Councilor Bridget Matthews-Kane questioned the process and what the developers had been doing.
Photo credit: Westfield Community TV
WESTFIELD — The Planning Board, chaired by William Carellas, voted unanimously to postpone the decision on granting a three-year extension of the special permit for the Westfield data center proposed by Servistar Realties LLC.
In its decision, which came after myriad public comments, the board decided it will ask the Law Department if the special permit is still valid.
The question of the Servistar special permit’s validity came up with the first speaker who opposed the extension. Richard Labrie of Bigwood Drive contended that the original permit issued in November 2021 was subject to Servistar submitting a more detailed site plan and environmental review to the Planning Board, which had not been done. He also contended that the special permit was not registered by Servistar with the Registry of Deeds, as required by law.
“The clear consequence of Servistar’s inaction is that the permit has lapsed and cannot be lawfully reinstated or extended. The two-year extension, which was granted by the governor, does not apply because the Servistar permit had already lapsed and that was only good for existing permits. The special permit had not been recorded by its own terms. It never took effect and has already lapsed, so it cannot be extended,” Labrie contended.
Speaking in support of the permit extension was Michael Durkee of Bates Road, who described himself as a lifelong Westfield resident. “I’ve raised my family here. I intend on raising my grandkids here,” he said.
“I personally have built, have worked in, worked around over a dozen data centers, and I know for a fact that a lot of the misinformation out there is a scare tactic … I question anybody who has a cellphone in their pocket today to tell me where all their data lives, and who has control of it. Why shouldn’t Westfield residents, the Westfield Public Schools, the Westfield Park and Rec fields, why shouldn’t they benefit from all of the revenue that’s going to be generated for this, for the decades and decades and decades to come?,” Durkee added.
Mike Durkee of Washington Street said the proposed data center represents a substantial long-term investment in the city’s economic future, which is precisely why additional time is needed.
“Projects of this size involve complex engineering requirements, including specialized cooling systems, redundant power infrastructure and rigorous cybersecurity and structural standards that go far beyond typical commercial construction,” he said. “Granting an extension acknowledges these realities rather than forcing a rushed timeline that could compromise safety, quality or compliance with the very regulations the permit process is designed to uphold.”
He said some municipalities have negotiated agreements requiring data centers to fund local grid improvements or to contribute to renewable energy investments as a condition of approval.
Speaking at the end of the public participation were city councilors Dan Allie, Bridget Matthews-Kane, Karen Fanion and Kristen Mello.
Allie thanked the Planning Board and the City Council for supporting a moratorium on new data centers, and the people who worked to get the word out about the meeting. “Your voice matters,” he said.
“The data center proposal should have had to come back to Westfield when its permit expired two years ago. Instead, the governor issued a blanket extension for all permits across the state,” he added.
Matthews-Kane said it was heartening to see so many people and acknowledged there were strong arguments on both sides. She said her concern was more about the process and what the developers had done since they were given a special permit. She said certain permits were never filed and the company had withdrawn from a site study.
“When Servistar withdrew from the site study, when they ghosted the city, and when they refused delivery of permits, as far as I’m concerned, they broke faith with the city. For me, it’s not about whether this is good for the city or bad for the city? Can we allow a company that has dragged its heels, that has slowed the process down, that has refused to actually work with the city; why would we extend the permit? So I’m hoping you’ll take that into consideration as you make your decision,” Matthews-Kane said.
Ward 1 City Councilor Karen Fanion said she appreciated hearing from both sides of the issue, the union workers and the people concerned about the data center.
“I am very concerned about this matter. I know that the union workers, if there was a facility to be built, they would do a fabulous job. I’m sure they’re all great in their trades. However, as a previous speaker has just said, it’s all about the location. It’s just the wrong location for a data center to go. And therefore I ask that you deny this extension,” Fanion said.
Mello said when the data center first came before the City Council in 2021, she spoke about the generators and the air pollution that would happen after she spent hours on the phone with the Department of Environmental Protection in Boston going over the numbers.
“I made that argument then, but people didn’t listen,” Mello said. “Now you’re being asked to extend a permit that actually isn’t a permit that actually didn’t get any extension. I did as a city councilor, receive the emails from the union members. I respect you, I thank you for your work, I believe in you, and I look forward to all of you to be employed building something better than this.”
