Planning Commission Meeting

LOWELL CHARTER TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA **MEETING HELD AT** LOWELL MIDDLE SCHOOL 750 FOREMAN ST., LOWELL, MI 49331 MONDAY, JULY 13, 2026 6:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL: 3. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: A. Planning Commission Meeting - 08 Jun 2026 - Minutes - Pdf 4. CHANGES OR ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: 5. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA: (Comments limited to 3 minutes per speaker when possible) 6. PUBLIC HEARING: NONE 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A. Swimming Pool Ordinance Edits and Discussion 02-2026Z - Zoning Ordinance Amendment_Lowell Charter Twp - SEC 22.03(j) PRIVATE SWIMMING POOLS DRAFT v. 03 8. NEW BUSINESS: A. My Storage Great Lakes Discussion B. Data Center Ordinance Advisory Committee Update 6.23.2026 Advisory Committee Summary 6.23.26 Advisory Committee Minutes C. Public Correspondence Overview, Tracking Log, and Compiled Questions Public Correspondence Tracking Log Overview Public Correspondence Tracking Log Correspondence Questions 9. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: (Comments are limited to 3 minutes per speaker when possible) 10. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: 11. ADJOURNMENT: “Those seeking special accommodations due to hearing or other disability, or for language assistance, should contact deputyclerk@lowelltwp.org or (616) 897-7600 as soon as possible before the meeting, preferably at least 96 hours in advance. Requests received after that time will still be considered and provided whenever possible.”  LOWELL CHARTER TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES **MEETING HELD AT** THE GRAND AGRICULTURAL CENTER OF WEST MICHIGAN 13801 CASCADE ROAD SE, BUILDING #2, LOWELL, MI 49331 JUNE 8, 2026 1 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Simmonds at 7:03 p.m. 2 ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Simmonds, Batchelor, Blough, Genovich, Forde ABSENT: NONE TOWNSHIP PLANNER: Brad Kotrba TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY: Mike Hoeker CITIZENS: 400+ (Large Attendance) 3 APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES A. Motion by Forde, seconded by Batchelor, to approve the minutes of May 11, 2026, Planning Commission meeting as presented. Motion carried (5-0). 4 CHANGES OR ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: NONE 5 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: At this time, the public is invited to comment on anything that is not on this evening's agenda. All members of the public will be able to comment specifically on Item "8B" regarding the Microsoft applications. Comments are limited to 3 minutes per speaker and directed to the Planning Commission only. Simmonds opened public comment at 7:04 p.m. Greg Forbes (Lowell Township) stated that the current Planning Commission bylaws, including the five-minute public comment limit, should remain in effect until any proposed revisions are formally adopted. Jennette Stevenson (Lowell Township) promoted Lowell Township's Third Annual BridgeFest on June 27 and encouraged community members to attend the family- friendly event. Gina Ladner (City of Lowell) disagreed with statements made by the Township Supervisor in a recent interview and stated that all opinions matter regardless of what jurisdiction you live in. Nicole Ronda (Lowell Township)referenced a recently adopted dark-sky ordinance in Petoskey and encouraged the Township to consider similar lighting standards to help protect the community’s observatory and night skies. Gina Ladner (City of Lowell) disagreed with statements made by the Township Page 2 of 33  Supervisor in a recent interview and stated that all opinions matter. Kristi Gingrich (City of Lowell) noted that the Township’s Master Plan does not include a heavy industrial district and discussed differences between heavy and light industrial uses. Anonymous (Unknown) expressed concerns that the Township’s noise ordinance may not adequately address continuous industrial noise and encouraged the Planning Commission to review noise standards to help preserve the Township’s rural character. Molly Hilton (Vergennes Township) referenced a recent class-action lawsuit involving a data center in Dowagiac and concerns raised by residents regarding its impacts. The commenter encouraged the Planning Commission to consider lessons from other communities with data center developments. Tyler Sheppard (Lowell Township) thanked the Township for providing American Sign Language (ASL) interpretation and closed captioning services and shared concerns regarding the Township Supervisor. Bronco Dodgson (Lowell Township) expressed concern about potential impacts to his family’s property. Anonymous (Unknown) discussed data centers as critical infrastructure with national security implications and questioned whether the proposed development could be considered a military-related asset. Mike Schmucker (Bowne Township) referenced a recent statement by the Township Supervisor and expressed disagreement with limiting community input based on residency. The commenter emphasized the value of participation and involvement from the broader Lowell community. Sheila Hoag (Boston Township) inquired about the status of the proposed pool and hot tub ordinance. Ashton Shaw (Lowell Township) stated that a recall petition effort involving three Township Board members was underway and sought to make Microsoft aware of the situation. Betsy Lopez Wagner (Vergennes Township) compared the Planning Commission's decision-making to a game of chess, emphasizing the importance of strategic planning to protect community resources and the Township's rural character. Public comment closed at 7:30 p.m. 6 PUBLIC HEARING: NONE 7 UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE 8 NEW BUSINESS: A. MAPLE RIDGE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT Motioned by Simmonds, seconded by Forde, to approve the Maple Ridge Manor Site Plan Amendment, dated June 20, 2026, showing the addition of eighteen living units to the facility, with the following conditions: 1) A landscaping/screening plan for adjacent properties. Planning Commission Meeting June 8, 2026 Page 2 of 11 Page 3 of 33  2) Need to renew and get approval of access by the Lowell Fire Department. 3) Must provide stormwater calculations to be approved by the Township Engineer, also, a soil and sedimentation control permit will be required from the Kent County Road Commission before starting any work. 4) Must provide a photo metric plan to show lighting is in compliance with the township lighting ordinance. 5) Submit any necessary local, state, or federal permits required for construction. 6) A decision to pursue the additional units must be communicated to the Lowell Township Planning Commission on or before June 8, 2027. Motion carried (5-0). B. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION AND CONDITIONAL REZONING APPLICATIONS BY MICROSOFT CORPORATION I. Project Introduction and Presentation by the Applicant II. Planning Commissioner Questions and Comments for Applicant Following the presentation, the Planning Commission asked the applicant questions regarding the proposed development. The applicant provided the following responses: Blough asked whether the proposed facility would be an AI or cloud data center. The applicant stated the proposed development consists of cloud data centers. While AI workloads may be processed, the facilities are designed and constructed similarly to other Microsoft cloud data centers. Simmonds asked about the anticipated construction timeline. The applicant stated the first phase, including permitting and construction, would take approximately 18 to 36 months, with subsequent buildings constructed in phases. Full buildout of the campus is anticipated to take approximately 10 years. Simmonds asked whether each building would have its own backup generators. The applicant stated each building would have dedicated exterior backup generators sized to serve that building. Generators would primarily operate during emergencies and would be tested individually. Simmonds asked how often the generators would operate. The applicant stated generators are tested periodically for short durations and, outside of emergencies, are expected to operate approximately one hour or less per year. Simmonds asked why the applicant requested additional building height. The applicant stated the additional height would provide flexibility for rooftop mechanical equipment. Typical building height is expected to be approximately 50 feet. Batchelor asked whether environmental studies will be completed for the property. The applicant stated environmental due diligence was completed prior to acquisition, including evaluations of wetlands, streams, endangered species, Planning Commission Meeting June 8, 2026 Page 3 of 11 Page 4 of 33 and other regulated environmental features. Batchelor asked who would be responsible for water and sewer infrastructure improvements. The applicant stated Microsoft would fund the municipal water and sewer improvements and necessary utility extensions required to serve the site and pay standard utility rates once operational. Batchelor asked who would pay for electrical infrastructure improvements. The applicant stated Microsoft would fund the required electrical infrastructure, including substations and transmission improvements, through