Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

To start the Planning Commission meeting for Wednesday, July 1st at 535. Sorry about the five minute delay, but it did give us a chance to catch up with each other a little bit. I'd like to ask for a motion for approval of the minutes from June 17th, 2026.

I would like to make that motion to approve the minutes.

And I will second that motion. Okay, all in favor of saying aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Okay, the minutes have been approved for June 17th, 2026. Agenda item number three, subdivision land development, part A, 221 North Prince Street minor plan. The 221 North Prince Street minor plan was recorded as a minor plan in May of 2024. The developer is currently seeking to amend this plan due to a change in use on the first floor from entirely commercial to mixed use commercial and residential. As a minor plan, the Planning Commission action is not required. However, comments and recommendations will be considered by the staff prior to granting unconditional approval. Again, this is not for vote, but I'd like to hear what we have.

Good evening. Yes, so seeking approval to... Start with your name. I'm sorry. Paul Miller, owner of property. Seeking approval to redevelop the 220 North Prince Street and actually have a commercial on the first floor level and residential on the levels above it. It's a little bit of adjustment to what it says there. But previously, the land development plan showed commercial in the front half and more of a rooming house scenario. And I'm looking to revise that to have apartments in that building as opposed to the rooming houses.

Correct me if I'm wrong, was this related to the PCAD or never?

That was prior to me. That was, I think, one of the paths that they tried to go down.

So for clarity then, what you're coming before us with is not necessarily changing the amount of square footage for commercial, but it's changing the usage of the residential on that floor? Correct. Correct.

And last time, you gave us a reason for that. It was because of a lot of storefronts that were empty in the area. Is that the case? So that was... Yeah, for a different... That's a building next door.

Yep. So the building next door was 100% residential. This was actually... I'm sorry. This is actually sticking with, I think, the preferred use of having commercial on lower level, the street-facing level. Perfect. So that would stay commercial and the levels above that would be residential.

Thank you for that clarification Can you give some explanation as to why you're moving the eight bike whatever the bicycle? allocation was prior to eight bicycle spaces, but from the interior to the exterior and

Just for pure utilization of the building and the way it's laid out, it was kind of clunky to try to get the bicycles in the building. So the engineer opted, or I guess architect rather, opted actually accommodation architect and talking to our current residents in the other building what they prefer. They preferred more the space exterior.

Can you describe the primary demographic that this building is targeting from a rental perspective?

It would be. I guess combination of college kids new new families. Right combination more the studio and the one bedroom apartments.

Yeah and that's what I kind of assumed and I'm just a little disappointed considering the demographic that you're targeting for that building that the bicycle spaces are moving to the exterior only because bikes are expensive and some people are real into it and it's a great way to get around this town. So I would just encourage you to reconsider moving that back to the interior space as well as keeping spaces on the exterior.

Okay.

Any additional comments from the planning commissioners? Would it be appropriate to ask for public comment at this point?

Sure.

All right. I would love to open it up for the public as well. If you have any comments on this. All right. Well, we do have a full agenda and we appreciate your time coming in today. And, um, You have been heard. Mr. Chair, I think we did have one hand up. Oh my goodness, I'm so sorry. Come right up to the microphone and just state your name. And I am so sorry.

Hi, I'm Natalia. Yeah, I just want to support this because we need more residential housing. So I'm in favor of it.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Any further comment? I'm moving my head a little slower this time to make sure we didn't miss anyone. Okay. Again, thank you for your time and your, um, the comments have been heard and passed on will be passed on to the planning staff.

Thank you. Have a good evening.

All right. Agenda item three B park city waivers for tree removal and replanting. The developer seeks to remove 13 trees along Harrisburg Pike. In return, the developer will plant 26 new larger trees in the right-of-way tree strip along the southern side of Plaza Boulevard, northwest and north of Park City Center. Tree species will require approval by the city urban forester, and the new trees will be planted to city standards. And again, just please introduce yourself.

Hello, my name is Kyle Grindstaff with ELA Group.

And I'm Pat Derrick. I represent the owner of the mall.

We are here tonight to request two waivers for the Park City Center. The first one is to amend the previously recorded plan that was recorded in August 2024. And the second waiver is to submit an amended plan that does not adhere to the landscape requirements. Some little back story. Park City was looking to subdivide their lots or their lot into four. In doing so, they had to plant street trees along their property. 13 of those occur along old Harrisburg Pike, right just south of Ashley Furniture. And currently those 13 trees are blocking the electronic billboard so talking with the urban forester we were trying to find a solution of Where can we replant those 13 trees that we are looking to remove? In doing so we kind of settled on the Plaza Boulevard grass strip just closer to this old Sears building. And working with him, we were able to place 26 new trees that would work in that area. And they're all native trees. So we're looking to get these waivers. I do have handouts if you guys wanna see the plans at all.

Yes, please bring them up. Perhaps as a commission we can multitask a little bit while he's handing those out if we have any questions.

I think I'm curious on the city's perspective on this.

Just give me one second pulling it up for the audience. Oh, sorry, I actually don't have a map to pull up or a drawing to pull up. this uh this plan was worked on um very specifically with our urban forester to make sure that it um we we dealt with the wording of the waiver very specifically to address the saldo ordinance requirements and that was really you know the driver behind this and so essentially what it is there's a a section of the saldo that allows for plan amendments and specifically it says that you can't amend um landscape and so by pulling out trees you are amending landscape and so um that's what one waiver is for so the waiver is to address the fact that typically you cannot amend landscape and here we are permitting amending the landscape and then the other the next one is because we are then turning around and planting those trees on a different part of the property and so it's it's to allow for that to move forward and so again this was very we were very specific with regard to the saldo in how we kind of manage the plan.

I guess the only question I would have as part of this, and it might be a question for Lauren, it might be a question more for the property management. If in the future anything gets done with that portion of property where Sears is, they'd be required to plant those trees. Does that sound about right? Because it would still be a street frontage then.

They would be required to plant which trees?

The trees right now where they want to move the 26 trees to if they in the future do any anything with that property, they would have been required to plant trees. So it seems like we wouldn't really gain anything. We'd still lose the 13 trees.

So I can kind of speak on that. Please do. The 26 trees are currently spaced at 50 feet apart. So if they were to ever develop it per the city standards, they have to be 25 feet apart. So there is room in between each of those trees to eventually do whether it's more additional large canopy trees or understory trees to help supplement that that street tree.

Usually I would like when I'm kind of running this a little bit to ask for more questions, but I work right there and I drive by it every day and I don't necessarily see the problem with those trees that are there. I tried so hard to imagine this as being a scenario that would be a problem. And I, from every point of view that I looked at, I cannot see those trees there, even if they do grow miraculously tall in the next couple of years, blocking things like it seems.

So I was there all day today. I took photos driving by and we do have a digital asset out there and that's the concern. Right. Like a digital asset a digital board up in the Park City sign. I mean they're fairly small right now but if you're in the right lane and you're driving there you miss the sign because these these trees are starting to sprout they're leaving. And we did work closely with the urban forester to make sure that the new spot is actually a more preferred spot where we'll get more coverage. Um, we tried to relocate them on the existing parcel, but all of the leases that are within that Plaza prohibit us from doing so. And the, the current revenue that we have on the digital board is now at risk, right?

And that, and we're talking about the digital board that is physically behind the buildings in a wooded area, that one.

It's not in a wooded area. It's, it's behind the buildings, but it's right out along the road.

Okay.

Um, and Lamar, uh, is our tenant on that and they have brought this up as a specific issue. Um, so that is what we were trying to fix here. Um, park city has been the highest property taxpayer generator of sales taxes last 20, 30 years. Um, So we're trying to continue that partnership and to me I think when we spoke with city staff and when we spoke with the urban forester it seemed like a good compromise to remove these 13 and find an agreeable spot elsewhere where there's more coverage of pavement when the canopies grow.

Do we have any comment from the Planning Commission.

You said you have a photo.

I've also pulled up the map so if you want to explain where the digital sign is.

Think it's here.

It should be on the right side, Lauren. Nope, I'm going the wrong way. Other way, yep. There it is.

The conversation needs to be able to be heard by the public. And so there shouldn't be any discussion happening up here.

Thank you. So I'd just like to ask, what are the species that are actually sitting there right now?

So they are currently all native. From my recollection, it's I think six or seven different native species that are currently along Harrisburg Pike.

And usually if we know what the species are, we have projections in terms of how big over a period of time, what's their maximum scale and size?

So we try to do large canopy trees, whether or not they're under... overhead wires there is a ton of overhead wires here so eventually they will have to be trimmed down kind of lollipop so even when they do mature they're going to be kind of topped off and then they're still going to spread out and still be an obstruction to the billboard and forgive me if my ignorance when were these planted and what's the expectation for maturity Um, so these were planted in, I want to say spring of 2025. So they've been in a ground for a little time. Um, the maturity, um, some of them will can reach it in 20 years. Some of them a little bit longer than that.

Okay. Understood. Okay. Thanks.

When was the signage installed? Was that before the trees or after?

Yeah that was that was well before the trees. Definitely a miss when we went through the subdivision process. What personally was not involved at the time. So we're trying to rectify the situation now. And again we worked with Mike Myers the urban forester got a letter of support from him on this to come up with an agreeable solution that we think actually is more beneficial for the community than what exists today. and keeps the revenue stream in place for us in the city.

Thank you. So the 26 trees we are proposing to plant, there's four different species, all fast growing, salt tolerant, so they should be able to do pretty well in the 9 to 10 foot strip of green grass that is there. And then provide canopy over the existing pavement and try to reduce some of the heat island effect that is going on with this swath of pavement that is back there.

And I was gonna say, I mean, it's never a good thing to try to take out 13 trees, but I will say, I don't think there's really anything in the back of the property in terms of tree coverage. So I think it certainly would be beneficial to establish some kind of tree coverage in the back of the mall property. So I just submit that for commissioner's consideration.

Any additional comment from the Planning Commission?

I guess my I'm not super keen on this removing the trees and moving them all that as also what Lauren was mentioning but I do like that you'll be adding doubling the number of trees so I mean at least there's that.

And I think the intent was doubling it, but the strip where they're going is a little narrower as well. So there'll be more coverage of pavement. So it was kind of the thought working with the planning staff.

If we have no additional comment from the planning commission, we can move it to public comment.

tony dash for 700 block new holland avenue this is not why i'm here today but i just want to say for the record that as a taxpaying city resident i'm very frustrated by the argument that a for-profit entity is mentioning how they've been the largest taxpayer in the city that is how taxes work you are the owner of the largest parcel of land in the city i'm sorry about it that is not a cogent argument for why we would be removing trees but that's I get the prerogative but also for the record I'm going to say that many residents who are taxpayers have tree problems a neighbor of mine had a tree collapse after approaching the city years ago about having it removed and they're getting their porch replaced so I think we as a city need to do better about trees thank you

Heidi Wenger, East Fulton Street. I just wonder if you have a plan to relocate the ones that you're removing. Is there anything, any way to save them elsewhere?

So we have looked at it. The Little Conestoga Trail that is adjacent to this property, we had looked at possibly donating them. Truthfully, we haven't really searched any alternatives, but it's something that we could possibly look at doing.

Well I think we're certainly open to moving the trees and speaking with Mike Myers he advised us to go with new trees in the new location. I don't have a preference on what we do with the old ones. He just said that he thought it would not be appropriate to take those and recycle those on site. So.

Any additional comment from the public.

I have one kind of, I suppose, piece of advice. I think, you know, what just one of our constituents just said, recycling, I mean, I would really encourage you to go out, even like Lancaster Conservancy, there are organizations around that we could try and recycle these somehow. I get with your plan, totally understood, but somehow... just trashing them, even if they are not fully mature by a long way and they're just in the ground, fine. But I think just trashing them, I think it would be a bit of a shame. So that's my advice. Thanks.

Yeah, happy to do so. Thanks.

Commissioners, do we have a move?

So you'll be voting on two separate waivers. And so the first waiver, the motion would be to approve the waiver to permit an amendment for landscaping, to approve an amendment to a plan due to a landscaping change. So that would be the first motion.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve an amendment to an existing land development plan due to a change in landscaping. Did I get that right?

Yep. Okay. I will second that motion.

All in favor say aye.

Should I not say aye since I missed the first 18 minutes?

Yeah, that's correct. Abstain.

Okay, I abstain.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Sorry, aye.

Aye.

And do we have a movement for the second portion of this? If we need clarity, Lauren, feel free to help us on that. And we are.

It would be a motion to approve the planting of trees on a parcel separate from the plan from the land development plan, the address of the land development plan.

