[0:10] I will call to order the public hearing
of the council of the municipality of
[0:14] Murray'sville concerning proposed
ordinance number one11-26.
[0:20] The purpose of tonight's hearing is to
receive uh information and public
[0:25] comment concerning proposed amendments
to chapter 220 of the Murray'sville code
[0:30] relating to data centers, data center
accessory uses, solar energy facilities,
[0:36] forestry, apiaries, zoning hearing board
membership, and related zoning
[0:42] provisions.
Notice of the public hearing was
[0:45] advertised in accordance with
Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning
[0:49] Code and the requirements of the
Municipality of Murrayville. The
[0:52] proposed ordinance has previously been
reviewed by the Murrayville Planning
[0:57] Commission and the West Morland County
Department of Planning and Development.
[1:01] Copies of the proposed ordinance have
been made available for public
[1:04] inspection.
This evening, council will receive a
[1:08] brief presentation regarding the
proposed ordinance and then receive
[1:12] public comment. Council is not
considering final enactment of the
[1:18] ordinance during this public hearing.
The ordinance is also listed separately
[1:23] on tonight's regular meeting agenda for
discussion and possible authorization to
[1:28] advertise. I will now ask the chief
administrator, Michael Nesico, to
[1:33] provide a brief overview of the proposed
ordinance and its review history. Mike.
[1:39] » Uh yes, thank you. And I have here with
me, uh Mike Wnner, our planning director
[1:43] as well, who's uh worked with the
planning commission uh on this
[1:46] ordinance. So, uh we'll be here to try
to help assist and answer any questions
[1:50] as we move forward. Um this ordinance uh
ordinance uh 111 uh 1 1,11-26
[2:00] uh is intended primarily to address uh
and add specific zoning standards uh for
[2:06] two uses that are not currently uh
comprehensively addressed in our zoning
[2:11] ordinance. That's data centers and solar
energy facilities. Uh, additionally
[2:17] within this uh, zoning ordinance um, is
uh, an attempt to address several
[2:23] smaller updates including forestry uh,
apiaries uh, some of the land use tables
[2:29] and definitions uh, and then also the
zoning hearing board membership
[2:33] requirements that are listed in our uh,
zoning ordinance. Um, this uh zoning
[2:39] ordinance draft had has gone through a
review process and I'll kind of go
[2:43] through that now for purposes of the
public hearing. Uh, it was reviewed by
[2:47] the environmental or I'm sorry the um,
[clears throat] yeah, the environmental
[2:50] advisory committee uh, of the
municipality and they provided comments
[2:55] back in April. Uh it went to the
planning commission for a public hearing
[2:59] process which began on May 12th uh and
continued with various revisions um uh
[3:07] throughout the uh the course of the
spring and into the summer. On July
[3:11] 14th, the planning commission at their
uh public meeting recommended to forward
[3:15] this ordinance on to council. Um the
ordinance was then sent to West Morland
[3:21] County Planning for their review which
they did provide on July 21st and
[3:26] ultimately that led us to uh tonight's
public hearing um on this topic. Um
[3:33] there are uh some major substantive
provisions that I'll go through um
[3:39] relating to this ordinance. Some of this
was provided to council um in in the
[3:44] briefing that that I sent out uh to you
uh kind of uh in advance of this this
[3:49] hearing. Um the main changes that are
proposed in this ordinance are uh first
[3:55] and probably most importantly for the
majority of this room data centers and
[3:59] the language surrounding data centers.
Um the ordinance will create some
[4:03] specific definitions and development
standards for data centers and their
[4:08] related accessory uses. A data center uh
under this ordinance will be permitted
[4:12] only as a conditional use in the B
business district, meaning that each
[4:16] proposal would require review and
approval from council if a data center
[4:20] were to um be proposed in the community.
The standards include maximum building
[4:25] height uh of 60 ft, a 200t setback from
residential zoning districts, uh
[4:32] residential uses in the MU district, and
other identified sensitive uh areas of
[4:38] the community. uh a 150 foot setback
from public road rights of way and a
[4:43] minimum 50 foot landscaping buffer uh
relative to any data center proposal. Uh
[4:48] the proposed regulations also address
screening and fencing, noise and
[4:52] lighting, water and sewer capacity,
cooling systems, uh electrical demand,
[4:58] underground utility lines, uh emergency
response planning, battery storage,
[5:03] parking, uh future expansion and
decommissioning of a data center. Uh and
[5:10] any new data center would generally be
required to use uh what is called a
[5:14] closed loop cooling system. and the
applicant would be required to document
[5:18] any anticipated water or electrical
demands um as they apply to the uh to a
[5:25] proposal. A de decommissioning plan also
uh including financial security equal to
[5:30] 110% of the de decommissioning cost
would also be required. So that is the
[5:36] general rundown of the one main
component of this ordinance. Uh the
[5:40] second is solar facilities. Uh, this
ordinance would allow for largescale
[5:46] solar facilities as a conditional use in
the B business district and in the RR
[5:52] and R1 residential districts with a
minimum parcel size of 10 acres in the
[5:57] residential districts. The proposed
standards address again uh similar to
[6:02] the data centers fencing, safety
signage, glare, storm water management,
[6:07] construction, traffic, emergency
response, utility connections, noise,
[6:12] landscaping and screening. Uh large
scale solar projects would also be
[6:16] subject to a detailed abandonment and
decommissioning requirements as well. Uh
[6:21] financial security again similar to data
centers would be required.
[6:25] And then the ordinance also creates uh a
separate and less intensive process for
[6:30] solar systems that are considered uh
residential or small commercial systems.
[6:35] Uh those systems will be allowed
throughout Murray'sville subject to
[6:39] applicable construction electrical and
mechanical permits. Uh normal zoning
[6:44] setbacks, height limitations, uh and
utility interconnection requirements. uh
[6:50] net metering of excess uh electricity
would be permitted without converting
[6:54] the installation into a large-scale
solar facility. So those are the two
[6:59] primary uh items that we are addressing
through this ordinance uh that are not
[7:04] currently contemplated under our
existing zoning uh our zoning ordinance.
[7:10] Uh other items that are to be addressed
primary items are honeybee apiaries. Uh
[7:15] there would be some new standards there
which would specifically regulate
[7:18] residential beekeeping uh address
provisions uh regarding state
[7:23] registration, hive density setbacks, uh
rear yard placement, things like that.
[7:28] Uh this is something that came to us uh
previously because of some concerns with
[7:33] the existing language that does exist
for honeybee apiaries um and the way
[7:37] that they are categorized uh in our
ordinance. Uh they would be uh in the RR
[7:43] and R1 districts. they remain subject to
the applicable agricultural regulations.
[7:48] Um but it removes um honeybees from the
general livestock def definition that
[7:54] created some constraints that we'd heard
about uh in previous meetings uh from
[7:59] folks that that do uh honeybee uh that
do keeping honey beekeeping I guess it
[8:04] would be. Um, additionally, uh, to a
lesser extent, the ordinance adds or
[8:08] revises definitions and land use tables
for forestry, solar facilities. Um, and
[8:14] then it also proposes changing the
zoning hearing board language from five
[8:19] members serving four-year terms to three
members serving three-year terms. Our
[8:25] board is currently made up of three
members at this time. So uh that uh that
[8:29] board would uh remain intact as it is
but the language would be updated to
[8:33] reflect current membership. Um some of
the main issues that arose during the
[8:39] review process uh include the 200 ft uh
setback for data centers uh and the
[8:45] county's letter uh recommending uh maybe
a different uh setback buffer. Uh
[8:50] screening and buffering were also topics
that came about during the planning
[8:54] commission meetings and public hearings.
water and cooling requirements, uh the
[8:58] decommissioning process, um minimum lot
sizes for data centers, uh largecale
[9:06] solar locations and minimum acreage and
treatment of residential solar separate
[9:10] from commercial facilities. So those
items that I just listed again are all
[9:14] items that came about through the review
process. They were not originally part
[9:19] of the original draft or some of the
template drafts that we were working
[9:23] with and looking at other communities,
but those were part of the public uh
[9:27] hearing and review process through
planning that they did accommodate uh
[9:31] some of those concerns that were brought
forth uh to the planning commission. Um
[9:37] and so again, this is only intended to
be an overview. Of course, this is a
[9:41] very thorough ordinance. uh copies were
available here at the municipality and
[9:45] they can still be obtained here and and
viewed online. It's a 21page document,
[9:50] so that's about as good of a summary as
I can provide. Um
[9:56] staff is certainly available to answer
questions. Uh and council can certainly
[10:01] um consider any additional uh revisions
following tonight's public hearing.
[10:06] Again, I I believe uh council president
had stated, but the item is listed as a
[10:11] discussion topic on the agenda. So, for
purposes of the public hearing, uh in
[10:15] just a moment, we can turn it over to
the public to be able to present their
[10:19] comments uh or feedback on the uh the
ordinance itself or any specific topic
[10:24] within the ordinance. And then um but
any deliberation or kind of um deeper
[10:30] dives into the topics in the ordinance
would probably best be saved for the
[10:35] actual uh discussion workshop item that
we have listed on our agenda this
[10:38] evening. And then uh should council wish
it is also listed as an agenda item for
[10:46] advertisement. Uh again that would be
provided that there are no concerns or
[10:51] any potential changes or amendments to
the language as it exists. there is a
[10:55] very good chance that there will be
something that changes um or there will
[10:59] be feedback that we want to consider.
So, it is um on the agenda for council
[11:05] if they wish to consider advertisement.
Uh but that item can certainly be tabled
[11:09] if any questions or concerns arise that
um you don't wish to advertise this
[11:14] evening. Uh and so I would say at that
point um I may turn it back over to the
[11:19] council president if there's any
questions for for staff. Otherwise, um
[11:23] we could probably take public comment at
this time.
[11:26] » Any questions from Mike from councel?
Okay. Uh at this time, we'll receive
[11:32] public comment concerning the proposed
ordinance number 1111-26.
[11:38] When you come to the microphone, please
state your name and address for the
[11:41] record. Please direct your comments to
council and limit your remarks to the
[11:46] subject of the proposed ordinance. Each
speaker will be provided three minutes.
[11:52] Written comments may also be submitted
to the municipality for inclusion with
[11:56] hearing materials. I ask the speakers to
avoid repeating comments already made
[12:02] where possible. Council may ask
questions for clarification, but this
[12:06] portion of the hearing is primarily
intended to receive public comment. So,
[12:11] at this time, I'll open it up for public
comment. And um so anyone on the list
[12:17] here, this is just specific to this
ordinance. If you are trying to speak in
[12:21] public comment on anything else, there's
another sheet up there and we will be
[12:25] having a public comment during the
regular meeting. Uh at this time, I have
[12:31] Thomas Pike. If you want to step
forward, please
[12:41] spell your name. Thomas, [clears throat]
excuse me, Thomas Pike E
[12:48] 4703 Stewart Court in Murray'sville.
Been there 40 years.
[12:52] I also have 40 years experience in
software and hardware.
[12:57] Um, [clears throat]
and I'd like to point out a few things.
[13:02] Um, first over the last 25 years, MACH
has had five voluntary cut back requests
[13:09] water by 10% and one mandatory cut back.
I'd like to see the ordinance that
[13:14] you're proposing specify that in times
of voluntary and mandatory water
[13:19] restrictive use, the data center should
be obliged to cut back as well.
