The meeting’s public comment section was dominated by discussions about Coreweave’s project, with several residents questioning the board’s transparency and decision-making processes. Tensions escalated when a resident accused the board of concealing information from neighboring towns, demanding direct answers about whether such information had been withheld. The board’s silence on this issue only fueled frustration among attendees. Additionally, concerns were raised about the board’s potential liability, with residents inquiring whether members had errors of omission insurance.

A point of contention was Application 26-002, involving Coreweave, whose designation as a redeveloper had reportedly lapsed shortly before an April 2026 vote. Residents emphasized that without an executed redevelopment agreement, construction should not proceed. The absence of meeting minutes from this session added to the community’s frustration, as it hindered their ability to review the decision-making process. Calls were made for the board to defer actions until these issues were resolved, with residents demanding a community benefits agreement as a condition of any approval.

Further compounding the issue, some residents highlighted the potential environmental and safety impacts of the proposed data centers. A resident recounted an explosion on May 8, attributed to the testing of diesel generators on-site, drawing parallels to prolonged noise issues experienced in Sterling, Virginia. Concerns were voiced about the local fire department’s ability to manage potential fires at the data centers, especially given the reliance on volunteer firefighters. The speaker stressed that a simple facility “walk-through” would not suffice as adequate preparation for such events.

The topic of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) associated with the data center project also emerged during the meeting. Residents sought clarification on the existence of NDAs, questioning whether board members had signed them, and expressed confusion over their mention in public records. It was stated that board members are not permitted to sign NDAs, which led to queries about the purpose of these agreements and the need for secrecy in a public project. This lack of clarity only heightened residents’ suspicions and dissatisfaction.

The proximity of schools to the proposed data center sites raised additional safety concerns. A resident detailed the locations of several schools within a two-mile radius of the sites, questioning what safety regulations or assessments had been communicated from the state regarding the operation of data centers near educational institutions.

The meeting also addressed a separate topic concerning a property owner’s request for variances related to a structure built without prior permits. The structure, a covered patio exceeding local land use ordinances, was situated adjacent to a municipal park. The board deliberated over granting the variance, considering the unique challenges posed by the adjacent park. Concerns were raised about setting a precedent for non-compliance with regulations, as the applicant had not sought permission before construction. The board discussed the possibility of deeming the structure an accessory use, given the proximity to the park, and whether the applicant’s situation could be considered unique.

Another discussion centered on a proposal to convert a single-family home into a two-family residence, requiring multiple variances due to non-compliance with zoning regulations. The board scrutinized the project’s parking arrangements and the potential impact on neighboring properties. Discussions included the need for compliance with grading and buffer requirements, as well as concerns about the future conversion of the basement and attic areas into additional living spaces. The board acknowledged the necessity of finalizing conditions before proceeding with a motion, including stipulations about bathroom usage and tandem parking.