Oldham County committee reviews draft data‑center regulations, asks for more revisions

The Oldham County Study and Review Committee spent most of its June 2025 meeting reviewing a draft ordinance that would regulate data centers, including where they may locate, how large facilities are defined and how to require decommissioning and mitigation measures.

Committee Chair Greg King opened the discussion, saying the draft — proposed for placement at Section 2 53 40 of the county regulations — had been under study for months and that staff hoped to forward a regulation to the planning commission for a July meeting. "So before you today, you have the proposed regulations for data centers," Ryan Fisher told the committee as he began a section-by-section presentation.

The committee heard detailed provisions and public comment, questioned several technical definitions, and asked staff to return with another draft rather than forwarding the document at this time.

Why this matters: The draft would create an explicit regulatory framework for a type of facility that can require large, continuous power and generate noise, visual and air impacts. Committee members and residents raised concerns about setbacks from homes, generator emissions and long‑term site cleanup if a facility is abandoned.

The draft would allow data centers only in C4, I1, I2 and IPD zoning districts and would require approval of a development plan by the Oldham County Planning Commission. It classifies facilities by size and electrical need, with staff proposing three classes: small (about 5,000–20,000 square feet; roughly 1–5 megawatts), medium (20,000–100,000 sq ft; roughly 5–50 megawatts) and large/hyperscale (greater than 100,000 sq ft or greater than 50 megawatts). Fisher said the draft ties the hyperscale definition to the “large” row in the chart on page 2 of the packet.

On setbacks and placement, the draft would keep existing zoning setbacks for the applicable districts but adds a rule that buildings, maintenance equipment, ground‑located cooling, ventilation or backup power equipment must be at least 1,000 feet from the lot lines of adjoining properties used or zoned for residential purposes. Fisher explained the distance is measured from the actual building or equipment to the residential lot line or structure (not merely from property lines), mirroring language used elsewhere in the county code for certain facilities.

Noise, generators and testing were major topics. The draft requires pre‑construction and post‑construction noise impact analyses signed and stamped by a certified acoustical engineer and proposes a maximum sound level of 55 decibels at the property line except for short generator test events. It limits generator testing to no more than once per week per unit and restricts testing to seasonally defined hours (the draft text discussed adjusting the allowable daily testing window and cited a recent change in the draft from an earlier 4–6 p.m. window to a 3–5 window as part of edits under consideration). Backup generators are to meet the highest available U.S. EPA emissions standard at the time of application (the draft specifies Tier 4 as the current minimum).

Mechanical and site design standards in the draft include requirements that ground‑mounted mechanical equipment and generators be placed as far as possible from residential uses, be fully screened with materials compatible with the principal facade, and use sound‑dampening barriers at least 10 feet high or two feet above generator height (draft language proposes "whichever is greater"). Rooftop equipment must be screened by parapets equal to the tallest rooftop unit and designed to blend with building materials. Landscaping, lighting and facade standards would require higher aesthetic standards than a bare metal warehouse; commissioners and staff discussed how much detail is appropriate versus what should be handled at the pre‑application and development‑plan stages.

On environmental and public‑health reviews, the draft allows the zoning administrator (and staff bodies such as the county engineer or health department) to require environmental assessments, traffic impact studies and, in some cases, health impact assessments. Fisher said the noise impact study is the one requirement that would be mandatory for all data centers; other studies would be required following pre‑application review or consultation with county technical staff.

Decommissioning drew extended comment. The draft would require a decommissioning plan within 90 days of permanent closure (or within 30 days of notice of abandonment) and would consider a facility abandoned after 365 consecutive days of inactivity. For data centers larger than 20,000 square feet the draft would require financial assurance (bond, letter of credit or escrow) sufficient to cover decommissioning and remediation costs; the county engineer would review and approve the amount and update it every five years or after major expansions. Fisher said the approach mirrors tools the county already uses for other projects.

Public commenters stressed the industrial scale of some facilities and urged careful review. Stuart Robinson, identifying himself as a La Grange resident, cautioned on the difference between power and energy and said, "These facilities are very large, very powerful, very high energy facilities. And they should be regulated as such." Other residents asked for stricter notification, longer setbacks, and undergrounding of transmission lines and substations.

Committee action and next steps: At the meeting start the committee approved the May 22, 2025 Study and Review Committee meeting summary by voice vote. After the data‑center discussion the committee did not vote to forward the draft to the planning commission; members instead asked staff to prepare another revised draft that incorporates the suggestions discussed. "I think with the significant modifications that we've suggested and talked about, I'd like to see another draft before we present," said a committee member during the closing discussion.

Fisher told the committee the draft on the overhead is a working document and remains editable. Staff said any future draft would again be posted for public review if and when the committee moves it to the planning commission.

About the meeting: The discussion was the third monthly review of the draft. Committee members, planning staff, the county engineer and the health department were actively involved in the technical conversation and multiple residents addressed the committee during the meeting. No final zoning ordinance or binding legislative action was approved at the meeting — the committee sought further edits before deciding whether to send the draft on for public hearings at the planning commission.

Ending: The Study and Review Committee will consider another staff revision; no date was set in the meeting record for the committee to reconvene on this item.