agreements with the utility provider. Batchelor asked what benefits the community could expect from the project. The applicant stated the project would provide significant long-term property tax revenue, community partnerships, charitable giving, investments in education and workforce development, and local staff to support community engagement during construction and operations. Forde asked about safeguards for the liquid cooling system in the event of a leak. The applicant stated the cooling system would operate as a closed-loop system equipped with leak detection, containment measures, and monitoring systems. Any incident would be addressed immediately and reported to the appropriate regulatory agencies. Forde asked who would be responsible for infrastructure costs if the project were discontinued. The applicant stated contractual agreements require Microsoft to remain financially responsible for infrastructure costs incurred should the project not proceed. Forde asked how frequently computer equipment would be replaced. The applicant stated computing equipment is generally replaced every three to five years, with outdated equipment recycled and newer technology installed as demand increases. Forde asked whether Microsoft anticipated seeking future tax abatements. The applicant stated the company is moving away from tax abatements in many locations and intends to continue paying applicable property taxes, with any future tax decisions remaining subject to approval by the appropriate taxing authorities. III. Public Comment and Question Period Members of the public are invited to comment or ask a question to the Planning Commission about this agenda item. The applicant will not hold an open question and answer session with the public at this time. No direct questions from the public will be answered by the applicant at this session. Planning Commissioners will be recording your questions and will have the opportunity to ask any questions they hear during public comment directly to the applicant after the public comment session is closed. To allow for all persons to be heard, comments are limited to 3 minutes per speaker, each person may only speak once, and if any allotted time remains, the speaker may not re-address the Commissioners to use up any forfeited time. Planning Commission Meeting June 8, 2026 Page 4 of 11 Page 5 of 33 Simmonds opened public comment at 9:15 p.m. Anonymous (Unknown) commented on data center cooling systems, referencing single-loop and dual-design configurations and concerns regarding water use, energy consumption, and chemical treatment. Anonymous (Unknown) urged Microsoft to stop the project. Raised concerns regarding potential environmental impacts and the preservation of the Township’s rural character and quality of life. Greg Forbes (Lowell Township) commented on the timing of rezoning materials posted on the Township website and the "community first" language in the project materials. He also questioned the water and sewer requirements in the proposed development agreement and asked whether groundwater could be used if public utilities are not available. Frank Leasure (Lowell Township) raised concerns regarding generator noise, potential environmental contamination, and impacts on local water resources and the surrounding community. David Martin (Unknown) expressed disappointment with the applicant's presentation and questioned whether the proposed data center would be a good fit for the community. Rob Schroeder (Lowell Resident) stated that a social media poll he conducted regarding the proposed data center showed mostly opposition. He encouraged the Township to consider the experiences of other communities before making a decision. Anonymous (Unknown) asked about the total acreage and potential future expansion of the proposed data center development. Samantha Bruce (City of Lowell) requested clarification regarding noise, utility and infrastructure costs, traffic impacts, environmental effects, and the timeline for project completion. Also sought additional information regarding community benefits, supporting studies, and other claims presented by the applicant. Barbara Brundige (Cascade Township) expressed concern regarding potential impacts to neighboring communities, groundwater, and water quality. Requested clarification regarding cooling system chemicals, spill response measures, and the project's long-term employment benefits. Jacqueline (Lowell Township) raised concerns about environmental, infrastructure, and quality-of-life impacts, urging further study and caution based on other data center locations. Sam Norman (Lowell Resident) raised concerns about environmental and infrastructure impacts, supporting data, and consistency with the Township master plan. Andrew DeVries (Unknown) expressed potential benefits related to union construction jobs, apprenticeships, and journeyman-level employment opportunities during development. Nathan Phillips (Vergennes Township) expressed support for the project and encouraged continued review, citing union construction job opportunities and reduced travel for skilled workers. Gina Ladner (City of Lowell) commented on utility costs and infrastructure Planning Commission Meeting June 8, 2026 Page 5 of 11 Page 6 of 33 impacts, expressing concern that power outages could require extended generator use and questioned whether grant funding would be repaid. Jackson (Lowell Township) stated government decisions should reflect the consent and support of the public. Hank (Unknown) referenced the Michigan for Responsible Data Centers coalition for information on data center impacts. Anonymous (Unknown) asked questions about construction, inspections, backup power systems, and the contractor selection process, including opportunities for local contractors. Anonymous (Unknown) voiced concerns about transparency, zoning details, and public meeting expenses. Samantha (Lowell Township) requested greater transparency regarding the rezoning request, tax implications, project details, building scale, and funding of public meetings. Joe (Lowell Township) raised concerns about information provided by The Right Place and questioned the Township’s ability to regulate the proposed project based on prior ordinance discussions. Anonymous (Unknown) expressed concerns regarding emergency services, rezoning provisions, building height, and impacts on neighboring properties. Mike (Unknown) expressed concerns about the project's commitments, citing energy and water use, backup power systems, and conflicting information. Anonymous (Unknown) voiced concerns about long-term impacts on the rural community, including effects on future generations, community character, and economic tradeoffs. Alan Roush (Lowell Township) asked about Microsoft’s financial contributions to the community and what would happen if the project does not move forward. Tyler Sheppard (Lowell Township) expressed concern about community investment and noted Microsoft did not provide an ASL interpreter at a prior open house, raising accessibility compliance concerns. Betsy Lopez Wagner (Vergennes Township) cited concerns regarding environmental impacts, water and energy use, regulatory oversight, transparency, and accountability, and emphasized the need for clear project facts from the applicant and the Township. Jamie (Lowell Township) stated that community questions have not been adequately answered, urging stronger action in decision-making on the proposed project. Caroline Hahn (Lowell Township) questioned projected water usage estimates, noted uncertainty around cooling technology effectiveness, and requested additional clarification from Microsoft. Melissa Tichelaar (Lowell Township) stated that project information was inconsistent, resident questions were not clearly answered and referenced involvement with a nonprofit organization and recall efforts. Jennifer (Unknown) expressed concerns about the proposed data center's impacts on farmland, natural resources, and the rural character of the community and urged the Township to slow the process and conduct additional review before making a decision. Planning Commission Meeting June 8, 2026 Page 6 of 11 Page 7 of 33 Anonymous (Unknown) expressed concerns that resident opposition is not being fully considered and questioned the long-term community impacts of the proposed data center. Jessica Mazarka (Cascade Township) raised questions about cooling chemicals, generator emissions, regulatory compliance, potential expansion, ordinance enforcement, and participation in the advisory committee. Jen McDaniels (Vergennes Township) expressed opposition to the proposed data center and supported a moratorium to allow for additional review and public information. Ryan Schaner (Unknown) discussed differences between traditional data centers and AI-related facilities and requested respectful treatment of residents during public meetings. Nicole Ronda (Lowell Township) raised concerns about public comment limits, potential conflicts of interest, environmental impacts, and requested information on the timing and process for any future vote. Anonymous (Unknown) questioned the environmental impacts of the proposed data center, including wetlands protection and the proposed closed- loop system, and requested detailed project visuals and independent environmental studies prior to a decision. Julie Echtinaw (Lowell Township) requested additional details on the proposed project, specifically regarding the use of a