[13:26] Um, you [clears throat] have a
request in your
[13:33] ordinance
that the estimated usage of utilities be
[13:38] done and the question I have is what if
the impact on electrical rates estimate
[13:45] is wrong that they give you to make your
decisions. We have no way of verifying
[13:49] that
uh after it's built. So I believe there
[13:54] needs to be some sort of verification in
your ordinance. Verify that they gave us
[13:59] correct data.
And the same with the water estimates.
[14:04] I'll use Ronald Reagan here. Trust but
verify please
[14:09] that they give us the correct data and
that we can operate on it because the
[14:13] consequence is that the rateayers are
just going to be stuck with it. They
[14:17] give us bad data.
[14:23] And I would like the ordinance to
specifically state the cost of any
[14:27] infrastructure upgrades for water,
electric, and roads be the
[14:31] responsibility of the data center.
Just a few other tidbits. For a data
[14:37] center this small, you can expect around
20 to 25 jobs,
[14:43] not
in excess of that.
[14:51] I would also like to point out that
there are various polls done on whether
[14:56] people want
data centers in their um in their
[15:02] municipality. The CBS poll has 20%
approved, 50% against. Gallup poll 27%
[15:08] approved, 71% against. Fox News 30%
approved, 70% oppose. So, if we're
[15:16] looking forward to having more people
move in, like you haven't something on
[15:20] the docket for some development in White
Valley, if you're looking for people to
[15:24] move in, you do not want a data center
because that that will push people away.
[15:31] » Thank you very much.
>> Thank you, sir.
[15:42] » All right. Uh, next we have David
Mccardi. We could step forward.
[15:49] And for everyone commenting, um, so I
don't interrupt you, I'll just raise
[15:53] I'll just raise my hand like this when
you get under 30 seconds just so you
[15:57] know that you that we're reaching close
to the time frame. Go ahead, sir. Thank
[16:01] you.
>> Okay. Dave McCarti, 4533 Harrison City
[16:04] Road. [clears throat]
your last name.
[16:06] » Marti, MC, Capital C A R T Y, 2533
Harrison City Road. Okay. Um, my
[16:15] concerns are are any projects proposed
right now? Are they in the works or
[16:21] » No, not Mike, I'll let you answer, but
no, not right now. This is just Yeah,
[16:25] just updating our ordinance.
>> How's how's this going to benefit us?
[16:30] » Mike, would you
>> uh one, no projects are currently
[16:32] proposed. How it will benefit us is by
providing regulations for data centers.
[16:37] Without having regulations, a data
center could potentially be uh a
[16:41] proposal could be submitted for
essentially anywhere in the community
[16:45] and without having proper guide rails
and restrictions in place. Um we would
[16:50] be subject to allowing that type of use
and and and essentially the fallout from
[16:56] not having uh any guidance in place. So
this is kind of being done preemptively
[17:01] because we have to allow for the use um
within the community.
[17:05] » I guess my question was better how will
the de data centers benefit us? That's
[17:10] my that's my main concern. Uh and I I
just see more harm than good. I mean I'm
[17:16] I'm worried about the rates for power
for water uh pollution noise thermal
[17:22] vibration
uh light. So that's my concerns there.
[17:27] and it's got a nice little area and I
don't want to make it worse. It's I'm
[17:30] I'm 69. I'm retired. I don't want to I
want to enjoy my life. I I want to make
[17:36] things better, not worse.
>> That's pretty much it. That's
[17:41] » Thank you, sir.
>> Thank you.
[17:46] [snorts]
[17:54] Next we have I think it's Donna Calvin.
[18:04] » Hi. Um Alana Cole.
>> Oh, okay. Sorry, it's hard to read on
[18:07] here. [laughter]
>> Yes. Uh Kulvin is C O L V as in Victor I
[18:12] N at 22000 Boxc Cartown Road in
Murrayville.
[18:19] Um, I work with energy. I work with
systems. I work out of Penn State and we
[18:24] do a lot of energy efficiency projects.
And so things that I have seen or things
[18:29] that I've heard about in presentation
form, I just wanted to bring up um to
[18:34] say if the CH or is the data centers
that we may have an opportunity to host,
[18:41] will they have to consider CHP combine
heat and power so that they are in
[18:46] charge of their own electricity?
particularly if they are in need if we
[18:51] go out of power are they going to pull
on the grid first before the residents
[18:55] get the power back or can they maintain
their own power grid
[18:59] » do you know hand off hand
>> I can try to answer that for you
[19:04] » that's fine again just just trying to um
bring up some some areas um one I know
[19:11] it's been reiterated and I know uh you
mentioned to not uh echo um same
[19:15] suggestions but what I wanted to
elaborate rate on was uh if you look at
[19:20] the pico rates out in the Philly area um
the rates have gone from 10 20% as of
[19:26] last year and a lot of that isn't
because a data center moved in it's
[19:29] because a data center might move in and
so those rates are increasing without
[19:34] the data center even being present um a
lot of that is the PUC and PICO
[19:39] themselves and that is not what you guys
have charge of but um at the suggestion
[19:44] of the one gentleman who said hey
provide an average or provide a um
[19:49] follow through to see what is happening
in the area that area um the electricity
[19:54] needs to be forecasted as well because
in just less than a year going up 20%
[20:00] would have never been on anybody's
sheet. So we really need to reflect on
[20:04] Pennsylvania rate tra uh rates.
Pennsylvania is very unique in the way
[20:08] that we do our rates. We don't have
rates like uh California or Missouri or
[20:13] any of the other states. So making sure
that we are getting uh proper
[20:17] information from PA in that in that type
of reflection. Um my adrenaline's going.
[20:24] [snorts] Let me see here.
For the solar projects, again, just
[20:30] comments. Um I live in an RNR with my
husband and we definitely enjoy um
[20:35] having that property. I know on Boxcar
Town Road, we were told that the
[20:39] properties couldn't be sold in less than
5 acres at the time. So, um, in some
[20:43] areas of Murray'sville, there's a lot
of, uh, pride in the history that comes
[20:47] with that land. If solar is going to get
put on there, if it really can't be used
[20:51] for another purpose, some of it's hilly,
some of it's rocky, and, you know, it's
[20:55] good for goats, maybe solar does make
sense in those spaces. But, um, when
[20:59] you're receiving in bids or a person is
receiving in bids, um, there definitely
[21:03] needs to be some education on what is a
good or an ugly project. um a lot of the
[21:09] fast companies that are not necessarily
Pennsylvania companies, those national
[21:12] companies, they are not checking to see
if those projects are to code and they
[21:16] will install asis and then that client
person may not be able to attach to the
[21:20] grid via interconnection. There's a lot
of nuance there and a lot of um traps
[21:25] that can happen to residents and to
companies. So definitely uh just making
[21:30] sure there's certain types of provisions
or um what it is that you would want to
[21:35] have that can be trapped so someone
doesn't come in and just try to take
[21:39] someone's money whether it's um our
community money or um resident money.
[21:46] And
from the water standpoint also on boxc
[21:50] car but also school road south we um we
use a lot of sistns. So the the rain
[21:56] water is what we collect and it's
purified. We we're all good there. But I
[22:00] don't want um any controls on whether or
not I can collect the rain water because
[22:05] the loop system they need to have intake
of water. Um the residents, we're not
[22:10] consuming that much water in this local
area, but I would like to have a
[22:13] restriction put on us when we can't uh
drink the ground water in our area and I
[22:18] don't have access to public water and so
others also don't have that access or
[22:22] it's not affordable to become
accessible. Uh that's just something
[22:25] also I want to keep in mind that we have
a variety of residents using the water
[22:30] and those were the major points that I
had.
[22:32] » Thank you so much for your comments.
[22:38] » Uh the next uh our next person is it's
it's signed but it's kind of written
[22:42] over. Um I believe it's John possibly.
It's 3497 North Hills.
[22:49] » Sorry sir, it's hard I couldn't read it
on here.
[22:51] » Writing was a little sloppy there too.
John Patterson, 3497
[22:57] North Hills Road. I can only ditto most
of what was said here, especially by the
[23:02] first gentleman. Uh, but I did have a
question. Uh, has the board uh
[23:09] considered
what body of water primarily would be
[23:14] used by a data center if they moved to
the Murrayville Export or Washington
[23:21] Township area?
Mike,
[23:25] » again, I don't know that I have that
specific answer, but um any data center
[23:30] uh
uh request would have to go through a
[23:34] formal approval process and receive
approval from the local utilities. In
[23:38] this case, MAWC would have to, I guess,
um make that determination where they
[23:44] would be pulling from uh whether they
can supply adequate resources, water.
[23:50] Would it be obvious that they would want
to go to the Beaver RE reservoir?
[23:55] » That would make the most sense, but
again, I can't speak to that uh
[23:58] specifically.
>> I would think that would not be a good
[24:01] thing if they did. Um, and would this
affect water tables down below for
[24:09] people who have wellwater?
[24:14] » Mike,
>> again, I don't know that answer off. I
[24:17] think that would be probably case
specific because again that's not um
[24:22] that would that would depend on the site
development and the proposal that we
[24:25] would potentially receive for a specific
data center. We would review that
[24:29] through our normal review process but
the ordinance doesn't uh specifically uh
[24:35] discuss the uh impact to the water
table.
[24:38] » All right. I just have a quick comment
here about uh energy use and that is
[24:44] simply this. I think you all know
economics and that would be that when
[24:49] demand starts to outstrip supply you
have a problem and you do have to raise
[24:56] prices. So, I would hope I didn't read
the proposed ordinance, but I would hope
[25:01] that there's some provision in there
that would state that somehow someway
[25:07] that wouldn't or couldn't happen. That
the data center would have to be uh in a
[25:15] sense paying up for their own energy use
and not putting that burden upon the
[25:21] residential users of Murray'sville.
Uh, one other comment. Uh, I would say
[25:29] it doesn't sound like you're going to do
it, but I hope you don't offer any tax
[25:32] incentives to to these folks to do this.
>> Yeah.
[25:37] » Uh, and don't accept promises either.
All right. Thank you.
[25:42] » Uh, Council President,
>> thank you, sir.
[25:44] » Council President, if I may, just to
again address that question, um, because
[25:49] again, I don't want to provide any
misinformation. Uh, and I do want to be
[25:52] as thorough as possible. Again, a lot of
this will occur during the discussion
[25:56] component, but um the draft ordinance
does discuss groundwater tables and if
[26:02] the data center that is proposed is
relying on a non-public water source,
[26:07] then the applicant has to submit a water
feasibility study in conjunction with
[26:11] their uh land development approval
process. So that study would then
[26:15] evaluate whether the water supply is
adversely affected for uh nearby wells,
[26:20] groundwater, surface water, all those
sorts of things. So if they are not
[26:23] using a public water source uh to your
question, yes uh there is language in
[26:28] there uh that addresses uh impacting the
groundwater table can't rely on their
[26:34] own
>> and and Mike has pointed out that they
[26:37] can't rely on that uh the groundwater as
their only source. So right
[26:41] » again there are several components there
that address the water consumption.
[26:48] » Okay. Uh that moves us to our next
public comment which is Bob Axelson. Mr.
[26:53] Axelson if you want to step forward.
[26:59] » Bob Axelson 67 Sunrest Drive Delmont PA.
>> Axelson Ax Ls O N. Uh a lot of sentiment
[27:11] what they said about this about the area
and things my family we have property
[27:14] and export. We got almost 100 acres that
has been since my greatgrandfather owned
[27:19] it. Uh I'm in Delmont right by Shields.
