Planners urge detailed review of township data‑center ordinances, stress water, air and decommissioning safeguards

PERRY COUNTY — At its June meeting, the Perry County Planning Commission urged local townships to tighten proposed data‑center ordinance language and asked staff to send formal review letters highlighting gaps in mitigation, monitoring and bonding.

Commission member Tom said the county needs a comprehensive look at cumulative impacts from large server facilities, pointing to groundwater and fire‑response issues that small, rural townships may not be equipped to evaluate. “There’s a whole host of issues that factor into this — wells, wastewater treatment, generator emissions, building height relative to volunteer fire capacity,” Tom said, urging reviewers to require hydrogeologic testing and financial security where appropriate.

Staff and commissioners discussed draft township provisions that propose bonds of varying amounts to cover potential well impacts and decommissioning costs. Tom and other members said bond figures in submitted drafts (discussed in the meeting as $2.5 million to $5 million in examples) appear to vary by township and should be tied to site‑specific hydrogeologic studies rather than set as a flat, uniform amount.

Jason, a county staff planner, emphasized the technical steps required for locally driven mitigation. He noted that applicants are being asked to provide groundwater productivity data, drawdown testing and potential well impacts so that affected private wells can be identified and addressed. “You have to identify depth of existing wells and test drawdown; the bond comes into play to cover remediation such as bottled water, well replacement or public water extension,” Jason said.

Commissioners also raised public‑health and air‑quality concerns tied to emergency generator use. Tom highlighted that multiple generators starting in a valley with an inversion could worsen local air quality and that emission standards referenced in local drafts need to match state air‑quality guidance. Members pressed for clearer language about standby generator emissions, operation limits and monitoring.

The commission discussed decommissioning obligations beyond water bonds: secure removal and recycling of electronic waste, timing for e‑waste removal after shutdown, and the possibility of requiring a financial security instrument and an explicit decommissioning timeline. Members noted that some township drafts already include financial‑security language and timing elements for temporary versus permanent shutdowns, but that those provisions should be clarified and standardized.

Commissioners also debated whether the county’s review should encourage reuse of existing large structures (for example, repurposed malls or institutional buildings) rather than allowing new greenfield construction, and whether similar review standards should apply to other high‑impact uses (warehouses, large campus developments) that can have comparable regional effects.

Action: the commission voted to send staff’s review letters on the Watts and Carol Township draft ordinances with the suggested edits and to encourage consistent, site‑specific bonding and monitoring language. The motion carried; the letters will be sent from county staff to the townships for their consideration ahead of local public hearings.

Next steps: staff will finalize the county’s review letters and circulate them to the commission; several members asked staff to highlight where townships’ language diverges from model guidance and to recommend hydrogeologic and air‑quality data requirements.

(Provencance: discussion introduced at SEG 1147; discussion continued through SEG 1898; motion to send letters at SEG 2020–SEG 2035.)