closed-loop system and clarification of overall project components. Lan Moore (Lowell Township) urged consideration of long-term environmental impacts alongside financial benefits and recommended further review before proceeding with the development. Heidi Nagel (Lowell Township) noted that zoning shapes community character and cautioned that large-scale development could expand over time and change rural land use and community values. Anonymous (Unknown) referenced experience with solar development and stated some projects may not be appropriate for the Township, and requested clarification on tax incentives, energy requirements, and public funding related to the project. Nicole Bieri (Lowell Township) raised concerns about noise, traffic, construction impacts, and potential future expansion, and urged careful review of project conditions and long-term operational impacts before a decision. Dave (Vergennes Township) cited concerns about public support, economic impacts, energy use, and the accuracy of information presented regarding the project. Anonymous (Unknown) requested clarification on future development plans and asked how utility usage, construction impacts, buffering, local hiring, and property values would be addressed. Anonymous (Unknown) asked how low-frequency noise would be measured and addressed, citing possible health and mental effects, and raised concerns about the project design and public involvement. Kristi Gingrich (City of Lowell) questioned rezoning contract conditions, limits on future Light Industrial uses, and requested clarification on potential expansion plans. Planning Commission Meeting June 8, 2026 Page 7 of 11 Page 8 of 33  Anonymous (Lowell Resident) questioned why the project is continuing despite community opposition and raised concerns about consistency with the master plan, rezoning, and overall community impact. Micheal Smith (Unknown) raised concerns about electrical power reliability and capacity to support the project, including grid reliability, restoration times, and costs, and requested a study on increased demand. Anonymous (Unknown) said they hoped the Commission was listening to public input. Ashton Shaw (Lowell Township) raised concerns about tax incentives, school funding, utility rates, and application accuracy, and questioned zoning compliance and whether neighbors would be notified when generators are operated. Anonymous (Unknown) referenced federal policy and regulatory structure related to AI and environmental permitting and questioned how those policies apply to the proposed project and their compliance with state and local regulations. Jennette Stevenson (Lowell Township) asked about site cleanup responsibilities, generator use and energy demand, potential impacts to nearby properties, and how many staff would be on site once the facility is operational. Anonymous (Unknown) questioned why a large corporation should be supported over local community interests and emphasized concerns about environmental and community impacts. Public comment closed at 12:28 a.m. IV. Planning Commissioner Questions and Comments for the Applicant The Planning Commissioner Questions and Comments for Applicant section was not conducted due to the late hour. It was noted that additional questions may be submitted to the Township for follow-up or future consideration. 9 PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA: (comments limited to 3 minutes per speaker) Simmonds opened public comment at 12:35 a.m. Nicole Ronda (Lowell Township) expressed concerns regarding the handling of the Microsoft proposal, including the need for FOIA requests to obtain information, and supported a moratorium to allow additional research. Concerns were also raised regarding transparency and public engagement. Forde left meeting at 12:37a.m. Genovich left meeting at 12:40 a.m. Rob Schroeder (Lowell Resident) requested clarification regarding the dates, purpose, and format of upcoming Planning Commission meetings related to the Microsoft proposal, including whether they would be discussion-only meetings. Sandra Miles (Vergennes Township) expressed support for Maple Ridge and discussed the Planning Commission's responsibility to independently evaluate the proposed site plan amendment under Township ordinances. Stated that the decision Planning Commission Meeting June 8, 2026 Page 8 of 11 Page 9 of 33  should be based on ordinance standards rather than the potential for legal action. Gina Ladner (City of Lowell) addressed that approval of the Maple Ridge Retirement expansion would serve residents from throughout the surrounding area and is not limited to Lowell Township residents Betsy Lopez Wagner (Vergennes Township) commented that Microsoft appeared unprepared to address residents' questions and that residents have invested significant time researching the proposed project. Concerns were also raised about the additional time future meetings may require from residents. Kristi Gingrich (City of Lowell) would like additional information regarding backup generators, noise, and the potential environmental impacts of the proposed data center, including water usage and treatment. Tyler Sheppard (Lowell Township) questioned why public comment is not available through Zoom and expressed concerns about accessibility for residents unable to attend meetings in person. Anonymous (Unknown) commented that the meeting was similar to Microsoft’s prior open house and questioned whether support for the proposed project was primarily driven by financial or employment interests rather than broader community interests. Sheila Hoag (Boston Township) requested clarification regarding the purpose of the upcoming special meetings and whether community members would have the opportunity to ask Microsoft questions directly. Nicole Ronda (Lowell Township) requested the email address for submitting questions to the Township and asked for assurance that written questions submitted by community members would be presented directly to Microsoft during the upcoming meetings. Betsy Lopez Wagner (Vergennes Township) questioned how the Township would ensure that all community-submitted questions are presented to the applicant during upcoming meetings. Comments also suggested considering a transcription service to document questions during meetings. Anonymous (Unknown) requested guidance on where residents can find information and answers regarding the proposed data center project before upcoming meetings. Comments also encouraged the Township to have Microsoft address community questions directly during future meetings. Greg Forbes (Lowell Township) questioned whether additional information would influence the Board’s decision, stating that relevant information has been available for several months. Anonymous (Unknown) questioned the need for additional data centers and requested information regarding their intended purpose. Concerns were also expressed about potential military and surveillance uses. Jennette Stevenson (Lowell Charter Township) requested that the Planning Commission consult with the Lowell Area Fire Department regarding emergency preparedness for proposed data center development. Public comment closed at 1:21 a.m. 10 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: NONE Planning Commission Meeting June 8, 2026 Page 9 of 11 Page 10 of 33 11 ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Batchelor, seconded by Blough, to adjourn the meeting at 1:21 a.m. Motion carried (3-0). 12 QR CODES: MICROSOFT AND BUSINESS PARK AND INFORMATION FOR THOSE SEEKING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS A. Public Information QR Codes Planning Commission Secretary Date Meeting Minutes Recorder Date Planning Commission Meeting June 8, 2026 Page 10 of 11 Page 11 of 33  For more information about the proposed development by Microsoft, visit aka.MS/Michigan, or scan the QR code below. The public should direct their questions directly to Microsoft at or contact Microsoft at MichiganDC@microsoft.com or +1 (248) 200-5145. The public should direct their question regarding the Business Park and information about these applications to the Lowell Charter Township website. Lowell Charter Township Website: www.lowelltwp.org/business_park/index.php. Those seeking special accommodations due to hearing or other disability, or for language assistance, should contact the Lowell Charter Township Deputy Clerk at deputyclerk@lowelltwp.org or (616) 897-7600 as soon as possible before the meeting, preferably at least 96 hours in advance. Requests received after that time will still be considered and provided whenever possible. Lowell Charter Township Hall: 2910 Alden Nash Ave SE, Lowell, MI 49331 Page 11 of 11 Page 12 of 33 Draft version 03 – July 1, 2026 [REDLINED] CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF LOWELL KENT COUNTY, MICHIGAN ORDINANCE NO. 02 – 2026Z At a regular meeting of the Lowell Charter Township Board held at the Lowell Middle School on __________ 2026, beginning at 7:00 p.m., Township Board Member _________________________ made a motion to adopt this Ordinance Amendment, which motion was seconded by Township Board Member _________________________. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2 ENTTITLED “DEFINITIONS”, SECTION 2.08 “H,” TO ADD A DEFINITION FOR HOT TUBS AND SPAS; AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 2 ENTITLED “DEFINITIONS,” SECTION 2.19 “S,” TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF “SWIMMING POOLS,” AND AMEND CHAPTER 22 ENTITLED “SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS,” RENAMING AND AMENDING SECTION 22.03(j) ENITLED “PRIVATE SWIMMING POOLS” OF THE LOWELL CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING ORINDNACE. The Charter Township of Lowell (the “Township”) HEREBY ORDAINS: Section 1 – Title and Purpose. An amendment to add a new definition of “Hot Tub and Spa” to Chapter 2 “Definitions”, Section 2.08 “H,” an amendment to the definition of “swimming pool” to Section 2.19 “S,” and the renaming of the section title and text amendment to Chapter 22, Section 22.03 (j) “Private Swimming Pools,” of the Lowell Charter Township Zoning Ordinance. The amendments and additions are hereby rewritten in its entirety as follows, thereby ensuring the protection of the environment and the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of Lowell Charter Township. Section 2 – Amendment. Chapter 2 – Definitions, Section 2.08 – “H” hereby adds the following definition for “Hot Tub and Spa” to read in its entirety as follows: Hot Tub and Spa: A permanent or portable inground or above ground, water-filled hydromassage enclosure that is used for recreational or therapeutic purposes often containing an integral heating and water circulating system that is capable of containing water of more than 24 inches in depth. Section 3 – Amendment. Chapter 2 – Definitions, Section 2.19 – “S” Definitions is hereby amended to rewrite the definition for “Swimming Pool” to read in its entirety as follows: Page 13 of 33 Draft Version 03 July 1, 2026 [REDLINED] Swimming Pool: A permanent or portable water filled enclosure either above or below ground capable of containing water with a depth of more than 24 inches designed and intended for recreational swimming, wading, or bathing. All coping, bullnose edges, structurally attached decks/walkways, or cantilevered edges intended for access to the structure along its perimeter shall be considered a part of the swimming pool structure. Swimming pools are measured from the outermost edge of the pool and its structural components as described in this ordinance and are subject to the requirements outlined in Section 22.03(j). Section 4 – Amendment. Chapter 22 – Supplemental Provisions, Section 22.03(j) – Swimming Pools is hereby amended in its entirety as follows: SEC. 22.03 (j) - Private Swimming Pools. Notwithstanding any other setback requirements in this Ordinance, no swimming pool (whether in-ground or above-ground) shall be installed or utilized per the following standards: (1) No inground/aboveground swimming pool, hot tub, or spa shall be less than 10 feet from any side or rear lot line. (2) Swimming pools, hot tubs, or spas are not permitted within the front yard of the property unless the physical constraints of the property would prevent the applicant from reasonably meeting the rear and side yard dimensional requirements. If the Zoning Administrator determines that this constraint would allow for a more suitable location of the swimming pool within the front yard, the swimming pool shall be no less than 50 feet from the front lot line. The setback distance provision from any side yard line, per 22.03(j)(1) above, also applies. (3) Swimming pools, hot tubs, or spas shall meet any separation requirements as regulated in the Michigan Residential Building Code or the International Swimming Pool and Spa Code, as amended. (4) For the protection of the general public, inground swimming pools must be completely enclosed or contain a barrier in accordance with the Michigan Residential Building Code or International Swimming Pool and Spa Code, as amended. (5) Above ground swimming pools must meet the barrier requirements set forth in the Michigan Residential Building Code or International Swimming Pool and Spa Code, as amended. (6) All swimming pools, hot tubs, or spas meeting the definitions in this ordinance shall receive a zoning compliance permit from the Township prior to receiving a building permit from the Building Inspector. Page 14 of 33 Draft Version 03 July 1, 2026 [REDLINED] Section 5 – Severability. Should any portion of this Ordinance/Ordinance Amendment be declared invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, that shall not affect any other portion or provision of this Ordinance/Ordinance Amendment, which shall remain valid and in full force and effect. Section 6 – Effective Date. This Ordinance/Ordinance Amendment shall become effective upon the expiration of seven (7) days after this Ordinance/Ordinance Amendment adoption appears in a newspaper of general circulation (or a summary thereof appears in a newspaper of general circulation) as provided by law. The vote to approve and adopt this Ordinance/Ordinance Amendment was as follows: YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT/ABSTAIN: ORDINANCE/ORDINANCE AMENDMENT DECLARED ADOPTED. ____________________________________________ Monica Burtt, Lowell Charter Township Clerk CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the above is a true copy of the Ordinance/ordinance amendment adopted at the time, date, and place specified above pursuant to the required statutory procedures. ____________________________________ Monica Burtt Lowell Charter Township Clerk Page 15 of 33  Lowell Charter Township Data Center Advisory Committee Meeting Summary From 6/23/2026 The Advisory Committee held its first working session on June 23, 2026, to review the draft Data Center Ordinance and discuss the committee's advisory role to provide input for the Township Board’s consideration for future data center regulations. Topics discussed included: • Overview of the zoning and ordinance amendment process, and explanation of the committee’s role as a Township Board-created advisory body. • Review of the proposed definition of a data center and associated infrastructure, including, but not limited to, generators, transformers, and battery systems. • Discussion regarding the intensity of the data center operations and how those characteristics compare to light and heavy industrial uses. The Township Planner clarified that Lowell Township does not have a Heavy Industrial zoning district. • Questions related to cooling systems, water usage, wastewater management, and environmental oversight. • Review of proposed ordinance standards and the committee's ability to suggest modifications to draft language. • Discussion regarding requiring data centers to obtain Special Land Use approval rather than being permitted by right within the Light Industrial District. • Review of proposed setback requirements and whether increased setbacks should be considered. • Discussion of potential operational impacts, including noise, utility demand, and compatibility with surrounding properties. Key takeaways: • Committee members emphasized the importance of creating clear ordinance standards that protect the community while providing a consistent review process for any future data center proposal. • Several topics were identified for further research and discussion, including setbacks, cooling technologies, utility usage, and environmental considerations. Next Steps: The committee will continue reviewing the draft ordinance and provide suggestions for consideration by the Township Board and Planning Commission. Page 16 of 33  LOWELL CHARTER TOWNSHIP MEETING LOCATION: 2910 ALDEN NASH AVE SE, LOWELL, MI 49331 DATA CENTER ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 2026, AT 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Batchelor at 5:57 PM. ROLL CALL: Present: Mark Batchelor (PC), Dave Simmonds (PC), Ronda Benedict (Board), Andy Vander Ziel (Board), Alan Almy (Resident), John Jeffries (Resident), Julie Echtinaw (Resident), Kenny Bieri (Resident), Brad Kotrba (Twp Planner), Jessica Grim (Minutes) Absent: NONE NEW BUSINESS: A. Introduction Committee members and attendees introduced themselves. B. Review of Committee Purpose, Roles and Rules The committee reviewed its advisory role, member responsibilities, and meeting procedures. Discussion included the committee's purpose, expectations for respectful discussion, and its role in providing information for Township Board consideration. C. Discussion and Scheduling of Future Meeting Dates The committee discussed establishing a meeting schedule. Future meeting dates were reviewed and set for: • July 14, 2026, at 6:00 PM • July 28, 2026, at 6:00 PM Additional dates may be scheduled as needed. D. Review of First Draft of the Data Center Ordinance The committee began a section-by-section review of the draft Data Center Ordinance. Members discussed definitions, operational characteristics of data centers, development standards, and other provisions requiring clarification or additional information. Review of the draft ordinance will continue at future meetings. Page 17 of 33 4. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Committee members offered general comments regarding the importance of clarity in the ordinance language and the need for continued review and public input throughout the process. Additional procedural comments were made regarding meeting organization and future discussion topics. 