They're literally our backyard stuff
[27:24] like that.
Besides everything that's been addressed
[27:28] that is the major concerns I have in
that wording everything ends with
[27:34] unless deemed not feasible. Does that
mean okay you can you can't fit it in
[27:40] this area that's not feasible. Does that
mean it shuts it down or does that mean
[27:45] well then we're just going to keep going
with what we're doing because we tried
[27:48] to follow the guidelines but we couldn't
do it so we get some leeway and cuz I
[27:54] know on our properties our ponds
springfed house is well water like they
[27:59] said everything like I said what point
do they say it's not feasible but we're
[28:03] still willing to put properties and what
people have at risk that's I just want
[28:09] some more clarity on that
Good.
[28:12] » Great. Thank you, sir.
[28:17] Uh, next would be Carl Deetro
[28:22] now or later.
>> Now, now yeah, that's part of the part
[28:26] of the ordinance.
[28:31] » Uh,
>> your shirt. I knew that's what you were
[28:32] going to talk about.
[snorts]
[28:35] » Uh, yeah. My name is Carl DPro and I
reside at 2575
[28:40] Linda Drive here in uh Murrayville.
Uh DPRO DI capital P I E T R O.
[28:50] So I just want to come up and uh kind of
thank the uh board and for uh being
[28:58] receptive to the needs of uh our
community. A lot of people came up here
[29:03] and testified on behalf of backyard
beekeepers, hobby beekeepers. I don't
[29:09] have 10 acres. I don't look at bees as
livestock. Uh but I do enjoy them. And I
[29:16] wanted the council and the board to
distinguish between a backyard
[29:20] beekeeper, a hobby beekeeper, and a
commercial beekeeper, which I am a hobby
[29:26] beekeeper. I lost a hive this year, too.
So, I'm down to two. Uh because it does
[29:34] demonstrate that uh the board looks at
what some of the people come up here and
[29:39] tell you and in certain instances you
take action and uh we appreciate that.
[29:44] The second thing I want to mention is uh
the irony I'm is is not lost on me in
[29:52] that one person wrote a couple anonymous
letters because one person didn't want
[29:59] me to have bees but because of what uh
the board and the council have done
[30:04] right now uh any property owner in
Murrayville if this ordinance passes uh
[30:10] has the opportunity to enjoy those
amazing little creatures. Uh that's all
[30:16] I have to say. Thank you so much.
>> Thank you, Mr. Dietra. I know you were
[30:21] instrumental in uh in having us look at
this all of this ordinance. So, we
[30:26] appreciate uh you bringing that to
light. [snorts]
[30:29] Uh our next speaker is Dave Betett.
[30:36] » Good evening. My name is Dave Bosetti,
5152 Cherry Drive, Export, PA.
[30:42] » Last name Betti B O S TI
just like it sounds.
[30:49] Okay. Again, I want to thank you all for
doing what you've done with the
[30:54] beekeeping. We appreciate that. I uh
have read over it. I have one little
[31:00] concern because I do not want to be
turned in again. And I see a little
[31:06] thing here called aggressive behavior
in the zoning on the thing. Number one,
[31:14] honeybees are not aggressive. Okay? When
you see a swarm in a tree, they're as
[31:19] gentle as can be. It scares you, but and
that happens every year in a springtime
[31:26] and people go and catch them and they
start a new hive. So when I see that
[31:31] word aggressive, I become concerned.
>> If if I have an aggressive hive, it's
[31:38] occurring right in the box when I'm
working on it. And at that point, I'll
[31:42] make a decision to get rid of that
queen, requeen it, and start over again.
[31:48] And the bees become very calm. I've
never had to do that. But who's going to
[31:54] say that that's an aggressive hive?
who's going to make that call so we
[31:58] don't get a phone call again and I have
to come back. But I appreciate again
[32:03] everything you guys have worked on this.
It's been a long road, but I've been
[32:07] patient and I'm ready to roll.
That's all I have to say.
[32:13] » Great. Thank you, sir.
>> I I can again I don't want to keep I
[32:19] just want to make sure I don't have too
many things pile up and tell everybody
[32:22] to wait for, you know, until we get into
the meeting. Some of these I think are
[32:25] just clarifications. Uh and again in
that instance just to try to give you an
[32:30] answer um yes that unusually aggressive
language is in there. Admittedly it is
[32:34] subjective. I think that would be
probably a determination from the code
[32:39] office if there were some sort of
enforcement
[32:42] requirement but um yeah it's it's
certainly a subjective piece of language
[32:47] um that I think would be a determination
the code officer would have to make as
[32:51] to what qualifies.
I've never seen it. Perfect.
[32:55] » I don't imagine that will occur. Uh
again, using some of the model
[32:59] ordinances, sometimes it encompasses
language that um you know, we'll even
[33:03] have to navigate and as we move forward
if if we do encounter that.
[33:07] » Thank you. That's all I can say.
>> Sure.
[33:10] » And if you'd like, just before we get
too far ahead, there there were two
[33:13] other questions. Again, I started to try
to gather some answers. Um the the
[33:17] question um uh from the from the lady in
front was regarding um the emergency
[33:24] backup power uh question and again
looking into it. Um
[33:30] I'm trying to go back now so bear with
me here but again just trying to be
[33:33] informative. Uh the data centers can
obtain their normal power from the
[33:38] electric grid and but they have to
demonstrate that the grid has the
[33:42] capacity to handle that. So again, the
power company would have to weigh in on
[33:44] that and provide that. Uh the ordinance
does encourage alternatives
[33:49] uh to reliance on the grid. It doesn't
require it though. So it does encourage
[33:53] other u sources of power. And I think
your specific question was regarding a
[33:58] potential outage. Um if there is an
outage, emergency generators or any
[34:03] other similar backup power um is
expressly permitted as an accessory use
[34:09] to the facility. Um but the draft does
not require a data center to maintain uh
[34:16] a specific amount or duration of backup
power. So it is permitted and as an
[34:21] accessory use then it would have to go
through its own sort of approval process
[34:24] under zoning as well if they wanted to
install a separate generation facility
[34:29] on the site but it is not required uh
under the current version of the
[34:33] ordinance. And then the other question
was from the gentleman uh Mr. Axelson, I
[34:37] believe he asked about the language when
it references um unless infeasible or
[34:43] not feasible. Uh again, searching the
ordinance. Uh I know that language is in
[34:47] there, but I wasn't quite sure where it
comes up in four different locations. Um
[34:52] the first is about enclosures and
screening. Um and and the the language
[34:57] says except we're not mechanically
feasible. Uh so if an enclosure is not
[35:02] mechanically feasible then the equipment
still does have to be screened using one
[35:06] uh or more other methods. So it doesn't
just negate the fact that uh that
[35:11] screening is required. Um as it relates
to heat transfer fluids. Um again the
[35:17] language is anti-reeze or heat transfer
fluids must be non-hazardous where
[35:22] feasible. uh if hazardous materials are
used, spill prevention and secondary
[35:27] containment and a response plan all has
to be included in their um in their plan
[35:31] as well. Uh as it relates to closed loop
cooling systems, um it does say that the
[35:38] applicant would have to demonstrate by
clear and convincing evidence that a
[35:42] closed loop cooling system is infeasible
for that specific project and then they
[35:46] would have to obtain an exemption. So
again, that would be something that
[35:49] would go up to for review before
council. Um, and so there would have to
[35:54] be engineering documentation supporting
that and then council would oft
[35:57] ultimately have to make a decision there
on whether they choose to approve or not
[36:00] approve that that system. So it doesn't
again they're not just granted authority
[36:05] to move forward. I would come before
council. And then the last place that it
[36:08] came up in the ordinance, um, council
can grant a waiver for, uh,
[36:13] undergrounding electrical infrastructure
if it is technically impracticable, uh,
[36:18] impractical, um, such as because of like
the geology, the bedrock, uh, anything
[36:24] underground, groundwater, um, and any
physical constraints make the
[36:30] undergrounding of the, um, electric
unsafe or infeasible in some way. So
[36:36] again, um that language does apply in I
guess four different scenarios in here,
[36:40] but each of them kind of have um a
mechanism that either they have to, you
[36:46] know, again, depending on which one,
there's either an alternative in place
[36:50] or they have to receive approval, but
they're not just automatically allowed
[36:53] to move forward because something is
unfeasible. So again, I didn't want to
[36:57] let too many questions or clarifications
pile up before um I start to address
[37:02] everything. So, I think those were the
only two unanswered so far. So, thank
[37:06] you. All right.
[37:12] Um, so that is the last person that has
signed up for this. Um, for the good of
[37:17] the order, is there anyone else present
who wishes to provide comment concerning
[37:22] this ordinance number 1111-26?
[37:27] Going once, ma'am.
>> Please going back. Yeah, you can step
[37:32] forward and just state your name and
address for the record, please.
[37:38] » Hi, my name is Elizabeth Himmlign, H I M
E L E I N, and I live at 4278 Logan
[37:45] Ferry Road. Um, I haven't heard any
questions regarding the discharge of
[37:49] water from these centers and any
pollution that we may have to face from
[37:52] them. if anybody could give any
clarifications. As I point out that we
[37:56] already have enough pollutants in our
environment and we don't need any more
[38:00] for this municipality. Thank you.
>> Thank you, ma'am.
[38:07] » Mike, I'll let you if you have any
answer for that one.
[38:10] » I'm just searching the ordinance now. Uh
again, bear with me. I don't have it all
[38:15] » quite memorized yet. Uh
>> and we can discuss that during
[38:19] publication as well. And again, I get
multiple hits when I'm searching the
[38:22] ordinance. Um,
>> there are some clear provisions. Again,
[38:26] bear with me as I skim through this, but
um the the ordinance does address water
[38:30] discharge from data centers uh in
several places. Um, but it doesn't
[38:35] prohibit discharge. So, again, I'm just
trying to quickly skim uh as I go
[38:39] through, but uh again, if you're under a
public water system, the applicant has
[38:43] to describe how much water will be
recycled or discharged and by what
[38:46] means. So they have to provide that
information at the outset as part of the
[38:50] review process. Um if they use a
non-public water source then the water
[38:54] feasibility study uh also includes uh
information about discharges. So that's
[38:59] what we already talked about with the
water table. Um so they would have to
[39:02] again include that uh for a non-public
water source demonstrating that they
[39:06] will not endanger or adversely uh affect
groundwater or surface water quantity or
[39:12] quality. Um they have to also
demonstrate under the ordinance that
[39:17] they have an adequate means of
wastewater disposal including domestic
[39:22] wastewater and the waste water that's
also used for cooling and industrial
[39:26] purposes. Um and that has to be provided
and approved by uh the sewage authority
[39:32] and or the D. Um and then they of course
have to comply with all as always uh
[39:39] state, local, federal uh water quality
regulations. So again, everything comes
[39:44] under that umbrella with D oversight uh
as well as any county or state uh any
[39:49] other uh state or federal uh
requirements. Um so hopefully that helps
[39:57] to at least give some clarification
there. Um so it does require the
[40:01] applicant to disclose and then
potentially take steps and also fall
[40:04] under the purview of the sewage
authority and the D for any disposal.
[40:10] » All right. Thank you, Mike.
