Barrett Township reviews data‑center zoning draft as residents raise water, noise and notice concerns

Barrett Township supervisors and staff spent a workshop session reviewing a draft ordinance to regulate data centers, focusing on buffers, water use, environmental review and procedural next steps.

The chair opened the meeting with the stated goal of creating an explicit land‑use category for data centers so they are not treated as a by‑right use that could sit next to residences. Deanna, introduced at the meeting as the township engineer, led a line‑by‑line review of the draft and flagged technical gaps, including the draft’s existing 100‑foot vegetative buffer and a lack of a specific distance from residential dwellings for noisy equipment.

Why it matters: data centers can occupy many acres, require substantial cooling water and produce continuous equipment noise; without a tailored ordinance the township risks having such facilities approved as by‑right in zones where supervisors would prefer conditional review.

Key details discussed

- Buffers and setbacks: The draft called for a 100‑foot vegetative buffer; participants compared other samples that use 200–300 feet and several speakers suggested 200–250 feet as more protective. Deanna explained that buffers (which affect parking, screening and accessory areas) are distinct from building setbacks (which control where buildings sit relative to property lines). The meeting also discussed planting specifications (minimum 6 ft at planting and a target 10‑ft visual screen within four years) and cautioned against monoculture plantings that may fail.

- Parcel sizes and development limits: The ordinance’s minimum parcel size is 5 acres. Attendees asked whether the township can limit maximum parcel size to prevent very large developments; staff identified that imposing maximums raises legal questions and recommended consulting the township attorney for limits that could make a parcel undevelopable.

- Water withdrawals and regulatory thresholds: Deanna pointed to language requiring evidence of adequate water and sewer. The group discussed thresholds that trigger Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) docket revisions; the draft referenced a 100,000 gallons‑per‑day threshold as the point where DRBC review is required. Participants noted DRBC docket revisions are slow (few meetings per year) and can be a significant constraint on siting and timing.

- Environmental and contamination screening: The attendees recommended adding a phase‑one environmental site assessment to the checklist to identify potential contamination, historic uses or endangered‑species impacts; speakers observed phase‑one reviews are often required by lenders and typically cost a few thousand dollars, though they are not always mandated in township land‑development review.

- Noise and professional review: The draft requires an acoustical study approved by a qualified expert. The group agreed applicants should pay for required third‑party reviews (engineering and solicitor fees) when the township hires reviewers to evaluate submitted studies.

- Emergency access and fire coordination: County samples include emergency management plans and knockbox requirements; attendees recommended the draft require coordination with local fire and emergency services for access roads and emergency procedures.

Public input and process concerns

Resident Grant expressed frustration about notice and transparency, saying he had done independent research but felt “blindsided” when the meeting materials were only on the table at the workshop and not circulated in advance. The chair and others responded that workshops are open, materials were available at the township office and the meeting was posted online, and they reiterated that conditional‑use hearings would be advertised before a formal decision so the public can comment.

Other resident speakers asked whether repurposed mines could host data centers (citing Iron Mountain as an example), and staff clarified local mining types and that site‑specific constraints affect suitability.

Next steps

Supervisors asked staff to incorporate the suggested edits, and the draft will be forwarded to county and Barrett planning review (a 30‑day county review was discussed). The board aimed to complete revisions, advertise the ordinance as required, and target adoption by the end of 2025 if reviews and advertising proceed on schedule.

The workshop did not include a formal vote on the ordinance; staff will prepare a revised draft for the planning commission and public hearing process.