5. ADJOURNMENT Batchelor adjourned the meeting at 8:14 PM. Page 18 of 33 Public Correspondence Tracking Log Overview The Public Correspondence Tracking Log has been developed to organize and consolidate correspondence received throughout the review process into a single reference for the Township Board, Planning Commission, and the public. The Clerk's Office has maintained correspondence as it was received, including emails, letters, phone calls, and written public comments. Throughout the review process, correspondence has been distributed, as appropriate, to the Township Board, Planning Commission, Township staff, or included in public meeting materials consistent with its purpose and intended recipient. Many Township Board and Planning Commission members will recognize correspondence contained in this log that was previously received in their official capacity throughout the review process. This compilation makes the same collection of correspondence available for public review. Where appropriate, questions or requests contained within the correspondence have been referred to the responsible party, including the applicant, Township legal counsel, the Township planner, or Township staff. Many topics have also been addressed through information published on the Township's Business Park webpage, while other items remain under review. As this matter remains under review, the tracking log will continue to be updated as additional correspondence is received. This tracking log is provided as an administrative organizational reference and is intended to supplement, not replace, the Township's official records maintained by the Clerk's Office. Page 19 of 33  Public Correspondence Tracking Log Method Date Name Received Comment 11/20/2025 Derek Shroeder Email Data Center Concerns 11/23/2025 Jamie Thompson Email Data Center Concerns 11/26/2025 Jamie Thompson Email Request Email to Be Added for Updates 11/27/2025 Caroline Hahn Email Change Venue for Meeting 11/28/2025 Bird Stilson Email Data Center Concerns 11/30/2025 Bonnie Zimmerman Email Data Center Concerns 12/1/2025 Tim and Nancy Stroosnyder Letter Data Center Concerns 12/1/2025 Amy Sheppard Email Data Center Concerns 12/1/2025 Rich Email Request Email to Be Added for Updates 12/3/2025 Bob Pfaller Email Data Center Concerns 12/3/2025 Janice Laye Email Request Email to Be Added for Updates 12/4/2025 Jeff Huebner Email Data Center Concerns 12/4/2025 Charles Cash Email Data Center Concerns 12/4/2025 Tammy Wielinga Email Data Center Concerns 12/4/2025 Conner Carter Email Data Center Concerns 12/4/2025 Samantha Smith Email Data Center Concerns 12/5/2025 Emily Toles Email Data Center Concerns 12/5/2025 Savannah Loneske Email Data Center Concerns 12/6/2025 Kathy Stiver Email Data Center Concerns 12/7/2025 Christine Email Data Center Concerns 12/7/2025 GR Amateur Astronomical Association Email Text Amendment Concern 12/8/2025 Raymond Jorgensen Letter Data Center Concerns 12/8/2025 Dan and Esther Gordon Letter Data Center Concerns 12/8/2025 Caroline Hahn Letter Data Center Concerns 12/8/2025 Ashton Shaw Email Data Center Concerns 12/8/2025 Linda Phillips Email Data Center Concerns 12/8/2025 Beckie Seese Email Data Center Concerns / NDA 12/8/2025 Robert Pfaller Email Data Center Concerns 12/8/2025 Eric James Email Data Center Concerns 12/8/2025 Jason Barnaby Email Petition Circulating 12/8/2025 Michael Scheider Email Data Center Concerns 12/8/2025 Evan Smith Email Data Center Concerns 12/8/2025 Joseph Kwiatkowski Letter Supporting Data Center 12/8/2025 Tyler Kent Email MDOT Coordnation with I-96/M-50 12/8/2025 Arch Stanton Email NDA / Verbal Agreement to Sell Land 12/8/2025 Mary Hernandez Email Data Center Concerns 12/8/2025 Samantha Smith Email More Transparency 12/8/2025 Ashton Shaw Email Questions to be added to FAQ website page 12/8/2025 Jodie Seese Email Supports Moratorium 12/8/2025 Judy Vriesma Email Data Center Concerns 12/8/2025 Residents United for Healthy Lowell Email Data Center Concerns / Supports Moratorium 12/8/2025 Steven, Cheryl, Asher, Emily, Lydia France Email Reject Rezone 12/8/2025 Brittany Truffelli Email Data Center Concerns 12/8/2025 Nate Fowler Letter LAS levies and funding mechanisms 12/8/2025 Carmen DeSeno Email Data Center Concerns 12/9/2025 Taylor Freund Email Data Center Concerns 12/9/2025 Cory Hagerman Email Data Center Concerns 12/9/2025 Paige Eash Email Data Center Concerns 12/9/2025 Suzanne Fedewa Email Data Center Concerns 12/9/2025 Heather Gray Email Data Center Concerns 12/9/2025 Samantha Hamp Email Data Center Concerns 12/10/2025 Brace Kern Email Cancellation of meeting concerns 1/19/2026 Nathan Phillips Email Assist as Township moves forward Page 20 of 33 2/11/2026 Christine Wagenfuehr Email Data Center Concerns 3/5/2026 Regina Grover Phone Data Center Concerns 3/9/2026 Jason Banghart Email Data Center Concerns 3/9/2026 Norman Weber Email Data Center Concerns 3/9/2026 Alan Almy Email Data Center Concerns 3/9/2026 Samantha Email Data Center Concerns 3/9/2026 Rob Phone Data Center Concerns 3/10/2026 Peggy McCaul Phone Data Center Concerns 4/11/2026 Mary Email Data Center Concerns Not Dated Jaime Thompson Letter Data Center Concerns 3/19/2026 Donna Johnson Email Data Center Concerns 3/282026 eliliismith765 Email Data Center Concerns 4/16/2026 Sky Hernandez Email Data Center Concerns 5/4/2026 Bonnie Zimmerman Email Data Center Concerns Not Dated Katie Vanderwey Card Data Center Concerns 5/11/2026 Kristi Gingrich Email Questions about May PC Agenda 5/17/2026 John Jefferies Email Data Center Concerns 5/18/2026 Molly Hilton Email Data Center Concerns / List of Moratoriums 5/20/2026 Alicia DeMartini Email Data Center Concerns / Mtg with Twp 5/21/2026 Matt Ladiski Email Data Center Concerns 5/19/2026 Jose Garcia Letter Data Center Concerns 5/19/2026 Sarah Garcia Letter Data Center Concerns 5/14/2026 Tyler Shepard Letter Supporting Moratorium / Expanding PC Membership 6/1/2026 Christine Wagenfuehr Email Supporting Moratorium 6/1/2026 Ryan Sundberg Email Data Center Concerns 6/1/2026 Joanne Gillan Email Supporting Moratorium 6/2/2026 Cindy Wieland Email Supporting Moratorium 6/4/2026 Robert Krieg Jr. Email Data Center Concerns 6/4/2026 Kristen Krieg Email Data Center Concerns 6/8/2026 Karen Forester Email Data Center Concerns 6/8/2026 Darcy Black Email Data Center Concerns 6/8/2026 Jennifer Dodgson Email Data Center Concerns 6/8/2026 John Jefferies Email Data Center Concerns 6/8/2026 Local Union No. 174 / Nathan Phillips Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Mike Phillips Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Beau Taylor Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Bryson VanderMeulen Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Courtney Phillips Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Nicolas Asher Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Carson McLouth Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Bill O'Connor Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Hank Kiluk Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Ryan Bennett Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Scott Huff Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Steve Scholten Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Dan TenBrock Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Tim Purdy Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 David Barnes Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Jason Byrd Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Elijah Villanueva Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 John Pasikowski Jr Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Monty Halsted Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Jason McDiarmid Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Dan Tenhoopen Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Robert Gulranson Jr Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Fabrizio Biundo Email Supporting Data Center Page 21 of 33  6/8/2026 Conner Mitchell Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Carl Stanford Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Anthony Berkman Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Joseph Pietrowski Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Bob Banaszak Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Geoff Yonkers Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Jesse DuVerneay Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Jeff Winston Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Robert Mosqueda Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Jason Whitman Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Zachary Lambrecht Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Aiden Palmer Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Christopher Baughan Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Brian Beerman Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Kirk Stevenson Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Jason Finch Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Joshua Herrick Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Steve Hoffman Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Christopher Pelton Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Bob Decker Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 Sebastian Conley Email Supporting Data Center 6/8/2026 bzimmerman Email Data Center Concerns 6/8/2026 Dan and Esther Gordon Email Data Center Concerns 6/9/2026 Samantha Norman Email Data Center Concerns / Added Several Website Links 6/9/2026 Lucie Demey VM Data Center Concerns 6/9/2026 Savannah Loneske Email Data Center Concerns / Comments 6/9/2026 Andrew Pleasant Email Digital copy for noise and light ordinance 6/9/2026 Julie Omeara Phone Data Center Concerns 6/9/2026 Heidi Kolp Email Data Center Concerns / PC