Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

So I can get home faster and get into it.

Do I know you people?

Y'all look familiar. We brought some troublemakers up in here. Trying to get as many troublemakers as we can.

Hi. Hi. How are y'alls? How are you?

Nice to meet you. Where are you?

I haven't seen you for a while.

Nice. like completely destroying the traffic pattern in that central they left the freaking generator in the middle of central street because they couldn't make the swim under Crosby. They left with their part.

And everybody's like, what the hell? What are you doing? You can't leave this here. Literally, all the traffic was like, what are you doing?

Not a care in the world. But when I came back from that, I saw a guy taking photos in the sidewalk. And I said, is that a curiosity? You work in the city of Lowell? He's like, yes, I do. And when I went up to my aunt's block, it was plastered right on the building that you're in violation. it was listed right there right on he put red tape and taped it right to the doors good it's about bloody time nice we'll get them for something right yeah Yeah, you get the, yes, yes.

Yeah, it was nice. So, tonight actually is one part of the... No, I'm kidding. No, I'm kidding. No, I'm kidding. I kind of signed this. You put it down.

I know, I don't know if we're gonna get out of it. Well, over there you're on the TV.

Well, that's why, because that's why we didn't sit there

Yeah, I'm going to go sit with Ray.

Let's sit over here. Let's sit over here.

I didn't want to be right behind you. Yeah, that's what I was like. I like to be behind the monitor because then I can see what's going on.

Are you guys also part of Honest Future for World? Yes. Cool. Are you guys all live near, um, Jiggy?

Uh, we all live around Markley.

Yeah.

Yeah. We live up the hill from here.

Okay. Thanks.

Did you change your mind? We know where to find her.

OK.

So anyway, water and . Extra water. Yeah. That's a smile.

Yeah. Yeah, definitely. Yeah.

Is it a single family home or is it... I didn't know if she lived in Atlanta or whatever.

Oh, no. Oh, no, no.

No, his sister has a beautiful home, and it's not really too close to that. And his sister-in-law is from Disneyland. Right. They have land that they built on. No wonder why. It's not where he wants to be. He wants to be more open-ended system. Gotcha. And he's not. The God in us gives us an insight to build on. Oh. And we don't want to lose that. No. No. So he can find a household by assisting them at some point.

I guess that's good. That's a good idea.

Is it 15 or 10?

15.

Cash? That's fine. Or you can Venmo.

What? Or you can Venmo. Or I can Venmo.

I can trust you. OK. Maybe. I don't know. I'm teasing you. Jake, what size do you have on you? Large.

I didn't wear mine tonight because I was so cold.

Me and you are going for, who's that cold? I was so cold, I thought, I'm not wearing that tonight. Cool. Hi. How are you all coming up?

Spent a busy time.

I don't know if I'm supposed to be sitting here.

I don't know if I'm supposed to be sitting here. They brought in two diesel engines to the center. And last Friday, one of the, um, they took hives. Like, people who are just non-English speaking, because they brought it through, like, a very densely populated road, they used a camera to film it today.

They had some detection physical today, too.

I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.

So tonight is all about

Yeah. Yeah.

So what's that?

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

So if these don't have the . Which they're supposed to have.

Because I believe these are supposed to have the same boxes on top of them. And they already start a smoke trap on one or two of the things. So because we're working on . There's evidence that another company is moving very fast.

Because the only time that they do this is . i mean Okay.

yeah we were like

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

So I was going to tell you if the podium here, just be cognizant of where you're sitting. If you want to get out of camera range, you can take the outside there, or you can take here. OK. Like these chairs? OK. The chairs or the back? Yeah, I don't know. Well, why don't we

So there's people who are from other countries. Hi. Sorry.

So I'm trying to figure out, like, what's the thing? You said it if it goes into the council.

Sorry?

Oh. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The energy. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I have one. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I jumped too far.

Can I have your attention please? We'll be starting up shortly. Good evening and welcome to the Lowell Planning Board for March 2nd, 2026. This meeting is being broadcasted live on Channel 6 and on the Lowell LTC YouTube page. The first matter on the agenda this evening would be the minutes of approval for the February 2nd, 2026 meeting. Any of the board members have any corrections or comments on the minutes? If not, I'll make a motion to approve. So moved to second, Mr. Chairman. Motion made in second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposition? Hearing none, the minutes are approved. Moving along on the agenda, we have a site plan review for 558 Gorm Street. The Lowell Planning Board will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an application by and LK home LLC to construct one type act and one duplex a total of 5 units at the above address the subject property is located in the urban make use the zoning district. The proposal requires a plan review the section 11.4 point to the low zoning ordinance for the development with more than 3 units in the special permit approval under section 11.3.2 for 4 to 6 dwelling units on a single lot in that you and you don't they would hit me up a complete.

I good evening. My name is Casey for with our Hudson associates here on behalf of the applicant NLK Holmes. I believe that applicant is listening online with us tonight. I am sure you are fairly familiar with the history of the project at this point. So I will just start off with at the conclusion of the last meeting, we have heard the concerns that the duplex garages would just be considered too tight to handle two cars within each garage so with that we've gone back and reduced the garages not in size not in shape and or any manner that way just in denotation that we're only denoting them to be single car garages Again, we have not actually physically reduced the size of anything. If a homeowner wanted to use it as a two-car garage and they could find a way to make that work, power to them. But as far as the permitting process goes, we are going to maintain it as a single-car garage. In doing so, we had to make up one surface parking space so that we could achieve the 10 required parking spaces for the site. If you'll see on the adjusted layout plan just adjacent to unit number three, we did have space, so we added a surface parking space just adjacent to that unit. Because unit four and unit five are the two spaces or the two units that wouldn't have the dedicated two garage parking spaces, It is anticipated that the two service parking spaces will be utilized by those two units. We have revised the landscaping to go around the new service parking space. We've revised the snow storage to accommodate the new service parking space. We also did include one small landscape wall just to adjust the grading around that surface parking space to make sure that the pavement from that space goes back into the drainage system of the of the Property all that all that drainage will continue to be treated just the way all the other impervious is and the last change that we made was I Included a sidewalk that goes around that triplex unit just to get to that rear door in the middle the only reason I did that was because that middle unit on the triplex is the only unit that that wouldn't have a shoveled walkway to all their doors. So I just included one walkway to go down to the back so that in any snow event, they'll have shoveled access to that rear door. I believe that that concludes the changes just so that we can achieve the 10 required parking spaces.

Okay, thank you, sir. At this point in time, I'll turn the hearing over to the public. Anybody here this evening like to speak in favor of this project? In favor? In favor? Hearing none. Anybody like to speak in opposition? In opposition? In opposition? Hearing none. At this point in time, I'll turn it over to the board members for any comments or questions.

Mr. Chairman, if I may. It's an interesting solution to what the concern was that we had. You are complying with the parking, right? 10 total parking spots within it. And I guess the other part of this is if they had smaller vehicles and they could fit two in there in the parking garage. We would end up with some extra spots on the site conceivably.

They're certainly free to do so, and that would just open up extra parking on the site if they wanted to do that.

But you're not counting on the fact that that, which was a concern we had, that that was...

Correct. We're not going to rely on the two parking spaces to meet our, or the two garage parking spaces to meet our requirements, but certainly if they want to use it that way, they're free to do so.

