Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plain City holds public hearing on proposed data center rules; residents urge wider setbacks, studies and moratorium
Summary
At a June 8 public hearing, Plain City officials presented a proposed Chapter 1188 to regulate data centers. Residents urged larger buffers from residences and waterways, limits on water use and noise, and called for stronger regional coordination and an impact study; no ordinance was approved.
Plain City hosted a public hearing on June 8 on a proposed addition to the village planning code, Chapter 1188, that would create specific regulations for data centers including noise limits, environmental standards, setback and height controls, utility-impact assessments and decommissioning plans.
Village Planner Derek Hutchinson told the council the chapter is intended to be “restrictive by intent,” requiring developers to pay for and submit studies on noise, thermal impacts and utility loads and treating data centers as a conditional use in industrial districts rather than an automatically permitted use. Mayor Jody Carney emphasized the council had not signed any non-disclosure agreements related to data centers and said there are currently no active or proposed data centers within the village corporate limits.
Why it matters: commenters said the proposed regulations could shape whether—and where—large computing facilities locate near Plain City, potentially affecting water use, noise, local infrastructure and viewsheds along Big Darby Creek.
Residents at the hearing pressed for stricter limits than those drafted. Penny Schuenke, a Plain City resident, urged the council to “make the defined term of a data center as strong as possible to prevent a data center from being built accidentally,” and raised concerns about fan noise (which she said commonly ranges from about 60 to 90 decibels), diesel emissions, toxic fire-suppression runoff and high water consumption. Schuenke and other speakers suggested increasing the draft 750-foot residential buffer and the 1,000-foot waterway setback; she asked the council to consider a moratorium while studies proceed and proposed a 200,000-gallon-per-day water-consumption cap for any commercial facility.
James Lawrenz, who spoke from Marysville but identified himself as a longtime Plain City resident, asked whether appeals of Board of Zoning Appeals decisions would go to the court of common pleas (Mr. Hutchinson and Council President Tyler Harriman confirmed they would) and raised questions about monitoring electrical and water demand and whether the draft addresses very large “hyperscale” centers. Thomas McDaniel urged larger setbacks from waterways, citing the Big Darby Creek’s scenic value.
Several speakers questioned how the village will coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions and state regulators. In response, Mayor Carney said the village has been in contact with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and is willing to pursue regional coordination. Council members said the proposed code has been discussed in prior work sessions and reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission, which recommended approval after its May 20 meeting.
What happened procedurally: Council opened the ordinance as a first reading (Ordinance 32-2026) but took no final action; staff and members asked that the data center topic be added to the June 22 agenda for further deliberation. Several related zoning code amendments (Ordinances 19–31, 2026) were also given first readings that night.
Quotes at the hearing captured the range of concerns: “I want to ensure that the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council make the defined term of a data center as strong as possible to prevent a data center from being built accidentally,” Schuenke said. Mayor Carney told attendees, “no elected official in the Village of Plain City has signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), nor has an NDA been proposed to any elected official.”
What’s next: Council asked staff to place further discussion of data centers on the June 22, 2026 agenda. Any amendments between first and second reading that are major would require restart of the legislative process and additional review by the Planning & Zoning Commission, village staff said.
Ending: The public hearing closed on June 8 after more than a half-hour of comment; no vote on the proposed data center ordinance occurred that night, and the council expects to continue deliberations at its next meeting.