Conduct Concerns 6/9/2026 Sheila Noonan Email Data Center Concerns 6/9/2026 Kenneth and Kelly Lester Email Data Center Concerns 6/11/2026 Mia Richardson Email Questions about 6/08 Planning Commission Meeting 6/11/2026 Ryan Sundberg Email Data Center Concerns 6/11/2026 Nate Wilcox Email Data Center Concerns 6/15/2026 Jacqueline Poulson Email Data Center Concerns 6/15/2026 Thomas Gossiaux Email Anderson Support 6/16/2026 Anonymous Email Related events from Microsoft 6/18/2026 Patti Visner Email Data Center Concerns 6/24/2026 Kristi Gingrich Email PC Questions for Microsoft Zoning Application 6/29/2026 Karen Forester Email Data Center Concerns 6/29/2026 Christine Email Data Center Concerns 6/29/2026 bzimmerman Email Data Center Concerns 7/7/2026 Edward Brett Email Data Center Concerns Page 22 of 33  Lowell Charter Township The following questions have been compiled from public correspondence and comments received by Lowell Charter Township. Questions have been organized by topic for ease of reference. The listing of the question does not indicate endorsement by the Township, Planning Commission, or Township Board. Project Scope, Facility Type & Future Expansion • Is the proposed facility a traditional data center, a hyperscale AI data center, or a cloud-storage facility, and what are the practical differences between those types? • How many acres does a hyperscale AI data center typically require, what is the proposed building footprint on this site, will it occupy the entire property, and is the current proposal only an initial phase of a larger campus? • Does the current proposal represent only the first phase of a larger campus? If so, are there plans to acquire or develop additional adjoining parcels, how many buildings are ultimately planned, and what is the anticipated full buildout of the campus? • What aspects of the project are still conceptual versus fixed, including building count, building height, cooling approach, and equipment layout? • Why does the project require a five-building, up-to-90-foot campus covering most of a 290-acre site? • Why do the buildings need to be 90 feet tall? • How often is the interior equipment expected to be refreshed or upgraded over the life of the campus, and would those refresh cycles change utility demand, equipment configuration, or operational impacts? • Will future expansions also use the City of Lowell’s water and wastewater system? • Will there be a program in place to review and evaluate the project in the future? • Is the Ginger East and Ginger West project in Des Moines, Iowa, still estimated to open in 2028? Zoning, Land Use & Master Plan Alignment • How is this proposal consistent with the Township Master Plan's goal of protecting the Township's character for future generations? • How does this proposal, including a five-building campus up to 90 feet in height covering much of the approximately 290-acre site, align with the Township Master Plan, including the goals for farmland preservation, preservation of rural character, protection of natural resources, and the vision for the I-96 Planning Area? • How will this proposal help preserve the Township's rural character and protect the long-term character and value of surrounding properties? • What specifically about the I-PUD district would ultimately limit Microsoft's use of the property as a data center? • Can Microsoft identify which specific standards are “more stringent,” why they are unable to meet those standards, and why our ordinances should be modified to be consistent with their Community First commitments? Page 23 of 33  Lowell Charter Township • Which current district standards is Microsoft seeking relief from, and why can the project not proceed under the existing district rules? • Why is Microsoft categorizing the data center as Light Industrial? Why not Heavy Industrial? • Should a data center be considered Heavy Industrial due to the massive consumption of electrical and water resources? • If the current I-PUD zoning district already permits data centers, why is rezoning the property to Light Industrial necessary? • Why is this use proposed as a permitted use rather than a Special Land Use with conditions and safeguards? • If the Light Industrial zoning classification limits excessive noise and pollution, how could it be rezoned without a site plan and environmental impact assessment? • Should this be considered a Special Land Use under Section 12.03, as well as a Regulated Use under Chapter 4 of the Ordinance? • What specific protections would be lost if the site is rezoned, particularly regarding height, setbacks, screening, permitted uses, and future flexibility? • What would the rezoning and text amendment change in practical terms for neighboring properties and future land use decisions? • If additional adjacent parcels are acquired for future data center expansion, would the current approval conditions automatically apply, or would the Township have the opportunity to review and approve the new development? • Why does the term “data center” never appear in the meeting minutes or public notice when discussing Ordinance 2025-01Z? • Why does the Renewable Energy Zoning Ordinance 2025-01Z definition of “data warehouse facility” not match the requested definition of “data center” if they are referring to the same thing? • If approvals, utility agreements, or later amendments are handled through future development agreements, what material terms are still undefined today and being deferred until after rezoning approval? Planning & Approval Process • How can Microsoft be held to the promises they are making? • Have there been any non-public meetings, conversations, agreements, or commitments related to this proposal? If so, what information can be shared with the public? • What surveys or other measurements of community support have been collected for this project? • What process should residents use to submit questions before future meetings, where will responses be posted, and can the community be assured those questions will actually be asked and answered? • Will future workshops allow direct public questioning, or will all communication continue to be filtered through the Planning Commission? • Why were key materials, studies, and application documents not made publicly available earlier, and where will all supporting materials be posted going forward? Page 24 of 33  Lowell Charter Township • What specific studies, reports, and third-party documentation can be released now so residents can review the factual basis for the project? • Are these studies public records available for review? • Can this be taken to a vote by the citizens through a special election? • Will the landowner be responsible for the costs associated with water engineering studies, traffic studies, EGLE studies, and other required studies? • How will accessibility, ADA accommodations, and meaningful public participation be handled at future meetings and project events? • If application materials required FOIA requests or were published late, what process changes will ensure earlier public access to future filings, studies, and revisions? • If Microsoft entered the process through a third-party entity or affiliate, how will the Township and residents verify who is legally responsible for each commitment, filing, and future enforcement obligation? • What safety standards will Microsoft be accountable for (e.g., nitrates in water, electrical fires, air pollution)? How will they be held accountable? • How will the Township ensure commitments made during the approval process remain enforceable over the life of the project? Water Supply, Cooling Systems & Wastewater • Can the applicant provide greater certainty regarding the facility’s anticipated water usage, including average and peak demand? • What is the actual expected water demand for operations, commissioning, maintenance, and cooling, both daily and annually? • How much water is needed for the initial fill of the system, how often would the system be refreshed, and how much makeup water is required over time? • Will the facility rely exclusively on municipal water, or are there circumstances under which groundwater or other sources could be used? • Will there be decreased water pressure? • What quantitative evidence shows electric and water rates will not increase? • Can Microsoft actually guarantee there will be no increase in local water or electric rates for residents, and if so, how would that be ensured? • How will the proposed project impact water and sewer rates for existing Township utility customers? • Will the infrastructure improvements required for the project result in any increased costs or rate impacts for existing utility users? • Are there actual water use numbers from an operating data center with a closed- loop cooling system, such as actual utility bills or documented use from a water authority? • What is “water-efficient design”? Efficient compared to what? • Is the proposed cooling approach truly water-free during normal operations, or does it still rely on secondary cooling loops, evaporative processes, blowdown, or wastewater discharge? Page 25 of 33  Lowell Charter Township • What cooling method will actually be used on this site, given references to closed loop, air cooling, water cooling, and future innovative technologies? • Does Microsoft have any fully operational data centers using the same closed-loop cooling system proposed for Lowell? If so, where? • Is the closed-loop system single loop or double