Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Whitley County planners start process to regulate data centers, plan June "listening session"
Summary
Planning staff proposed classifying data centers by size and use (accessory vs. primary), highlighted performance concerns (utilities, generator noise, parking, low employment), and recommended an early public "listening session" June 24 followed by code drafting and an August public hearing.
Whitley County planning staff outlined May 20 a multi-month effort to craft zoning rules for data centers, recommending public engagement up front and proposing a classification system that would separate small, accessory facilities from large ‘‘hyperscale’’ campuses.
A presenter for the planning staff said the county reviewed other local codes (examples cited: Allen County, Kosciusko County, Fountain County) and suggested classifying data centers by characteristics such as floor area/footprint, site acreage and building height. "The footprint area or the floor area might be a good way of, distinguishing data centers," the presenter said, arguing that floor area is straightforward to monitor through the building-permit process.
Staff flagged several performance and community concerns that a code should address: electric and water utility use; generator noise; parking and minimal permanent employment at many data centers; and decommissioning language. The presenter noted that many smaller data centers are unobtrusive while the very large complexes people most often picture are more likely to draw scrutiny.
Staff also reported that a social-media post soliciting public input produced extensive responses, and that "virtually all of them were negative." In response, staff recommended front-loading public engagement with a non-formal "listening session" (proposed June 24) that would provide short explanatory materials (definitions for "hyperscale," "edge," and "accessory") and allow commissioners to hear concerns before drafting formal ordinance language.
Commissioners and staff discussed tax implications and economic trade-offs: a presenter explained that much of the taxable value of a data center is often in personal property (high-tech equipment) rather than building improvements, meaning revenue flows to multiple taxing units rather than being confined to any single TIF capture. Commissioners also emphasized the need to educate the public about differences between small accessory facilities and large hyperscale campuses.
Staff proposed a timeline: a June 24 listening session, further drafting in July, a public hearing advertised in August to meet statutory public-hearing requirements, and possible recommendations to the county commissioners in September. Staff emphasized the need to gather public input early and to prepare concise educational handouts explaining different data-center scales and likely impacts.
