Planning board backs draft data‑center ordinance, asks council to tighten definition and review timeframe

The Springfield Planning Board voted March 19 to recommend a draft zoning amendment that would add a definition for “data center,” mark data centers as not permitted in certain districts and require the town council to review the draft within two years.

Planner staff presented the amendment as chiefly clarifying the town’s existing position — that standalone data centers are not currently listed as a permitted use — and as an interim step while the town develops more tailored standards for power, cooling, noise buffering and site design. “The amendment is primarily clarifying in nature,” the planner said, urging that the town first determine whether and where this use should ever be permitted.

The vote followed more than an hour of public comment. Developers and landowners — including John Branca, who identified himself as part of the Hand City Investment/RJB Property development team — urged a shorter review window, arguing a two‑year “not permitted” label would make the town noncompetitive for prospective tenants. “Two years is a lifetime,” Branca said, and asked the board to consider a 90‑day review or a process of workshops and technical guardrails such as residential buffers and wastewater plans.

Other speakers, including Town Councilor Rachel Taube and longtime residents, supported the pause and called for research and safeguards. Taube told the board the ordinance was not a reaction to recent press about a local proposal and cited national examples of communities that have paused or opposed data‑center proposals because of concerns about energy demand, large water use, noise and generator emissions. “Communities have raised concerns in the following areas… energy, water, health concerns,” Taube said, summarizing research and examples she said show operational and public‑health risks.

Board members discussed options for tightening the definition so it would not capture incidental server rooms or other lawful uses, and they questioned whether a two‑year review should be framed as an outside limit or tied to interim accountability checks. Legal counsel noted that applicants could still seek a use variance or zone change but explained the legal bar for a use variance is high.

Ultimately the board approved a motion to forward the draft ordinance to the town council with two explicit requests: that staff and council tighten the data‑center definition to reduce ambiguity, and that the council study and report back on the length and process of the review period. The motion passed on a voice vote; no roll‑call tally was recorded in the hearing record.

The planner said staff will pursue a thorough, comparative review of how other municipalities regulate data centers and expects to consult experts where needed. The board closed the public‑comment portion of the meeting, agreed on proposed dates for upcoming comprehensive‑plan work and adjourned.

What happens next: the planning board’s advisory recommendation will go to the town council for final action; the council will decide whether to adopt the ordinance as drafted, amend it or decline it.