I'll make a motion to approve the relocation of trees to another parcel that is separate from the land development plan.

I'll second that. All in favor say aye.

Abstain.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Nay.

Aye.

Aye.

And the ayes do have it. Thank you very much for your time. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Thank you.

And now we look at agenda item 3C, preliminary land development for 216 Greenfield Road. Ms. Finn, can you just bring it up just a little bit higher so I can read it better?

Yeah, there you go.

Right there?

All right.

216 greenfield road the existing site is bounded by route 30 on the east greenfield road on the south amtrak railway on the west and pitney road on the northwest as well as lancaster leaf tobacco of pennsylvania to the north the property had previously been utilized by donnelly for printing operations the southern western portion of the existing building will be retained and modified for a new data center. This plan was tabled by the Planning Commission on May 20th of 2026. Maybe introductions for those who may be unfamiliar.

Good evening, Cheryl Love with the LA Group.

I'm Jeff Sterla representing the Turner-Wolson Construction Team. Aiden Hayes with CTP.

Bernadette Hohenadl with Nicholson Hohenadl.

Good evening. As mentioned, we presented our plan on the 20th. We have received review comments. The plan is essentially similar to what we had presented at that point in time and at previous meetings. So there's been no substantial change to the plan itself other than cleaning up some of the review comments. We do have a memo that we can talk down through some of the items. As a reminder, we are increasing green space within the city portion by close to nine acres, planting 383 trees across the site, 117 bicycles provided, so we are providing quite significant improvements to the property itself from those aspects. Street trees, we have a request for a waiver related to street trees because of the existing conditions and some of the constraints on the site between utilities, easements, particularly along Greenfield Road, steep slopes, other existing vegetation. We are providing more than the required number of street trees and they will be within a street tree easement and that is documented in the plans and there are agreements that will go with that. We can walk down through comments and address from the memo if that is acceptable to the commission.

I do believe that is acceptable about how many comments are we looking at just to get an idea.

BASICALLY A PAGE AND THREE QUARTERS. THAT'S PERFECT.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE WASN'T ANYTHING NEW.

NO, NO, NO. THEY'RE VERY HIGH LEVEL. SO FROM A FIRE DEPARTMENT We have provided additional fire hydrants. I believe we have been working with your fire chief Hoffman and addressing his concerns or have addressed them. We do not believe there is anything that requires traffic commission approval, although it was listed in the letter. This is an existing driveway. We're not having any substantial change to that driveway, so I just want to note that we do not see anything that technically does require Traffic Commission approval, although it was in the letter. A PAYMENT OF PROBABLE COST FOR THE PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED. WE'RE WAITING FOR APPROVAL OF THAT. THAT'S GENERALLY SOMETHING THAT IS EXECUTED WITH THE FINAL PLAN. AGAIN, WE'RE A PRELIMINARY PLAN TONIGHT. Financial security will be posted as soon as that amount is reviewed and agreed upon by the city Transportation and pedestrian related items. We have a significant number of physical restrictions as mentioned along Greenfield Road and Um, we have worked and had separate meetings with city staff. Um, we are working on a fee in lieu agreement to provide funds towards trail and not providing that sidewalk, um, in that specific area. And, um, there was a mention about the loop detection replacements at the traffic signal agreeing field, and we will work towards upgrading that signal detection system as well. Um, PennDOT is a standard outside agency. We have had meetings with PennDOT and in the process of that. I would also note that as a reminder from the prior use, the traffic calculations indicate we will have a reduction of 2,823 less daily trips with this site's development than what the prior use had been in its use as a Donnelly printing area. We have worked with the city water department. We do not have any formal comments from them We will reach out to them separately and just ensure that they don't have any comments But none have been provided in any of the review letters, but we will double check on that we had worked with Brian Horner on some of the sewer areas. We are replacing a portion of existing force main in coordination with having worked with Brian. There was an additional section of clay sewer pipe. The plans now reflect replacing that as well. And we are confirming that he has free access through the site from Pitney Road to gain access to all of his. There are some city sewer lines down closer towards the Amtrak side on the lower west side of the rendering that you're looking at on the screen. So we have provided a route. We will firm that up and make sure he's acceptable of that. uh... stormwater comments uh... we have submitted to conservation district we're anticipating their approval in the early part of august uh... so we should have our NPDES permit soon uh... there's a comment about green roof disconnection credits we are providing fifteen thousand square feet of green roof Previously, it was on the east side of building two that was over top of parking. We have moved it on top of the building above administrative areas that maintain 15,000 square feet, and we added additional extra trees on the east side of that building where the green roof previously was, so we've increased the tree count there while maintaining the green roof. This is a housekeeping item to tabulate and take actual stormwater credit for that that was not showing in the chart. Same thing with some calculations to the BMP tables. They're looking for them in a different venue, so we will provide that on the drawing. All of our agreements have been provided to the city. In fact, they were first provided to us as standard agreements from the city. We have completed those agreements and returned them to the city. We await feedback on those Again, those are items normally handled during execution with final plan And prior to us recording plans those agreements also would be recorded and executed as a final plan item East Lampeter Township The storm basin upper left on that plan is the area within East Lampeter Township again as a reminder we had received their approvals and We're expanding a portion of that basin to accept some city stormwater flows because it infiltrates there and we can't infiltrate in other areas of our site. And we've worked with the township on that and their engineers. So they're on board with that approach as well. And then PennDOT stormwater approval where Building 2 is, upper right corner, there was an existing storm basin with a pipe that discharged just into PennDOT's right-of-way where the white strip of land is there right above where Route 30 is labeled on that plan. We are discharging to the same point. We're improving the situation there. We're putting a proper end wall in, and we're pulling the pipe back a little bit towards our property, so it is an improvement. And it just requires a utility HOP, which is a very standard approval that's normally generated within 30 days from PennDOT. So those are really the items that we are remaining to address. And we're open to questions. Otherwise, our plan is pretty straightforward at this point.

I definitely appreciate you going over with each of those items, especially so it's basically spoken into record and people here can hear that. And we've had our commitment as well. We've all read 108 pages of this, doing our homework for the last couple of weeks. So as I asked for comment and questions from the planning commission, know that we've also done our homework. Do we have any questions? I know we've gone over a lot the last couple times they've been here, but if we don't have any questions from the Planning Commission, I can definitely move to the public comment. I'm looking at you as well, don't worry.

