Zoning Board Of Appeals Meeting Recap: Summary of Events and Next Steps
For those that didn't make it to the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting last Tuesday, here is our recap. The next important meeting to show up for is Monday, December 22! Let's keep our numbers strong at these meetings, despite our assuredly busy schedules.
What Happened?
In November, the Lansing Code Enforcement Officer rejected TeraWulf’s two applications to zone their proposed data center as either (1) “Scientific Research Laboratory” or (2) “General Processing and/or “Warehouse / Storage of non-agricultural goods.” TeraWulf appealed both rejections. On December 16th, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on TeraWulf’s two appeals.
The purpose of this meeting was for individuals to share via public comment why TeraWulf’s appeals should be accepted or rejected. This allows the ZBA to hear relevant information from all sides before they make their determination. No determination was made on either appeal. That will likely occur at the ZBA meeting on Monday, Dectember 22nd.
Breakdown of Public Comments
43 Public Comments Were Made Against TeraWulf’s Appeals
Twenty-eight comments were made against the Laboratory use appeal.
Fifteen comments were made against the Warehouse/General Processing use appeal.
Of all comments from Lansing residents, 20 were against TeraWulf’s appeals and only 3 supported them.
4 Public Comments Were Made in Support of TeraWulf’s Appeals
Only four comments were made supporting Laboratory use appeal. Zero comments were made supporting the Warehouse/General Processing use appeal.
Of the 4 comments supporting the appeals, Three of those comments failed to address the direct contents within Terawulf’s zoning appeals, which ZBA Chair Jack Young stated was required to make a comment. One public comment came from TeraWulf’s own VP of Project Management, Jerry Goodenough. The VP’s comments were quickly dismissed, with the ZBA Chair Jack Young saying “Your applicants can make their own case, thank you very much.”
Key Points Made: Laboratory
TeraWulf has stated multiple times in the past that they do not control or in some cases they do not know what the GPUs are used for. They cannot claim a facility is used for research if they have no control over the GPUs supposedly doing the research. The single letter submitted from one of their clients doing research at another facility does not amount to "100% scientific research laboratory" at Cayuga Data Campus, as Paul Prager claimed.
TeraWulf is selling a product (access to their energy infrastructure and square footage to store GPUs), which is prohibited under the laboratory use (except in cases where selling the product is incidental to the main purpose).
TeraWulf’s appeal was riddled with incorrect information, citing the determinations of court cases incorrectly and citing a Merriam-Webster dictionary definition for “data center” that does not exist online.
Key Points Made: Warehouse
Individuals pointed out that just because there are similarities to warehouses, that does not mean TeraWulf’s AI data center is a warehouse.
Some comments made analogies to illustrate how TeraWulf’s data center doesn’t fit the definition, such as a casino being considered a warehouse of slot machines, or a swimming pool as a chlorinated water storage shed.
Some pointed out that to widen the definition to allow the AI data center would have implications for future projects in Lansing, allowing almost any development to classify as a warehouse.
CEO Paul Prager’s Contradictions
CEO Paul Prager’s responses to the public comments were laced with contradictions, including some that could disqualify TeraWulf from the Laboratory use depending on how the board interprets his comments and clarifications.
Some comments in the public hearing against the Laboratory use argued that TeraWulf is selling a product, which generally isn’t allowed under the Laboratory use. Their energy infrastructure and space to store GPUs is sold to customers, and that could be considered a product. Paul Prager responded that they don’t sell products, and agreed with Jack Young when the chairperson clarified they "sell no products, only services."
Paul later contradicted that, saying they are storing and processing data, which is considered the product and therefore would allow them to be accepted under the Warehouse use. Jack Young pointed out that this could be an issue for the Laboratory use. Paul eventually settled on it not being a product nor a service, but an intangible good, and it was not further explained how the terms differ.
No Wonder Paul Contradicted Himself... These Uses are Contradictory.
TeraWulf’s written appeals and CEO Paul Prager’s verbal arguments demonstrated they sought two different permitted uses that are essentially incompatible with one another.
Warehouses store marketable goods.
Research laboratories perform research with scientists in labs and do not produce or store marketable goods.
The contradiction in TeraWulf’s appeals and Paul’s statements illustrate that TeraWulf is not fit for either use, and they’re simply attempting to get approved in any way possible, rather than what is necessarily correct or makes sense for Lansing.
Attend the ZBA meeting on Monday, December 22nd
It is extremely important to make our presence known at these meetings. Show that the community is watching, we’re not giving up, and we’re invested in the decisions made by these town officials.
Show up and wear red! The meeting starts at 6:30PM, but we recommend arriving between 6:00 and 6:15pm. There is no public comment at this meeting so our only chance to show our stance is by visually packing the room.
To watch the meeting, see these three videos on Lansing’s youtube channel:
