little decimal meter and saying, "What
is the amount of noise here?" That's not
how the noise needs to be calculated. It
needs to be a a continuous an LEQ, a
continuous level to accommodate the big
noises, the small noises. And basically,
it averages it out. it has it in a
bucket and it's done over a period of
time, sometimes 24 hours. You need to
have a compliance metric if you think
you're going to enforce a noise
ordinance piece to what you're doing.
So, I really would stress [snorts] for
you to take a look at this and Ross
perhaps you could tell me who was the
noise expert that helped you draft that
portion of the noise section. Were you
relying on noise experts or how did that
come about?
» As we've
said before, this is your time to talk,
not for us to answer your questions.
>> Okay, that's a good point. So let's have
a public workshop where the public can
come and get answers to their questions,
bring data, have a reasonable discussion
versus being cut off from providing
anything new that might help us better
protect our township and our citizens
and our children.
The the control that's being exercised
by the chair is really a very um
What do I want to say?
Uh, discouraging
because to me that says you don't want
to learn anything new.
I want to learn something new. We've all
been working very hard as citizens to
educate ourselves and to provide good
information to you.
And so, respect that, please.
And give it give us some answers.
We spend our time to come here and to
say our attorney that our taxpayer
dollars fund cannot answer a citizen
question.
Does that make sense to you? It doesn't
make sense to me. Thank you for your
time.
Seeing no further public comment, we
will close the extended public comment
period for this time. Commissioner
comments. Mr. Donovan, I know you have
something.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> All right. I wanted to add one one uh
agenda item. I would like to have a
discussion and you know I don't know how
we notice it out and how all these
things kind of work in the background
but I would like to see if we can talk
about increasing the minimum lot size
for agricultural and rural residentially
zoned properties.
All right. I would like to kind of talk
about that. And then the backdrop of
this is obviously, you know, the
amendment to Michigan Land Vision Act.
Okay. That's kind of the backdrop of
why, you know, I would like to have that
discussion and those two I think kind of
think go hand in hand in implementation
of the updates land division act and
then what we're allowing as far as
minimum lot size for some of our zoning
here.
>> So if we can put that on the agenda. Um
and then the second thing would be again
just a Quick discussion discussion on uh
you know whether or not to uh send
basically the uh the board a request for
an extension of the uh
>> moratorum
on data centers.
>> It's October.
>> I think it's October right now. So if we
do it now then we you know kind of come
toward the end of month September send
it over to the board. I think the idea
is to get closer. We have a couple
meetings between now and the moratorum.
>> We already did. Thank you. We already
did send a recommendation to the
township board. They're aware of the
desire to extend it and as I mentioned
earlier there there is no don't believe
that there's a desire to let that lapse
but the advice of our township attorney
was to get closer to that before
extending it because um we don't want to
be perceived as just blocking that use.
um that it's best to kind of live live
that time frame out and and have the
next one start.
>> Okay. So, it will be
>> that'll be you're uh putting that on
your calendar.
>> Yes. Yes. We've already sent it to the
township board to the clerk clerk's
assistant. They're aware of it. We've
already had emails with our township.
>> Okay. So, that would show up then on an
agenda item for the planning commission
in the
>> No, no. You as a planning commission
have already recommended one to the
township board, so we don't need to do
it again.
>> So you're saying the current goes to
October,
>> correct?
>> And then we've already recommended the
extension after the
>> correct. And we didn't need to recommend
it anyway. The board would do it, but
yes,
>> it's already um
>> All right. So that's So we're one we're one recommendation out
already, so we're good.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah, we're good. And then as to the
land,
>> I know this is, you know, it's
important.
>> It's very important and they're they're
very aware. They're they're aware of
that. Um
the
lot area, you did get a memo in your
last packet about the land division act.
So maybe if you'd like, I can email that
to you guys again. um because
Chairman Curtis, you weren't here at
that meeting to discuss it. But that is
something that we do need to get on top
of, you know, before the end of the year
since that land division act comes
um into play starting at the end of
March.
So, we want to look at the implication
of that and if there are changes to our
zoning ordinance, we want to get those
um adopted before them.
Do we have any maybe this is a attorney
question. Do we have any clear guidance
from the state or or is this one of
these things that needs to be litigated
before we figure out what the actual
we're allowed to do
>> on the land division decreasing lot
size?
>> Yes. Are you are any of your clients,
Ross, talking about the implications of
the um the 10 splits? Um
and when we did our analysis, it looks
like with we have two acre minimums. So
with 10 splits, there's probably the
potential for one additional split than
the four that can happen. Now,
>> if you're not ready to talk about that,
that's fine.
And as I'll yeah, I'll share that memo
with you. We can look at Yeah,
>> I think a lot of communities are really
working on the data center stuff right
now and then we're going to be moving
into the land division shortly after.
» Let's go up here.
>> I'm good. Mr. Mlean,
>> I just want to thank everyone for their
interests and efforts and attention to
this matter and I think we're figuring
this out for our community and
appreciate what you're bringing to us.
And there was also a comment um of how
we can
better communicate maybe with Gaines
Township and also potentially how we
could advocate for the school board. Um
Commissioner Clement, who's
unfortunately absent today, is actually
on the school board and might even be
the reason he's absent because I think
these meetings partially conflict with
the schoolboard time. So um we we have a
good connection there. The community is
really well connected to the
superintendent and leadership in the
school too. So just wanted to reassure
you that the lines of communication are
open. Um and that's all
» motion to
hold on.
>> Do we have any correspondence or staff
updates?
Uh, no, no updates, but we look forward
to seeing you at the September 21st
meeting. We have a public hearing for
amending the contractor yard special
land use to the north, the harder site.
>> They want to build another accessory
building. Um, and then we have the
homebased business on that agenda as
well.
>> So, no meeting the first of the month.
>> Labor Day of October.
>> Labor Day.
>> Oh. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. That was never
even step.
>> I will be out the 21st.
>> You'll be out the 21st.
Chairman Curtis, you as well.
hopefully everybody else will be
here because we do need a hearing item.
» Motion to
support. Motion by visser uh support by
Bradshaw. All those in favor say I.
>> I.
>> All those opposed. Meeting a journ.
[laughter]
I'm not going to
[cough and clears throat]
>> You can keep that. You can keep it if
you want.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's why I give it
to you. I'll get a whole new one.
>> I knew you I knew you were more
like you just want to know what was
going on. We send this like postcard or
whatever in the mail that says
>> you're affected by this.
>> Yeah. I guess my concern more than
anything is that good healthy
communities are communities for all
ages.
>> Well, we
exactly we all can't
>> I mean I wanted you to have it that
information is typically available on
that citizen's going to go look.
>> You'd have to find her. But I had a good
career and I lived to go and
>> it's not nec