Um, so just one more time for the good
[40:15] of the order, is there anyone in the in
the audience that would like to step up
[40:20] and speak in regards to this specific
ordinance?
[40:24] Going once, going twice. It's old. Um,
okay. So, uh, next we are going I'm
[40:31] going to turn it over to Mike. Is there,
uh, first, is there anything further
[40:36] from the staff that should be placed on
record? And then secondly, uh, is there
[40:41] anything further from the solicitor that
we'd like to place on record? So, we'll
[40:44] start with you, Mike.
>> Uh, no, I think, um, obviously trying to
[40:48] help [clears throat] clarify and answer
any questions as we get into the
[40:51] substantive discussion, I'll certainly,
uh, try to answer any council questions.
[40:56] Um, I don't think there's anything else
from my end, but if council has any
[40:58] questions for myself or Mr. Waznjak,
certainly try to address any uh,
[41:03] outstanding questions.
>> Great. Wes, anything?
[41:07] » Yeah. my perception. Um I really
appreciated the comments that we
[41:11] received this evening from the public
and it's going to be uh my suggestion
[41:18] um that we can discuss this as part of
the regular agenda u of the public
[41:23] meeting. Um, but I think we probably all
would like to go back and take a look at
[41:29] uh, ordinance 111-26
in light of the comments that we
[41:33] received tonight from the public before
we move forward on uh, advertising the
[41:38] ordinance, myself included.
>> Yep. Thank you.
[41:44] Thank you, Wes.
All right. Um, I want to also just thank
[41:50] the public. uh you know this this helps
this body um shape how these ordinance
[41:56] work. Um taking your comments in is
extremely important to every one of us
[41:59] up here. Um, okay. Seeing no further
public comment, the public hearing
[42:04] concerning proposed ordinance number
1111-26
[42:10] is hereby closed at
uh 6:45 p.m. Council will discuss the
[42:17] proposed ordinance later during
tonight's regular meeting in our
[42:20] workshop section. So, that closes this
public hearing.
[42:27] If I could ask councel if we could have
a brief executive session before the
[42:31] regular meeting that would be
appreciated.
[42:35] [laughter]
[42:42] » So here's
once we get to
[42:46] » I'd like to call the or call to order uh
this council of the municipality of
[42:50] Mary'sville the Wednesday September 2nd
2026 regular voting meeting. Uh council
[42:56] did meet in executive session prior to
this in regards to a legal matteration
[43:01] » and litigation.
Um
[43:04] so we're going to stand for a pledge of
>> allegiance.
[43:12] To the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it
[43:17] stands, one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice
[43:22] for all.
[43:29] All right.
Can we get a roll call, please?
[43:33] » Mr. Leemak
>> here.
[43:36] » Mr. McKenna
>> here.
[43:38] » Mr. Chazar
>> here.
[43:40] » Mr. O'eski
>> here.
[43:42] » Mr. Miller
>> here.
[43:44] » Mr. Korns
>> here.
[43:46] » Mrs. Lang
>> present.
[43:48] » Mayor Dice
>> here.
[43:52] » All right. Uh that moves us to any
announcement of unlisted amendments,
[43:56] Mike.
>> None this evening.
[43:58] » All right. That moves us to consent
calendar items uh for the approval of
[44:02] the August 18th me minutes uh meeting.
Can I get a motion for that?
[44:07] » Motion to approve the August 18th, 2026
minutes.
[44:11] » Second.
>> Thank you, Jamie and Matt. All in favor?
[44:14] » I opposed.
>> All right, that motion passes.
[44:19] Uh, that moves us to comments by the
mayor. Mayor Dice.
[44:23] » Thank you, Mr. McKenna. If we can get
those slides up.
[44:26] » Uh, yes. They should be coming up any
moment here.
[44:30] » Okay. Firstly, I'll note that at 700
p.m. on Friday, September 11th, there
[44:34] will be a memorial at the Franklin
Regional High School football stadium.
[44:39] Uh, Pastor Dan's been putting a lot of
work putting this together, so if you
[44:42] can be there, please do.
Next up, we have the homesteading day on
[44:48] Saturday, September 12th, 11 to 4. Um,
this is a really cool thing. You can see
[44:54] reenactors and just overall get to
experience the Samson Clark Toll House.
[44:59] Um, parking, if anyone's done it, you
park down there kind of triangle lane
[45:03] and then walk through a small wooded uh
passage right to the house. Bring up the
[45:09] next one. And lastly, uh because we did
change uh our uh refuge carrier, the
[45:16] cardboard compactor will no longer be
available. However, just recognize that
[45:20] uh your cardboard is recyclable via your
normal Murray'sville recycling uh
[45:26] canister. And I believe that'll do it
for the mayor's announcements. Thank
[45:30] you.
>> All right. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh that
[45:32] moves us to the comments by the chief
administrator, Mike. Uh yes, just um
[45:37] kind of touching on the um the recycle
uh recycling compactor. Again, we did
[45:43] get some questions from the community.
Um the post that went out was kind of
[45:48] abrupt and so I just wanted to kind of
be clear to the community. We revised
[45:52] the post online. Uh you can recycle
cardboard curbside in your recycling
[45:58] cart. Um the compactor itself was
intended for residential use only. got
[46:03] that compactor uh about 13 years ago uh
through a grant with uh the DP. Um but
[46:10] that compactor was again intended for
residential use. It wasn't intended for
[46:14] commercial use or businesses. Um but we
had had some issues with businesses or
[46:20] commercial uh companies utilizing that
compactor. Um, in conjunction with that,
[46:27] um, because the unit was 13 years old,
because it was being utilized by some of
[46:31] the higher volume, uh, businesses and
even folks from outside of the
[46:36] community, um, we were having recurring
mechanical problems with it. Anytime
[46:41] that happens, it goes offline. Of
course, the community gets frustrated by
[46:44] that. We get a phone call letting us
know that it's down, and then
[46:48] ultimately, we have to dispatch public
works uh, to come over. they have to
[46:51] diagnose the issue, uh, get parts, make
the repair, uh, whatever the case may
[46:56] be. And so, because of that, the staff
time, the municipal resources that go
[47:00] into maintaining that service didn't
seem to be, uh, warranted or even
[47:06] economical, especially considering that
same service is offered curbside. So, we
[47:10] are talking with the current or the
upcoming hauler about what we can do for
[47:15] those folks that have a large volume of
cardboard. Uh we did get a couple calls
[47:20] about folks that said even in their
residential daily use, they get more
[47:23] cardboard uh than they can fit in their
recycling container. Um so we're going
[47:28] to look at options uh and and see what
we can do uh or whether they need a
[47:33] second recycling cart. U so again, I
think those are limited and more
[47:37] isolated users. Uh most folks should be
able to use uh the the cart uh and get
[47:44] uh their cardboard recycling in there.
But for anybody that does have more than
[47:48] the cart allows for, we are trying to uh
establish what we can do, what options
[47:51] we have available to us. Um, but again,
at this time, we did take the compactor
[47:56] offline while we review everything uh
and see what makes the most sense.
[48:00] Again, knowing that it in some ways it's
a duplication of services because you
[48:04] can get it uh at curbside. So, it's not
that we're removing it from the
[48:08] community or their ability to recycle.
So again, I just wanted to make that
[48:11] clarification because that is a uh a
larger topic um at least maybe online.
[48:17] Um a second uh item to address uh for
council um is the topic of uh LED signs
[48:26] along the route 22 corridor. Uh, I don't
want to dive too far into this topic as
[48:31] it's only kind of chief administrator
comments, but I do think it's important
[48:34] for council to be aware that um the
there was a a matter that occurred with
[48:40] a sign being installed um that kind of
led to a snowball effect of the
[48:45] municipality doing a a small audit of
the LED signs along the highway and
[48:50] ensuring that those signs are in
compliance with our zoning ordinance.
[48:54] Again, we just uh had a large meeting
about the zoning ordinance and it
[48:58] doesn't address signage. Uh but that
could potentially be something that uh
[49:02] the community or council may want to
consider going forward. Uh as it stands
[49:07] right now, uh LED signage has uh some
limitations um regarding what can be
[49:14] displayed, how it's displayed, and the
color scheme uh along those commercial
[49:18] properties uh in the business district
on Route 22. uh some of the letters that
[49:23] went out were kind of reminding
businesses that they have to be in
[49:27] compliance and and some of their um
programming on their on their screens
[49:32] may be outside of what the ordinance
allows for. So again, this may be a
[49:36] topic that comes forward in uh future
meetings. So I just kind of want to make
[49:40] council and the community aware. Uh
again, we just want to try to maintain
[49:43] compliance and be consistent with that
across the board. We don't want to treat
[49:48] uh businesses differently uh and allow
some to do uh things one way while we
[49:53] don't allow others to do the same. We
want to be fair and consistent across
[49:56] the board. So, unfortunately, that
required us to kind of do a little audit
[50:00] and and send out some reminder letters.
Um so, again, just making council and
[50:04] community aware that uh that small
topic. Uh there aren't too many
[50:07] businesses that have LED signs, but
there are some. And uh we did have to
[50:10] send some letters out reminding about uh
the the requirements of the sign
[50:14] ordinance. So, uh, other than that, uh,
I think that's probably all, uh, for
[50:19] chief administrative comments this
evening.
[50:22] » All right. Um, that moves us on to
community input, but prior to that, um,
[50:27] I would like to read a statement. I know
there's been a lot of interest in the
[50:30] community in regards to the Redwood uh,
project going on. I just like to read a
[50:35] statement in regards to that. Um the
conditional use approval did not
[50:40] constitute final approval of redwood
land or a final determination of the
[50:46] geological issues associated with
construction. The conditional use review
[50:51] address the steep slope requirements
applicable at that stage. The formal
[50:57] land development process remains ahead.
[51:02] Start over. Mike was not. Uh the
conditional use approval did not
[51:07] constitute final approval of the Redwood
land development or a final
[51:11] determination of the geological issues
associated with construction. The
[51:16] conditional use review addressed the
steep slope requirements applicable at
[51:21] that stage. The formal land development
process remains ahead and will include
[51:27] additional engineering and geotechnical
review based on the actual grading,
[51:32] building locations, foundations, and
site improvements that are proposed. The
[51:38] municipality will utilize a professional
engineer to provide an independent
[51:44] geotechnical peer review of the mine
related conditions and the developer
[51:49] supporting information. That review will
consider the additional deep mine
[51:55] drilling surrounding mine subsidance
history, final overburden depths, and
[52:01] any additional investigation, design
measures, or construction monitoring
[52:06] that may be warranted. The land
development application will then
[52:10] proceed through the planning commission
review and recommendation and separate
[52:15] council action. At this point, there is
a real there is a real mine related
[52:22] information that warrants continued
professional review, but nothing
[52:26] presently before the municipality
establishes an imminent or unacceptable
[52:32] subsidance condition. The appropriate
course is to complete the technical
[52:37] review through the formal land
development process rather than either
[52:41] dismissing the concern or reaching a
premature conclusion that the property
[52:46] cannot be developed.
So we'll move to community input,
[52:52] please.
[53:02] All right. So for community input, um
just please uh step forward, state your
[53:07] name and your address for the record to
Mury'sville resident. Uh John Nagod.
[53:17] » For the record, I'm not a Murrayville
resident. Okay.
[53:21] » Your you business in the business?
>> I own properties in Murray'sville. Okay.
[53:26] Yep.
