On the agenda: Hudsonville August 10 — data center (Aug 8)

Draft

Planning Commission
August 10, 2026, 7:00 PM
Meeting Agenda

1. Call to Order:

Chairman, Mark Leathead

2. Invocation:

Ben Van Zweden

3. Roll Call:

Mark Leathead
Jason Vander Kodde
Ben Van Zweden

Jeff Meyer
Jason Leeuw
Jeff Haveman

4. Also Attending:
a. Andrew Moore – Township Planner
b. Steve Kushion – Zoning Administrator
c. Greg Golembiewski – Manager
d. Ron Redick- Attorney
5. Motion to approve the agenda was made by Vander Kodde supported by Meyer.
Motion Carried 7-0
6. Commissioner Conflict of Interest:
7. Motion to approve the Planning Commission Minutes, dated July 6, 2026, was made by
Leeuw, supported by Haveman.
Motion Carried 7-0
8. Opportunity for public comment and communication of business ON the Agenda except
for public hearings.
a. Bev Horinga 8315 Polk St: Talking about protecting the community. She believes
groundwater and aquifer deserve more attention. Once groundwater becomes
contaminated the clean up is difficult, expensive, and can be impossible. Protecting
groundwater is about requiring progress to respect resources that our community is
liable for in the first place.
b. Allison 8432 Polk St: Her and her husband own property on Polk St. Blendon Township
is in the process of changing/updating certain ordinances. They did not receive
information about these changes provided by KCE to residents. She has attended
meetings and talked with someone from KCE. He recommended she write a letter to the
planning commission. A concern she has is the noise. Her time ran out. She gave the
letter to Mark Leathead.
c. Rodge Toppin 8673 80th Ave: his ditches are not getting any better and losing the
wildlife in it. He is very worried and upset about our water.
d. Kurt 14944 port Sheldon: Why would they want to put something like this in an
agricultural area. They should put it in a city where it seems more applicable.
e. Jerry 8657 56th Ave: He’s wondering how much water this is going to use a day and
what it will cost. We are losing water over the years.
9. Public Hearings:
a. None
10. New Business:

Draft

a. None
11. Old Business:
a. Joe Bush
o Joe started by expressing his appreciation in the residents taking time out of their
Monday night to come to the planning commission meeting.
o Vlack & Veatch was hired by Joe Bush from KCE. KCE spent the money on
these studies and is willing to continue doing so.
o Joe Bush introduced the Vlack & Veatch members who will be presenting their
findings. Joe wanted to make sure they had all the data to protect all the
concerns for now and many years to come.
o Parker Lohrenz stepped up to start the presentation. He started the presentation
with some of the projects he has been involved in before and explaining the
history of his time at the company. They reviewed what is inside the battery, how
the battery system can fail, and the environmental pathways. He discussed that
there could be a minor event where something has failed inside the container,
but it shuts down and doesn’t go anywhere from there, there is a minor even that
does breach the container but does not leave the site, or a major event where it
would leave the container.
o Kurt from Lakeshore environmental came up next. He said their objective was to
evaluate data submitted on behalf of Key Capture Energy. Their initial finding:
data provided by KCE team was accurate and comprehensive. OCWRC directed
LEI to perform additional studies to augment existing data.
o They went to the site and studied the local water wells. They installed 5 small
monitor wells on the site with computers in them to study the data. They
established 3 surface water monitoring stations. They went around and surveyed
pertinent water features at KCE and in surrounding areas.
o There are 53 wells with data withing ½ mile of BESS. 45 of the wells with records
are deep protected wells in bedrock or deeper glacial aquifers.
o Kurt showed a map showing the shallow well locations within ½ mile of BESS.
o The data showed shallow groundwater and surface water flow at proposed BESS
to northeast and controlled by drains directing surface water and groundwater to
north. The groundwater and surface water flow direction at proposed BESS also
supported by topographic survey, drain maps, physical observations. The
existing water quality is good. Nothing unusual was discovered by LEI. What is
unusual is that the site being on the hill all water flows to one location.
o Kurt showed a map of groundwater elevation contours.
o Conclusion: the proposed BESS does not pose a significant risk to the water
resources. If there is a release it will be onsite and controlled.
o Recommendations: additional rip rap should be placed at the outfall of the
infiltration basin to prevent downstream erosion and potential sedimentation of
the north drain. A valve or other method of plugging the outfall of the infiltrations
should be available for the unlikely event of spills. Quarterly field readings should
be collected in the North Drain and PZ-2 during construction of the proposed
BESS and for a period of one year after construction is complete. Following this

