Lake County adopts ordinance adding data‑center rules to unified development code

The Lake County Council on Aug. — adopted an amendment to the county's Unified Development Ordinance intended to create a set of "guardrails" for any future data‑center development in unincorporated Lake County.

Supporters said the ordinance, unanimously recommended by the plan commission, sets a multi‑step public process and technical review requirements so large, energy‑intensive facilities can be evaluated before a developer begins construction. Opponents and several residents urged additional detail on water and energy use, and asked the council to preserve priority for existing heavy industries.

The plan commission recommended the change 7‑0 and the council approved the ordinance on first and second reading the same night, with a roll call vote recorded as 7‑0 on the second‑reading approval. Council discussion and public comment stretched through a lengthy portion of the meeting and included technical explanations from the county attorney and planning staff.

The ordinance adds a specific pathway for data centers that includes potential rezoning to an industrial district (if required), required surveys and technical submissions for staff and outside reviewers, and a special‑exception review that will bring multiple public hearings and opportunities for neighbors to present concerns. County attorney Tom O'Donnell told the council the process is meant to be transparent: projects typically will need zoning that "comes back to you before they can go for the special exception," and the ordinance anticipates "a minimum [of] three public hearings" so the public can participate before final decisions.

Residents at the meeting focused on energy and water impacts. Terry Stegall, of the Second District, said the ordinance should more clearly require closed‑loop cooling systems where projects are proposed in rural areas, adding that neighbors worry about wells and groundwater. Carolyn McCrady of Gary called data centers "voracious" energy and water users and asked how the county will protect residential electric bills if utilities build new generation to serve large facilities.

Constance (a plan commissioner) and other planners said the draft ordinance already includes provisions asking for commitments to renewable energy and requiring detailed information about discharge and water use, and that the special‑exception process gives decisionmakers the discretion to require closed‑loop systems, landscaping and other site‑specific conditions.

Council members and planning staff urged residents to sign up for notices and leave contact information with the planning office so people beyond adjacent property owners can receive hearing notices. Several council members said the ordinance is not a vote for any specific project but a procedural framework intended "to give staff, elected officials and the public an opportunity to address those concerns" before a project is proposed.

The vote: the plan commission recommended the ordinance 7‑0; the council approved it on second reading by roll call, 7‑0.

The council encouraged residents who want to follow future applications to leave contact information with the planning office and said plan commission hearings will be streamed and posted online.

The council also noted that the ordinance does not change state law or utility regulatory authority; it sets local procedural and conditioning requirements the county will apply if and when a project seeks approvals.