>> And uh and our family's been here when
[53:28] it was Franklin Township. We're here 126
years.
[53:32] » Okay. Hey, I'm here to speak in behalf
of uh Johnny Lucas, who is our spokesman
[53:38] for the group that was addressing the
Redwood Development in White Valley.
[53:43] Okay. We had a meeting Monday night. Uh
incidentally, Johnny's mother had a had
[53:49] to be taken to the hospital tonight.
That's why he's not here. He's at the
[53:52] hospital with his mother. But we had a
meeting on Monday night with the people
[53:56] of White Valley. And uh there were
prominent people from the community
[54:01] there. Uh you know Wayne Norris was
there, Ben Sansson I believe uh Shirley
[54:08] was there, Shelley and uh the watershed
and all kind of people. We packed the
[54:13] house but uh and we voted after based on
what we've heard so far as a group and
[54:21] we voted in opposition to this project.
And if you want at a later time, we'll
[54:26] go into details why, okay? I have a
personal interest on property and
[54:30] export. I used to see cars floating down
the creek. Okay? But since we built the
[54:36] flood control project, it doesn't
happen. And I worry about taking 69
[54:40] acres of vegetation off of that
hillside. And that water doesn't go over
[54:45] Hill and Dale. That water goes directly
into the ditch. And that's what it is at
[54:49] that point. It's not a creek. It's a
ditch. So, you'll be hearing from us and
[54:53] and Johnny will be our spokesman. But,
uh, that's all I got to say. Thank you.
[54:58] » All right. Thank you, Mr. Nagota.
>> Uh, that is the only person that has
[55:04] signed up for, uh, public comment, but
for the good of the order, is there
[55:08] anyone that would like to speak?
>> I would.
[55:10] » Uh, sir, please not realize that I had
to sign up.
[55:12] » No, no worries. That's why we do that.
Um, please just step forward. Just state
[55:16] your name and address for the record.
>> So, my name is Lucas Gowolski. I am a
[55:20] co-owner of Pro Trucks and Cars located
at 4166 William Penn Highway. Uh I am a
[55:25] Murray'sville resident. My address is
3827 Hills Church Road and uh I'm not
[55:30] great at public speaking so I have a
little thing to read from here. You
[55:33] know, it's one of those deals. Um but it
is in conjunction with Mr. Michael's uh
[55:38] comment about the LED board because I
was one of those that got the letter.
[55:42] So, good [clears throat] evening, Mayor
Dice and members of the council. I am
[55:46] Lucas Kowalsski. Uh, everybody calls me
Luke. Uh, owner of Prot Trucks and Cars
[55:51] on Route 22 in Murray'sville. My family
has run this business as well as the
[55:55] Napa that used to be there uh for over
30 years. Uh, I'm here about the
[56:00] compliance notice that we received on
our electric sign. I want to be upfront.
[56:04] We're not here uh to fight the notice or
ask for special treatment. It's not the
[56:08] way we do business. We are here because
we think it's a good moment for the
[56:12] council to take a fresh look at this
ordinance. And I do have a um a proposal
[56:16] for you guys I'd love to give you for
you to read. Um here's the situation.
[56:21] Our sign has been running the same way
since 2013. Uh actually the exact same
[56:26] way for over a year because I lost
control of the sign and we've been
[56:29] investigating new sign options. Uh but
our [clears throat] sign has been uh
[56:35] running since 2013 when the municipality
reviewed and permitted it. But the rules
[56:39] that are now being cited to us in this
letter, the amber only, no color
[56:43] requirement, were actually adopted back
in 2005 and 2006, years before our
[56:48] permit was issued. So for over a decade,
the sign has operated in plain sight,
[56:52] fully approved under a law that
technically predates it. That gap is
[56:57] really at the heart of why I'm asking
you to look at this tonight. Beyond our
[57:01] situation specifically, this ordinance
is almost 20 years old. LED sign
[57:06] technology has moved a lot since then.
Today's displays have automatic dimming,
[57:10] ambient light sensors, static hold
timers built in, the exact tools that
[57:15] address glare distraction without
needing to ban outright color. A lot of
[57:20] towns along our corridor like ours now
allow full color displays. Um, there's a
[57:25] great one in export at the Italian club.
It's beautiful and I guarantee you it's
[57:29] not going to cause me to wreck my car.
um well
[57:34] within reasonable limits like scroll
speeds, how long the messages can stay,
[57:38] how bright they are, stuff like that is
how we should be controlling these
[57:42] signs, not just a single color. You
know, right now Murray'sville standards
[57:47] put local businesses at real
disadvantages compared to our nearby
[57:50] communities, both for what we can
advertise and honestly for how dated
[57:55] everything looks. It's so like you drive
down Murray'sville just from my you know
[58:01] opinion and we're very outdated like
everything's amber everything's kind of
[58:06] graywashed you you roll up I mean
rudders is another great example that
[58:11] sign is brilliant the flag waves on it
you know I think that's one of the
[58:14] things you guys cited me for is my amber
flag because it kind of has a waving
[58:19] motion to it like that's patriotic and I
can't do that in Murray'sville that's to
[58:24] me very upsetting thing, you know. So,
my ask tonight is simple. I'd like the
[58:30] council to refer to chapter 220's
electric science standards to the
[58:34] planning commission or whatever
committee makes sense in this. I'm not a
[58:38] government guy, so you tell me for
review and updating it around today's
[58:43] technology rather than 20-year-old
standards. I mean, any of you guys have
[58:47] flip phones still?
We're all in smartphones. Should update
[58:52] some stuff. We're happy to work with the
staff with your staff on our own
[58:56] compliance in the meantime, but we think
this is worth a broader look for our
[59:00] business and others in the corridor. You
know, my sign's going to more than
[59:04] likely end up being turned off because I
don't have control. I don't have the
[59:08] access that I need to change it. If I
did, I would have updated it right away
[59:14] and did that. I have it in my IT guys
hands. I have another guy coming in to
[59:18] take a look at the computer to see if he
can get it to log on. But ultimately
[59:22] what this letter is doing is shutting
off my LED sign which does have some
[59:27] advertising good and value for me. So
that's my two cents. I hope you guys
[59:34] take a look at it and do something.
Thank you.
[59:37] » Thank you very much for your comment.
[59:41] » Um some other
>> Yeah.
[59:43] » Yep.
>> Sir, would you Yep. If you'd like to
[59:47] step forward,
>> we can look into that in a future.
[59:49] » Yeah. I'm gonna I'm gonna talk to Mike.
I'll say something.
[59:53] » Afternoon. My name is Fred Carrera. I
have 200 foot fronting along Wilson
[59:59] Road. I'm 3151 Wilson Road right above
home screen. I have 200 foot frontage
[1:00:02] which is which is adjacent to this
property which you're looking at
[1:00:06] development. And what concerns me is I
can barely add the stands now back onto
[1:00:12] that road from my driveway without a car
coming down the hill which I can't see
[1:00:16] above the hill. down below the hill. I
can see down at the home screen house.
[1:00:21] And if you put this development which is
intended to be down below
[1:00:27] oh the house is down there which is
halfway up the hill. That could be he
[1:00:32] said it's going to be 178 units. It's
probably
[1:00:36] say 6 to800 people probably 400 cars
coming entry and exit on Wilson Road.
[1:00:43] That's excessive. That road is not
designed right now. Now you get all the
[1:00:46] traffic from 66. People take the
shortcut from 66 to 22. They don't they
[1:00:51] avoid the clover leaf up in Delmont. And
right now I understand the traffic is
[1:00:56] already excessive and to put additional
[1:01:01] homes or cars on that road is not
appropriate.
[1:01:06] That's my comment.
>> All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you for
[1:01:10] your comment.
[1:01:14] So again for the good of the order
anyone
[1:01:17] » sir absolutely step forward.
[1:01:28] » Um my name is Zach King. I live at 3940
Sunflower Court in Heritage Estates. And
[1:01:35] today I just wanted to ask you guys
about a date. So does anyone recall
[1:01:41] April 9th, 2014
and what happened that day?
[1:01:46] So since then uh I've met with
administrator and principal and asked
[1:01:51] for help over two years ago almost to
the date and we also uh have called the
[1:01:57] school board left messages numerous
numerous times administration building.
[1:02:03] I did receive a phone call back. I
missed it. I was on a job. They didn't
[1:02:07] leave a voicemail. I also spoke with
Jill Cooper's office and I asked them,
[1:02:12] you know, advice on the situation. They
were like, "Oh, just keep calling the
[1:02:15] school board." So, this is why I came
here today. So, this was a tragic day
[1:02:20] for Franklin Regional School District.
This is when the stabbing occurred. Um,
[1:02:25] on camera, there was a school resource
officer who was running out of the
[1:02:29] building to go to his vehicle to god
knows what he was going to get. And also
[1:02:35] there was another man who acted on
instinct and his heart and ran down the
[1:02:41] hallway and tackled the man. So
this man was Mr. King.
[1:02:52] So with his selfless acts of bravery
and what he did to honor the community
[1:02:59] and the students, neighbors, family,
um he deserves some recognition.
[1:03:08] We uh unfortunately
Mr. King's my father.
[1:03:14] Across the street was the
perpetrator who committed this heinous
[1:03:19] act. So my father wanted to stick
around. He was going to retire. He
[1:03:23] wanted to stick around for another year
and you know for the students, for the
[1:03:27] community to show strength. Um very
selfless man. Turned down every single
[1:03:31] interview. Didn't meet with any news.
Did whatever he could to stay out of the
[1:03:36] limelight. Everything he did in his life
was
[1:03:40] to do what's right, not why. He just
wanted to do what's right and stay under
[1:03:46] the radar.
Um, unfortunately, I wish I would have
[1:03:50] did this or someone would have did this
sooner. So, couple years after he
[1:03:53] retired, he moved to Florida to get away
from seeing that sight and reminder
[1:03:57] every day across the street. And then,
um, I do believe it was stress related.
[1:04:02] He had a hard time with this that he
never talked about and he ended up
[1:04:05] passing with pancreatic cancer. So, he
worked his whole life, dedicated his
[1:04:10] whole life to the community at the
school district for over 20 years, had
[1:04:13] an impact on many people's lives, many
children. And every time I run into
[1:04:17] someone who actually knows him, they
speak great things. And I'm not just
[1:04:21] saying that because me and my dad budded
headto head. That's what kids and their
[1:04:25] dad do. But he was very respected. Even
going back to where he grew up and I run
[1:04:30] into a random person in the street or at
a store and they find out like he was
[1:04:33] the he was little league coach or
whatever. Just he dedicated his life to
[1:04:37] do the right thing. Um we're all not
perfect. We know that. So he tried his
[1:04:43] best and he never wanted any credit for
it. So, what I'm here to ask for today
[1:04:50] is an opportunity to do some type of
memorial for him, whether it be a placer
[1:04:59] on a bench or a little stone with his
engraving or just something that'll last
[1:05:04] time.
And I wish he could have saw that, but
[1:05:08] he he deserves that. And he deserves
that everlasting recognition for his
[1:05:13] bravery. And I just wanted to ask you
guys if you had any oppositions to
[1:05:18] supporting
um this potential small project that I
[1:05:23] think would do well for the community.
>> I I can personally speak that I had your
[1:05:29] father for principal. I know there's
several other members of this room who
[1:05:32] who have had him as well. So I can
certainly attest to that bravery and
[1:05:36] thank him for that.
>> Thank you guys.
