Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors review draft data‑center ordinance amid debate on setbacks, water and decommissioning
Summary
Planners presented a detailed draft ordinance proposing strict standards for data centers—groundwater studies, closed‑loop cooling, noise caps, decommissioning and 1,000‑ft residential setbacks—and supervisors discussed minimum lot sizes, constitutional limits on outright bans, and a timeline for revisions ahead of the July meeting.
A lengthy planning discussion on June 9 focused on a draft ordinance to regulate data centers that staff said is intended to protect groundwater, limit noise and visual impacts, and require financial guarantees for decommissioning.
The presenter described proposed requirements that would apply to conditional‑use approvals, including a water‑feasibility analysis showing demand projections, demonstration of no adverse impact to local wells or streams, groundwater monitoring, and post‑construction testing. The draft also contains detailed noise and vibration standards, acoustic modeling and ongoing monitoring requirements, and specific protections for "sensitive receptors" such as homes, schools and nursing facilities.
On setbacks and lot size the draft proposes a 1,000‑foot buffer from residential districts and sensitive receptors and a 500‑foot buffer from nonresidential property lines; staff said the proposal was informed by a comparison of ordinances in other municipalities. Supervisors raised minimum lot‑size suggestions between 120 and 150 acres to limit siting opportunities. One supervisor urged urgency to adopt protective language quickly, while others warned that an ordinance must not effectively ban the use entirely because Pennsylvania law generally requires municipalities to provide some opportunity for legitimate land uses.
Board members discussed closed‑loop cooling, battery‑safety language, noise mitigation, internal facility standards that could reduce external sound, and possible renewable‑energy or on‑site generation incentives. The idea of a moratorium was questioned as legally risky; staff advised the board that a more targeted ordinance crafted to allow regulated development in appropriate locations is preferable to a blanket moratorium.
Supervisors asked staff to refine dimensional standards and to circulate a redline with the specific additions requested by the board ahead of the next meeting. Several members said they want the revised draft available at least two weeks before July's meeting for review and public comment.
The board did not vote on a final ordinance at the meeting; staff expects to return with a revised draft and supporting materials.