I have a question for the team. What's your expectation for how many gallons are you going to be using per day on the site itself? Gallons of water? What's your expectation, gallons, estimates, initial?

I'm sorry, our estimate for this site, I think we're held to

The water is essentially, the water is not used for the cooling. It's recycled. We are not continuously using water. Correct, understood. So our water approval that we have relates to the people use in the building itself, and we do have that capacity.

I think it's a total of 20,000 gallons that we're allowed to use on a daily basis. Right. And most of it's going to be used, actually, because of what's happening in the buildings, there's dehumidification needed. So most of it's going to be used for dehumidification. Each one of those buildings will take somewhere between five, depending on what day it is, like a day like today. Obviously, the hotter the day, the more humidification, but it'll max out at about 7,000 for each one of those, 7,000 apiece for each building.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it.

so no water is being used to cool equipment correct it's a closed loop it's a closed loop system oh it's a okay gotcha um is is that system at a point where when these new chips come out, I think by 28 Feynman, we'll be consuming about 4,400 watts per actual die on a GPU. Are those systems set up for what's coming in the future? Because it is gonna be more power consumption fully immersed as well.

That's what's planned for building. Yep, gotcha, just wanted to confirm. And it's still, it's all liquid cool. As a matter of fact, it's even a little more efficient and so it uses a little less electricity to cool.

Thank you.

Additional comments from the commissioners? Well, I know we have a good turnout of public comment today related to this question. And we'd encourage you to come up and just like you've heard in the past, please state your name and your address.

and make a line at the microphone and we are here for your comments i will just um state that we ask that comments be limited to those that are of the purview of the planning commission this is not um open comments for like thoughts and feelings this is this is strictly an ordinance based decision tonight and so i encourage you to stick with land development ordinances

AND WE WOULD LIMIT THE COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES, PLEASE.

OKAY. WELL, I WILL DO MY BEST. MY NAME IS FRANK ARCOLIO. I LIVE IN THE 200 BLOCK OF OLD TRINITY PLACE HERE IN THE CITY. IT'S ALMOST BEEN AN ENTIRE YEAR SINCE I FIRST SPOKE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN JULY OF LAST YEAR. uh... there's been a lot of new faces on the on the planning commission so let me uh... recap a little bit from a history standpoint the administration with respect to this data center as well as the one on harrisburg pike uh... met on september twenty fourth twenty twenty four in a meeting that was not reported to anyone it was a secret meeting between at least the uh... the zoning officer and the developers uh... and i know that because on february eighteenth twenty twenty five there was a secret letter issued to the developers by the zoning officer that referred to that september meeting uh... it it basically green lighted all of the data center projects all of the phases uh... calling data centers warehouses now anyone with uh... you know a high school education will know that data centers are in fact not warehouses and in fact the planning commission at the time knew this and they wound up uh... asking the city administration to come to a meeting to explain how on earth DATA CENTERS COULD GET CLASSIFIED AS WAREHOUSES. MEANWHILE, I FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE ZONING HEARING BOARD BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT IS OBVIOUS THAT DATA CENTERS ARE NOT WAREHOUSES. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THE CITY IS NOW SAYING A DATA CENTER IS. IT'S A FACILITY WHOSE PRIMARY PURPOSE IS THE CENTRALIZED STORAGE PLANNED processing, management, or dissemination of digital data, information, or applications. EVEN IF WE MAKE THE IMPLAUSIBLE ARGUMENT THAT DATA IS EQUIVALENT TO GOODS AND THEREFORE WHAT HAPPENS IN A WAREHOUSE FOR GOODS CAN HAPPEN IN A DATA CENTER FOR DATA, EVEN SO THE WAREHOUSE ZONING CLASSIFICATION SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS PROCESSING WITH RESPECT TO ANY GOODS IN A WAREHOUSE. SO THE DATA CENTER DEFINITELY PROCESSES DATA BY THE CITY ZONE DEFINITION. so the result of my appeal is it never got heard there was a lawsuit filed against me and the zoning hearing board to prevent the appeal ultimately the judge ruled that the february 18th letter from the zoning officer was not in fact a zoning determination it was in fact an advisory opinion therefore there have been no determinations made to allow data centers right as warehouses so now we're at the point where you were being asked to approve a site development plan and as such you must also approve the zoning classification you must say your three minutes are up You must say that this is in fact a legitimate zoning use shoehorned in from the warehouse. Thank you.

Tony Dash with 700 Block and New Holland Avenue. So just jumping off where Frank was at. Yeah, you guys tonight decide whether or not this is a warehouse or not, because no determination has been made. And it is not outside of your purview to request Zoning Hearing Board give an official determination so that you can do your duties. I think it's the most appropriate venue to do it, because Frank has been denied his due process through the Zoning Hearing Board. You are the only body at this point that can give him that due process without pulling teeth. And furthermore, we've already noticed that the legal team will sue residents individually. This is quite literally big money interest coming into Lancaster and scaring the hell out of residents with whatever mechanism they can, including personal lawsuits for trying to express their civil rights. So it is incumbent on this body tonight, in my opinion, the only reasonable thing to do is to table this to allow the zoning and request that the zoning hearing board chime in. What is the use of this building? Is it a use provided for by our zoning code or is it a use not provided for and do they need to get a special exception? Because to Frank's point, these are all advisory opinions. And the NPC dictates, once you approve a preliminary or a final plan, that is when a determination is made. This has been the only body that's been receptive to the concerns of the residents. And so if a determination is being made tonight, it makes me go, well, based off the process we've already observed, do we need to appeal to the zoning hearing board about your determination? How does this work? Are we going to get sent through more legal loopholes? So we as the public are very respectfully asking that the Planning Commission tonight vote that they send this to Zoning Hearing Board for a determination on the use. Nothing about the plan. Is this a use provided for by the city's codes? Yes or no, Zoning Hearing Board. Thank you all for your time. You know how I feel about this very deeply.

Ryan Conklin, 34 Conestoga Boulevard.

My question is in a little bit of a different direction, but I don't want to detract from their very important questions. My question is more on the Pitney Road access. I drive by that property. Is that going to be a permanent stay, like entrance? And my question is more geared towards the fire department in the sense that they have two trucks, front line apparatus, that do not fit under the Greenfield Railroad Pass. And the best access for them right now is to drive through Pitney past the property over to Hempstead down Greenfield to the front entrance. And that's wasted time. So my question is, will the fire department have access off of Pitney from that entrance?

