Uwchlan planning panel backs draft industrial‑uses rules, flags power and water thresholds for revision

The Uwchlan Township Planning Commission voted July 1 to forward a draft industrial‑uses ordinance to the Board of Supervisors, endorsing a performance‑based approach to regulate modern logistics facilities and data centers while asking staff to tighten several technical thresholds.

Township Manager Bob presented the draft as proactive: "This is preemptive. This is being proactive," he said, noting no current data‑center or large‑warehouse applications but urging the commission to set objective performance standards covering traffic, truck circulation, noise, vibration, lighting, emergency power, water, emergency services and architecture.

Commissioners generally supported the draft’s conceptual framework, which separates facilities into small, large and high‑impact tiers and sets measurable standards rather than purely subjective conditional‑use judgments. Staff explained the definitions: small facilities are 40,000 square feet or less and under 50 tractor‑trailer trips per day; large facilities are over 40,000 square feet or projected for 50+ tractor‑trailer trips; and high‑impact facilities are 100,000 square feet or generate 100+ tractor‑trailer trips, with the most restrictive applicable category controlling.

At the same time, members pressed for edits to ensure the ordinance captures material operational impacts. Several commissioners said measuring only tractor‑trailer trips misses high volumes produced by fleets of smaller delivery vehicles (for example, Amazon, UPS and FedEx vans) and noted that delivery time windows can compress trips into intensive periods. Commissioners asked staff to clarify how trip‑generation studies and later plan reviews will account for non‑tractor deliveries.

A major technical debate centered on on‑site energy generation. The draft treats aggregate generation above 5 megawatts as non‑accessory and subject to a separate approval process; commissioners questioned whether the 5 MW trigger is too high. One commissioner recommended lowering the threshold to 1.5 MW, arguing a 1.5 MW generator can meaningfully change a facility’s operational profile and that lowering the cutoff would better capture solar, battery and backup systems of concern. Staff said they will propose revised language and threshold options for the Board’s consideration.

Water and cooling were another focus. Commissioners urged that data centers avoid evaporative (once‑through) cooling systems because they greatly increase potable water use and wastewater ('blowdown'); the group favored either a ban on large evaporative systems or a performance‑based limit (for example, gallons/day per megawatt) and recommended requiring closed‑loop heat rejection that does not rely on evaporation for major facilities.

Members also discussed setbacks and siting around "sensitive receptors" (residences, schools and preschools). Staff described a 1,000‑foot mapping approach tied to zoning districts to limit locations for high‑impact uses and large on‑site generation; commissioners asked staff to clarify whether the 1,000‑foot measure applies to property lines, the nearest residence, or zoning district boundaries and recommended performance‑oriented alternatives when strict geometric rules would create infeasible siting outcomes.

The draft includes post‑construction monitoring — for example, a required noise study after operations begin — and staff said the ordinance can require additional follow‑up (including repeat studies) if load or operations increase. Commissioners also proposed requiring periodic energy benchmarking submissions from large users so the township can detect material changes in electrical consumption over time.

The commission voted to recommend the draft with the edits discussed to be incorporated and with an understanding that some technical language will be refined before board adoption. The motion was made and seconded and passed by voice vote; mover and second are not recorded in the livestream transcript.

Next steps: the Planning Commission will forward its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors; staff indicated they would return suggested threshold edits (notably the on‑site generation trigger and cooling/water language) for the Board’s July meeting. The ordinance also will be updated to clarify measurement points for setbacks, to refine definitions of substantial change, and to incorporate public‑meeting transparency requirements for applicants.

Meeting participants sought to strike a balance between predictability for applicants and community protections on noise, water use and emergency response. No specific permit applications were decided at the meeting; the commission’s action was a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.