Lee County committee considers tighter rules for technology overlay district to address data centers

The Lee County committee spent its meeting reviewing a slate of proposed changes to the county’s technology overlay district ordinance aimed at spelling out protections and conditions for potential data‑center development.

Jeremy (assessor/GIS and committee representative) told members the overlay was adopted in June 2025 and the public has since submitted suggested amendments. "We want to take that seriously," Jeremy said, listing seven public proposals that would strengthen the ordinance’s language and make specific protections explicit.

Why it matters: the overlay governs how large technology developments — including data centers and related infrastructure — would be sited and conditioned within Lee County. Committee members said clearer standards could help address public concerns about water use, noise, grid impacts and community benefits before development petitions arrive.

What was proposed and discussed: - Decommissioning bond: Jeremy said the current ordinance requires a decommissioning plan but does not name data centers explicitly; the first amendment would require a decommissioning bond that specifically attaches to data-center facilities. - Water disclosures and well protection: another proposal would require developers to disclose anticipated water consumption and protections for private wells; Jeremy noted many water issues currently surface in planning findings but are not written into the ordinance text. - Ratepayer protection / grid costs: a public suggestion asked who should bear the costs of electrical-grid upgrades. Jeremy said the county cannot unilaterally decide how private businesses pay for infrastructure but recommended exploring permit conditions and incentives — including encouraging behind‑the‑meter power generation — that reduce impacts on local ratepayers. A staff member cautioned, "we can't make laws around who bears businesses' costs," and said permitting incentives are a more feasible route. - Numeric noise limits: a recommendation included setting property-line limits (one example suggested 60 dB daytime and 55 dB nighttime); Jeremy urged the committee to study common practice (noting many ordinances use lower property-line limits around 40–50 dB) before adopting a numeric standard. - Host agreements and community benefits: committee members discussed negotiating community-benefit or host agreements with large projects as part of development agreements rather than strict ordinance mandates, subject to legal review. - NDAs and transparency: one proposed amendment would prohibit nondisclosure agreements with local government. Jeremy said NDAs are sometimes requested by prospective developers but FOIA and other constraints limit a municipality’s ability to keep all negotiation details private; he recommended counsel review specific language.

On the question of a moratorium: several members asked whether the county should pause new petitions while the ordinance is refined. Jeremy called a moratorium a policy decision for the full board, noting existing zoning safeguards and the multi-phase permitting process; he also observed that the state may issue guidance affecting local rules. Chair Jack Scribe reminded the public the committee prefers to move deliberately and involve the state's attorney in drafting any language.

What happens next: no formal ordinance changes or votes were taken. Jeremy said staff, Alice (planning) and the state's attorney will produce a red-lined draft of the ordinance incorporating the committee’s initial direction; the committee will revisit the draft at a future meeting and will not hold separate ad-hoc workshops unless members request them.