Yes, that access, that's the light gray that you see up there that is currently being used as a construction access point. That will be a permanent driveway. However, it is further within the site at the bottom portion of that stormwater basin that you see in dark green. There will be a security gate there, but it will be set up that it will be available for emergency services and others to be able to access into the site. These folks have worked very closely with the fire departments, the fire chiefs, and they have been working to educate them on how their accesses will work. And so to your point, it will provide a direct access to be allowed to get into the site from that side as well.

The whole site from Pitney?

Pitney can get in and around the whole perimeter as well as Greenfield for emergency services. Jeff?

But it will only be a, that entrance is not for the employees of the data center. It's simply for maintenance of the switch yard by PPL and for emergency services only. It's not an entrance for employees.

Hi my name is Chelsea Graham I'm on the 700 block of East Orange Street. I'm a little late to the game here. So I have a couple of questions. Sorry if this has been said or if it's public record. How many people do you plan to employ at this data center.

We've submitted 146 between both buildings in total and we have sewer capacities and and such that relate to that.

146 people total total full time employees spread across.

That would there are shifts there are lesser people on some of the other round-the-clock shifts But this isn't people working for like the company in general.

They're actually gonna be on-site Every day, they're not like remote employees or like there's gonna be How many parking spots did you say?

Our parking spots are compliant with zoning. We have 340 some parking spots. Not all of those will be used. We are doing them to be compliant with zoning within the site of the space that we have. Again, we have increased green space, but that is not set up to be the actual area. used number of parking spaces. So there is much excess striped on the site than what the actual place will be.

So twice the amount of paving for parking spaces than you actually need. Just want to clarify that. I have other points.

No, it is in areas we have striped parallel spaces on the areas between the buildings that are drives that are used by trucks and other vehicles.

Yeah, I can see how much space. It's a lot of gray. There's a lot of lot of trees on there too but it's really a lot of gray I think the I think the big concern that a lot of people have with data centers is that who is really who is this really gonna be employing and I think we see the trend of how AI is people are coding themselves out of their own jobs basically so I won't get into you know the don't know moral standpoint of ai i think most people in this room are already aware of that um but i'm an interior designer i've been working in the construction industry for about 30 seconds sorry um any plans for solar development or to balance out the electric use here or I mean bicycle racks are great and trees you know get ripped out and replaced all the time but the trees I will just say are required to remain viable. I was asking about electricity any plans for solar power or anything along those lines. Not on this specific site the chillers are on the roof of the buildings to maximize this is that something you'd be interested in looking into is a solar power may be on all the empty parking areas that you're going to have on site because people could also Park below those so I just think that that might be something that you know could be worth and just a reminder it is 3 minutes and usually public comment is more comment than question.

But if they are willing to answer those questions, of course, it is definitely on there. They can do that, but it's more comment.

OK, well, I'm just in order to thank you. I would just like to get a little bit of context. So and I think other people, you know, those are things that they might want to consider. So we could also comment, of course. So, yeah. Would anybody be interested in looking into solar power to kind of offset some of the utility usage at this site, especially if there is going to be a significant amount of paved area that is not probably going to be in use. That was a question.

The answer to that is yes, we have looked into that. We have engaged locally. Just last week I was speaking with Eric Souter who leads regional. We've had extensive conversations about how we can be a little bit, continue to consider other ways to be more green. We've already increased the amount of green space here by nine acres from what was previously there, so we're constantly looking out for that. There's a challenge in terms of putting it on the roof of the facilities due to the chillers that are up there, but we are continuing to explore further ways to make it more green.

Okay, because I think that that is something that, you know, we just want to see if this is going to go in, if there's actually a real strong initiative in looking into those things. So maybe at the next meeting, if we could have some report back on that, that'd be great. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Malachi, 300 block of West Orange Street. So I had researched some water statistics about data centers and stuff, and I'm also late to the party. And then I discovered you guys said you were doing a closed loop system. Have you done a risk assessment on what would happen if that would spill because you're really close to the Conestoga River? Because if we're...

The water system does not contain any glycol. It's simply water.

It's simply water that recycles itself?

It's simply water that flows through a closed-loop system.

Okay, but where does the water come from?

We have to truck it in because it needs to be ionized, which is simply removing the minerals from it. So we're not even filling the system initially with city water. We need to truck it in from a plant that ionizes it.

Okay, so then when you guys are done with that water, what do you do with it?

Done what?

like once it's like goes through your system, I'm sure it needs to be changed out. It just stays in there.

Just stays in the system. Okay.

All right. Um, and then I don't know that that kind of answers my question there, but, uh, I just don't understand how people can like look at a data center, um, or that space that used to be Donnelly that used to employ a bunch of, uh, local Lancaster residents and think that it's a wonderful idea to put a giant building there that like, You know, they couldn't even really answer how many jobs it was doing. But I know that Donnelly probably employed more than that. It just seems like a bunch of bells and whistles to, you know, make your guys feel good about, like, coming in here and, I don't know, heating stuff up, making it loud, data centers. I don't know. That's all I got. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Catherine from the 300 block of West Walnut Street. Public comment, I have high doubts that nine acres of manicured lawn is going to offset the ecological damage that this site will cause. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Cameron Robinson. I'm on the 200 block of Elma Street. Closed loop systems are dubious at best. They are Pretty theoretical at this point. I would just like to reiterate what Frank and Tony said. This has not been given due process. And if you all can move that forward and actually achieve that. I think we should really do that because this is a major major change for all of Lancaster County. Thank you.