loop? • What is in the actual cooling system? • What chemicals, additives, coatings, or treatment agents would be used in the cooling system? • When will Microsoft disclose the chemicals used to treat the water in the closed- loop system? • Is the coolant ever replaced, how often, and how is it discarded? • Does the coolant become contaminated with anything that would cause it to be considered hazardous waste? • What happens if the closed-loop system fails? • Closed-loop systems still have periods of drawdown where they are partially or entirely drained. How will this be handled? • Why does the contract reference “any water discharge from the property” if Microsoft is not going to discharge water onsite? • What happens to the wastewater discharge? • Would wastewater or contaminated water from leaks, blowdown, firefighting, or maintenance be treatable by existing local systems? • When the Business Park was originally planned in November 2024, what level of utility usage was expected from the types of businesses that were anticipated, and how does that compare to the expected utility usage of a Microsoft data center? • What water and sewer improvements will Microsoft be financially responsible for, and what costs, if any, will remain the responsibility of the Township or utility system? • If city and township utility agreements are not finalized, would Microsoft be released from the obligation to connect to municipal water and sewer? • Where will the municipal water infrastructure serving the project be located, what specific water infrastructure or treatment facilities are proposed to be upgraded, and what improvements are planned? • What is the current system capacity versus projected demand, and what assumptions are being used to determine whether those upgrades are still needed? • Is there a cap on Microsoft’s responsibility for water and sewer upgrades, and if so, what happens if final upgrade costs exceed the current estimates? • If Microsoft is paying for water and sewer upgrades, why have grants or public funding also been referenced for those same improvements? • Would neighboring property owners be responsible for any assessments or other costs if water and sewer lines are extended past their properties? • Was the 425 Agreement established after contact with Microsoft? • In addition to on-site cooling water, how much water is expected to be consumed by the regional power generation system to supply electricity to the data center? Page 26 of 33  Lowell Charter Township Environmental Impact & Natural Resources • How will the Township protect farmland, water resources, wildlife, and nearby residents from potential long-term impacts associated with the proposed data center? • What happens to the wetlands and ecosystem currently on the property? • Will Microsoft agree in writing to avoid impacts to all wetlands, inland lakes, and streams on the property, including wetlands under five acres that may not receive the same level of regulatory protection? • What impacts to wetlands, streams, inland lakes, or other natural resources are expected as part of the project? • What exactly does the referenced 2-to-1 crediting or mitigation approach mean? • How will this data center protect pollinators? • What independent environmental studies have already been completed, which can be shared publicly, and should additional studies be required before any approvals? • Are independent environmental and health impact studies being conducted? If so, by whom? • What happens if there is a leak, spill, or discharge? What would be the likely impact to wetlands, streams, groundwater, nearby wells, and the aquifer? • How would a leak be detected, how quickly would it be identified, and what notification and response protocols would be triggered? • If the cooling system tubing or related infrastructure is buried, what leak-detection, containment, and groundwater-protection measures would apply to subsurface failures? • The water treatment facility is not capable of filtering heavy metals. Could they end up in rivers, aquifers, or private wells? • Reports have shown data centers poisoning water. How could this affect local farms? • When will Microsoft disclose the specific chemicals proposed for the closed-loop cooling system and any clean-agent suppression systems, including whether any PFAS-containing agents could be present? • What chemicals, additives, coatings, or treatment agents would be used in clean- agent fire suppression systems and other facility operations? • What types of air emissions and water vapor releases are anticipated from the facility, and what measures will be taken to monitor and mitigate potential impacts? • What about diesel exhaust into the environment? Is it harmful in data center quantities? • Do ozone action days apply to data centers? • Has Microsoft previously been fined, cited, or subjected to injunctions related to environmental, noise, generator, or similar operational issues at other data center sites? • At the Open House, Microsoft stated the hyperscale AI data center campus in Mt. Pleasant, Wisconsin, Phase 1, was scheduled to open later this year. Is that still true? Why has the project expanded from a single site to a three-phase project? Page 27 of 33  Lowell Charter Township Power Demand, Generators, Batteries & Grid Reliability • What is the project’s actual electric demand, and what upgrades to transmission, distribution, and local infrastructure would be needed to serve it? • How will this affect the power grid? • What upgrades to transmission, distribution, and local electrical infrastructure would be required? • Consumers Energy already has limited energy usage hours or charges higher rates during peak periods. How do we know rates won't increase? • What quantitative evidence shows electric rates will not increase? • How will the proposed project impact electric rates for existing Township utility customers? What about if there are future project improvements? • What happens if there is a power outage? Will it take longer for residents to have power restored? • Would a grid reliability study be completed to assess whether the current regional grid can realistically support this project? • Will Microsoft agree to no load shedding unless the region is out of power? • How does Microsoft define an “emergency” for triggering the use of backup generators? • Who determines when an emergency exists and authorizes the use of the emergency generators? • Could Consumers Energy or MISO make Microsoft load shed? • Given local outage history, how realistic is the claim that backup generators would run only about one hour per year? • How many generators are proposed per building and sitewide, where would they be located, and under what circumstances could they operate beyond testing? • Ultimately, how many generators will be on site once all buildings are constructed? • Will the facility rely on diesel generators, and if so, why were other technologies not selected? • Why won’t Microsoft demonstrate their generators for the community before any contracts are signed? • Would Microsoft agree to more restrictive operating limits, notice requirements, or demonstrations regarding generator use and noise? • If generator testing is stated as 15 minutes per quarter, what written operating limits would apply to testing, after-hours operation, consecutive run time, and notice to neighbors? • What battery systems or uninterruptible power supply systems are planned, and what fire, suppression, and responder-training implications do they create? • If the site includes a UPS with lithium-ion batteries, who is responsible for funding any specialized fire-response training, equipment, and long-term emergency preparedness needed by local responders? • What chips for direct-to-chip cooling will be used in the facility? • What are the chips coated with? Page 28 of 33  Lowell Charter Township • Where will the new power lines be located, and what properties or areas will they pass through to serve the project? • Would additional property acquisition or eminent domain be required? • Do they plan to use eminent domain to acquire property needed for these power lines? • Why is Microsoft buying carbon offsets for generating emissions? Noise, Lighting, Visual Screening & Quality of Life • What are the actual expected operational sound levels for generators, chillers, fans, and other equipment, and why were multiple figures such as 65 dBA and 85 dBA discussed? • What measures will be implemented to address potential noise impacts from generators and other mechanical equipment associated with the facility? • How will low-frequency noise, tonal noise, infrasound, and cumulative sound from multiple pieces of equipment be measured and controlled? • Why are noise limits measured only at residential property lines and not at the equipment? • Why are proposed noise limits set at the property line rather than at the equipment level? • Would frequency-based standards also be used? • Will Microsoft agree to sound frequency limits and infrasound limits? • Would the Township consider tonal-noise penalties or other frequency-based adjustments similar to wind-ordinance approaches if equipment produces distinct tonal characteristics? • Why won’t Microsoft demonstrate their generators for the community before any contracts are signed? • Would Microsoft agree to a live or staged demonstration of representative generators and chillers so the community can understand what the sound would actually be like? • Can