Now... Because I'll be honest with you, it wasn't clear to me what your resolution was because the plans that we had didn't really. So my question to you on the architectural plans that we're looking at. for the final submittal. It has the modifications that you did make, right? As far as moving the the door to the on the on the duplex uh the other you had a a door next to the garage door that you moved over to the side to create a little bit more room yep that's to expand the garage door from a 14 foot to a 16 foot so do you still have that correct that's what's not clear to me

Yep, we're still going to maintain that same orientation the exact same way we were. The only thing we're not denoting is that that's a two-car garage. We'll denote it as a single-car garage and leave the physical space of it to be the exact same as we were originally proposing.

So it would be the plans that were submitted on the January 11th, 2026 plan, is that right? And maybe it was clear to some of my colleagues, but it wasn't clear to me what was...

So all the changes that have been made for this discussion were made on the site plans. I didn't submit any new architecturals because I anticipated to leave the architecturals the same.

All right, so the architectural of January 11th then, okay.

And then the site plan should be dated February 22nd, if I am 23rd, if I'm reading that correctly on the stamp.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. No problem. Caleb?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, it seems like your solutions resolve the parking issue, so that's great. And just to confirm, there are no rear exits to the duplex, correct? They open on the side in front? The that's correct, yes, and so I recall there are no like stairwell or staircases on the back of either buildings.

That's correct as of this time, OK?

I think we have addressed other issues previously, so I have no further questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Caleb. Tony Tenza.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My concerns are probably the same as last hearing. One, I like the project. I like the three unit. I don't like the two unit. I think this board, I wasn't present, but I think this board approved four units. I think that's the right amount of units for the size of this lot. I don't find the storage of the snow probably sufficient. Where it's located, I mean, there's only so much room on this lot. And that's that's one of the issues. I also have received no information as far as the trash. It's my understanding it's supposed to be private. And I haven't seen anything on that. So my my inclination would be to approve for not five units. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Lucia. Any questions, comments?

Um, I appreciate the several iterations of this project that you've done, and I think overall the project is a benefit to the neighborhood. Um, and um, I do see that you found a solution to, um, the parking concerns or the parking garage concerns. Um, however, I noticed from the previous plans that, um, There's five feet less between the triplex and the duplex. So I'm just wondering if a swept path analysis was done. I know it was a comment with the initial when we approved it previously. But it looks like there's less room in between the duplex and the triplex.

There is the same amount of room. We haven't modified the location of the buildings for this iteration.

And has a swept path analysis been done?

For vehicular turning or for fire access?

For the fire department?

The fire department, yes. Okay. This is the same access that they previously approved.

Great. Thank you. That's all I have.

Thank you. This is on the question. I I I agree with Mister Ben and that it's a bit. Small of a space was 5 units. They for you that is the you know the the side that I would.

I know since the last couple meetings to become here. The concerns have been basically the training radius to get into the unit. And I know we spent time talking on that I mean you already have the approval for the 3. And then now you come in for it for the 2. And I know the last time that we spent a lot of time on we want to make sure the fire department had that access in the air and then I know the question was for the wide enough to get to cause in teach garage. I see how you modified that. The previous approval you already have the approval for the 4 yet that we in the one which we approved way back and then I know After that was approved. Project was sold off and now they come back with the additional extra unit. So as of now, yeah, I mean you have the approval for the 3 I know you work on that the 3 units as as it is my drive by the so just really coming down to next question will be whether allowed to do the second one. So that's the main concern the board will have to address in the site plan in the special permit which are in requested this evening.

Mr. Chairman, if I just may add, just looking at the zoning requirements, because that was one of the things I was looking at. Again, it's site plan review and special permit. Site plan review is pretty specific in the sense that we don't have a lot of latitude. Special permit, we do. and one of the concerns we had when we were exercising that latitude is with the turn into those parking garages for the duplex. However, looking straight at the dimensional requirements of the zone, The minimum lot area requirement in that zone per lot area is 3,400 square feet, and they're proposing 10,340. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 1,000, and they're providing 2,068. The lot frontage required is minimum is 55 feet. They're providing 110 feet. The minimum front yard setback is six feet. They're complying six feet, which we wanted to see because that's in compliance with how the area is developed and how properties sit on that roadway. Minimum side yard is three sum of 17. They're providing six feet sum of 17. so it's greater than requirement. The rear yard is 15 feet setback, and they're providing 16.2 feet. The parking requirement is 10 parking spaces. They are providing the 10 parking spaces. One could argue we had them reconfigure the garages. If smaller vehicles could get in there, they obviously would have some extra parking spots, but they're not representing it that way because we felt that was a concern. Um, they're meeting the requirement. They're meeting requirement of all the zoning, so it really becomes the concern we had was the layout with the parking trying to get two parking two cars into the those garages. That's not being proposed. So I, you know, Mr Chairman, if I'm following the zoning code and I'm following what's being presented, I Again, I had the same issues. We congratulated the prior applicant for reducing the units, but based on this reconfiguration, and quite frankly, the architectural renderings of these buildings, I think, fit in really nice. I think they're actually gonna be a pretty good addition. So from that perspective, I'm comfortable with the proposal, Mr. Chairman. And there were no, from the staff comments, there are no concerns from any of the staff across the board on this. So thank you.

Could I also just address some of the spatial concerns as well? I know one of the original concerns was the turning movements in and out of the garages, not just the garage sizes themselves. But I do want to address that the required parking aisle in this zone is 22 feet. We provide 22 feet, but then also an additional 13 feet in front of each unit. So the swept path for each vehicle getting in and out is plenty. Now, the reason we added that 13 feet is because we wanted to additionally provide parking space in front of each unit as if someone typically would if they have a townhouse, they have a garage, and they also have a driveway. The width of the lot did not allow for that. What we proposed in front of the original duplex, three iterations, five iterations ago, was to have one garage parking space and then also a parking space out front. Now we were told, similar to what we just agreed with with the two car garages, is that we cannot consider that a parking space because it blocked in the garage. but we didn't remove the physical space from the plan. So even though what we're denoting is 10 parking spaces, there is sufficient space on the site that will be out of the way and still meet all of the dimensional requirements for access. We're just only denoting 10 parking spaces that we've agreed that we could at least count.

Thank you. Anybody further have any comment? Okay, so the requesting a special permit and a and a site plan so we're going to have to we can it and they have to act on to vote. Maybe I have us one clerk to a Russian and to get it.

I see from the plan that there is mention of striping. And we obviously, as you mentioned, there are space that can park cars, but we don't want to block the fire truck access, for example. Are there any striping to denote no parking zone, et cetera?

So there aren't going to be any zones that we're going to denote as no parking because the only space that the fire truck actually needs is that 22 foot aisle, which I think is clearly going to be utilized because the garages will abut right up to that. The only striping that we are proposing is to denote the one parking space that's adjacent to unit number five. And that's just because we have a curb line on one side that then ties into the building. So we're just going to add that one stripe to denote that that is a one parking space, but there won't be any no parking.

I'm just wondering whether, you know, there will be some more obvious notice to the users and the owners that they shouldn't park in front of the garage for the triplex, like a sign or something. But I understand, I mean, they're all owners, so they're not...

Well, there's that as well. It's going to be governed by an HOA who has ownership units, right? So we can always put it on the HOA to enforce that there can be no blocking the fire access, which is just going to be that main drive aisle. I wouldn't want to discourage users, like if the Unit 5 owner wants to park their vehicle in front of their own garage and out of the way of that drive aisle, I don't want to discourage that. I can't use that to my parking calc per the engineering department requirements. But I don't want to discourage that with a no parking signage But we can certainly put on the HOA that they have to enforce, you know fire access.

