BY JEFF CHUDZINSKI
North Country This Week

MASSENA - Over 30 town residents attended the town board meeting held Feb. 16, all seemingly in opposition to crypto mining operations coming to Massena.

Town officials opted to extend the moratorium again, this time until April 30, following significant opposition from residents.

The public comment period was to afford residents the opportunity to voice support or opposition to extending the existing moratorium on crypto mining. The moratorium was set to expire on Feb. 28, following a second extension passed in November.

Resident Diane Major was the first to speak during the public comment and was a vocal critic of such operations coming to Massena as a whole.

“I live on the river, sound travels. It travels and it is loud. We can hear the fans from the current operation on County Rte. 42 and they are very loud, even from a mile away,” she said.

Major began a petition earlier in the week, garnering over 200 signatures in just a few days. She hand delivered the petition to the board during the public comment period and said she would continue to gather signatures.

“The proposed fences, the sea boxes, they’re all ugly and do absolutely nothing to alleviate the noise. I’m completely against any of these companies coming into our residential areas,” she said.

Another concerned resident also voiced her opposition and went a step further, inquiring if the use of sea boxes that are not permanent structures would allow companies to shirk paying taxes on a technicality.

“That is correct, if the structure is not permanently affixed to a foundation, of sorts, taxes would not have to be paid on the structure,” confirmed Town Attorney Eric Gustafson.

Gustafson said the town is going to address the issue with clear language to ensure all potential data processing operations have a permanent structure and must pay taxes.

“I just want to ensure we are all on the same page here and we are focused on the issue of the moratorium. There are a number of concerns, very valid concerns, but the purpose of this meeting tonight is strictly for the moratorium. We hear you all loud and clear, we appreciate the feedback and we hope you all continue to offer feedback during the process,” Gustafson said.

Steve Lavack, another resident who lives adjacent to the property owned by Block Scheme LLC was another dissenting voice, saying nothing has been done with the property since Block Scheme purchased it years ago.

“It’s not a pretty sight, I live right next door. And if they don’t do anything with it, if it’s still ugly and not taken care of, what will that do to my property value? What about my neighbor’s property values? They’ll go way down and I’m completely against this,” he said.

Multiple Town Planning Board members were in attendance as well, including Vance Fleury and Shawn Burke, both who voiced support for the moratorium.

Fleury sought to address the property owned by Block Scheme, pointing out the planning board had only approved a 300 amp entrance for the structure.

“That’s about the equivalent of a home. Now they’re trying to push that to over 500 times what was initially approved. So I want to make that clear to everyone who ask why the planning board approved the plan initially. We never approved sea box containers on the site. It was over two years ago and not at all what is being proposed now,” he said.

“The whole idea of the moratorium is to ensure we can develop the tools necessary for the planning board so they can make decisions accurately and in accordance with the town’s mission and values,” added Gustafson.

Though Block Scheme was the talk of the night, another data processing company called Mission Peak spoke against a permanent moratorium, as was suggested by some residents.

Speaking on behalf of Mission Peak was Attorney Dan Ramsey of Snyder and Smith.

“My client supports the moratorium and hopes it brings clearer guidance to the process and regulations so he may move forward in a positive manner with the town and begin operating in Massena,” Ramsey said.

Some residents were still not happy, pressing Ramsey about the potential for employment with Mission Peak and concerns over the heat and noise generated by the site.

When asked how many people Mission Peak would employ, he said he could not offer a definitive number because of the current situation and having not received approval to continue forward. Of note, no specifics were offered as to the nature of the data processing being conducted by Mission Peak, a distinction Ramsey suggested was drastically different to crypto mining.

“We just ask that the board and Attorney Gustafson proceed deliberately and carefully to ensure future business opportunities are not lost because of the language used in potential laws,” Ramsey said.

Shawn Burke then called into question the decision of Mission Peak to choose a parcel not in the industrial park, but rather one in the Residential Agricultural zone.

“That parcel isn’t even zoned for what your client intends to use it for. Why didn’t they start with the industrial zone? We have acres available, we’ve already sold off over 100 acres and they would have more than enough power there,” he said.

Ramsey suggested the decision was made in conjunction with Massena Electric due to the proximity to adjacent industrial zoned properties, as well as the close location to a substation.

Architect Brooks Washburn, who is consulting with Mission Peak, spoke to the nature of the project as well, stating they have an enclosed structure and plan to utilize the heat produced to run a greenhouse to offset the emissions.

“A small fraction of data processing is mining, bitcoin or whatever crypto data you want. I just want to make that distinction clear,” he said.

Washburn also seemingly took the opportunity to forgive the existing crypto mining operation on County Route 42, which utilizes sea box containers.

“As to the operation on County Route 42, I also consulted on that. We decided on sea boxes because that made the most sense. We didn’t break any rules because there were no rules to break in that case,” he said.

Further opposition came from Joseph Gray, who said, “There is no benefit to having these people here. They take and take, they’re here to suck up the cheap power and I don’t think they should be here, any of them. They’re obnoxious and add nothing to Massena. Maybe I’m a dinosaur or archaic but I think this is a fad. It just belongs in cyber space and I don’t believe in crypto. If it isn’t backed by real money, I want nothing to do with it,” he said.

Residents also were concerned an influx of crypto mining operations could affect the cost of residential electric rates. Attorney Gustafson assured residents they would have no effect on residential rates and safeguards were in place to ensure that.

“We ensure everything is done at the market rate for these companies. The tariffs are already in place with Massena Electric and market power is sold to them pursuant to MED tariffs,” he said.

The next town board meeting will be held March 16 at 5:30 p.m.