Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Rezoning Withdrawal topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Applicant withdraws rezoning request for Ray Owens Road data center after neighborhood questions

Planning Commission · December 9, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

An applicant withdrew a request to rezone 3197 Ray Owens Road from RA to S-1 for a small office and data center; staff recommended accepting the withdrawal after the applicant cited misinformation and offered to hold a town hall to answer resident concerns.

The Planning Commission accepted without prejudice the applicant’s request to withdraw a rezoning application for 3197 Ray Owens Road, a 3.96-acre parcel where the owner had proposed an S-1 rezoning for an office, workshop and a small data center. Staff recommended accepting the withdrawal.

Zach Lou Allen, the applicant and owner (Hypertech Solutions), told commissioners he had invested several years preparing the project and said the proposed data center was small — “12 racks” with hot-aisle containment and low-noise cooling equipment — intended primarily to support his existing managed IT and cybersecurity business. Allen said much of the public opposition stemmed from misinformation and said he plans to hold a town hall to answer neighbors’ questions.

When commissioners pressed about expandability and alternate sites, Allen said the facility was not intended to expand and that the cost of obtaining alternative fiber access elsewhere would be prohibitive, indicating fiber in the roadside ditch near the parcel made the site feasible. He said he would remain available after the meeting to meet with concerned neighbors.

Staff had told the commission that the parcel’s future land-use designation (rural bridal/rural residential) and surrounding zoning made the proposal inconsistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan; the applicant therefore requested withdrawal without prejudice and staff recommended accepting that request. A motion to accept the withdrawal was made and carried unanimously by voice vote.

The withdrawal ends county review for now; the applicant indicated he will pursue community outreach and could refile in the future if concerns are addressed.