Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLake Hawkeye Letter to TOL Board and Planning Board (09.18.26) 117 TERAWULF September 18, 2026 VIA EMAIL Ruth Groff, Town Supervisor Members of the Town Board Dean Shea, Chair Members of the Planning Board Town of Lansing 29 Auburn Road Lansing,New York 14882 Re: Lake Hawkeye Data Campus—Executive Order 62 Supervisor Groff, Chair Shea and Members of the Town and Planning Boards: TeraWulf writes in advance of the Town Board's September 29 special meeting concerning Governor Hochul's Executive Order 62 and following recent statements that the Town is considering a"reprieve" from planning and permitting decisions while the Executive Order remains in effect. The Town's notice states that the Board will discuss EO 62, its implications for Lansing and "options for the Town."Deputy Supervisor Joseph Wetmore has separately characterized the meeting as concerning"the state's moratorium on new data center development" and stated that the Board will consider"what options are available to the Town, and what steps the Town may consider moving forward." Because Lake Hawkeye is a pending land-use application, it is important to distinguish clearly between the State action taken through EO 62 and Lansing's separate authority over local land use. EO 62 does not suspend Lansing's local land-use review. The State permitting abeyance expressly excludes local permits and approvals. The Executive Order directs the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to hold certain discretionary State permits and approvals for covered data center projects in abeyance. It then expressly provides that the abeyance does not apply to permits, approvals, licenses, or similar forms of permission from local governments. The Governor therefore did not leave the status of local approvals uncertain. She affirmatively excluded them from the State permitting pause. That distinction must be given effect. EO 62 does not amend Lansing's zoning, alter the standards applicable to Lake Hawkeye, suspend the Planning Board's authority, or replace the Town's existing land-use procedures. The laws and procedures governing the pending application remain in place unless and until they are lawfully changed. A member of the Town Board articulated this same distinction during the 2025 moratorium debate. Deputy Supervisor Wetmore, who now serves as the Town Board liaison to the Planning Board, wrote: "The site plan review process ensures a project complies with current rules, but it cannot create new requirements. Only zoning can define what uses are permitted,what standards must be met, and what conditions the Planning Board can enforce." That remains the relevant distinction today. The Planning Board administers the land-use framework governing applications before it. The Town Board may separately exercise its legislative authority to consider changes to that framework. Those are distinct governmental functions. If the Town now wishes to consider another moratorium, a zoning amendment, new development standards, or any other prospective change to Lansing's land-use framework, that would be a separate exercise of the Town's own authority.Any such measure must proceed under the legal requirements applicable to that action and stand on its own legal and factual basis. EO 62 does not itself supply the legal authority for such a measure, and its existence alone does not establish the independent local justification required for one. New York State guidance describes a moratorium as a local enactment that temporarily suspends development approvals while a municipality considers changes to its regulations. The Department of State advises that such a measure should be supported by a strong written record explaining why it is necessary, define the activities affected,be limited in duration,provide an appropriate hardship process, and relate directly to the planning or regulatory work the municipality intends to undertake. The State further advises that each moratorium requires its own justification based upon the particular circumstances of the municipality. The issuance of EO 62 does not eliminate those requirements. The Governor did not direct municipalities to stop processing local applications or condition continued local review on completion of the State's work. To the contrary, the State permitting abeyance expressly excludes local approvals. Accordingly, if Lansing believes a new moratorium or other change in its land-use laws is warranted, the Town must identify the independent legal authority, local planning purpose and factual basis supporting that action. The existence of EO 62 cannot simply be converted into a local justification for suspending approvals that the State expressly left outside the scope of its pause. 2 That distinction is particularly important here. Lansing already considered a moratorium directed at large-scale development in 2025. Lake Hawkeye has since continued through the Town's established review process, and TeraWulf has devoted substantial time and resources to responding to comments and information requests from the Planning Board, Town staff and the Town's consultants. New York courts have also recognized that the circumstances surrounding municipal delay may be legally significant when a pending application is delayed while the governing land-use law is changed. Earlier this year, the Appellate Division held that factual issues remained as to whether a town had acted in bad faith and intentionally delayed a pending site-plan application before changing the applicable law. TeraWulf does not presume that Lansing intends to take such action, but this authority underscores the importance of administering a pending application under established procedures while any prospective legislative changes are considered separately. Nor does the Generic Environmental Impact Statement contemplated by EO 62 provide an independent basis to halt local review. Generic environmental review is an established component of SEQRA. DEC guidance expressly contemplates that subsequent actions may be evaluated against a generic EIS and that additional site- or project-specific analysis may be required where appropriate. If the State's eventual GEIS or subsequent State requirements create additional obligations applicable to Lake Hawkeye, TeraWulf will address those obligations through the mechanisms provided by law. The prospect of future State guidance does not prevent Lansing from administering the laws and standards in effect today. Continued local review also should not be confused with authorization to construct.Advancing Planning Board and SEQRA review does not permit TeraWulf to undertake activities requiring separate State permits or approvals that are unavailable while EO 62 remains in effect. The State may maintain its permitting abeyance while Lansing continues exercising the separate local authority that the Executive Order leaves intact. Lake Hawkeye is not a hypothetical future application. It is already well into Lansing's established review process. For months, TeraWulf and its consultants have responded to comments and information requests from the Planning Board, Town staff and the Town's technical consultants. We are now completing a materially revised submission incorporating significant additional engineering, geotechnical, traffic, sound,visual and other technical analysis. TeraWulf will continue satisfying its obligations as the applicant. The Town likewise remains responsible for administering the laws and procedures governing the application. TeraWulf's preference is straightforward: allow the established review process to continue. The Town has a Planning Board,professional staff and technical consultants charged with evaluating applications under the standards prescribed by law. TeraWulf has assembled an experienced 3 technical team and has worked diligently to respond to their comments and requests.Nothing in EO 62 prevents that work from proceeding while the State separately carries out the review contemplated by the Executive Order. The State can perform the function assigned to it, the Town can perform its local review, and TeraWulf can continue meeting its obligations as the applicant. We are not seeking expedited treatment,preferential treatment, relaxed standards or any particular outcome. Lake Hawkeye is a pending land-use application, and the governing law not policy preference—prescribes the process by which it is to be reviewed. Public debate concerning data-center development does not alter that framework. Nor can a State Executive Order that expressly leaves local approvals outside its permitting pause be transformed into authority for suspending, deferring or otherwise interrupting local review. The September 29 meeting may provide the Town Board an opportunity to consider prospective policy choices available to Lansing.Any decision to enact a new moratorium, amend the Town's zoning, impose new land-use standards or pursue another legislative measure is separate from the meaning and effect of EO 62 and must stand on its own legal and factual basis under New York law. TeraWulf will therefore continue advancing the Lake Hawkeye application in accordance with the Town Code, SEQRA and applicable law. If the Town intends to suspend, defer, administratively hold or otherwise interrupt the processing of the application outside the ordinary course of review, TeraWulf requests that the Town identify in writing the independent legal authority and factual basis for doing so. Executive Order 62 is not that authority. Please include this correspondence in the record of the Lake Hawkeye application and in the record associated with the Town Board's September 29 consideration of Executive Order 62. TeraWulf expressly reserves all rights and remedies with respect to its application and any action or inaction affecting its review. Respectfully, Kerri Langlais Chief Strategy Officer TeraWulf Inc. 4