Commissioners deadlock after contested vote on planned-development rezoning for proposed Forney data center

Planning staff opened the public hearing on a planned-development rezoning of 5.4 acres to allow a data center, describing proposed PD standards including a 60,000-square-foot cap and a maximum building height of 50 feet and noting the property has access by easement to FM 1641 and is currently vacant. "Data centers are only allowed in the light industrial district with approval of a conditional use permit," planning staff told the commission when reviewing the newly adopted regulations and the exception process for planned developments.

Applicants identified the proposal as the Forney Data Compute Facility and described a single building of roughly 55,000–60,000 square feet, limited on-site staffing (about "10 to 15 people"), closed‑loop cooling, and on-site septic for sanitary sewer. "We have named this 1 Forney Data Compute Facility," one applicant said. Daniel Stewart of DEC, the engineering consultant on the project, explained screening and rooftop parapets for chillers and said the cap of 60,000 square feet was included to set a clear regulatory limit: "So by regulation now we would not go over 60,000."

Commissioners pressed the applicants on the council-adopted 5,000‑foot setback for data centers and why the project proposes a roughly 1,000‑foot distance to nearby single‑family residences in Fox Hollow. Applicants and staff said the parcel depth and the site's placement behind the vacated Smurfit Kappa property constrain the setback; staff reiterated that the city council had settled on a 5,000‑foot requirement for the ordinance but that planned-development requests may include exceptions with specific PD conditions. "It was not a big enough distance, so they changed it to 5,000," planning staff said when recounting council action on the ordinance.

Health, noise and environmental questions were raised by commissioners. Commissioner Hurst said she had researched possible health effects from air pollution and noise and noted equipment details were not finalized: "I didn't see anything in here addressing the health concerns." Applicants replied that cooling systems are closed‑loop and that loud nearby infrastructure — trains and highway traffic on FM 1641 and US 80 — would dominate ambient noise, and they said generators would be enclosed and used only for backup. The applicant also reported beginning environmental permitting with TCEQ for Kaufman County.

Applicants provided economic projections and community commitments, including job estimates (10–15 technicians) and an estimate of property and related revenues presented to the commission. The commission debated motions late in the hearing: a motion to approve the PD rezoning was made and seconded, and later a separate motion to deny was made and seconded. The chair described the result as effectively deadlocked at the meeting and noted the applicant could appeal to city council for a final determination; staff explained a supermajority would be required to overturn council zoning action.

Next steps were not finalized on the record; at the close of the item commissioners moved on to subsequent agenda business. The record shows substantial technical and community concerns remain unresolved, including the appropriateness of a setback exception, numeric power and environmental impacts, and whether the City Council will be asked to weigh in on an appeal.