Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors discuss draft data-center ordinance, weigh noise setbacks, road repairs and local benefits
Summary
Crawford County supervisors discussed a draft data-center ordinance, debating noise setbacks (comparing a 45 dB wind-turbine standard), road-use agreements, and incentives such as pollinator programs. No final action was taken; staff will refine the draft and return it for further review.
Crawford County supervisors spent a substantial portion of their June 2 meeting discussing a draft ordinance for data centers and related large computing facilities. The board debated technical standards (noise and setback levels), road-use and bridge-impact agreements for construction traffic, and community-benefit incentives that could be required or encouraged as part of permitting.
Why it matters: Supervisors said a clear local ordinance would give companies predictable rules to follow while protecting county roads, property owners and noise-sensitive neighbors. The discussion touched on whether the county can restrict certain energy sources and how consistent noise standards should be across different industrial uses.
Supervisor Kyle, discussing noise standards, said, "I think 45 should be a hard fast number to an extent," arguing for a consistent standard similar to the county's wind-turbine rules. Board members and staff noted that setbacks, decibel thresholds, and road-use agreements (including bridge ratings and repair obligations) need to be spelled out so companies understand construction impacts and payment responsibilities.
The board also discussed design and landscape expectations (building colors, pollinator habitat, water management and nitrate mitigation) as possible points that could be incentivized in the ordinance. Several supervisors warned that state or federal rules might pre-empt local limits on certain technologies; others said counties should try to capture local benefits such as road improvements or severance-like funds.
No vote was taken. County attorney review and additional revisions were requested; the board asked staff to bring a revised ordinance back for further consideration, with a target to have a working draft for additional review by early July.
