The board’s presentation of the master plan included demographic insights and zoning adjustments, such as reclassifying the office research zone to an innovation zone to accommodate current economic trends and technological advances. However, it was the data center proposal that captured the most attention. Residents raised numerous issues, including the environmental impact, energy consumption, and the overall process by which the project was being handled. One speaker highlighted the substantial water usage inherent to data centers, suggesting that even with a closed-loop system using 70% less water, the facility would still consume up to 1.5 million gallons daily. This was contrasted with the average household’s usage of around 300 gallons.

Concerns about the data center extended to its energy requirements, with one resident, identifying as an engineer, noting the facility’s anticipated power demand of 250 megawatts—equivalent to the energy needs of approximately 250,000 homes. This raised alarms about potential impacts on the local power grid and electricity pricing. The same resident pointed out the cancellation of offshore renewable energy projects, implying that such a demand could exacerbate existing energy challenges.

Speakers also questioned the planning board’s decision-making process and transparency. Some residents accused the board of not adequately engaging with the community or neighboring municipalities potentially affected by the development. Francine Ravioli from Union highlighted disruptions in her area due to related construction and inquired about any communication with affected towns like Cranford and Springfield. She presented evidence of pollution from nearby facilities and sought clarity on how her community could voice its concerns.

Another resident, Veronica Fernandez, recounted her family’s successful opposition to a data center in Andover, contrasting it with the process in Kenilworth, which she criticized as misleading and lacking in transparency. She mentioned circulating petitions to hold officials accountable for their decisions. This sentiment was echoed by Saul Atensio, who called the master plan an insult to the community’s intelligence and voiced worries about noise and environmental pollution, especially near Washington Elementary School.

The board’s response to public comments was measured, with members acknowledging the concerns raised and agreeing to defer the vote on the master plan for further review. One member emphasized that the master plan serves as a guiding concept rather than addressing specific development applications or zoning ordinances. Despite this, residents expressed dissatisfaction with the level of engagement and transparency from the board, urging more thorough communication and consideration of community input.

The meeting’s public comment portion revealed a notable divide between the planning board and residents regarding the prioritization of community needs and environmental considerations. Residents repeatedly emphasized the necessity of amending the master plan to prevent future data centers, advocating for specific restrictions and more rigorous review processes. They questioned whether the board had conducted necessary studies, such as environmental impact assessments and health impact evaluations, and called for greater transparency and independent reviews.

Concerns about the master plan’s alignment with climate resilience initiatives and the perceived lack of responsiveness from planning officials contributed to an atmosphere of tension and dissatisfaction.