[1:05:39] » Thank you so much.
>> Thank you. And thank you to your father
[1:05:42] for his bravery. Uh absolutely. I'll
I'll speak with uh with Dne and we'll
[1:05:49] obviously bring the superintendent
involved and uh and see what we can do
[1:05:53] because
>> um that that is very deserving.
[1:05:57] » Absolutely.
>> So thank you uh very much for that
[1:06:00] comment. Um so to close out uh community
input just again uh for the good of the
[1:06:06] order anyone wishes to come up and speak
as far as public comment.
[1:06:12] Going once, going twice. So uh okay,
that closes the community input. Uh
[1:06:18] moves us to liaison comments and
committee reports. Uh Mike, we'll start
[1:06:22] down here with you.
>> Uh uh thank you. Before I get into that,
[1:06:27] I just for everybody in the room before
you leave, um I just want to thank
[1:06:31] everybody for coming tonight. Um I've
I've attended about a thousand hearings
[1:06:37] over the past 10 years. I lost track at
some point. And between the hearing
[1:06:41] before, uh you know, hearing before and
then public comment tonight, we had a
[1:06:47] number of items here that are are
controversial or uh there are high
[1:06:52] emotions about. Um, but you guys came in
and you gave great information. You've
[1:06:56] helped the board stay more informed. Um,
I write down everybody who talks and
[1:07:01] everything you say. We can't always do
exactly what is being asked of us, but
[1:07:07] everything that you say comes and I know
that the entire council feels the same
[1:07:11] way that, you know, those concerns are
are are important to us. Um and when we
[1:07:18] are considering, you know, applications,
land development, that sort of thing, um
[1:07:25] you know, it is our job to make sure
that we've reviewed everything that's
[1:07:27] presented to us from both you guys and
the applicants, um and vet everything
[1:07:32] thoroughly. And you know, when any of
these projects come in, obviously the
[1:07:36] ones that were talked about tonight, but
anything else, you know, I will always
[1:07:39] look at everything in great detail. I
know so will the rest of council. um and
[1:07:44] our staff will hold everybody
accountable to the promises that they
[1:07:50] make. But so again, I want to thank you
all for uh a wonderful a wonderful
[1:07:54] evening. Um moving on to liaison. Uh we
did have a uh medic one meeting after uh
[1:08:03] our last meeting. Obviously our last
meeting is when medicin came in to
[1:08:06] speak. One thing I did want to address
and so I've given everybody a document
[1:08:10] because there was a question that came
up at that hearing uh after the
[1:08:15] discussion about uh how much money has
been given over the years and when that
[1:08:20] changed. I know there was you know
suggestion made that it was changed last
[1:08:23] year and or whether it changed 5 years
ago. So I I got the actual numbers um
[1:08:29] and the number has been flat since 2024.
Um so there's been three years of um
[1:08:39] granting uh 108,311.
Um that was a pretty big jump because
[1:08:45] for a number of years before that it was
looks like it was flat for a number of
[1:08:48] years before that at 63,000.
Uh this does reflect uh this change does
[1:08:53] reflect when the $5 fee uh per resident
fee uh was implemented uh likely in 2023
[1:09:01] for for 2024. So, um, you know, it's not
quite as bad as maybe I originally
[1:09:06] thought that it hadn't been changed for
a lot of years, but we are going into
[1:09:09] year four.
Inflation is a thing that obviously
[1:09:14] impacts all of us and it's impacting
Medic one. Um, and I also do note, you
[1:09:18] know, if you look at the other
municipalities and their donations, um,
[1:09:22] export has been giving 5,000 presumably
that's based on their population. Um,
[1:09:28] Washington Township, it appears that
they have gone up this year. they were
[1:09:32] 40,000 in the past and have gone to
50,000. Um I'm not sure if that's coming
[1:09:36] from an adjustment they were if they
made an adjustment if they're just
[1:09:40] donating extra. But um I just think uh
>> that's just extra.
[1:09:44] » Just extra. Okay. So they were giving a
little bit of extra money this year. Um
[1:09:48] I don't think I we have a lot of things
to spend money on. I recognize that. So
[1:09:53] I don't think a massive increase would
make sense. Um, but I think looking at
[1:09:58] these numbers, you know, a small
adjustment for next year um would be
[1:10:01] something we may want to consider uh and
doing that every couple years just just
[1:10:06] to keep them strong and we heard last
time about how much they do for the
[1:10:11] community. So, um and we did not have a
pension meeting after the last between
[1:10:15] last. [clears throat] Thank you.
>> Thanks, Mike. Darren,
[1:10:18] » the uh Franklin Regional School Board uh
did not meet since the last update I
[1:10:23] provided at our last meeting. They will
be meeting on the 14th at 7:30 here in
[1:10:27] in the chamber. Uh the parks and recck
foundation will be meeting on the 15th.
[1:10:31] As a change, we're going to start
meeting in the evening after the uh
[1:10:35] parks and wreck meeting.
>> Thank you,
[1:10:39] Jason.
>> FTMSA met on August 20th. Um they
[1:10:43] continue to work several capital
projects which includes um improvements
[1:10:48] to the nitrification tower and some uh
meadow brook pump station work. Uh from
[1:10:54] an operational point of view, they
continue to do the sewer checks and uh
[1:10:58] and manhole inspections and repairs uh
along with um pump station maintenance.
[1:11:04] Uh so everything's running smoothly
there and on track.
[1:11:09] » Thank you.
>> Thank you, Jason. Jamie,
[1:11:12] » the next planning commission meeting is
Tuesday, September 8th at 7 p.m. right
[1:11:16] here in council chambers.
>> EAC mate met on August 25th last week.
[1:11:22] Main discussion was around the Beverly
Manor um uh project. Okay.
[1:11:28] » Uh the library met on 9:20 or August
20th, I'm sorry. Uh they're very excited
[1:11:35] about their sidewalks and the steps
being redone because of that. uh their
[1:11:40] entrance will be closed coming this
Friday
[1:11:44] through so they're asking everybody come
in through the front entrance up through
[1:11:47] the elevator through the library started
on 94 through 9:14.
[1:11:53] Um
also the drop box has been moved out to
[1:11:56] the front to the drop off box books. So
if you have to drop off some books go
[1:12:01] ahead and take it to the drop off box in
front. They will be closed on Labor Day.
[1:12:06] So the library will be closed on Labor
Day and um their their audit basically
[1:12:13] through the county was passed and they
submitted for their new finding for
[1:12:17] their uh application for their funds and
it's being approved because their
[1:12:21] audit's been approved. So we're doing
well up there.
[1:12:24] » All right. Thank you very much, Bill. Uh
Parks and Recreation, uh the next
[1:12:29] meeting is Tuesday, September 15th, uh
here at the municipal building. And the
[1:12:35] only reminder is that uh you know we're
pretty excited about the disc golf
[1:12:38] course. I know they're taking uh uh tea
sponsorships and uh basket sponsorships
[1:12:44] and whatnot. So any businesses or uh
residents or anyone that would like to
[1:12:49] be part of that. There's a big range.
You can go from uh smaller amount dollar
[1:12:53] amounts up to large dollar amounts. So
uh feel free to reach out to the parks
[1:12:57] and recck department uh in regards to
that. So that is it for the liaison
[1:13:03] comments and committee reports. Uh that
moves us to workshop items. Uh we have
[1:13:08] nothing under administration, nothing
under engineering. That moves us to
[1:13:12] community development. Um that would be
uh 11A the discussion of ordinance
[1:13:19] number 1111-26
amending chapter 220 of the code of the
[1:13:25] municipality of Murray'sville to define
and add specific requirements for data
[1:13:30] centers data center accessory uses solar
energy facilities forestry apiaries and
[1:13:38] zoning hearing board membership
Mike
[1:13:42] » um yes I [clears throat] don't think
much more of an introduction is
[1:13:45] necessary. We just completed the public
hearing. Um so I think at this time
[1:13:49] between myself and uh Mike Waznjak,
planning director, um we are certainly
[1:13:54] here to be able to answer questions or
have discussion uh with council. Uh I
[1:14:00] would think uh if there are any
questions or concerns that council wants
[1:14:04] to have addressed, um now would be a
good time to start to go through that.
[1:14:09] And as the solicitor indicated earlier,
um it it is likely uh that the uh
[1:14:15] subsequent agenda item should be tabled
as we work through those questions and
[1:14:19] concerns that council may have. So
again, based on discussion from the
[1:14:22] public hearing or any other concerns you
may have, uh we're certainly happy to
[1:14:26] have discussion and answer answer
questions or provide feedback.
[1:14:32] » All right. Um
>> you want me to go first?
[1:14:35] » I would love for you to go first.
[laughter]
[1:14:39] Okay. So, there's a lot. It's I think a
really good framework to start with. I
[1:14:44] know planning commission put a lot into
it to get it here where it is. Also, the
[1:14:50] county. So, I just had um some comments
and bear with me. This is going to be
[1:14:55] probably a little lengthy. Okay. Um so
one thing that happened is on August
[1:15:03] 18th an executive order was issued for
the for um governor's responsible
[1:15:09] infrastructure development or grid
requirements which are not included in
[1:15:14] the ordinance at all. So, um, it
requires that facilities with, uh, peak
[1:15:20] demand exceeding 25 megawws shall
execute and remain in compliance with
[1:15:25] the Pennsylvania grid consent order and
agreement.
[1:15:28] Um, so we should probably incorporate
that somewhat into the ordinance. Um,
[1:15:34] and that material non-compliance shall
constitute a violation of the
[1:15:38] conditional use approval.
So, moving on, I'll try to be as brief
[1:15:43] as I can because I know we'll be coming
back and doing a lot more discussion
[1:15:47] about this. Um, I think possibly we
should look at requiring a 5 to 10year
[1:15:52] load ramp up schedule.
Um, because
[1:15:58] energy changes, cost changes, demand
changes, um, utility system upgrades and
[1:16:03] who will pay for each one.
[1:16:08] annual public reporting to Murray'sville
of energy water generator use and
[1:16:13] compliance
and maybe institute a new conditional
[1:16:18] use approval for any increase of 5
megawatts or 10% whichever is less.
[1:16:27] Okay, moving on to the next point number
two uh water regulation. So,
[1:16:34] um, let me let's see. I got a bunch of
stuff all over the place here. Okay, so
[1:16:41] um, prohibit exceeded without, uh, new
conditional use hearings. Prohibit I'm
[1:16:48] just going to say it quick because I
know we're going to review it all later.
[1:16:51] Uh, prohibit private wells from cooling,
humidification, industrial processes, or
[1:16:55] routine operations.
require baseline and ongoing monitoring
[1:17:00] of nearby wells, groundwater, streams,
springs and wetlands with an enforcable
[1:17:04] replacement water remedy. Um require d
uh drought stage conservation or
[1:17:10] curtailment and certify that service is
not red does not reduce domestic
[1:17:15] pressure in in the water especially fire
flow capacity because we don't want
[1:17:20] there to be a fire and our firefighters
can't can't fight it.
[1:17:25] Okay,
next point. Uh, well, I'll skip that and
[1:17:30] I'll move on. Um,
just get the the super important things
[1:17:36] out of the way and we'll discuss the the
rest later. I know. Are we still um
[1:17:41] looking at a separate best ordinance?
>> I'm sorry. Um, what what ordinance?
[1:17:46] » The electric storage.
