Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Data Center Regulations topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pottawatomie County panel reviews draft data-center rules, debates scope and siting

Pottawatomie County Planning Commission ยท April 16, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Planning Commission reviewed draft data center regulations (section 9.5.2), weighing technical impacts (ambient heat, vibration, wastewater, e-waste) and whether to regulate by acreage, power usage, CUPs or an overlay district. Counsel advised against a joint BOCC work session.

The Pottawatomie County Planning Commission reviewed draft data center regulations, focused on technical impacts and how the county should regulate new facilities. County Planner Bridget Snow presented slides outlining the draft's definitions, sizing metrics, electrical measurements and the county's authority to address impacts including ambient heat, vibration, cooling-system wastewater and electronic-waste handling.

Commissioners debated regulatory mechanics. Secretary Robert Busby proposed regulating projects by acreage per site and a countywide acreage cap instead of using power-usage thresholds. Snow said the draft is written as an overlay district but could be recast as conditional use permit (CUP) language or addressed by zoning-district standards. Commissioners discussed tax treatment tied to zoning and reviewed the draft language in section 9.5.2.

Members also considered siting constraints. Chair Judd McCormack asked whether the code should limit data centers to locations served by transmission infrastructure. Commissioners discussed access to transmission lines and the Southwest Power Pool and noted some operators may pursue off-grid, on-site generation. Commissioner Travis Ross asked about a work session with the Board of County Commissioners; County Counselor Bernard Irvine said he did not recommend a joint session and summarized each board's role under state statutes.

The commission finished review of section 9.5.2 and left the item open for further refinement, setting a potential special meeting to continue the discussion.