Grant County subcommittee narrows draft data‑center rules on traffic, hours and drainage

The Grant County Area Plan Commission data‑center subcommittee on June 24 reviewed the ordinance draft’s traffic and construction management section, debating mandatory language, enforcement and how residents can seek relief if projects damage roads or drainage.

Randy Atkins, who identified himself as an APC member, opened the session and said the subcommittee would work page‑by‑page through the draft, starting at letter L (page 16) of the 37‑page document. "This is our fourth subcommittee data center ordinance draft public review and discussion meeting," Atkins said as he set the scope and the committee’s goal of a targeted, transparent review.

Members spent much of the evening refining operative language and oversight. The committee discussed replacing vague words such as "unreasonable" in noise standards, whether to require or allow the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) discretion on haul‑route and timing restrictions (the group debated "may" versus "shall"), and how enforcement would be coordinated. Members agreed the highway department and law enforcement should be involved in route review and traffic control and that the APC could lead coordination.

Todd (APC staff) told the group that pre‑construction baseline surveys should be prepared by the applicant or developer "in coordination with the Grant County Highway Department" so that the highway department can sign off on road condition and reduce future disputes. Members favored third‑party baseline surveys with highway department review to ensure consistent documentation.

The subcommittee also flagged requirements for dust‑control plans and erosion control, with members recommending the county surveyor and soil and water conservation staff be engaged for grading permits and erosion reviews. On documentation, members agreed as‑built drawings should be signed off by the executive director (or designated acting official) and recorded with the county or recorder’s office before final certificate of occupancy issuance.

Public comments reinforced operational concerns. Dennis Carr, a resident who said he drove trucks for 20 years, warned the committee that "there's going to be a lot of trucks coming in... and them guys are going to be sitting on your county roads from 1:00 to 2:00 in the morning" if developers fail to provide staging or designated truck parking. The committee responded by seeking language requiring delivery and parking plans be part of special‑exception paperwork and by noting that law enforcement would be able to ticket illegal roadside parking.

Amy Schmidt urged the group to consider school‑bus safety when setting delivery hours, saying, "when we are talking about starting deliveries at like 7:00 a.m., that's when kids are getting on school buses." The subcommittee discussed limiting hours to construction activities and explicitly including associated deliveries and trash removal in the definition of prohibited activity outside set hours.

Throughout the review, the committee repeatedly noted it would clarify vague references to "county" in the draft (e.g., specifying highway department, BZA or commissioners where appropriate) and asked staff to reword several provisions for clarity and enforcementability. No formal votes were taken during the meeting; members described the session as a working review intended to refine the draft before further public and legal review.

The subcommittee scheduled its next meeting for July 8 at 6:00 p.m. to continue with the ordinance review.