Microsoft set up generators and chillers on the proposed site, operate them, and let them run for an extended period to demonstrate actual noise impacts? • Will Microsoft enclose the chillers to help reduce noise? • If chillers or other major equipment remain a concern based on experiences at other sites, will they be enclosed or otherwise acoustically treated beyond standard screening measures? • How does landscaping buffer the sound of five 90-foot buildings with industrial- sized diesel generators and chillers? • How would landscaping, berms, setbacks, and tree buffers realistically screen buildings up to 90 feet tall and reduce operational noise? • How will lighting be controlled during construction and operation of the facility, and what measures will be implemented to prevent or reduce light spill and impacts on nearby homes, farms, surrounding properties, and nighttime visibility? • What are the likely long-term effects on quality of life for nearby residents, including noise inside homes, visual impacts, and loss of dark skies? Page 29 of 33  Lowell Charter Township • Can Microsoft provide realistic visual renderings showing the scale of 90-foot buildings, the maturity of proposed landscaping at installation, and the likely appearance before trees reach full growth? Traffic, Construction Impacts & Operations • What traffic studies have been done, including impacts to nearby intersections, the carpool lot, local roads, and highway access points? • What are the impacts of construction and future traffic? • How would a 10- to 15-year construction period affect traffic, noise, dust, and nearby community activities over time? • How will the roads be affected by long-term construction and ongoing diesel deliveries from heavy trucks? • What is the expected timeline for site preparation, utility work, building construction, completion of each phase, and when would each phase become operational? • How would construction hours be managed? • Should construction hours be more limited than the current ordinance allows, especially during summer when “sundown” extends late into the evening? • What traffic impacts are anticipated during construction and after the facility becomes operational? • What security or break-in risks are anticipated? • How would leaks, fires, or other operational issues be detected if the site has limited routine staffing? • What measures will be taken to minimize construction impacts on surrounding residents and properties? Employment & Economic Benefits • How many long-term jobs will be created once the facility is operational, and what types of positions will those jobs include? • How many employees are expected to be on-site during normal operations, and will the facility be staffed around the clock? • How do the expected long-term jobs compare with the size of the project and the impacts it may have on the surrounding community? • Would construction and long-term operations jobs primarily go to local workers, Michigan unions, specialized outside contractors, or a mix? • Will Microsoft only hire Michigan contractors for construction of the data center? • Will Microsoft employ local workers or bring in employees from outside the area? • If the project is expected to rely on specialized general contractors and subcontractors, what portion of the construction and maintenance work is realistically expected to go to local labor versus preselected specialty firms? • What specific community investments, nonprofit support, STEM programming, workforce development, or other tangible benefits can Microsoft point to in comparable communities? Page 30 of 33  Lowell Charter Township • How will this project benefit the community in measurable, documented ways? • How will the Township demonstrate that the promised economic growth and job creation outweigh the potential long-term impacts to the community? • What tax revenue is actually expected, over what timeline, and how should that be weighed against infrastructure costs, environmental risks, and possible property- value impacts? Taxes, Incentives & Public Funding • Does Microsoft receive any tax abatements or incentives? • Is Microsoft receiving or planning to use state sales-tax exemptions, brownfield reimbursements, or other public incentives even if it says it is not seeking local abatements? • How much tax revenue will the Township receive? • How do state sales and use tax exemptions associated with the facility affect local school funding and other public revenue streams that residents rely on? • Does the state-level tax incentive require 90% of the energy for the site to be renewable? • If public grants or taxpayer funds have already been committed to related infrastructure, would those funds be reimbursed or offset if Microsoft covers the work directly? • With a $17.5 million grant, what sustainable development projects could be considered besides the data center? Grants • What conditions must be met to maintain the $17.5 million SSRP grant, and could changes to the proposed use, site plan, or lack of alignment with the Master Plan impact the grant award? • Were Franklin Partners, The Right Place, or Township officials aware of or consulted about the potential data center use before the SSRP grant application was submitted? • Was the SSRP grant application based on the data center project, or was the data center use identified after the grant application? Community Commitments, Transparency & Public Process • Which parts of Microsoft’s stated “Community First commitments” are actually binding, and which are aspirational or subject to later agreements? • How can Microsoft be held accountable for the commitments and assurances made to the community? • What specific community investments, nonprofit support, STEM programming, workforce development, or other tangible benefits can Microsoft point to in comparable communities? • How will this project benefit the community in measurable and documented ways? Page 31 of 33  Lowell Charter Township • If residents are expected to raise complaints or requests for accommodation, who carries the burden of response and follow-through, and what accountability measures apply if those requests are not handled appropriately? • Why should residents trust vague or changing representations if similar community concerns in other locations remain unresolved? • Will Microsoft agree to additional community commitments in writing before approvals are granted? • What contractual mechanisms will ensure community commitments remain enforceable if ownership changes in the future? • What specific complaint process would residents use after construction begins or operations start, and who would be the ongoing point of contact for issues such as noise, spills, lighting, or other concerns? • Who will monitor compliance with community commitments, and how often will that monitoring occur? • Will the Township have authority to verify compliance with commitments made by Microsoft? Fire/Emergency Response, Compliance & Decommissioning • What training, equipment, and funding would local fire departments, hazmat teams, EMS, and other responders need to safely respond to a data center incident? • What will the Fire Department need in case of a fire or emergency at the data center? • Can the Fire Department handle the extensive fire protection requirements associated with the facility? • Who would serve as first responders for a chemical release, fire, or other hazardous-material event, and what equipment or training would they need? • If the site includes a UPS with lithium-ion batteries, who is responsible for funding any specialized fire-response training, equipment, and long-term emergency preparedness needed by local responders? • Who would fund spill response, specialized hazmat capability, and any ongoing compliance or emergency-response costs created by the project? • Would Township officials be allowed on site to verify compliance, and what remedies would exist if standards are exceeded? • Who would monitor compliance with noise, lighting, environmental requirements, and contractual obligations, and how often would that monitoring occur? • What type of performance guarantee is being proposed, how will the amount be determined, and will it be sufficient to ensure completion of required improvements and compliance with approved commitments? • How will the performance guarantee be determined, what improvements or obligations will it secure, and what amount is anticipated? • Who will administer and enforce the performance guarantee, and what authority will the Township have to inspect the site and verify compliance with its requirements? Page 32 of 33  Lowell Charter Township • What protections will be enforced regarding decommissioning and reclamation requirements if the facility ever closes? • If the facility is decommissioned, what exactly would be removed, what remediation would occur, and how would long-term financial responsibility be ensured if ownership changes? • Should Microsoft remain secondarily liable for decommissioning and land restoration even if the property is transferred to another owner in the future? • If Microsoft withdraws from the project or transfers ownership after infrastructure costs are incurred, what contractual mechanisms ensure recovery of those costs and continued compliance with decommissioning obligations? • What happens if commitments, operating standards, or required mitigation measures are not met after the facility becomes operational? Page 33 of 33