[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.

Council 9-2-26

Transcript