Planning Commission rejects bitcoin mining facility
To the delight of a standing-room only crowd at City Hall on Tuesday, the Planning and Zoning Commission denied a special use exemption that would have allowed for a bitcoin mining facility to operate on Industrial Park Road.
ByPaloma Green• 1 minute ago• 5 mins to readMore than 80 Starkville residents crowded into Tuesday night’s meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at City Hall to voice their concerns about a proposed bitcoin mining center. The commission held a public hearing for the facility’s special exemption request during its regular meeting and recommended rejecting it. Paloma Green/Dispatch StaffSTARKVILLE – To the delight of a standing-room only crowd at City Hall on Tuesday, the Planning and Zoning Commission denied a special use exemption that would have allowed for a bitcoin mining facility to operate on Industrial Park Road. The commission rejected the bid, agreeing with City Planner Daniel Havelin and Assistant City Planner Lyle MeCaskey’s recommendation due to project representatives’ inability to address unknowns, missing information from the application and public outcry in opposition to the project. “I’ve never had an applicant that had such a contentious issue be so unprepared,” Jeremiah Dumas, Ward 6 commissioner, told The Dispatch after the meeting. “…You’re talking about a multimillion-dollar thing that people generally don’t like anyway. You would think they would come in there prepared but, no, not at all. ”Jeremiah DumasThe proposed bitcoin mining facility needs a special exemption to develop on 407 Industrial Park Road under Starkville’s Unified Development Code even though the area is zoned for industrial use because this type of facility is not specifically identified in the UDC. Coopers Land LLC applied for special use permission on behalf of the project and the three other companies listed for the project: Aspire Property Inc, Bitdeers Technologies Group and Starkville Energy LLC. Mandy Jiang, the project representative from Starkville Energy LLC, told The Dispatch she was not aware until Tuesday afternoon that the application was lacking critical information. Jiang said this was the group’s first time applying for a special exemption, which led to the issues with the application. Havelin and MeCaskey wrote a staff report recommending rejecting the exemption due to missing information regarding the site’s water and wastewater needs, employment, flood planning and environmental review. Jiang spoke at the meeting to try and alleviate concerns about utility usage, economic benefit and noise pollution. Jiang explained the center’s cooling system would require up to 50 gallons of water per minute, which would fill an Olympic-size swimming pool every nine days. The facility would require little to no water in cooler months but anticipates pulling 73,000 gallons a day at its peak, Jiang said. Starkville Utilities manager Edward Kemp told the commission that, if approved, the site would not be on an open water meter and would account for only 1% of Starkville Utilities’ water sales. Kemp noted the proposed water usage is comparable to similar industrial uses in the city, with at least one unnamed manufacturer currently using between 50,000 and 75,000 gallons a day. Kemp and Josh Wotten, a representative from the Tennessee Valley Authority, said the proposed facility would not represent a burden to Starville Utilities’ electrical grid or TVA’s distribution grid broadly. Jiang said the facility would have a positive economic impact on the city through its yearly tax contributions and contractor employment during construction. The facility would be operated by a small team of six to seven employees, who would come in from out of town for a week at a time to manage it, Jiang told The Dispatch. Jiang also tried to dissuade concerns surrounding the site’s noise pollution by using a study conducted at its Puryear, Tennessee, facility, which is a comparable size, saying the sound produced is quieter than a dishwasher. The facility would also have a double wall barrier created by shipping containers to help dampen the sound, she told the commission. Public concernResidents formed a long line to voice similar concerns outlined by city officials against the project following Jiang’s presentation. Ten speakers were allowed to voice concerns before the committee closed public comments due to time constraints. “With scarce job creation and no tangible goods or services being brought to the community in exchange for too many unknown elements whose damage can’t be properly assessed until it’s too late, I strongly urge the commission not to provide this exemption,” said Karen Snyder, a Ward 3 resident. “And to be optimistic that a fast-growing town like ours will have offers from other companies with tangible benefits without these unknowns. ”Jane Moorhead, a computer engineering professor at Mississippi State University who owns property adjacent to the site of the proposed facility, was among those who raised concerns surrounding potential noise pollution in the area. Concerns around potential noise pollution focused not only on impacts to residents but also on its impact to animals at the neighboring Oktibbeha County Humane Society. Jiang said she doesn’t think the facility would impact local animals, as she has seen dogs onsite at the group’s Puryear, Tennessee, facility. “I don’t know how to explain it better. I think it’s not even the explanation where they’re concerned; they just hate us,” Jiang told The Dispatch. “… I remember what every single person said … but I don’t think that’s the point. They’re not wanting an answer, they’re just saying it because they don’t want us here. ”Multiple residents also raised concerns about a lack of transparency around the developers and companies behind the project. Jiang told The Dispatch the group developing the site has a different LLC for each of their sites. Jiang said all companies involved are American-based but declined to comment further on the specific companies involved. The commission’s rejection will go before the board of aldermen during its regular meeting at 5:30 p. m. Tuesday at City Hall. If the board votes to deny the project, it can appeal the decision to the judiciary or reapply next year. Starkville LLC is not planning on attending next week’s meeting, but that doesn’t mean the group is giving up, Jiang told The Dispatch. “I don’t think we are going to give up. We’re probably going to appeal,” said Jiang. “… We’ve spent around $300,000 for this project already before anything got started. … If we give up, it’s going to be like all their concerns are true … but it’s not true and so we do not want to give up. ”Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 34 articles to cdispatch. com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2. 30 per week to help support local journalism and our community. Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 34 articles to cdispatch. com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2. 30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.