As the discussion among board members began, City Planner Jay Vinskey said the matter before them was whether to extend the current permit, and not whether there had been any deviations from the original permit. He said if there were changes, that may be a separate consideration. “Right now, we’re just looking to bring that existing permit forward or not.”
Servistar representatives Erik Bartone and Paul Corey then stated their case for a three-year extension of the special permit.
Bartone, managing member of Servistar Realties LLC, said nothing had changed from the original application.
“The designs haven’t changed, noise levels haven’t changed, equipment specs haven’t changed. Specifically, the original design was a closed-loop system. It does not use water from aquifers … All the designs that were done by the engineers were meeting specific environmental law and code in the state of Massachusetts. They will continue to meet those requirements. If the codes and laws change, and they have changed over the last few years, we will comply with those laws and codes. That is specific to what we’ve done. There has been no other change,” he said.
Asked what the holdup was in the first three years after the city issued the special permit, Bartone said there was a tremendous amount of work that was done.
“The city of Westfield is one small component to getting this project done,” Bartone said. “A big component of this is the integration of this system into the transmission and distribution grid of our electric system. A lot of that work had to be done outside of this process and that work was being done. Other work was being done as far as communication systems, all of the fiber optic design work, all that stuff had to be done independent of the city of Westfield and this body here.”
Bartone said they also spent three sessions at the State House in Boston working on sales and use tax exemptions.
“Tremendous amount of manpower, people working on it independent of this body. This was the starting point. There was a lot of work being done and there still has to be a lot of work to continue this. That’s why we’re here,” he said.
Planning Board member Jane Magarian asked why the work and progress they were making hadn’t been communicated to Westfield.
“I think we take offense to the non-communication,” Bartone said. “We communicated quite a bit with the city … Now do we have to ask the City Council for a public meeting to tell everybody what we’re doing? No, it’s not required by us, but we have interfaced with many people in the city.”
“Sir, it’s not required, but it certainly would have been a nice gesture on your part,” Magarian responded.
“We acknowledge that. I’m not saying that we wouldn’t do that, but I just want people to understand that a tremendous amount of work is involved in this. This is not something that gets done in a month, a year. There is a lot of work. There’s a lot of coordination with it and there still is more coordination to go,” Bartone said.
Planning Board member Dylan Sweeney said he was more concerned about the process. He asked if the decision and the permit were filed in the Registry of Deeds. He also asked on what legal basis they contended that the approval became effective and remained in effect until November 2024, which would have qualified them for the two-year extension.
When Bartone said he could not answer those questions, Paul Corey of Servistar stepped in.
“It’s our position that the Planning Board approvals are effective; they’re in place. They were extended by the state for two years, and they do expire in October. That’s why we’re here requesting a three-year extension for good cause, consistent with every other decision that this board has made extending other projects,” Corey said.
“The first condition on your special permit is that you must register it with the Registry of Deeds. You did not do that. Did you guys forget?” asked Planning Board member John Bowen.
“It’s our position that it’s legally in place,” said Corey.
Bowen also asked how much construction had taken place and how much of the land had been purchased. Corey said construction had not begun and that no land had been purchased yet.
“And how committed to Westfield are you?” Bowen asked.
“One hundred percent,” said Corey. “We have committed the full financing for this project, two-and-a-half to three billion, to build it out over a phase-in period consistent with our original application. We expect it to be built out in phases over a 10- to 15-year period. All of that is contingent upon the approval of a three-year extension.”
Asked if they had a tenant in mind that they could share, Corey said they didn’t have a name they could give at this time. “But we can tell you that it is not an AI play as, as Mr. Bartone said, this is about essentially cloud storage for businesses in the Commonwealth, particularly in Westfield.”
Corey said they anticipated that many companies would move to the city to be close to the data center development, and that the development would also provide data center services for hospitals, universities, the biotech industry and financial entities in and around Boston.
“This is the best site in New England. Please, folks, we looked throughout the entire New England landscape, throughout Connecticut and Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and this is located in an industrial zone with transmission lines running right through the property. It’s surrounded by distribution centers with 18-wheeler trucks in and out all day long, and it’s close to the airport. So in our opinion you can’t get a better site in the city of Westfield (or) anywhere else in New England for a project like this,” Corey said.
No date was set for the next meeting to discuss the extension until the Planning Board receives a response from the Law Department.
