Commission backs raising data center height to 80 feet with added setbacks; asks council to review fire‑safety and special‑exception option

The York County Planning Commission on May 12 voted to recommend a text amendment that would raise the maximum permitted height for data centers to 80 feet in certain districts, provided additional side and rear setbacks are added for each foot of height above the district minimum. The commission approved staff’s recommended amendment and asked county staff to provide fire‑department capacity information and to include a recommendation about managing taller data‑center proposals (for example, via a special‑exception process) when the record is forwarded to county council.

Staff explained a pending proposal from QTS, a data‑center provider, that prompted the request: QTS notified the county that new racking and cooling technology requires additional rooftop equipment and vertical clearance that cannot be accommodated by the current 60‑foot maximum in the ID (industrial development) zoning district. Diane (county planning staff) summarized the draft amendment: the maximum building height for a data center would be 80 feet, provided that for each additional foot of height above the district minimum the applicant adds two additional feet of side and rear setback beyond the zoning district minimum. The front setback would not increase under the proposed formula.

Staff said the proposed 80‑foot standard was within the range used by peer jurisdictions and that half of the jurisdictions surveyed required additional setbacks when granting extra height. The staff presentation included a numeric example: if a data center in the ID district requested an 80‑foot height where the base maximum is 60 feet, the 20‑foot increase would require an additional 40 feet of side and rear setback (2 feet of additional setback per extra foot of height).

Commissioners debated the appropriate procedural vehicle. Some members argued the county should review taller data‑center buildings on a case‑by‑case basis through a special‑exception or special‑use process that would allow conditions tailored to the site. Others expressed concerns about emergency response, asking staff to check county fire‑department ladder reach and local firefighting capabilities and to include that information in the record for council. Staff noted variances are generally difficult to obtain because they require hardship findings and that special exceptions tend to address allowable uses rather than an across‑the‑board height standard; staff recommended the code change with added setbacks as a predictable, county‑wide standard.

A motion to recommend the code change but ask county council to instead require a special‑exception review for taller data centers failed. The commission then approved staff’s recommended text amendment with an amendment directing staff to convey planning commission concerns about fire‑fighting capacity to county council and to discuss whether the council preferred code change versus special‑exception review. The final motion passed after a second; no roll‑call tallies appear in the transcript. Staff said the request is likely tied to a large proposed QTS project described in the staff report as about 5,260,000 square feet; staff also noted the amendment would apply only to data centers as a defined use in the zoning code.

Commissioners asked for fire‑capability information and for staff to note that sprinkler, monitoring and other automatic systems are typically part of data‑center construction; staff agreed to supply the additional information to council.

The planning commission’s recommendation and the staff report — including the amended directive to report on fire capabilities and the special‑exception question — will be forwarded to county council for a final decision and any code change adoption.