Uh
[1:17:49] » we I thought we had a separate ordinance
that we were looking at a a um a model
[1:17:55] one at the same time the model data
center or data center ordinance was
[1:18:01] brought before us.
>> Um there's there's no different
[1:18:04] ordinance uh in consideration than than
the one that we have in front of us. So
[1:18:09] that may have incorporate we did use
several model ordinances. Uh the
[1:18:14] solicitor also has done some of these
ordinances in other municipalities. we
[1:18:18] kind of utilized and pulled from each of
those what we felt was necessary or
[1:18:23] relevant uh to build this one out. So
that may be what you're referring to.
[1:18:26] » Okay, that's probably baked in.
>> Remember that, Wes? Okay. I thought I
[1:18:29] just wanted to make sure I wasn't
missing something.
[1:18:32] » All right,
>> that's okay. Um so as far as the um you
[1:18:37] know residential setbacks go,
I think we should definitely take a look
[1:18:42] at that. I don't really have um a
suggestion until we look at, you know,
[1:18:46] the the zoning and and what's available.
So, um we'll just skip on that. Moving
[1:18:52] on and then we'll move on to uh the
solar. Um
[1:18:58] we don't I don't think we have setbacks
in the solar part of the ordinance. So,
[1:19:04] maybe we should be considering a setback
for that as well like we did for the
[1:19:09] data centers. Um, and that's up for
discussion. Just kind of throwing that
[1:19:15] out there. Um, limit disturbance or put
a cap on the disturbance of woodlands
[1:19:20] that can be
um, stripped and possibly require a
[1:19:27] formal glare analysis
[1:19:31] for the solar panels. Um,
and from my research, it looks like what
[1:19:38] we are looking for for the
decommissioning and, um, the security
[1:19:43] we're requiring that that might need to
be upped. Um,
[1:19:50] but that's, you know, for discussion.
Um,
[1:19:55] and then I had called Michael earlier
just to correct just a a typo in the
[1:20:00] ordinance. Um the 220-30
FF should go to 220-31
[1:20:06] FF just to keep everything
um
[1:20:13] in line. So I'll just stop there, but
there's a lot more coming. Just
[1:20:18] » No, thank you. Uh Mike, in regards to
the setbacks for the solar, would that
[1:20:23] just fall under setbacks that are in
place for
[1:20:29] like land development or how where would
that fall?
[1:20:32] » Or the smallcale uh residential or small
commercial solar um they have to reply
[1:20:39] they have to comply with the normal
building setback requirements in the
[1:20:44] ordinance
>> for that zoning district. Um for large
[1:20:46] scale solar um there is no specific
solar setback written into the section
[1:20:51] that's being referred to that 31 GG. Um
so the only thing that would apply would
[1:20:59] be the underlying district setbacks as
well. Uh and I think that's part of the
[1:21:03] reason why it's not explicitly
uh established in there because it comes
[1:21:07] back to the the overall uh district
requirements.
[1:21:12] » Okay.
>> Okay.
[1:21:14] Um,
I'll go just quickly. I I don't I have
[1:21:18] just a couple questions. Uh, one of the
things that came up in the public
[1:21:22] comment section at the public hearing
was the verification of water and
[1:21:28] electrical use to these data centers as
they apply. How was that verified? unit
[1:21:34] like
>> I'm sorry I meant
[1:21:35] » the verification of of what they are
presenting that they're going to be
[1:21:40] using as far as electric and water to us
during their submission of their plan.
[1:21:47] How is that verified that, you know,
that number is correct? Because once
[1:21:51] that's in place, if they're taking a lot
more electric or less electric, more
[1:21:56] water, you know, that that just was an
interesting comment to me and I just
[1:22:01] » um I would think that the um local
utility would have a hand in monitoring
[1:22:09] that. I mean, I know that we don't have
the capability or resources to go out
[1:22:13] and conduct monitoring activities. Um,
so in some regards, no different than
[1:22:19] maybe a building permit of some sort.
You know, we monitor
[1:22:23] uh the construction and installation,
but ultimately if somebody were to
[1:22:27] modify something after the fact and
we're not aware of it, you know, right?
[1:22:31] And mine's my question is more when they
submit a plan for that and you have, you
[1:22:37] know, a data center that is whatever
size that is and they're stating that
[1:22:42] that, you know, this is the amount of
electricity and this is the amount of
[1:22:45] water that they're going to pull from
that. you know, ho how are we able to
[1:22:51] try to to make sure that's accurate as
we're like can we put stipulations or
[1:22:57] conditions on that during that process?
>> I'm sure that there is a way to do that.
[1:23:03] Now
>> then the next problem I shouldn't say
[1:23:07] problem but then the next matter becomes
enforcement and I I
[1:23:11] » you know I don't know that answer. I I I
wouldn't want to speak to that without
[1:23:15] having full knowledge and maybe that's a
legal question. And I don't want to put
[1:23:18] the solicitor on the spot.
>> Um but enforcement is would be that
[1:23:22] second component that I don't know
exactly how that would be addressed.
[1:23:27] » One of the things that
I am contemplating is whether we can
[1:23:32] require data centers to only access
public water supply.
[1:23:38] Um I would have want take the
opportunity to look into that, but based
[1:23:44] upon the expected pool
um required of a data center
[1:23:51] from a water source, I would be
concerned that private water supply
[1:23:58] could accommodate that demand.
So
[1:24:02] I am just thinking out loud as to
whether or not we could as part of the
[1:24:08] conditional use require that they have
access to a public water supply utilize
[1:24:15] the public water supply and if the
infrastructure is not sufficient to
[1:24:23] satisfy that demand plus the demand of
other individuals on that public water
[1:24:29] supply they would have to upscale upsize
the water supply infrastructure
[1:24:35] » just in I I would state in general and I
have some experience with these um
[1:24:40] centers in my career the majority of
them are uh would will use a closed loop
[1:24:47] system so you fill them up with water
and that through heat exchangers they
[1:24:52] cool the facility and um I know in our
own facility it uses um about 5 to 6% %
[1:25:00] water per year capacity. So if it's
20,000 gallons, I'm just making that
[1:25:05] number up. Every year you're going to
have to put 5% of that back into it due
[1:25:09] to evaporation and and usage, but that
water is treated and and circulated
[1:25:13] around. So they don't I'm wondering if
we could just say you have to have a
[1:25:17] closed loop system here in
Murray'sville.
[1:25:19] » It does say it does require a closed
loop system.
[1:25:22] » Okay.
>> Yeah.
[1:25:26] And the only other uh um I had a couple
notes here. Oh, um she had brought up
[1:25:34] with the the loss of power. Um when we
have a lot of that in Mville some from
[1:25:40] you know it happens in these
neighborhoods and businesses and you
[1:25:44] know you see the power go out. When that
happens, is there
[1:25:49] is is that a stress on when that power
comes back on and they're pulling that
[1:25:55] much more energy at a data center? Does
that affect the businesses in the
[1:26:01] residential areas that their power is
going to, you know, be delayed in coming
[1:26:07] back on or, you know, that area? Like,
how does that work?
[1:26:12] Are you asking whether they would
receive power first or
[1:26:16] » Yeah, I'm just Yeah, that was just an
interesting question that I brought it
[1:26:19] down that I would
>> Yeah, I I would say first that would be
[1:26:22] a question for the power company,
>> but I would think and I don't want
[1:26:27] [snorts] to speculate, but I would think
that it would be highly unlikely for a
[1:26:31] data center or any other business to
have priority over
[1:26:35] » receiving electric service
um you know, after an outage,
[1:26:40] » right? prior to the surrounding
properties. Um, and again, I don't want
[1:26:45] to speculate, but that would be a
question the power company would answer,
[1:26:48] and I think they would have probably a
clear answer to that as well.
[1:26:51] » Um,
[1:26:55] » any
>> I do have one other question.
[1:26:57] » Go ahead.
>> One other question then. Um,
[1:27:00] » you know, a year or two into it or five
years into the project, the uh data
[1:27:05] center is up. who who pays for the
upgrades that need like new substations
[1:27:10] or transmission upgrades, stuff like
that. Does that get passed on to the
[1:27:14] consumer? I think we need to be careful
it's not getting passed on to the
[1:27:17] residents of Murray. So,
>> so again, based on only my knowledge and
[1:27:22] and kind of my studies of data centers
and the the difficulties that um you
[1:27:30] know, this these data centers have
created for municipalities.
[1:27:34] I would think again that's probably a
question for the power company. Um when
[1:27:39] you talk about updating the grid or a
substation that would be under their
[1:27:45] purview. Um whether a data center is in
some way impacting the longevity of that
[1:27:52] system
again that that is not something that I
[1:27:55] I think we would control. I think that
um again the power company would
[1:28:00] ultimately be the final say over how it
impacts their system and whether they
[1:28:04] can and I think that's why we have the
requirements that the power company
[1:28:08] would have to they would have to receive
approval from the power company and show
[1:28:12] that the system can withstand or or
sustain the installation of of a data
[1:28:18] center. And in conjunction with that,
again, just my limited knowledge, uh,
[1:28:24] having previously been involved with a
power company,
[1:28:29] that could apply even if a data center
is put in a neighboring town. Uh, it
[1:28:33] still may impact our grid or a
substation that supplies power to
[1:28:37] Murray'sville. So again, I think those
are probably more technical questions
[1:28:40] that wouldn't be addressed by a
municipal ordinance, but I think would
[1:28:44] be more under the purview of the power
company. Again, I that's probably maybe
[1:28:47] a legal determination that Wes could or
or someone else may want to weigh in on.
[1:28:52] Um, but that would be my my
understanding is that that would be
[1:28:57] something under the purview of the power
company as to how it impacts their
[1:29:00] infrastructure.
[1:29:04] » I just had a couple of comments. I'm not
going to I'm not going to repeat
[1:29:08] everything that everybody else already
said uh also from the group uh out here
[1:29:12] because those are all issues that need
to be vetted now for the next draft. Um,
[1:29:18] but following up on Jaime's battery uh
storage uh facility, I think there was a
[1:29:24] misunderstanding I think of what I and
because we talked about this what we
[1:29:28] were asking for because um this
ordinance does include battery storage
[1:29:33] under data centers, but I think what
what I was and I think Jamie done it
[1:29:38] first and I agreed with was looking was
looking for a separate regulation of uh
[1:29:44] standalone battery uh energy storage
systems.
[1:29:48] Um what these are in case anybody
doesn't know are giant cell phone
[1:29:52] batteries for all intents and purposes.
Um they are used many times in
[1:29:57] conjunction with solar uh because
obviously solar is not working 24 hours.
[1:30:02] Um they can also be standalone. I
represented one that was put in in North
[1:30:07] Huntington. Um so they are a distinct
use that may that can be associated with
[1:30:14] solar or data but doesn't necessarily
have to be. and generally fits under
[1:30:19] similar regulations to what we see here
as far as decommissioning in particular.
