Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Center Moratorium topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Asheville committee votes to recommend one‑year moratorium on new data‑center applications
Summary
Planning staff proposed and the committee voted to recommend City Council adopt a one‑year moratorium on new data‑center applications so staff can define the land use, study impacts (power, water, noise, heat island) and draft zoning and mitigation standards; City Attorney cited NC Gen. Stat. 160D‑107A as the legal basis.
Planning staff told the committee that Asheville currently lacks a definition for data centers in the UDO and recommended a temporary development moratorium while staff studies the land use and drafts appropriate regulations.
"The city of Asheville in particular currently lacks a definition for data centers as a land use in our UDO," Planning and Urban Design Director Steph Dah said, describing concerns about high water and electrical demand and other neighborhood impacts associated with data centers.
City Attorney Brad Brandham said a moratorium is a legally authorized tool under North Carolina law and cited North Carolina General Statute 160D‑107A. "This allows you to institute a temporary moratorium that would essentially place a full stop on any development approvals associated with the use that we're talking about here," Brandham said. He added that moratoria must be temporary and reasonable; staff recommended a one‑year duration aligned with Supreme Court guidance that one year is generally a practical maximum.
Dah described a staff workplan: three months of research and expert engagement (review of best practices and geographic suitability, invitations to utility and water agencies), followed by drafting of site and zoning standards (setbacks, buffers, noise/infra‑sound mitigation, stormwater and heat‑island considerations) and the standard public review and text‑amendment process (including required 30‑day reviews and planning commission consideration) before returning proposed regulations to council.
Councilmembers asked whether the city could outright ban the use; staff said complete bans are legally challenging and that the more viable path is careful regulation or siting restrictions. Members also asked whether NAICS code 518210 (data processing, hosting, and related services), which includes virtual currency mining, should be referenced; staff said the proposed ordinance language will reference that NAICS listing and will exclude incidental server rooms subordinate to a principal permitted use.
After discussion, a councilmember moved and the committee seconded a recommendation that City Council adopt the proposed moratorium ordinance. The committee recorded a roll‑call vote with three affirmative votes and forwarded the moratorium to council for final consideration. Staff noted that any applications submitted prior to ordinance adoption would not be subject to the moratorium.