Yeah, I will appreciate such a Provision on the HOA agreement.

Thank you Anybody else have a further comment? Not I think and since he was here to 2, 3 meetings ago, I think he done. He's address most all the issues that we raised about with the parking. Like I say the 3 units they've already approved just a question of the one of the 2, the question was getting in making certain that was too wide for the garage. I mean it wasn't like nothing to cause and he shows analysis of an SUV compared to a smaller car. So I think that he's addressed the issues that the main concerns we had. So I don't have a problem with. I'm proven the site plan as presented this evening as well as the special permit. Obviously, I'll hear from the board when we take a vote.

Mr Chairman, I'll start with the. Special permit because there's more latitude and put conditions on to that. I would make a motion to approve the special permit with the following conditions. The. The development will have a private trash pickup. The. Snow must be removed from the site in extreme snow conditions not to eliminate any parking spots as a result of accumulated snow. The homeowner association bylaws will state that fire access cannot be blocked. And applicant will work with, I believe wastewater had some comments about the video of existing conditions. So applicant to continue to work with wastewater in water department comments, Mr. Chairman.

Okay, we have a motion on the floor for the special permit. Second. Motion made and second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. A post and so we have. I mean if a month or Jimmy was in favor of the family Caleb who else will say it was in favor OK and it so we have 4 in favor any opposition.

opposition.

So we have 4 in favor and one against. So for the special permit. You know that needs a supermajority so that motion carries. Next matter be a motion for the site plan. I'll make a motion to approve the set site plan with the same conditions that were outlined in the special permit. Second motion motion second all in favor say aye aye aye aye. And any opposition opposed that one so on the site plan. We have 4 in favor and one against so the site plan to have these as well. Alexa wish you well, thank you very much. I know you've been here a few times. I'm sure I'll be back to what October was it.

I'm sure I'll be back. Thank you.

OK, move along on the agenda this evening. The next matter on the agenda is a public shade tree hearing 375 Merrimack Street, 652 Merrimack Street in accordance with Mass General Laws Chapter 87.5 and Chapter 260 of the Lowell Code of Ordinance. The Lowell Planning Board will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons. about the proposed removal of 9 trees in the vicinity of 3.75 ma'am x 3. Diameters of 12 inches 16 inches 6 inches 4 inches and one inch in one tree at 6, 5, 2, ma'am x 3 with a diameter of 6 inches. These trees that could be replaced by 22 new trees. The removal of these trees is necessary to provide safer, pedestrian crossing, updated bus stops and shelters, and bicycle infrastructures. May we hear from the applicant, please?

Hi, my name is Elizabeth Altman. I'm the city transportation engineer. I am requesting the removal of nine shade trees in conjunction with a project in front of City Hall to be replaced by 14 new trees and the removal of one six-inch tree at the intersection of Merrimack Street and Cabot Street in the vicinity. of 652 Merrimack Street and the replacement of that tree with eight new trees. The both projects are designed to reset the sidewalks to improve pedestrian crossings, improve pedestrian experience on these projects in the streets and to reset the curbing so that the drainage issues that are experienced currently are resolved.

Thank you very much. I like the pictures of the trees. It would make it easier with me out walking around with identifying a lot. I see with the signs on them so when we walked around we can find out exactly which ones they were. Thank you so at this point in time with anybody want to speak in favor of this. this tree hearing anybody here in favor in favor in favor hearing none anybody in opposition in opposition in opposition hearing none um i'll turn it over to the board any board members have any questions

Mr. Chair.

Sure, Lucia.

I just wanted to say, I am rarely in favor of removing trees. However, when you look at the reasons, ADA compliance, which is required, and then bus stops as well as storage if we want people to frequent our downtown I think that's important so and I also appreciate that you gave us the replanting of where the new trees will go that's all thank you thank you and any other board members have any comment Dan Thank You mr. chairman

Yeah, I do appreciate the fact that we did get the replanting plan. That makes a lot of difference. That certainly helps, shows that we are looking to be responsible with our natural resources. What I didn't understand is when I went out to the sites and I'm looking, I'm looking at a five to six foot wide between the building and the tree. So I'm not sure why the trees actually have to come out. I'm hearing that you're saying it's for pedestrian safety, for accessibility to reset the curbs. But I'm looking at it and saying, well, some of them were put in trees in a similar type position to where they were located. So I'm not really sure why we're taking the ones down that have grown.

In a lot of the locations, the curb has been the way that the road has been resurfaced or the road has just settled or the curb has settled. So there is no curb reveal, which is the main reason for water issues and why there's water ponding in the ADA ramps, why there's a lot of ice that is forming along the curb line. So what we have to do is basically pull out everything between the building and the curb, reset the curb in its new location and reapply the sidewalk to its required depth. So by the time we're doing all of that, it's not Good for the trees and it's better to remove the trees. Some of these trees are also not the best trees for the locations. So we're removing the trees and putting in trees that will respond better to the urban environment.

What are those trees you're going to be putting in?

There will be, in front of City Hall, we're proposing, and I'm not a tree expert by any means.

I'm just curious what's better for the city as compared to the country. I'm curious.

My understanding is you don't want a tree that has roots that go out. You want the trees... the roots to go down. So, um, in this case, when we replant the trees, they'll make sure that they take out enough soil that the tree can establish itself and the roots will go down rather than go out underneath, um, the sidewalk and pop up the sidewalk.

OK. And generally with those types of plantings, you're going to leave sufficient area for the tree to absorb nutrients and absorb water. And how big are those? I mean, you can't tell with this. You know, it's tiny.

Right there is there a standard four by four tree pit. So they are allow enough room for a new tree to establish itself and give it enough room to to grow without like I said, it'll go down. So it'll have plenty of room.

So basically from what I'm hearing is these trees aren't very good for the city. You want to take them out because it's more helpful and it's not really good for the trees if you're doing construction around them.

Correct.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you to tend to. Jerry any question almost that was that Caleb good.

I want to add a note of my observation to it seems like there will be some bike ramps that that is where the trees on the way right now and because the city is planning to extend the curb out further from the building and I interpreted that correctly correct. Yeah, I think that will help improve the biking infrastructure as stated in the notice. And so I concur with fellow board members that appreciate the replanting trees and see where they will be and also the thoughts that put into locating where they will be. That's very helpful for our review. Otherwise, it's kind of hard to to evaluate the replacement requirement. So thank you.

Thank you, Caleb. Mr. Sam, any questions?

No.

