Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hood County adopts tighter rules for data centers, adds definitions and checklist requirements
Summary
After months of community debate, the Hood County Commissioners Court on March 10 adopted amendments to development regulations that add definitions for AI/data centers and crypto-mining facilities, limit build coverage for such uses, and require enhanced application checklists including decommissioning and safety provisions.
Hood County’s commissioners voted March 10 to adopt multiple changes to the county’s development-permit regulations aimed at large computing and energy projects, including AI data centers, cryptocurrency-mining sites and associated power generation.
The court approved amendments to Article 5 (general district standards), updates to the definitions section and new checklist requirements for concept and site development plans after a lengthy public hearing that drew dozens of speakers and detailed edits from the county’s development commission and legal staff.
Why it matters: Commissioners said the changes are intended to give the county clearer tools to protect water, wildlife and neighborhood character as several very large industrial projects have been proposed. The new rules add three specific definitions (data center, AI data center and cryptocurrency mining facility), set a maximum parcel coverage percentage for those uses, and fold conditions previously issued by staff into formal regulations.
What the changes require: Under the adopted language, projects defined as data centers or related uses must meet tighter standards on how much of a parcel can be covered by buildings, paved areas and power-generation equipment; applicants must also supply additional checklist items during the concept- and site-plan phases, including (but not limited to) evidence of compliance with state-adopted fire codes, a decommissioning plan and material-sourcing disclosures tied to the Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act.
Supporters and critics: Development-commission chair Christine Leftwich and members of the commission said the package is rooted in authority granted by Subchapter K of the Texas Local Government Code and is narrower than earlier moratorium proposals because it targets specific uses. “This is more narrow to hit what people are actually caring about,” Leftwich told the court. Residents and several speakers urged still tougher limits—many proposing a moratorium, a lower coverage percentage or bonding requirements for decommissioning—while others said action now is necessary to protect the county before multiple projects proceed.
Implementation and next steps: The court and staff noted further legal and technical refinement will continue with outside counsel and their engineering consultant; commissioners said the adopted package is a contractual and regulatory baseline that can be litigated but gives the county a clearer regulatory path than the prior ad hoc approach. The court’s motions adopting the measures carried as presented with the amendments discussed in open session.