Heidi Wenger, I don't really understand what the trees and the green spaces, it looks like greenwashing to me. It looks like the trees are surrounding the buildings to kind of hide them from passersby. I've lived in place a smart city in Asia, so I know all about this greenwashing stuff. And we are paving and covering up So much quality topsoil is really upsetting. Also, has anyone studied the effects of what data centers do to nature, to wildlife, to plants, to insects, to pollinators? let alone human beings, okay? I don't care how many jobs it's going to have or not have. That is like the least of my worries. I'm just concerned of what it's going to, all the damages it's going to do. You can blow the heat straight up, great. That's not going to contribute to global warming. And what was my other thought? Um, I don't know, this whole thing is so upsetting to have one here and another one by Longs Park. Have you considered what that's going to do to our, um, traditions of, of Sunday evening music to our ducks, to all the nature out there? I mean, I don't feel like anybody's really done their research. If I go on social media, all I see is the negative effects of data centers and the horrible things it's doing to people. And I will be living between two data centers and I just envision The pollinator gardens I've spent two years creating is going to lose its pollinators. The value of my property is going to plummet and I can see nothing good that will come out of this. Thanks.

good evening susie gomez 800 block of east orange street um i just wanted to comment on it as well um this plan was tabled on may 20th of 2016 but we the people in the city of lancaster know that it's been orchestrated we're not them so um The amount of statistics that is coming out for I would say years now, the fact that remains and it could be speculating but I was told or was researching that 80% of the data centers in China has been shut down, leaving them with a small amount of data centers that are actually in the ocean. I don't know how, you know, I don't, I'm not an expert on this. You guys are the ones in the driver's seat making these decisions, but there are lots of major issues with these data centers um it is very alarming um and we the taxpayers in the city of lancaster we have a voice we have children and we have a community that we protect and outside developers and outside investors. I truly believe we're being infiltrated at this point. So I am speaking on behalf of the public, my children, my grand babies, I am a grandma and just a conservative taxpayer, homeowner and concerned citizen. You know, I think that these, um, issues that are, Coming into our city need to be looked over with a third eye and being as though it's been tabled with no avail. I don't think it should be decided. So that's just my comment.

Thank you.

Taylor Raymond, 500 block of St. Joseph Street. But I also work in the Greenfield corporate area. So I live really close, or I work really close to the Greenfield data center site. I just wanted to echo Frank and Tony again. I really think that you should send this to the zoning hearing board so that they can make an official decision.

Oh, I'm really late to the party.

Sorry. Karen Meacham, 300 North Queen Street. I've had my battles with zoning for the last seven months. But I do want to ask one question because I don't know, because I haven't been paying attention to this. This is not going to be a for, it is a for-profit, and are they going to pay taxes? That's a problem, because I can't pay any more taxes on my building. It's just getting astronomical that there's no taxes being paid.

No, no.

That's the only thing I would think is kind of sad.

There's taxes being paid on this project.

The taxes.

Yeah.

And so school taxes for the city of Lancaster.

This is not, it's not a tax exempt and it has, it has no tax exemptions.

Okay. So you'll be paying your fair share of taxes.

Yes.

No. I mean, I'm hearing two different things. I was just curious. Cause I don't know. I was just, as far as I know.

Okay.

So they're still paying, they're going to pay property taxes, sales tax, construction pay sales tax construction. Okay. All right.

Thank you. What you're seeing here is paying sales tax, paying property tax, paying school tax.

Any additional comment from the public? Any follow up from the commissioners? Do we have any motions at this point from the Planning Commission?

Just as a reminder your options here are to approve outright to conditionally approve or to not approve.

If I may please we. We have had a preliminary plan under review since September. We have continued to work through items with the staff, with our reviews in addressing comments. There is an additional step in which for us to go in final plan, what we were seeking. RELATES TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAN AND WE HAVE A REQUEST FOR SECTION 26523B5 THAT THE ITEMS THAT I SPOKE TO TONIGHT would be moved into an agreement and would move toward final plan, at which point those items would continue to be addressed, the agreements would continue to be reviewed, fully staff reviewed, and work through that next phase, which is the additional step that takes us into final plan phase. It's essentially the same plan that moves forward. It relates to administrative items. and the items that I outlined tonight.

And a point of clarity for some who were not available for the last meeting we did have with them. The reason behind the tabling was there were how many items issued? Nine or so that had to be considered which we had not had our hands on. Mostly just memos of understanding some legal things that we just had not had the time to review but everything else had been on the table before that. So that is a point of clarification which you can see in both the minutes and

records of our stream in the archives what we had agreed to on that tabling at the time um i'm interested to know from the city if this plan meets um meets or is planning to meet all of the um requirements within the saldo

So at this point what we are seeing is that they are they're getting there and so we We understand the the position of seeking conditional approval at this point of the preliminary plan. What that will do is we will then draft a preliminary developers agreement. and it will require them to fulfill all of the remaining comments as part of the pro as any condition and so for any condition that means anything that has not yet been met IN THE REVIEW LETTER WHICH YOU ALL READ SO YOU HAVE THE REVIEW LETTER THAT WAS GENERATED TO SEE ALL OF THE COMMENTS FOR ANY COMMENTS THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN SATISFIED AND THEN THE MEMO um which just essentially outlined everything it just pulled it's exactly what was in the review letter it just pulled everything out and put it into bullet points to show you what has not yet been satisfied AND SO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN NEXT IS IF THERE'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, WE WOULD THEN DRAFT A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT. SO THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE PAST. AND SO GENERALLY A DEVELOPERS IT DOES NOT OCCUR UNTIL FINAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL BUT IN THIS INSTANCE WHAT WE WOULD ASK IS WE WOULD ASK FOR A FORMAL AGREEMENT OF FULFILLING ALL OF THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE OUTLINED THIS EVENING AS PART OF A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL. THEY WOULD THEN COME BACK FOR FINAL APPROVAL. AND AT THAT POINT THEY WILL HAVE HAD TO ADDRESS ALL OF THE COMMENTS FROM THIS CONDITIONAL APPROVAL AS WELL AS THE REQUIREMENTS OF A FINAL PLAN.

AND JUST TO CLARIFY, HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT THEN FROM A PRELIMINARY FINAL PLAN?

AND SO IT'S SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT BECAUSE A, IF THIS WAS A PRELIMINARY FINAL PLAN, IF IT HAD GONE THROUGH THAT WAY ALL THE WAY, IT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN THAT NUMBER ONE, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE HAD, THERE WOULD BE NO PRELIMINARY FORMAL AGREEMENT BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE JUST BEEN MOVED THROUGH. AND SO THAT'S KIND OF THE STOP GAP FOR US BECAUSE IF THEY TYPICALLY IF THEY GOT THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL THEY WOULD HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THEY fulfilled all of those requirements to then turn around and submit for final. And so that's what the waiver does. And so what we're saying is they need to wait. You would need to waive. You would need to agree, approve a waiver that would let them address all of the remaining comments together rather than having them address. And so that's what the preliminary would have done. And so essentially by submitting for the waiver, IT'S VERY SIMILAR BUT FOR THE BINDING AGREEMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO FULFILL ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS BEFORE PROCEEDING TO FINAL.

