Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge St. Louis County to tighten Ordinance 62 and set clear rules for data centers
Summary
Residents told the Board that proposed amendments to Zoning Ordinance 62 lack clear definitions for data centers and urged the county to define, classify and regulate hyperscale facilities with specific performance standards, mitigation plans and public notice before proceeding.
Several residents used the Board’s public-comment period to urge the St. Louis County Board of Commissioners to revise proposed amendments to Zoning Ordinance 62 so that large data centers are clearly defined and subject to stricter review.
Allison Hafton of Proctor said data centers are no longer "what they were 50 years ago," describing hyperscale facilities as noisy, resource-intensive operations that can strain power and water supplies and increase traffic and road damage, especially during lengthy eight- to ten-year construction phases. She asked the Board to define "data center" and to distinguish large and small facilities, and recommended requirements such as road-use agreements, noise studies, emergency-response plans, site-plan reviews, backup-power plans, setbacks and water-supply plans.
Emma Richtman of Hermantown told commissioners she was concerned stakeholders — including Solway Township — may not have been adequately notified during the planning process, and she urged the Board to vote down or at least table the public hearing (cited in testimony as scheduled April 14) to gather additional input. Richtman said hyperscale data centers should be treated as heavy industrial uses given their continuous operations and potential environmental, infrastructure and neighborhood impacts.
Kathy Peterson, a Lakeside resident, echoed calls for caution and for the Board to seek creative alternatives that protect water, air and community health. Several commenters said they will submit written comments and proposed definitions to staff for further consideration.
No formal vote on Ordinance 62 was recorded during the public-comment segment; commissioners did not make a substantive response on the record during the comments.
