Lebanon council pauses final action on ordinance that would redefine 'data center' after developers object

Lebanon City Council held a first reading of ordinance 257224, a citywide zoning code amendment to define “data center” and to make data centers a conditional use in the Light Industrial District. Developers with a proposed Sullivan’s Road project urged councilors to delay the change, saying it would remove an existing entitlement for their site and could end the project.

Byron Gill, representing the developers, told the council his clients have a 46-acre site under contract on Sullivan’s Road and asked for time to “explore for everybody” and to present more information. John Tarver, of Tarver Properties, said project partners had been operating “under the clear understanding that this property was zoned for our use,” and urged the council to “vote no or delay the vote on this ordinance so that it can be thoroughly analyzed and discussed.” He added a conservative estimate that the project could generate “$3,000,000 per year or more in property taxes just for the city of Lebanon alone.”

The ordinance originated as a staff effort to update outdated language in the commercial zoning sections that previously included the words “data center.” Mayor Bill said the current language predates modern large-scale data centers and argued that “industrial buildings do not belong in commercial general,” which is why staff proposed moving data centers to industrial zoning.

Councilors and staff described several issues for further study: electrical service and power constraints, the likely small number of regular onsite employees, the visual/land‑use character of large data center buildings compared with mixed‑use commercial development, and whether the proposed site aligns with the city’s future land‑use plans. Sarah (staff member) summarized the state of knowledge: “typically, they’re coming in with little to no employees,” and TVA and other utilities are still determining how to serve large installations.

Councilor Chris Crowell said he would consider supporting a project only under a specific‑plan (SP) approval so the city could negotiate site‑specific conditions. “The only way on God’s green earth that I’m gonna support this is if it’s a SP,” Crowell said, adding that an SP would let the city pull in resources to evaluate impacts.

Developers asked for either a deferral of the ordinance or a work session so they could present more details. Several councilors said they wanted a work session before second reading; the meeting record shows substantial discussion but does not include a clear final roll‑call vote on final passage of ordinance 257224 during that session. Planning Commission had recommended approval at its May 27 meeting by a 9–0 vote.

The council did not adopt final zoning changes at the meeting; multiple councilors asked staff to schedule additional briefings or a work session so the council can evaluate the project’s economic benefits, infrastructure needs and compatibility with long‑term land‑use goals.