YEAH. AND CAN YOU JUST DESCRIBE YOUR STANCE OR THE CITY STANCE NOT YOUR SPECIFICALLY ON THIS PROJECT?

Yeah, so I mean, at this point, they are again fulfilling the ordinance requirements. They're not quite there yet, which is why the approval would be conditional as opposed to just an outright approval. But I mean, at this point, that's really kind of how the city sees it. Whereas last time when they were here, the city had said had had said, you know, maybe this is an appropriate time to table. At this point, there's not much more that they can provide toward a preliminary plan that's going to get them there. And so at this at this point, it is ready for your vote.

And that is a big burden for us, truly. We cannot vote without a motion though. So if any commissioner is willing to make a motion, we can proceed. And I do appreciate the clarity. We will have to, if we do get a motion for the first portion of it TO DO THE CONDITIONAL, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO MOVE ON TO WAIVER FOR THE REMAINDER. YEAH. SO WE DO HAVE BOTH OPTIONS. WE COULD DO A MOTION FOR STRAIGHT UP APPROVAL OR CONDITIONAL AS THE FIRST PART, AND THEN THE SECOND WE CAN DO A WAIVER IF WE GO CONDITIONALLY. YEAH. SO WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS, HOPEFULLY AT THE TABLE, WHICH YOU CAN BRING FORWARD.

I do have a question. I'm sorry. Are you ready? Do you have a comment? Okay. If it is, if we are not approving, what does that look like? Just for clarification.

If you do an outright denial, it sets them back to square one.

No?

Nope. Hold on. Betsy? Okay, they could appeal it, right.

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm.

you for the clarity can you say that again you have to approve it if what it meets the majority of the comments right and that's where miss finn earlier said that legally this is meeting we're planning to meet working to meet yes again this is right right and so again what we're looking at right now is the ordinances we're not looking at

Whether or not we agree with a data center, we are looking purely at the saldo and whether or not it meets the ordinances. That is the job of the Planning Commission.

Yes. I would like to make a motion to approve it conditionally, whatever those conditions are, and I need assistance in how to word that.

So what you would do is you would approve it with the condition that it satisfies all of the comments on the latest review letter. So I would like to make a motion. Yep, and yes.

I'll second that motion. We'll roll each motion separately with a vote.

So the first step, my understanding, is conditionally approve with the conditions that it satisfies all the comments in the latest review letter. Is that correct? Correct. OK. So that's my motion.

I second that motion.

All right. We do have a motion, and we do have a second. Planning commissioners, your vote, yay or nay?

I have to abstain from this vote.

Yay.

Yay.

Yay. Yay.

I know that you all are against this, and I know that you all come with heart and good reason, but legally they do meet all the requirements. And my unfortunate yay is a yay as well.

For the second half, the second portion, if we need to re-familiarize ourselves with the wording of that. Essentially, we have now the conditional approval before us. We now have to, I believe, present a waiver. Am I correct?

Correct.

All right. Do we have a motion?

So to clarify this waiver is what would allow the application to meet the requirements of the condition as part of their final plan as opposed to having to meet all of them. Get those all approved and then resubmit and so what they're trying to do is kind of streamline the process into fulfilling the requirements of the condition as well as the requirements of the final plan all in one so we will be making a motion essentially to Wave what we've been doing in the past so we can continue on with the final plan. Correct. I And of course with that with that waiver would be the the waiver is with the condition that they sign a preliminary developers agreement.

And again, we do need a motion to vote.

So the motion is to approve the waiver to continue to address the comments, the conditionary comments in the final plan.

I'll make a motion to approve the waiver that has been requested only as long as the plan meets all the city comments and the SALDO requirements as well as enter into a preliminary plan developer agreement with the city. Is that right?

I'll second.

All right. And the question, yay or nay?

Yay.

Abstain. Yay.

Yay.

Yay.

Yay.

Yay.

Okay. Thank you very much.

If I could just ask one question. There is an appendix B to the SALDO, which is the preliminary. That is essentially the same format as the agreement that we already submitted as the draft of the developer agreement. So that is the form that we should be utilizing. So the city has that draft.

Right, but this is going to be specific to... Well, I mean, yeah. Right, and so it will be a separate agreement.

Okay.

Mm-hmm.

separate agreement but same format yes okay and i'll talk to you about what the conditions yes okay thank you and thank you all for your public comment as well we will be moving on to other business agenda item four i see that there is none are there any changes to that

I can I can put it in other business or I can include it in my staff report. So either way to the staff report.

Okay Which is where we are now the staff report to the Planning Commission. Miss Finn provided updates on a few of the larger plans.

And so yes and so one comment before we get to any current land development plans is that we AS A DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN ASKED ABOUT REVIEWING THE EAST LAMPETER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WE HAVE REVIEWED IT BEFORE AND WHEN IT CAME IN ON ITS DRAFT VERSION WE HAD A LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT IT AND I KNOW PORTER CAN ATTEST TO THIS BECAUSE HE IN HIS DAY JOB HAD TO REVIEW THE SAME PLAN. AND SO WE HAVE BEEN ASKED AGAIN TO NOW REVIEW THE REVISED DRAFT. AND I WAS WONDERING IF I HAD ANY PLANNING COMMISSION VOLUNTEERS WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED IN REVIEWING THAT.

I ABSOLUTELY WOULD LOVE TO.

I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKE A LOOK TOO.

And I'll be reviewing it as my day job again, so I can share what I learned there too. You got to review it twice, man.

So Andrew and Emily?

Yeah.

That's great. That's perfect. Thank you.

Would we be allowed to talk outside this meeting to come up with a time for the three of us to do that? Yes. Yep. Okay. Thank you.

And then as far as other updates, I did include in your packet the most recent land development review update from CS Davidson, who is our consultant. I will say that we are, in terms of big plans, wrapping up the sketch plan review for the consolidated school for the uh school district of lancaster so that it's gonna is going to start making its way through land development probably in the next couple of weeks it'll still be a while before it makes its way here so be a lot of technical comments but just know that that is on its way um The other big one that we're working on right now is actually the city building at Pitney Road for the Department of Public Works. And so working a lot on that one as well. We've got a bunch of smaller plans making their way through. I think that that's all I really have to report.

