Oldham County committee directs staff to draft data-center ordinance including definition, zoning and standards

The Oldham County Planning and Zoning Commission Study and Review Committee voted to direct planning staff to develop a definition and initial ordinance outline for data centers, including recommended zoning categories, permit types, siting standards and other regulatory requirements.

Ryan Fisher, planning staff, opened the committee's April discussion by distinguishing this drafting effort from a separate moratorium matter pending before the full planning commission. Fisher said the county needs a clear definition—most jurisdictions use a definition describing facilities that store, manage, process or transmit digital data and often include associated utility infrastructure such as generators, cooling systems and substations. He told the committee staff had reviewed definitions and policies from jurisdictions including Loudoun County (Va.), Prince William County (Va.), Mecklenburg County (N.C.) and examples from other counties and planning papers.

Why it matters: Committee members raised the potential scale of modern data centers, their heavy infrastructure needs (electrical transformers, generators, cooling water, battery storage) and the difficulty of fitting hyperscale facilities into the county's existing zoning map. Fisher said private utility buildings have been used as the closest existing classification, but that approach can create inconsistencies when ancillary infrastructure (substations, fuel storage) and very large structures are part of a project.

Key topics committee asked staff to address: a clear definition of "data center" that captures utility infrastructure; recommended zoning classifications (staff suggested industrial zones such as I-1, I-2 or IPD for larger facilities, with C-4 potentially considered only for smaller-scale centers); whether different size thresholds should be permitted in different zones; whether large or hyperscale centers should require a zoning change; whether facilities should be allowed only by conditional use (not by-right); height limits and setback minima; landscape and lighting standards; sound attenuation; soil and environmental testing; decommissioning bonds or financial assurances; and community meeting requirements even where no zoning change is required.

Commissioners voiced several concerns: the county's typical height limits are 45 feet (IPD) and 50 feet (I-1 and I-2), while current applicants have requested up to 75 feet; the committee discussed whether setting lower height caps would deter large-scale projects or lead applicants to seek variances; members noted extreme examples from other states (a cited Indianapolis-area project and a proposal described as roughly 770 acres) to illustrate hyperscale footprints; and members asked staff to consult the county attorney about legal constraints (for example, whether community‑meeting requirements can be imposed where a proposal fits existing zoning). Commissioner Katie and others recommended including a decommissioning requirement and noted bonds have been used for similar infrastructure (cell towers, solar arrays).

Outcome and next steps: The committee approved a motion to have staff prepare a draft definition and ordinance outline and return the text to the Study and Review Committee for further review. Fisher said staff will consult with interested community members and the county attorney and aim to bring a draft back to the committee at its next scheduled meeting (the fourth Thursday in May).