I'm in favor of the tree hearing on replacement. As I indicated, I went out and took a look at them all. And I mean, it's reasons stated why do we move them in the replanting plan. I have no problem with that at all. So I'll make a motion to approve. Second, this can say I I in the opposition. And then the motions allowed to let them take it and thank you very much appreciate your time you have a good night. They move along the agenda. We have a data set up moratorium. In accordance with Mass General Laws, Chapter 48, Section 5, the Lowell Planning Board will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an ordinance to amend the Code of Ordinances, City of Lowell, Massachusetts, with respect to Chapter 290, therefore entitled Lowell Zoning Code, by amending Article 2 definition to add a definition for data centers. Amending article 7, special regulations by inserting a new section 7.11, creating a 360-day moratorium of the development of data centers. And amending article 12, table of uses, by adding data center use that is prohibited in our zones so this is before us for a zoning recommendation so we hold the public hearing then we make a favorable or non-favorable non-binding recommendation back to the city council and the city council has the ultimate wisdom whether to approve this or not so it's as indicated it was referred to us for a public hearing let's see what else i have here um maybe is that anybody from the city presenting that's to us or just read us what we got i think that's what we have no okay um So the audience is basically at two pages where it's talking about a 360-day moratorium for the construction and development of the City of Lowell for data centers. And let me just try to highlight part of it. Said moratorium would prohibit acceptance by the City of Lowell of any new applications and permits for zoning permissions and decisions for the intended purpose of the development and operation of a data center should the low zoning code be amended prior to the expiration of the 360-day period to regulate data centers the moratorium shall terminate on the effective date of the amendment The moratorium period may be extended one time by a two-third vote of the City Council, not to exceed 180 days. During the term of the moratorium, City staff will review current zoning codes and regulations. seek recommendations and input from industry experts and professionals with specific knowledge on data centers and any impacts these facilities have on the community and to propose revisions to the Lowell Zoning Code when deemed appropriate to be placed before the Lowell City Council for consideration. The Department of Planning and Development should consult with other city departments to ensure any recommendations address the impact of power, water, sewer availability, and capacity limitations, noise, as well as any potential legal implications. Said re-recommendations shall also consider the impact of traffic and any other adverse impact on adjacent infrastructure. And that they should also be given to enforce the regulations fall in construction and development, including operational limitations, the reasonable intended to make that a concern of legitimate land uses the little department plan development will develop a timetable with the 360 day period to allow for. Recommendations and adoption of the amendment to the low zoning code and according to what the procedure said for mass general laws 40 a if during this study staffs fine include any provisions of the low zoning code required revisions recommendations should be made accordingly by the Lowell City Council. So I'm going to start off with asking anybody who like to speak in favor of the ordinance and we'll go to anybody like to speak in opposition to the ordinance. I just suggest was ever going to speak they just come to a microphone give us a name and address and set used to sign in sheet. But as a sign in sheet there at this point can we hear from anybody who's in favor of the data center moratorium.

How do you folks. All right. Well, I don't think I need introduction. For some of you folks, I've been here many, many times before, but my name is Jake Fortz. I'm at 36 Iowa Street in Lowell. I'm a Southside abutter to one big data center that has come before you many, many times, or at least, well, now four of you that are here. I can't speak for the other two. Hello. Nice to meet you. But the other folks that have been here have heard many, many times about how this place is noisy, how diesel engines popped up where they weren't supposed to be, and we've been trying to get it fixed ever since. You can't get somebody to sit down at a table when they just run through City Hall. That's what keeps on going on. You guys put some guardrails on them. Some. Not enough, but that's my personal opinion. The guardrails you put on said don't block the back gate. How often do you drive by there? Every time that you do, Monday through Friday, it's blocked. I have endless pictures to prove that it is, but nobody seems to care. You approved a whopping, I don't even know what, 27, 29, 30 diesel engines to be on that site. We can't even get basic safety protocols down. Not even basic. Keep the back gate open so that way their fire access can get in there so that we can at least pretend that the community is going to be safe having that much diesel engines, that much fuel on site. That's the only guardrail that you really gave this company. And they can't even get that right. And yet we keep going. Now, the last time I came here, there was an opportunity afterwards where you guys had spoken, and one person on this particular planning board had done some Google armchair research about what the noise levels do. I would encourage this board to go back and look at the actual factual data that has come out about living next to data centers and the health impacts that they have on the people that surround them. Not only that, we are suffering with increased electricity bills. Everybody is in the city of Lowell and throughout Massachusetts. We can't get a straight answer as to how much data centers in Lowell actually consume for electricity. All of us are paying for that. When they wanted to extend the polls to support this data center expansion that you guys approved the last time around, We have more telephone poles in our neighborhood than you know what to do with. And yet when you go to the property, do you see any of them? No. It's all subterranean going into their property, so it looks nice and beautiful. The rest of the neighborhood looks like crap. What was it supposed to be when they came to town 11 years ago? We'll lift up the whole neighborhood. Everything will be better. I'm still waiting. They have bought properties around them. There is a guy on Moore Street who owns a ton of property. Those are nicely landscaped. They look beautiful. Look at the properties that that particular data center has bought. They look like dumps. And today, they were actually fined twice over for not cleaning their sidewalks. What's that for a good neighbor? We can't even get like basic things done here, let alone the four diesel engines that popped up behind my house. Which year after year after year that they come here, I'm constantly asking you guys to do something to fix them. They were never supposed to be there to begin with. The original site plan, everybody knows they were supposed to be on the north side. I've come back every time and said we need to work on this, and yet nothing happens. It's like, yes, we raised the smokestacks up, but they're not high enough. The solution, we can't go any higher because the engines can't support it. Well, they weren't supposed to be there to begin with, so replace the engines. That's not a solution, so we just continue on. Something has to be done. That's why I'm here tonight, to support this moratorium, because this company is buying properties left and right all throughout the Sacred Heart neighborhood. We're under siege, and we need to have a clear discussion and guardrails, significant guardrails, put in place for data centers here in Lowell. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Belinda Duran, 109 Mansour Street. I'm speaking as a resident and a former engineer and lawyer who wants what's best for our city, including economic development and a safe place for our neighbors. Words matter and we can't be overly broad or any moratorium was likely to be struck down by courts and may chill attracting the kind of businesses and jobs that we want. We also shouldn't be overly narrow or we won't protect our residents. I fear that the proposed definition will inadvertently prohibit any commercial enterprise that is any business that houses computers. As written, as long as the intended primary use of the building is commercial and if it houses computers, it would be a prohibited data center. That could capture everything from a bank to a small business. um that has several pcs at a minimum i would suggest a modest change to the definition to tie commercial to the computers something along the lines of saying that a data center is a building or group of buildings whose primary intended use is the commercial housing operation or support of computing infrastructure or equipment But it may also be wiser to change the language to reflect the effects that we're worried about, which is the noise and other impacts that come from the infrastructure required for data centers with high electrical and cooling usage compared to the traditional 1980s style data centers that I grew up with. Ironically, I use ChatGPT, which is very ironic, to come up with a definition that tries to be neither too broad nor too narrow. And I can offer that definition, but it basically talks about the operation of buildings whose primary intended use is the operation of equipment for large-scale digital data processing or computational workloads and whose operation requires unusually high electrical loads and heat dissipation capacity relative to conventional data centers and with a definition for what a conventional data center is. In the end, defining a data center and having this moratorium is only the start of the work that's needed to balance the many needs of our city for tax revenue, good jobs, and quality of life. All relevant bodies will need to undertake a thorough and thoughtful process to get community input to find ways to buffer our residents from harmful impacts while ensuring that we achieve a strong tax base for future growth. We can learn from other regions of the country who are wrestling with the same issue and the impact of data centers on their communities, including Virginia and Northeastern Pennsylvania and many others, and from the many organizations that have written articles and broadcast webinars discussing these issues, including recently by Brookings Institution. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Jacqueline Coles. I'm at 7 Bourne Street, Lowell, Massachusetts, and I'm with the group. I apologize, I have a child outside that's having a little tantrum. But I am here in support of Honest Future for Lowell, and I'm just in support of what's happening here. I don't have a speech, but I just want to let you know who I am, and that I'm in solidarity in my address, and I am part of the group. I just wanted to make that known in public. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Mary Wambui and I live at 668 Princeton Boulevard in Lowell, Massachusetts. I'm here in support of the data center moratorium. And before I even go to my notes, I'd like to say that the negative impacts of being close to a data center are not new in Lowell.