Draft

period annual field readings should be collected for the life of the BESS and
associated decommissioning. From past experience Kurt says construction is the
highest risk time.
o Kyle from LRE came up to speak next. He did the stormwater review. Their
company is a full-service civil engineering. They do a lot of work in Ottawa county
and serve a lot of drain commissioners and road commissioners.
o Back in 2021 site development rules were put together. Any development that is
done in Ottawa County follows the standards that are within that document.
o He showed a visual of the Stormwater design review. The soil is sandy and well
drained with some wetlands on the site. The proposed development takes about
12 acres of the site. Collect the stormwater and then slowly release it. He wrote a
letter after reviewing going through all the requirements of what they are lacking
or changes that need to be made. He had about 14 comments, which he stated
is pretty standard for stormwater review. The main items for safety
recommendations: have some kind of manual shut off valve, stormwater
maintenance plan and agreement they would like to see groundwater sampling
included. They won’t recommend approval until all 14 items have been
adequately addressed. Once those are completed, they would make the
recommendation.
o Joe Bush came back up and discussed how this is just an overview. They want
to make sure they have a safety net to prevent that site from having anything
leaving.
o Jason Vander Kodde said he is unable to observe figure 2 in the report. In the
copy he received he got 2 of figure 1 and 1 figure 3. He is curious if he can
provide copies of figure 2 to them. He asked this because he is concerned
because there is not a clay barrier. They have 50 feet of sand. Kurt responded
that the flow will not change the clay or sand. It will still be straight
north/northeast. His question is: is it his opinion that a clay barrier exists below
50 feet and is it reasonable to identify and locate that? Kurt says there is
absolutely clay down there and if you drill down, you will find the clay. It will not
change the groundwater flow and there is no way the contamination will go
downward through the clay and into the bedrock. It will go horizontally and end
up in the drains. The vertical flow rate is so slow. It will flow horizontally 10-100
times faster so it will end up in the drains. Vander Kodde is still curious about
below the clay there is normally a second sand layer. Kurt responds that there is
always clay above the bedrock.
o Vander Kodde asks a question for Mr. Parker. The assessment was done
specifically on containers and is assuming this is the base of the risk analysis. In
the event that a new battery system or different 4.0 version comes along, does
this risk analysis still apply or will it need to be redone? If it is a unit that is similar
with just a few things changed this would not change results. If an entirely
different thing came along then it would need to be redone.
o Vander Kodde asks Kyle: in the recommendations from Lakeshore, they have
groundwater monitoring recommended. Is it possible for you guys to mutually

Draft

identify the distinct points of monitoring that you are looking for? Vander Kodde is
assuming based on experience that you would like to see that in the infiltration
basin location? Kyle responds: Yes, he is correct they would want the monitoring
from the basin lakeshore everywhere else. They can make that distinction more
clear in the letter.
o Meyer asks Kurt for clarification on conclusion number 1: if one of the units gets
damaged and exposes it and there is large rain on top of that, with those 2 items
happening at the same time and not being detected for a long time it can still go
into the basin and be below the hazard levels. Kurt says first of all it would be
retained; it would be diluted by an infiltration basin. Even if it were to be released
right into the drain it would be diluted. Whether it goes in the soil or infiltrations
basin it still has a long time to get off site and it has to get below criteria. Meyer
asked how long does it take to get 3 feet vertically to the shallow water? Kurt
says it would take a long time, 6 months to a year, to get down into the
groundwater and flow through groundwater offsite. The idea is that with the
monitoring it will be caught before it ever gets there. Meyer asks that with it
moving so slowly will they be able to catch it. Kurt says it would be found in the
monitoring, or it would be diluted to be insignificant.
o Leathead asks Kurt in the event of the leak what is the process of mitigation. Kurt
says they would notify the contractor. It soaks in enough that they can come in
and dig it out before it contaminates anything and haul it so a landfill.
o VanderKodde followed up on Kurt’s response: are you looking for specific gravel
type? Kurt says they have 4% or more fines that would be the preferred material
from an environmental perspective. Vanderkodde clarifies his question: they
need to have something to compare against to say yes or no to if it qualifies. Kurt
says he will make sure they get a specific type.
o Leathead asks Joe Bush: to summarize the information you’ve been given, what
is your biggest concern regarding groundwater contamination? Bush says in the
big scheme of things and the review it will prudent that they put a lot of measures
in for monitoring basin and perimeter. They need to keep an eye on the water.
Bush does not see any huge roadblocks in what he has studied. If KCE changes
batteries, they want to make sure the new batteries are also looked at and
reviewed to make sure there is no contamination issues.
o No decisions will be made on this tonight.
o Mark asks Redick if at some point will he have a recommendation for the
Planning Commission regarding conditions. Redick says his next step will be
working toward making a final document with Andy and then be ready to present
a proposed resolution with conditions.
b. Key Capture
o Brian has not prepared a formal presentation. The finding were in line with what
KCE has been saying all along.
12. Updates of Ongoing Business:
a. Township Board Meeting Minutes
o Tyler street water project has been completed