LMP ran another article recently about countywide and citywide, the apartment projects that are coming through. And it is remarkable how many sometimes I think we get very narrow focus at what we're looking at here. And we obviously can't see the whole picture of the county, but it is encouraging to see that we're not the only ones building apartments. And I'm very encouraged to see that.

I can just add to that really quick. Please do. We anticipate Rebecca Geiser, who is our deputy director of community planning and economic development, she would like to present to the planning commission an update on the interim housing strategy sometime I would think in the next couple of months.

Thank you. Are there any ordinance amendment updates?

Yes. So first I'd like to say we did have a city council did have a second reading for the data center ordinance that you guys reviewed way back in September, October. Based on your memo and the planning comments we received from the county, several changes were made. The biggest one being that it's no longer would be a permitted use in the CM district. It would only be allowed in the suburban manufacturing. A decommissioning plan requirement is also added with funding requirements, financial security requirements. Trying to blank on. It's still recommended to be a special exception and not a conditional use, which I think was one of your requests was that it go to conditional use. But I think that was generally all the memo comments that you had that were changed, so.

I wasn't here last year for the memo. You said it was 2025, right?

Yeah.

Yeah. Why do we even have to let data center any more data centers?

We're required to legally allow any use in the city unless we had like a joint zoning ordinance or joint plan, I think. I think if we had a joint zoning ordinance with another municipality, then you can kind of change where the use is allowed. Yeah. But.

it is a requirement that in the state of pennsylvania i know there's other states and cities where they have banned data centers outright but we don't have that option in pennsylvania yeah i just i went through the comprehensive plan over the weekend and it i just couldn't ever i just in this five or six areas i just couldn't see an area where more of these boxes, building boxes, loud building boxes would be, would meet any of our goals for the comprehensive plan all the way down to improving the Conestoga river and the greenway there. So, um,

Yeah, unfortunately, the comprehensive plan is just a guiding document, not legislation. That's why we're going into the next part, which is the zoning and saldo ordinance updates. We're trying as best as we can to get through that process. Currently, the goal is for the consultants to be here on the at the August 19th Planning Commission meeting. Yeah, on the 19th of August. So. If anyone has any questions on that.

Any questions for the planning staff?

I just have a question for Betsy regarding the consultants being here on August 19th. What can we expect to hear from them at that meeting and not detail just like really high level bullet points?

Yeah, so they're kind of coming in to do a bunch of stakeholder interviews. So they might be asking questions of you on like your concerns with the current ordinances, issues that you've seen as planning commissioners that have come up over and over again, waivers that you've had to grant consistently. because of how our ordinance is set up, that type of thing. So they're really, they're currently in the audit process. So we've provided them all of our ordinances. They're not just looking at zoning and subdivision and land development. They're doing a more comprehensive review of anything that like our signs, ordinance, trees, stormwater, all of that. So they're really gonna be asking for like pain points. And if you have any recommendations on what we can do to improve those. And would you remind me the name of the consultant? It's Clarion Associates. They're based out of North Carolina.

Any additional comments or questions from the commission before we turn over for any additional public comment?

i don't know if this is the right time to say it but i do sadly have some news that this will probably be one of my last meetings as a planning commissioner um i will be stepping down as a member of the planning commission as just my work obligations and the fact that we have a third kid on the way due in early august um it's just getting to the point where IT'S HARD TO FIND TIME TO OPEN THE PACKETS MUCH LESS REALLY FEEL LIKE I'M KIND OF MY HEAD'S IN THE GAME SO I THINK IT'S TIME FOR ME TO STEP ASIDE AND LET SOMEONE WHO'S MORE ABLE TO FULLY COMMIT TO THE ROLE TO TAKE A SEAT IN THE COMMISSION BUT CERTAINLY BE AN HONOR AND PLEASURE TO WORK WITH ALL OF YOU ALL ON THIS COMMISSION AND I CERTAINLY WILL MISS COMING HERE.

HONESTLY, PORTER, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'VE DONE IT SO FAR. THAT IS AMAZING AND WE ALL THANK YOU. I'M VERY TIRED.

SO WE ARE RELUCTANTLY ACCEPTING PORTER'S RESIGNATION, BUT WE WILL BE LOOKING AT CONTINUING TO KEEP THE COMMISSION FULL. WE'RE LOOKING AT A COUPLE OF OPTIONS, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE POTENTIALLY RAISING UP OUR ALTERNATE AND OR IF THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO WORK, THEN PULLING UP A NEW COMMISSIONER. WE STILL ARE LOOKING FOR ADDITIONAL ALTERNATES AS WELL. AND SO IF YOU KNOW ANYBODY, I SAY THIS TO EVERYBODY, BUT, YOU KNOW, PORTER, IF YOU HAVE NEIGHBORS THAT um would like to join the commission we're always happy to take recommendations from you we do have a whole new system of bringing planning Commissioners on all of the boards and commissions now have to file a very streamlined process and so um but if you have names of people you would like to recommend I'm always happy to take them

I was even thinking a couple of years ago how Tony D'Astra was our number one commenter, public commenter, and how he became a member of the planning commission. And I'm always encouraged by that. And I would love to see many of you who have been faithfully, really faithfully commenting. It might hurt though, but I would love to see that. And I'd like to open it up for public comment.

Yeah, sometimes I consider that, but it just goes away very quickly. Frank Arcoglio, Old Trinity Place. I just want to say one more time that on February 18th, The zoning officer issued, which I think is an egregiously erroneous advisory opinion, saying that data centers are warehouses. Now, whether or not you like data centers or not is not really the point. The point is. Is that an acceptable use? Is wholesale trade and storage an acceptable classification for data centers? Obviously, you don't. Obviously, the city council doesn't, and even the city administration doesn't, because if it thought that data centers were warehouses, it would not be working on a data center-specific zoning amendment. So data centers are not warehouses. However, if this body, each and every one of you who vote yes to approving this is actually making an official determination, look it up, official determination that data centers are warehouses. And I find that unconscionable. I find that just an abuse of the English language and something that was done intentionally in order to scoot something through on the sly secretly in order for it not to get questioned until it was too late and that's exactly what happened and that's exactly what i've been against from day one whether you like data centers or not the process has been disingenuous and in my view fraudulent so thank you

Any additional public comment? All right. At 7.03, do we have a motion for adjournment?

So moved.

Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. All right. At 7.03, the Planning Commission meeting has been adjourned. Thank you all.