[1:30:23] Um because cell phone batteries, as you
may know, don't last forever and neither
[1:30:26] do these. Um
I do also I I I see there is a setback
[1:30:33] section for the residential solar. I it
just refers to the building uh to the
[1:30:40] the building code, but it doesn't appear
to be in the um in the commercial solar
[1:30:48] energy. So, I think that might be an
oversight. Um but if you're going to
[1:30:52] include it one, it should be in the
other. And then my my last question and
[1:30:56] then I'll I'll stop. Um, in case I
missed it, for the solar facilities,
[1:31:01] um, is there a uh, limit on percentage
of lot coverage? You know, for instance,
[1:31:08] if the lot is 100 acres that you can,
you know, use 30%, 40%, 50%. Um,
[1:31:16] there are a lot of solar ordinances do
that. And it may also maybe kind of
[1:31:22] another way of getting Jamie getting
Justin's question Jaime's question about
[1:31:26] uh landscape. You know, you're
essentially requiring that there be um a
[1:31:30] certain percentage of the land be, you
know, left undisturbed. Um and also kind
[1:31:36] of push these then onto somewhat larger
lots
[1:31:39] um which would help with
the screening and and every everything
[1:31:44] else. If if it's a 30 acre plot on a 100
acre, that has a very different impact
[1:31:50] than 30 acres on a a 40acre parcel.
>> I I'm again quickly trying to search,
[1:31:56] but it looks here as if um because it
doesn't contain any special lot coverage
[1:32:01] provisions. It goes back to the area and
bulk regulations of that district. Uh in
[1:32:06] the B district, the maximum lot coverage
is 75%.
[1:32:10] Uh maximum impervious surface coverage
is 80%. Um, so again, we can review this
[1:32:17] and be sure that that's accurate. Um,
but it looks like a data center, the way
[1:32:22] this is currently drafted, the data
center would have up to 75% lot
[1:32:26] coverage.
>> And I was I but I was specifically
[1:32:29] looking at the solar.
>> Oh, solar. Uh, I don't I don't know that
[1:32:32] that uh again that may go back to the
zoning district standards. I can uh try
[1:32:37] to look up as well. Yeah, as it's
written right now, I think it was
[1:32:40] intended to go back to the base zoning
district, but it's definitely something
[1:32:44] we can look into.
>> Would the solar then be this if we if
[1:32:49] nothing changes, would that be the 75 or
the 80? Because solar panels are
[1:32:54] impervious?
>> Yes, it's uh there there's a whole D
[1:32:58] manual on how to handle impervious
surface coverage.
[1:33:01] » I'm not up on that. So, [laughter]
>> it's um
[1:33:05] » they don't let you question between the
panels anymore.
[1:33:10] That was all. But that was that was
again I I don't think we're doing
[1:33:13] anything with this tonight. So there
that was just a a question that I had to
[1:33:17] » No, that no that's appreciated. Um I I
guess maybe before I interrupt council
[1:33:22] if there are any other feedback or
questions.
[1:33:24] » Nope.
>> Um certainly a few things to go over
[1:33:27] here. Um
it may be helpful to have some direction
[1:33:31] from council. I think we can look into
these items, try to gather some
[1:33:35] feedback, uh talk with the solicitor,
address any maybe legal questions. Um,
[1:33:41] as far as next steps, again, uh, I would
assume we're not advertising tonight.
[1:33:46] That makes sense. Um, but that probably
wouldn't be ready even for a subsequent
[1:33:50] meeting. Um, we probably would have some
substantive changes to consider and may
[1:33:56] have to kind of, you know, go back to
the beginning of the process as far as
[1:34:00] uh, adopting the zoning ordinance. So,
for purposes of next steps, um I guess I
[1:34:06] just maybe want to hear from council
what you're looking for from staff. Do
[1:34:09] you want us to just investigate some of
the items that were discussed tonight
[1:34:12] and bring that [snorts] back to council
for consideration? Do you want us to try
[1:34:16] to take some of the that feedback and
build it out in any way as far as a
[1:34:21] draft goes or kind of just, you know,
where where you want us to start to chip
[1:34:26] away at things? I I think it would be
help I just my opinion so anybody else
[1:34:30] but to not have to go through this
process multiple times you know if I
[1:34:35] would s bring those items back to
council let council then maybe give the
[1:34:39] planning commission and staff more
direction
[1:34:43] um so that hopefully then you know they
and and you guys have you know clear
[1:34:48] directions from council on what you'd
want to we'd want to see in a next
[1:34:50] ordinance. So ideally it's not we're
coming back up again and it's still not
[1:34:55] there and we got to restart again.
>> Correct. That's I just don't want to be
[1:34:58] redundant and kind of spin some wheels.
That's all.
[1:35:01] » No, I agree with that.
>> Uh side bill Matt anything.
[1:35:06] » No, I agree with Michael. I I think you
know just bring it back to the table
[1:35:11] once it go back and get everything
corrected and then we'll go from there.
[1:35:16] » Yeah, I think smart.
>> All right. Any other questions from
[1:35:20] council?
Okay, that moves us on nothing under uh
[1:35:26] for workshop under public works and
parks. That moves us to our council
[1:35:30] action items. Uh nothing under
administration. That moves us to 14,
[1:35:35] which is community development. Uh can I
get a motion for 14A, please? Motion to
[1:35:42] approve SP-4-26
Kelsey building addition, a minor land
[1:35:48] development application for 414 square
foot addition to an existing business
[1:35:53] 0.218 acres 4225
Old William Pine Highway tax parcel
[1:36:00] 49-14-02-072
[1:36:06] Bzon
>> second.
[1:36:09] Thank you, Darren and Jamie. Mike,
>> uh, yes, this is a minor land
[1:36:13] development application, uh, 2 acres.
Uh, it's in the B district. Um, the
[1:36:18] application was to allow for the
construction of a 414
[1:36:23] square ft building addition. Uh, the
building is currently 2,175
[1:36:28] square ft. Under the Murray'sville
ordinance, any building additions
[1:36:32] greater than 10% require land
development approval from council. Uh
[1:36:36] there is no new imperous surface area
being created. Uh the addition will be
[1:36:41] on top of an existing imperous area. Uh
there's only one waiver that is being
[1:36:46] requested and that is to not install any
additional landscaping due to the
[1:36:51] narrowness of this parcel uh and how
it's situated. Uh the possibility any
[1:36:56] additional landscaping may interfere
with uh existing utilities easements um
[1:37:02] or have a negative effect on site
distances have both entrances. Again,
[1:37:06] this property is situated between Route
22 and the old highway. So, uh that is
[1:37:11] the only waiver being requested. Uh this
did go through the planning commission
[1:37:15] and receive a recommendation for
approval um as far a and including the
[1:37:21] landscaping waiver as well.
>> All right.
[1:37:27] Any questions from council in regards to
this?
[1:37:32] » All right. All in favor? I
>> opposed.
[1:37:35] » All right, that motion passes. That
moves us to 14B. Can I get a motion,
[1:37:40] please?
>> Motion to approve SP-5-26
[1:37:43] Coast and Main Building Addition, a
minor land development application for
[1:37:47] 678 ft addition to an existing building
uh 1.138 acres, 442 William Penn
[1:37:54] Highway, tax parcel 49-14-3-81
[1:37:59] Bzoning district.
>> Second.
[1:38:02] Oh, all right. We'll go Michael and
Matt. Um,
[1:38:07] and uh
just for correction, that's the that tax
[1:38:12] parcel. It was 181 at the end. It said
081.
[1:38:16] » Um,
>> it is 081. It's 0181. Yeah.
[1:38:21] » No. Yeah, I know. But he said 081
instead of 0181. So, just the correction
[1:38:27] there for that.
>> Nope. We're good. Uh, Mike. Uh, yes.
[1:38:30] pretty straightforward. This one is
similar to the last one. This is on
[1:38:34] route 22, 1.1 acre parcel. Uh they are
uh seeking uh this is in the B district.
[1:38:41] Um they are seeking construction of a
678 square foot building addition.
[1:38:46] Again, this addition um falls under the
same provisions. Any u addition greater
[1:38:52] than 10% uh requires land development
approval. Uh again, similar to the last
[1:38:57] one, no new impervious area is being
created. uh because this addition is on
[1:39:01] top of existing impervious area. Uh and
planning commission did review this
[1:39:06] matter and recommend approval to
council.
[1:39:11] » All right.
Any questions from council on this?
[1:39:16] I know people are excited to eat there.
[laughter] Um all right. All in favor?
[1:39:21] » I opposed.
>> All right. That motion passes. Um, as
[1:39:26] far as 14C, I believe we're going to
table this item. Everyone in council is
[1:39:32] good with that if we table this for
further discussion down the road.
[1:39:36] » Motion to table.
>> Yep. Motion to table. Yep. Can I get a
[1:39:39] motion?
>> Second.
[1:39:40] » All right. Thank you, Bill and Matt. All
in favor?
[1:39:44] » I
>> I
[1:39:45] » opposed. All right. So, we're going to
table 14 C for now. And that moves us to
[1:39:51] engineering. Uh, can I get a motion for
15A, please?
[1:39:57] » Motion to approve the renewal of the
conservation partnership agreement
[1:40:01] between the West Morland Conservation
District and Murray'sville.
[1:40:04] » Second.
>> All right. Thank you, Jamie and Darren.
[1:40:09] Uh, Mike.
>> Uh, yes. This is a 5-year agreement. It
[1:40:12] is up for renewal. Uh, Murray'sville
currently has an existing partnership
[1:40:16] agreement with the conservation
district. Uh they do provide plan review
[1:40:19] and inspection services for the various
construction projects uh throughout
[1:40:23] Murray'sville. Uh the conservation
district has applied for many growing
[1:40:27] greener grants for the municipality. Uh
they do not charge Murray'sville for
[1:40:32] review and approval of plans sent to
them for municipal projects and the
[1:40:36] conservation district does keep
Mury'sville prised of all earthmoving
[1:40:39] activities or other projects within the
municipal boundaries that are seeking
[1:40:43] approval through the the conservation
district. Um the engineer has reviewed
[1:40:48] this and um staff recommends approval uh
of the agreement. And just one minor
[1:40:55] note that the um MS4 technical
assistance program costs Murray'sville
[1:41:00] approximately $5,000 per year. Part of
this funding includes a technical
[1:41:04] assistance program through the
conservation district as well. So uh
[1:41:08] again, the engineer reviewed this and
recommends approval to continue uh our
[1:41:12] partnership with the conservation
district.
[1:41:17] All right. Any questions from council in
regards to this? All in favor? I
[1:41:23] opposed.
>> All right. That motion passes. Uh
[1:41:27] nothing under public works and parks. Uh
no old business. Uh no new business. Uh
[1:41:34] I do believe we are going to have an
executive session in regards to
[1:41:38] litigation.
>> Uh it would be uh let me see what I have
[1:41:42] written down here. uh be a legal issue.
>> Yeah, it would be a legal issue. Uh just
[1:41:47] briefly, I'll try to not
>> All right. So, there is going to be an
[1:41:50] executive session after this, but there
will be no action coming out of that
[1:41:54] executive session. Um and just before we
adjourn, the only thing I wanted to
[1:41:58] comment is just uh with this 25 years uh
coming up uh on 911, I just want to
[1:42:05] thank our first responders and just
encourage I know the mayor had said uh
[1:42:10] that that we're going to have that
event. Uh please I encourage all the
[1:42:13] community to come out and support those
people. There's a lot of reflection on
[1:42:17] those that lost a lot of lives and uh we
certainly appreciate everything that
[1:42:21] they've done.
>> Absolutely.
[1:42:23] » One more motion.
>> Motion to adjurnn.
[1:42:25] » Second.
>> All right. Thank you Jamie and Matt. All
[1:42:27] in favor?
>> I opposed. All right. That adjourns.
[1:42:32] Thank you.