St. Louis County board moves to remove data-center and inoperable-vehicle language after large public turnout

St. Louis County commissioners heard hours of public testimony and reviewed petitions opposing changes to Zoning Ordinance 62 before a motion was made to adopt the ordinance with two sections removed.

Throughout the hearing residents repeatedly urged the board to preserve current allowances for inoperable vehicles on private property and to clarify how data centers would be defined and regulated. Robert Bossett presented petitions and said he brought 1,873 signatures opposing reclassification of properties with unlicensed or inoperable vehicles as commercial salvage yards. Many speakers emphasized that keeping spare and classic vehicles on rural parcels supports livelihoods and intergenerational knowledge.

Planning and zoning staff told the board the proposed amendments were intended to clean up language, add definitions drawn from state statute, broaden some administrative standards and reduce the need for variances. Director Logan said the department averaged about 10 variance requests monthly and that the changes would allow more over-the-counter administrative permits for some performance standards. Staff also proposed moving data centers from a commercial use classification to industrial-use class 2 and clarified that an "inoperable vehicle" would mean a vehicle severely damaged (missing wheels, drivetrain or transmission), subject to shoreline and wetland setback language.

Opponents said the changes were more restrictive than presented. Commenters warned a $720 conditional-use permit for parcels reclassified as salvage facilities would impose a financial burden on rural residents and hobbyists. Multiple speakers pressed for clearer riparian/setback definitions and raised enforcement questions (how the county would determine screened vehicles behind vegetation or measure compliance). Several residents linked the data-center language to private developer influence and nondisclosure agreements, saying the county appeared to be drafting rules to accommodate developers rather than protecting residents.

Commissioner Harla moved to adopt the ordinance with the explicit removal of section 5.5 (data centers) and section 6.25 (inoperable vehicles), and Commissioner Boyle seconded the motion. Commissioners then debated process and public outreach; some said the package contained useful administrative streamlining and should be refined, while others said the planning process should be restarted or the items referred back to planning and zoning for broader community engagement. The transcript provided ends after extended discussion and a five-minute break; a final roll-call vote on the ordinance motion is not recorded in the provided segment of the meeting.

Authorities and numbers discussed during the hearing included Minnesota Statute 394.26 (governing the public hearing), staff references that the county's dispatch center answered 181,986 calls in 2025, and a conditional-use permit fee of $720 that staff said would be a one-time fee tied to a property when approved. Planning staff told the board they began ordinance review in 2024, held multiple subcommittee workshops in 2025, and held a February 5, 2026 planning commission public hearing that recommended adoption as proposed.

Next steps recounted in the hearing were procedural: commissioners discussed amendments, potential referral back to planning and zoning, and additional public engagement. The provided transcript ends before a recorded final vote on the modified ordinance; the board subsequently considered and approved other agenda items, including a public-works bid and public-safety items.