We have neighbors here.

who actually have lived for the past 10 years feeling those negative impacts. So while we would even love to learn from Virginia and all these other places, we actually have our neighbors that have been coming to this planning board and to the city council and to many other places to tell their real law And so whatever the decision ends up being from this planning board meeting, it's important to note that we actually have lived experiences here in law, and that should be sufficient to make a decision going forward. Well, I'm supporting the 360-day moratorium for the following reasons. Number one is the immediate diesel threat. There's been, months ago, the city of Lower received a request from the Mackley Group to amend their fuel license. And if approved, this is going to bring about 168,000 gallons of hazardous fuel stored in a residential area. We need this pause to conduct the comprehensive study on fire safety that impacts that we really do not know. And I'm pretty sure the city did not know when it approved a data center in the middle of a residential area. So we do need this 360-day pause. Another reason why I'm supporting this moratorium is to prevent expansion by stealth. So we've already seen massive signals from MACLI of expanding, and that's through property acquisition in industrial zones and other things like buying residential buildings. And so it's important for the city to conduct or to have this moratorium so that it can prevent uncoordinated development while it performs its due diligence. We all talk about economic development benefit, but let's be honest. The economic development benefit that the current data center has provided to lower is a negative. Why is it a negative? It's because we gave them, I think, $70-something million of a tax break. And our city services and building of our local high school here is $40 million in the hole. So we need to be balanced about what we are calling economic development. One pocket in here and then holes on the other side. The other thing is infrastructure accountability. So the Department of Planning and Development is supposed to investigate impacts on energy, water and sewer capacity. We cannot manage what we do not measure. And we need this moratorium to lock in noise standards, buffer zones and financial safeguards. The other thing is an interesting thing that came out of the State House last week, which is making data centers actually pay for their energy infrastructure impacts. So we can do that if we don't know what's happening in our own neighborhood. To date, we don't know how much in energy Mark Lee consumes and how that affects our own ratepayer bills. So lower deserves a future that's built on responsible planning, not reactive policy. And I am asking the planning board to support this moratorium to ensure that the overall quality of our life remains a priority. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Eileen Castle, and I live at 64 Otis Street. And I've been before the committee before regarding Markley. But I know that I'm for this moratorium because I think it's time for all the city to start looking at what they have done to our neighborhood. when I came here before we discussed the fact that they wanted to put two cooling towers next to my house and you agreed to one of them and I know that there's nothing I can do but now we have two I don't believe they ever came back to you and asked you for another one So they keep doing this to us. What they do is they ask to do something. They don't tell us what they're going to do, but they come here. We have to come down here. We come down here as citizens that live next to them. We're trying to fight this fight so that we have Our lives, we don't get sick, we don't have fires, our children can walk around the street without worrying about what they inhale, and it's up to the city to stop some of this i understand we need to have a data center there but we don't need any more and what they're buying up is going to put us in a little hole and we're not going to be able to breathe eventually so i'm trying to make you understand and i hope you do that maybe what we need is to sit down as a city as residents and sit down with these people that want to come in as data centers and find out what is going to be best for us. What do we need as citizens? You wouldn't want it next to your house. I know you wouldn't because you said you wouldn't before. So now you need to start thinking about what you're doing in the future. They've got everything they want. All they need is more fuel, but they have everything else they want, and I think you need to start thinking about this, and we need to do something about it for the citizens and not for the big business. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Hi, my name is Randall Sneed. I live at 63 Otis Street and I'm in favor of this moratorium. Mainly because when data centers first came to Lowell 11 years ago that I don't believe the city was even fully aware of what the impact of a data center might be when the original approval was. We need to have guidelines in place as to how we're going to do with data centers These very large server farms that have what they're going to be doing and the impact that it has on the citizens of Lowell and The entire state and country as it goes through we can be a benchmark By going through with this moratorium getting the proper guidelines in place so that we can have rules set down as to what is right and proper to do. So as I stated, I am in favor of this moratorium.

Thank you, sir.

Good evening. My name is Christine Crutcher. I live at 1975 Middlesex Street, number 7. And I'm here as a city resident and volunteer of 350 of Greater Lowell, which is a climate action, climate justice group. So got a few remarks, a lot of what some other people have already said. Lowell currently has no zoning regulations specific to data centers, even though these facilities have major impacts on electricity, water, and public safety infrastructure. Data centers require enormous amounts of energy and often rely on diesel backup generators, which increases greenhouse gas emissions and directly contributes to climate change. At the local level, that also means more air pollution in a city where asthma rates are already high and many residents are vulnerable to poor air quality. These facilities are not typical industrial uses. Allowing them without clear rules puts both our infrastructure and public health at risk. In addition, there are additional in addition, there are concerns that neighbors here have said that need to be addressed. A temporary moratorium is a responsible planning tool that gives the city time to study climate health infrastructure impacts and to create thoughtful regulations that protects residents and ensures development aligns with Lowell's long term goals. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Alex Lange and I own 21 Robinson Street and 15 Robinson Street. I just want to be here because I want to support the moratorium on its future law and against everything that has to do with Markley. They completely ignore us. We ask them to sit down with us to try to resolve things in a good manner. They completely ignore us, go behind our backs. they're just completely not interested in really to have a resolution with us uh you guys are our leaders you know they're supposed to speak for us uh i don't like to have 27 generators next to my house my trees i've been there 23 years And I appreciate it if they don't send me more letters to buy my home, especially under price. So, like you see, I have trees around my house and they are dying. After 23 years, my trees, all the leaves are dying. Besides that, I have a problem with my lungs too. We have a school in the corner, and I have a kid coming, and I'm worried about that I'm gonna have 27 generators near to my house. We have also a school there, so I don't know how any of you can even cross the mind. You're going to have a kid, a corner, where the school is contaminated with 27 generators. It's just absurd. Also, we have so many technologies today to be able to look other things that is not 27 generators. They have Tesla batteries. They have other things that we can use. They have solar. They have many things. They have to use 27 generators to pollute everything. Like you don't care what anybody breathe. I really wanted to call all of you today because I wanted to know how our leaders can sleep at night when we have a school next to Berkeley with 27 generators and you guys don't speak out, don't say something. Because it bothers us. We've been there. We have kids. We have families. I don't really against data center, I'm against what they use for fuel. 27 generators, they can use something also. They can use generators that are not that loud and they don't use gas oil. So it's like the damage that they do into our neighborhood. And also what I read was that they gonna put the water on the river. And the brook, the water they use. That kind of make me a little nervous. I don't know about you, but if you cook in Lowell or you live in Lowell, you should worry about this water have to be examined. The air quality have to be examined. And I haven't seen any air quality. 27 generators, they have one, but produce one, but want to produce 27 of them. So I please, as the leaders, I want you to really speak for us. We put you there. And we're gonna vote for people that actually listen to us. Thank you very much, thank you. Thank you, sir.

Hello. My name is Nancy Forts. I lived at 36 Iowa Street and I'm in favor of this moratorium. I think it's a start because Mark Lee coming to town has, we've had experience of what they go ahead and do even though they don't have approval for. And this has been going on for almost 11 years now. and also too about the four generators i live on this on the uh where those four generators are on the south side they were never supposed to be there in the original plan they were supposed to be on the north side and we were told by the um whoever he was at the time the situation is fluid Well, it's so fluid that we have diesel smoke and fumes coming from those four generators that they were not supposed to be there. And because Markley has sort of shown a bad side of these data centers, we need regulations to regulate these people Yes, probably we need data centers, but we also need to be considered in the neighborhood, and that's why I'm in favor of this moratorium. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am.

