Residents raised several environmental and health concerns related to the data center, focusing on its potential to exacerbate existing issues. Tyler Rich, a university student, expressed worries about the center’s water consumption, noting that it could use up to 5,000 gallons of water daily. He emphasized the possible threat to local drinking water quality. This sentiment was echoed by Sophia Pon, who pointed out the data center’s power demands—250 megawatts, enough to power 250,000 homes—questioning the community’s ability to handle the additional strain on resources. Pon also mentioned the adverse health effects of diesel generators used as backups, citing their potential to worsen lung and cardiovascular health.

The topic of noise pollution was also prevalent in the discussion. A resident cited concerns about the continuous noise levels, which could exceed 90 decibels, potentially causing permanent hearing damage and disrupting residents’ sleep due to light pollution. The resident criticized the decision-making process, arguing that it lacked thorough consideration of these issues.

Financial implications were another area of concern. Questions were raised about the absence of a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreement, which could affect the borough’s finances. An attorney clarified that no PILOT was necessary for the data center, and no redevelopment agreement was in place, assuring that any financial arrangement would benefit the borough.

Further public comments reflected skepticism regarding the project’s advantages. Robert Antonzac inquired about the community’s benefits from the data center, noting that vacant industrial properties currently do not contribute financially. Residents expressed frustration over the perceived lack of transparency and accountability, with some questioning the legitimacy of the tax breaks associated with the project.

Concerns about the data center’s regulatory oversight were also discussed. A resident compared the oversight of pharmaceutical plants to that of data centers, noting that data centers lack checks from agencies like the FDA and EPA. This skepticism was fueled by a federal fraud lawsuit against Coreweave, leading to further dialogue about the reliability of expert opinions versus company claims.

The meeting also addressed the broader societal implications of data centers, such as their role in exacerbating environmental issues. Residents called for greater community involvement and transparency in the decision-making process. Proposals for legislative measures to mitigate the data center’s impact were suggested, including regulations on large-scale generators and light pollution.

Despite the concerns raised, some council members highlighted the financial benefits of the data center, contending that it would provide a significant ratable advantage to Kenilworth. They argued that the development could revitalize an area burdened by vacant properties, though residents felt that environmental considerations were being overlooked in favor of economic gain.

As the meeting concluded, the council committed to maintaining transparency and accountability in the redevelopment process. They emphasized the need for continued public engagement to ensure that any new developments meet necessary environmental standards and address safety, noise, and traffic concerns.