Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pataskala commissioners table plan for four‑building data center after resident concerns and missing technical details
Summary
Commissioners tabled PMDash25Dash001, a proposal for four large data‑center buildings on Broad and Mink/Main streets, citing missing AEP electrical layouts, noise and light studies, water‑use calculations and fire‑department input after extended public comment about traffic, water, light and security.
The Pataskala Planning & Zoning Commission on Dec. 3 tabled a plan‑manufacturing application (PMDash25Dash001) for a four‑building data‑center campus at Broad Street and Mink/Main Street after hearing detailed staff analysis, an applicant presentation and lengthy public comment.
Staff presented the roughly 90‑acre site plan and flagged multiple outstanding items: a pending rooftop‑screening variance taken up Oct. 14, incomplete electrical and natural‑gas generator layouts awaiting AEP review, revisions needed to landscaping and lighting plans to match the 2023 plant‑manufacturing code updates, and requests for additional materials (noise impact analysis, detailed wetland permitting documentation and final stormwater/storm‑basin sizing) before construction plans could be approved.
Applicant representatives described the project as four data‑center structures with utility yards, on‑site natural‑gas generation (solid‑oxide fuel cells described by the applicant as roughly “three feet by four feet and 8 feet tall” with an output the applicant described as “less than 65 decibels at 10 feet”), 338 off‑street parking spaces, and traffic‑management improvements including new turn lanes. The applicant said transmission and distribution details must be resolved with AEP and that full utility upgrades will be multi‑year.
Residents raised concerns in public comment about potential impacts: light pollution and loss of night sky, noise from generators and monthly testing, increased traffic and construction queuing on Main Street, water demand and effects on the Pataskala aquifer, view‑shed and property‑value impacts, and local emergency‑response access (one speaker cited a past incident in a nearby township to illustrate potential concerns). One public commenter raised security and national‑security concerns about an adjacent industrial property and urged additional due diligence.
Commissioners repeatedly said they lacked sufficient technical detail: staff and commissioners requested AEP’s equipment and substation plans, a noise‑impact study, detailed water‑use figures and confirmation of fire‑department capacity and response. Several commissioners said they were open to the project in principle but not without the missing information. A motion to table PMDash25Dash001 was made, seconded and carried by roll call.
Outcome and next steps: The commission voted to table the application and directed staff to obtain or request the outstanding materials (AEP layouts, noise and lighting studies, wetland permits and water‑use calculations, and fire‑department comments) before the item returns for formal action.
