SHUTESBURY — Any proposed data centers considering locating in Shutesbury would be prohibited, at least for the next several months, under a moratorium coming before voters at a special Town Meeting later this month.
The Planning Board at a public hearing Monday voted 6-1 to bring forward the moratorium and give the panel time to “develop reasonable regulations for data centers” that would be ready for next May’s annual Town Meeting.
Planning Board member Michael DeChiara said the board decided to draft specific rules for data centers, which are believed to be places with network computers and storage systems, because an inquiry was made over the summer to Land Use Clerk Matteo Pangallo into how they are regulated by town bylaws, indicating possible interest from a company.
DeChiara said the concern is data centers, which are often a component of the growing demands caused by artificial intelligence, can use lots of water and electricity, may emit exhaust and noise, could take up a lot of land and might have need for around-the-clock security. A moratorium would protect the town by allowing a thoughtful approach to these demands, including determining exactly what they are, he said.
“It seems like these things are evolving and AI is growing rapidly, and we wanted to have a little breathing room,” DeChiara said.
Town officials don’t yet know the size and scale and possible impacts, especially with the amount of water that might be needed.
Previously, the Select Board agreed to reserve space on the warrant for the Sept. 30 meeting.
In recent years, the town was caught off guard when the Wheelock tract of wooded land off Pratt Corner Road was developed for solar use. That was deemed to be an appropriate use for light industrial land, despite concerns from neighbors.
The moratorium adds a definition section for data centers — describing them as “composed of networked computers, storage systems and computing resources” — a use table that will have data centers as a prohibited industrial use and a new section of supplemental uses enacting the prohibition.
Chairman Nathan Murphy said enacting a moratorium is appropriate, but he wanted to see something in the use table other than a prohibition. Murphy said his concern is that data centers could be tax revenue for the town and, if a special permit process is in place, this would allow the town to put conditions on them, including their size and impacts.
“I would like to see us turn around and commit to coming back with a bylaw and saying we’re going to allow it by a special permit,” Murphy said.
DeChiara, though, said data centers have to be a prohibited use for now, but the moratorium will send the industry a message that the town is being thoughtful toward this topic.
Board member Ashleigh Pyecroft said the board is committed to creating a bylaw and the moratorium is not intended to prohibit forever.
During public comment, Gayle Huntress, manager of the Municipal Light Plant for the town’s broadband, said data centers could be an opportunity for connecting to the high speed fiber network, and could be beneficial to other users, possibly through reducing costs.
“Anything that we sell to some kind a private entity could offset the cost everybody pays for their connections,” Huntress said.
Huntress explained the town could sell its bandwidth directly or provide infrastructure to where the data centers want to go.
Michael Pill, a Shutesbury attorney, said he knows nothing about data centers, but that Gov. Maura Healey is pushing for data centers to support artificial intelligence, and thus creating regulations is sensible.
In fact, the state’s Executive Office of Economic Development recently put out regulations related to qualified data centers and when tax exemptions should be offered to attract them to the state.
This has raised concerns from some, such as Alternatives for Community and Environment, a Black-led environmental justice organization in Boston, which issued a comment that was signed onto by Judith Eiseman, who chairs Pelham’s Planning Board.
“The regulations should be rejected as drafted because they undercut the commonwealth’s climate goals and commitments to environmental justice and equity,” that statement reads.