Sean McDonough, 61 Market Street, 3D, private resident, no official capacity. I wasn't planning on speaking tonight. I do, just as my phone has been blowing up, think it is important to share that Lowell is not the only community facing this ongoing issue with data centers. There is another planning board meeting tonight in Everett to discuss a very similar issue. moratorium. And one thing that I've learned in talking to people in that community is that Lowell has become something of a cautionary tale in communities around Massachusetts, not just in Everett. where we were an early adopter of a data center, and I don't think anyone at that time had any idea what kind of impact that would have on the city. And as I've spoken to people, both in Everett and in other towns and cities around Massachusetts, I keep hearing them, and obviously, if they're reaching out to me, it's because they're curious about, well, it's where I live. But things like the water usage, the amount of water that we're using, where that water is going, and whether we are dumping it in a brook or not, the impact on the local electric rate, the cost that that might have to rate payers, the impact on the neighborhood. And over the last 10 years, I think we have learned that we need this time to figure out what rules to put in place so that going forward, we're not faced with continued problems. And if other communities can look to what has happened in Lowell and say, hey, we don't want that here. We need to learn from that so that when we have data centers develop it does not have the impact that Marklea's had, then I think Lowell, we need to be able to learn from our own example and say, yeah, we do need to take a deep breath and figure out a regulatory framework here that can support our city. My only question for this, my only question and concern is just, you're the planning board. It's your job to decide, first to interpret a lot of our zoning rules and figure out how something sites in. Companies that build data centers have an obscene amount of money and can afford very good lawyers, and I support this moratorium. I just want to make sure that the definitions in the language would hold up to your standards and would also, in your judgment, hold up in court. Any recommendations that you have to whoever it is that passes this thing in the end I think would be appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

this down for sure. Good evening. My name is Kim Scott. I live at 27 Commonwealth Ave. And I'm also here speaking solely as a private resident from South Lowell. I'm here to support the temporary pause of the moratorium for data centers. For me, it's not about stopping progress in any way, shape, or form. It's just time for us to take a pause to catch up. As was brought up, I mean, this really kind of hit us really by surprise, you know, the expansion of data centers. And I don't think that we've had time to catch up with that. Right now our zoning code doesn't even have a formal definition of data center in it, and this was just recently highlighted by the city consultants that were hired. So a brief moratorium would allow the city time, the things that I find are important, to review the adequate locations and that the infrastructure is in place to support them. Review of the impacts on our electricity and our water rates and whether or not they are passed on to rate payers in any way, shape, or form. on noise requirements. It's something that's been brought up over and over again about the equipment. And also so that we can create buffers so that large pieces of equipment aren't directly abutting residents' homes. I ask that we take a moment to look at all of these things. I would ask recommend anyone that's unsure to take a ride down Otis and Bourne Street. I know you all have driven down Otis and Bourne Street. Would you want that in your backyard? There's massive cooling towers right in people's backyards, directly behind their homes. They actually mist down on their cars, on the people when they're walking in and out. the feel of the street it looks like a prison the wall on bourne street in my opinion all the trees that used to be there are all gone um i don't think that was ever part of you know the plan on those type of things so i think they need to be looked at and i would respectfully ask for you to support the pause thank you thank you anybody else like to speak favor the moratorium

I LIVE AT 618 STEPHEN STREET AND I'M SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THIS MORATORIUM. I EMPLORE YOU TO CONSIDER IT TO GIVE THE CITY A CHANCE TO REALLY CATCH ITS BREATH. Data centers are definitely a hot topic and we're seeing effects in other places and in this city. So it would really put the city in more of an offensive stance instead of a reactionary stance for when Mark Lee or any other DATA CENTER DEVELOPER COMES IN FRONT OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR PROPOSALS TO EXPAND. IT WOULD ALSO ALLOW THE CITY TO DETERMINE WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD ALLOW FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR RESIDENTS AND THESE NEIGHBORS AND OUR CITY AS A WHOLE. This is a city that prides itself on outreach and community collaboration. So I'd love to see this moratorium give a chance to really explore opportunity for partnership research and really getting this right and maybe turning the narrative around and being a leader and showing how we can explore things like battery storage feasibility and bringing their own clean energy to town to to help mitigate these really negative effects that have shown themselves so far. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else like to speak in favor of the moratorium? In favor in favor of that hearing that this time anybody like to speak in opposition. For the what it's really an opposition opposition not that they can have a 9. This point to turn over the board members.

Mr. Chairman, if I may. Yes, Mr. Vichette. First of all, I want to thank everyone for coming out here this evening to speak on behalf of the moratorium. As the chairman did say, this is a non-binding vote recommendation from this body. Then this would go to the City Council for public hearing and adoption. I certainly would encourage you to also speak before the City Council at their public hearing. Clearly this is something that we have struggled with for some time and I think it certainly is warranted based on what we've seen the expansion of these data centers, and really what's causing this to take a whole other level is the development of AI, and AI is developing faster than we can even fathom at this point, and the demands that that's putting on the system. When everybody hears about the cloud or the cloud, it just seems like some arbitrary place, but the cloud is a big place that has a lot of service. sitting in it and that's what this data center is um so um in the process the cooling process um you know they're trying to find cost-effective ways to to to come up with that um just i think we municipalities are just starting to understand the demand on uh infrastructure within the communities that have these I think the moratoriums, as long as you have a moratorium in place, some towns will try to put a moratorium to prevent housing, single family homes. If you don't have something in place in the zoning to address something, In most cases, the moratorium will hold because that's that you're asking to have the time to actually develop the zoning requirements in the guidelines. So from that perspective, I am not an attorney dealing with the zoning aspect of it, but that really would be the purpose. And we clearly do not have anything in our zoning code that really addresses the data center. So that really, the purpose seems to be what the intended purpose of moratoriums are. The I I will tell you it's it's needed for even our the city as a whole. I was looking at the comment letter that we received every time a project comes before us. We have comment letter from DPD and it's from all the departments and on that last. proposal from Markley Group, we had the comments from all the departments. We had them from the sustainability comments. Since air quality related issues are under jurisdiction of MassDEP, the sustainability division does not have specific comments related to this element of the proposed application. The fire department, I have no problems with this project as presented. I met with the Markley Group to discuss maintaining the fire lane around the building. They will also need permitting from the hazardous materials lieutenant in my office and for fuel storage for the new generators. They are aware of this requirement. I have reviewed and revised plan for new courtyard and parking lot. After discussion with Markley Group, this plan will meet our minimum standards for fire access. The police department had no problems. This is a secure gate facility. Communications with department maintains current contact information in the event of emergency, no other issues or comments. now we're looking at a lot of this and we're saying well gee you know from a fire perspective there should be a greater concern um i think perhaps there needs to be some understanding from that perspective the air quality uh was outside of the purview you know comes before us for site plan review site plan review does not give a a board a lot of uh latitude there is the zoning requirements for how buildings layout, access, and so. So even requiring maybe a special permit for this as the development of whatever the zoning code is gonna look like, I think is going to be helpful. That gives land use boards a little bit more, And I think that a lot of the issues that were brought up even during the various hearings, every time there was an attempt to get some professional comments and guidance, it always came back, well, that was the state requirement, it meets the state requirement. Our local officials were, they were okay with what they were looking at. So it's the appropriate time to take a look at this. It's drawing the attention across the country, I think, at this point. And a lot of it has to do with AI and the demand that it's putting on these centers now. It is really exploding. So from that perspective, I think it's high time for it. uh... looking at the ordinance i'm assuming obviously the solicitors office working with DPD uh... had put this together i would have liked to have a presentation from somebody from the city uh... i'm disappointed in that to be very very honest with you and i think it would have been enlightening for everybody sitting here it would have been enlightening for me and i would have had some actually some questions but one of the uh... one of the comments this evening for one of the speakers is that at least I believe the perception is or the intent is that this moratorium is also going to prevent any expansion of existing data center. I'm looking at the wording. I don't know if it thoroughly addresses that. And I think where it The intent is where it possibly addresses it. If you intend to say it, then I suspect, why don't you just say it? But it says there is a... HEREBY IMPOSED EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, AND THIS IS SECTION 2, AND IT'S SUBSECTION 2 OF SECTION 2. THEY ARE HEREBY IMPOSED EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY A 360-DAY MORATORIUM ON ANY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS, OF DATA CENTERS. Excuse me as defined above said moratorium prohibits acceptance by the city of Lowell of any new applications and permits for zoning permissions and decisions for the intended purpose of the development and operation of a data center. I believe that wording is attempting to capture anything that's existing. But I don't think it would hurt to specifically, if the intent is to make sure that there's nothing that happens at the current data center, there's no expansion during this moratorium, probably would be helpful and I would be looking at it as a recommendation for wording to clarify that. If that's what you mean, then say it that way. It was, there was some housekeeping issues as far as, and I obviously would incorporate the, using the subsection 12.9W that is in the table of uses. And then there was also, was brought up about the definition of a data center. I think perhaps that was addressed in the version we have, I don't know. And Belinda Geron, you were the one that brought up the wording of the definition. If you wouldn't mind, I just want to make sure, at least the copy that we're looking at, the definition of data centers, it says a building or series of buildings with the intended primary use being commercial. And I thought, I believe you specifically wanted to see that wording, is that correct?