Draft

o Pass ordinance rezone on 48th ave with Koetje builders.
o VanZweden asked under new business what was voted for? Meyer clarified that
it’s basically for federal money. It is a procedure to state there were no conflicts
of interest. This was worded improperly.
o VanderKodde asked under item 10 what is the court date set for? Meyer
responds September 3rd.
13. Opportunity for public comment and communication of business NOT ON the Agenda
except for public hearings.
a. Doug: Everything they have talked about is groundwater. Why don’t they cover those
batteries with a roof? He wants to know why this isn’t a requirement. The standard drain
goes to the Grand River which flows to Lake Michigan. A simple solution would be to
cover this so if there is a leak and we get heavy rain it would not get on it.
b. Emily: Joe talked about the studies that KCE funded, and she is curious who sourced
them all and did KCE know who was doing the studies. KCE said the study showed
everything he wanted to see but she will never trust them regardless of what they say or
what their studies show.
c. Molly Underhill: Question for the board or potentially township supervisor. This process
they are going through is that so they are able to say yes we are going to approve the
special land use or are they planning on just approving this land use when saying yes.
d. Jen Wagner: How does the field flooding not affect the runoff. She is also concerned
about the noise that will come along with this.
e. Shelby from Olive Township: concern is if this thing catches and fire and it gets fought
off with foam, what will happen to the groundwater.
f. Jennifer Matthews: piggybacking off what Jordyn said: she has seen firsthand what
frequency does to animals. The noise will affect the animals. She is concerned on what
this sound will do to the animals.
14. Planning Commissioner Comments:
a. Memo from Williams and Works: Andrew addressed this memo. Several months ago,
the Senate passed an amendment that changes the number of divisions an individual
gets. The current one is good till April of next year. There is potential for a lot more
splitting of property. Farmland could quickly get split up and turn into housing. His
question for the planning commission is: what do you want to do with that? They can’t
alter what the state’s formula is. They will need some direction from the planning
commission in terms of do they want them to do anything about it. Concerns with larger
parcels that are on corner lots. This opens the door for quite a few more splits. They
need to think about ways they can deal with that. The memo they wrote on August 4th
addresses some concerns. The new formula won’t go into effect until around March
2027.

Draft

b. Mark mentioned they have a note regarding utility connections as well. Moore explained
what this could be and listed some examples.
c. This will get added to the agenda so they can take a deeper dive into it.
d. Memo 2: very loose framework of a set of regulations for what data centers would look
like. They also added a few thoughts. Suggests that any kind of data center
development would be permissible in an industrial zone. Tey might want to look at
zoning requirements and limit down the zones the data center would be possible in.
They want to make sure they have enough guidance in the ordinance and the master
plan that if a data center is ever to apply, they have enough control on where it can go.
Any information the planning commission can provide would be helpful so they can draft
an ordinance that follows what they want.

15. Correspondence for Informational Purposes Only:
a. Received a letter from Grand Rapids chamber of commerce: it is in support of the batter
and is available if anyone wants to look at it.
16. Upcoming Events:
a. Township Board Meeting: August 17, 2026
b. Planning Commission Meeting: September 9, 2026
17. Adjournment:
a. With no further business brought before the Planning Commission a motion was made
to adjourn at 8:41pm by, Leathead, supported by Vander Kodde.
Motion Carried 7-0
Recorded by Aubrey Hossink