Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Center Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fernley planners open draft data‑center zoning rules, seek regional input
Summary
The Fernley Planning Commission reviewed a preliminary draft of zoning code amendments for data centers July 8, heard public health and water‑use concerns, and asked staff to gather regional input (including Story County and NV Energy) before returning with a revised draft.
The Fernley Planning Commission on July 8 reviewed a preliminary draft of zoning code amendments intended to regulate data centers and asked staff to pursue additional regional consultation before advancing any ordinance.
"We are not here tonight to approve anything," Planning Director Michelle Rambo told the commission, calling the draft a starting point to gather ideas and public feedback. Rambo said staff will meet with Story County representatives and data‑center operators in August and incorporate those findings in a revised draft later this year.
The draft offers two main approaches: allow data centers in industrial zones subject to a conditional use permit (CUP) and a development agreement, or create a data‑center overlay district that would require a zoning map amendment before a CUP. Rambo outlined possible CUP submittal requirements such as grading and photometric plans, a water‑use study, power‑supply confirmation, a noise study, and an emergency‑response plan. She also listed development‑agreement provisions for consideration, including road‑damage mitigation, ongoing noise monitoring, periodic water‑use reporting, and decommissioning procedures for inactive sites.
Business and developer representatives urged caution but asked for predictability. "These proposed code amendments would not affect the Victory Project," said Scott Barnes of Mark IV Capital, referencing a development agreement and planned development handbook the project received in April 2024. Amanda Berry Jones of the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada supported careful standards that protect water and quality of life "without closing the door on investment," and urged a dedicated workshop with NV Energy, water purveyors and regional stakeholders.
Public commenters and some commissioners voiced environmental and health concerns. Justina Yellowhair (Zoom) urged commissioners to research PFAS and other contaminants linked in some studies to closed‑loop cooling and related manufacturing, warning, "No amount of money is worth risking the health of our families." Commissioner Julie Ann White pressed for standards and monitoring for backup power systems — including noise and air‑quality checks and funded training for local emergency responders — and asked how the code could allow future cooling technologies beyond a strict "closed‑loop" definition.
Commissioner Cody Wagner pressed staff for clearer technical thresholds, questioning a draft applicability threshold set at 20 megawatts and asking for definitions of ratings (peak megawatts vs. megawatt‑hours) and for annual reporting on water and power usage, noise and chemical inventories. Several commissioners recommended stronger setbacks from residential parcels and said they would prefer the new rules to apply to future data‑center projects rather than exempt already‑grandfathered development agreements.
Rambo said staff will return with a revised draft after the August stakeholder meetings and additional research. She emphasized the draft is preliminary and that any immediate action from the commission would be direction to staff rather than formal adoption.
The commission did not vote on the draft; commissioners directed staff to deepen outreach and technical review before any ordinance is forwarded to the city council.