So the way it's phrased is that the intended primary use of the building or series of buildings has to be commercial. And then it goes on, and those buildings house and support high-performance servers. So my concern is that a bank, actually, perfect, you're a banker, a bank is a building with the intended primary use being commercial. It's certainly not a nonprofit or educational. And if that bank houses and supports high-performance servers, storage systems, networking equipment, et cetera, which banks do to store, process, and distribute data and applications, I think a bank would be captured here. So that's the concern I have with the language, and the proposal at a minimum would be simply to make the, let me grab it here. Again, this may not be the right solution for dealing with all of the concerns that residents and everybody has, but I think it would be that it's a building, or if we stick with the language, series of buildings whose primary intended use is the commercial housing operation or support.

um so the primary use would be that commercial activity around you know computer equipment not banking or other i i would agree yeah no and it's actually uh commercial housing in support yeah it's it's it's eliminating one word and creating yeah absolutely just moving a few of the words around to emphasize i would agree i would agree thank you All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's all the comments I have.

Thank you, Mr. Vichette. Caleb? Thank you, Chairman.

Yeah, I'm also seeking more information from, I also sought more information from DBD and a little disappointed that we got nothing on that. I hear the public concern remarkably, but I want to note that even if we have zoning changes, that does not change the existing approval of what they can operate within for now. And some of the concerns I would think it's related to enforcement, and I would think while this address some of the more forward-looking concerns, the existing concerns and political noncompliance, anything I think should be raised to enforcement agency and keep pursuing it and make sure that like Mark Lee and any other, you know, any landowners in low will be um will comply with um what is approved and zoning ordinance as well um that being said uh i shared um member for chest uh comment about um there are many things that uh data center um their impacts that the same I not really have addressed in the zoning ordinance, including there is no listed in the definition of the units itself, which I We agree with Member Frechette and also Berlinda on their narrowing of the definition to be a little more defined, but that not being on the book is, I think, is a concern. And also, when mentioned about generators, currently, I mean, there's no really... difference as we review site plan that like backup generators versus like whether they are power plant and i think with um the way data center is designed today uh that is a valid concern um especially as i recall um from the uh site plan review that they do have permit from DEP on and they can portray their usage as emergency only and so that they can only use like, you know, categorize the emissions as in very small period. which comply with their policy. And I think for data center with a large number of generators they need for continuous power, I think that needs to be looking to further and address if there is any inadequacy of mitigating those impacts. think for the water issues or um all the alleged um dumping of water i think there's permits related to that regulations related to that and um i think any neighbors who are concerned should um check with dep on if there is any observations of that happening and and because i will think that they will need a permit for that um i do not know whether they have a permit So, I think in hearing all of the comments, I will think that this moratorium has to be more than just Markley Group, right? Because, I mean, Markley Group issues are more related to the site plan that we reveal and in existing units. I want to highlight that there are other issues and also probably possibilities where there might be newcomers that might show up in low. So I think moratorium will get the city prepared for those situations as well. So I hear the concerns. I would like more information from the Department of Planning and Development, but I understand that there is the need of the moratorium. So I'll stop it there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Caleb. Attorney Tenza?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to also thank everybody for coming out. One of the things that we see in today's day and age is the need for voices to be heard. All of the crazy things that are going on in this country and in the world, it is important that you voice your opinion. Doesn't mean we're always going to get our way, whether it be me or you or anyone else. But it is important that you give your voice and vote. One of the speakers, I think, put it appropriately. It's just this chance to stop and figure out how we should proceed going forward. They indicated that 11 years ago, they didn't know. They probably didn't know. All of these things that we're hearing across the country, you didn't hear 11 years ago. You're hearing it now. You're hearing about all the problems or potential difficulties that these data centers pose. One of the big things I think that should be addressed moving forward is the enforcement mechanism. Everybody's mentioned it tonight, pretty much. I think that should be addressed in any city council ordinance. What is going to be the enforcement of these regulations? Nothing is any good unless you have teeth in it. A lot of the things that were raised, noise, air, a lot of them are guided by state regulations, the Department of Environmental Protection. we could set our own standards. We could decide that we don't agree with those and we could have something else. So I think it is a good idea. I think, I like other members were surprised that the city didn't put on a presentation as to why this is important. But they didn't need to because all of you did it. You expressed your viewpoints. You expressed that it's personal. You expressed what the impacts are and that there is a need for doing this in a scientific method. Not we want coal because I like coal. We're doing it in a way that actually matters. We should do it with fact basis, not because I have the opinion that nobody needs a vaccine. So I appreciate all of you coming out. Once again, I appreciate and hope that you continue to be voices, whether it's regarding to this or everything that's going on in this country. We need voices to speak up. So I thank you very much for your time. I am in support of this moratorium. I did appreciate what Member Frechette and Ms. Duran brought up. I do think we could put forward a different definition to the city council. I think with regard to the implementation, we simply need to add an and or operation of a data center to capture what we're talking about. So I look forward to hearing what everyone else has to say. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Lucia?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think a moratorium on data centers is a forward-thinking initiative by our city council. It's important that we assess how a data center would impact our energy infrastructure, water consumption, health concerns such as emissions and drinking water. and the effect on ratepayers before we allow more into our city. And if we do allow data centers in the future, this will give us time to shape regulations where we control the narrative of all those concerns. Um, I'm also hopeful that a moratorium will catch on at the state level. I know that in Vermont there's a bill introduced right now for a five year moratorium on data centers. Um, and they do have a definition, but it's AI data centers. Um, with regard to a definition, I wonder if focusing on wattage usage might help better define what a data center is. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Sa?

I heard your concern, and I agree with the board member that, you know, we're going to put any input that we can put on, you know, enforcement, looking at environment and looking at, you know, the location. And making sure that what's expressed tonight will be sent to the city council to make sure that any changes we want. So that's my input there. Thank you.

Thank you I'm in favor of the moratorium I do believe I'm giving this a definitely a second look at what planning staff can do as well as indicated how they can In the city department work with all the city departments and recommendations and in fact from power water sewage and and capacity limitations noise as well as potential legal implications also very important would be the emphasis on the enforcement of the regulations um which we really don't see much about zoning at all it basically tells us what the zoning is but it doesn't really lay out what the um regulations are for enforcement um i think um the main part when after Department of planning and development develop a timetable to bring the matter back to Council hopefully for a new ordinance for the zoning that the very to be very clear and precise. usually for all our ordinances they go before the law department and they look at them and they draft them up to what they think meets the legal um standards but as mr bichette says if you're going to say something simple just say it's simple um Instead of putting words in there that can be turned one way or another, just say it like it is and leave out the ambiguity of people arguing about it later. But the fact that have us look into the fact of how we can make this a safer community, I think that falls under what we do every day under our site plan, which is always for the health, safety, and welfare of the people. And for that reason, I'm totally in favor of the moratorium. So at this point we'll make a plentiful and make them. The recommendation to the Council either in favor or against and then they will hold a public hearing. Maybe we know when this matter goes back before the Council on this.

I believe it's next March 10th.

That's on my from anybody who's sitting in him might have an idea what the council gender may be much 10 for the next Tuesday.

least that's what i have in the uh okay so um mr chairman can i just uh comment a little bit yeah we do have a couple of counselors here um in in some of the members have touched on it as well um some of the issues had to do with more enforcement as well um and moratorium will be on crafting zoning outline but whatever whoever you employ whether it's a consultant or the city DPD itself sustainability committee whatever the case may be I think you need to also separate from the zoning have some sort of Some sort of accountability as to how you're going to enforce some of whatever may be surrounding these facilities. I think that's been, I mean the neighbors can talk to that point more than I can, how that's been an issue. So I think that's something that has to be looked at. Another aspect of this is the community agreements. I think that's huge. I think that that's, if it is going to be, if they are a drain on resources, and they are settling here or any other community, what is the community gonna get back from this? And many of these places that come in even get tax breaks as to get them in, get a business, get a property up and going. So obviously what can be negotiated similar to the cannabis operations that enter into agreements with communities. So I think those are important aspects, but it was highlighted by several people here that there is a difference between the enforcement and what this is looking to do here. But I just wanted to kind of accentuate that, Mr. Chairman.

So we need a motion to... Mr. Chairman, before we vote, should we or could we, because I don't know, what Member Frechette mentioned is I think we as a board have an obligation to say, yes, we want to forward this to the council, but we also think these are important, and these should be addressed. um we're not telling the council what to do nope nope but we are giving our input into what actually affects the community and and you and we feel it right so yeah so a lot of times what we do is we can make a recommendation and then highlight the reasons that follows our recommendation i'll leave that number for chat

Looking forward. Motion, Mr. Chairman? Yes. All right, I'll make a motion to recommend a positive, to send a positive recommendation to the Lowell City Council to adopt the PROPOSED MORATORIUM WITH FOLLOWING CONSIDERATION. AND AGAIN, THIS WOULD BE RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION RELATIVE TO THE DEFINITION OF DATA CENTERS. HIGHLIGHTING THE REFERENCE TO THE INTENDED PRIMARY USE BEING COMMERCIAL AND THEN HAS THE COMMA AND THEN IT SAYS the the housing and support so to to uh examine the verbiage so that it is for the commercial housing and supporting of high performance servers so because commercial and then the the comma and again attorneys live with language shall and must and may have a big big difference in the meanings is um it is specifically Not for facilities for commercial housing and supporting, not just a commercial building, a commercial operation, but a commercial housing in support of high performance and goes along with the definition. I think the solicitor's office has to look at that along with DPD. And also, if the intended purpose of this moratorium is to also put a moratorium on any expansion of the existing data center beyond what's already been approved, I think that should be clearly stated in section two, subsection two of the proposed change. Would recommend that verbiage be adjusted. AND THE OBVIOUSLY THE RECOMMENDATION THEY MADE THE ADJUSTMENT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR THE TABLE OF USES OF 12.9 W. AND THAT WOULD BE relative to the ordinance itself. Beyond that, to Member Tanzar's point, is that also in the communication to the City Council is to highlight within the testimony here, and we have experienced numerous times over the years with our existing experience with the data center is that the council should explore a better facility for enforcement of any conditions that are placed on a facility such as this. think that's important and then it is noted that's part of the reason why you put a moratorium is the importance of some sort of community agreement where there would be some benefit to the community in cases where a facility like this is looking to locate within the city limits that would be my recommendations i would second that long-winded motion you want to read it back to you

I don't think I could describe all of that, but I had all my boxes checked off. All right, he got that, he got that. So I'd second that motion.

Motion to floor and second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposition? Hearing none, the motion carries. Good luck and thank you everybody. Come down and speak. Appreciate it. Okay, what do we got next here?

all right moving along on the agenda uh under other business any of the board members have any follow-up communication mr chairman if i if i may a couple just uh there was a notice uh put out that uh thursday night march 5th at uh 6 p.m there will be a meeting in the city council chambers a joint meeting of the zoning subcommittee and the neighborhood subcommittee And it is to take up a document that was presented to the city council earlier in 2025, a major review of the existing zoning codes for the city. uh and uh that if you can recall i was voted in as the representative here for this body for the committee that will be overseeing that but uh it is going to that that committee uh so uh looking forward to that i plan on attending that will be this thursday uh at 6 p.m and then i also have an update uh on the rook bridge In the month of March, a matter of fact, this week, you're going to see the continued construction of the temporary access platforms on the north side of the Merrimack River and preparing the existing work zone on the south side. They've got a mobilization of the cranes, barges, and construction equipment to the north side work zone and into the Merrimack River. They'll be conducting test borings on the river at future bridge pier locations. Selective tree removal on Middlesex Street and Wood Street extensions to support utility relocation. So the first time you're going to start to see some work on that other side of the bridge. And National Grid will relocate electrical utilities along the north side of the Tucker Boulevard at the bridge. And then also if you notice on the agenda of tomorrow night's city council, it was a motion by Mayor Gitcher was to place a live stream camera on the site, a 360 degree camera so you can monitor the progression of the site. So I've seen that other construction sites pretty good. Eventually you end up with time lapse of photography and what takes five years to build, you can recap and 60 seconds. So that's the update on the Rourke Bridge and looking forward to the progress on that and looking forward to that zoning subcommittee. So that's something you can watch at night now? And be able to tune into the... Member Tanzar will be able to watch the progression of the bridge.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank Member Frechette for the Rockbridge update. It is important to let the city know that it's actually happening. This has been going on since the late 90s, so it's been a long time. So to see it hopefully come to fruition. I still have some doubts, but I'm glad we're getting progress. It's all good. Just a one quick update. The Community Preservation Committee is meeting, I think on the 5th at the same time. um to go over the applications for the community preservation funds we're going to make a recommendation to the city council we're going to decide what the recommendations are going to be this thursday so we'll have more next time we meet

OK. I have is that tomorrow's election day. Don't forget to vote for a new state's local senator. That's on the ballot tomorrow. I'm about the whole city. I'm that I'm I'll make a motion to adjourn. I have to say aye aye motion carries we have adjourned good night and thank you everyone.

Thank you.