Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate data center rules: 60-foot height, 1,500-foot setback and fire, sewer concerns
Summary
Troup County planners and commissioners debated a draft data center ordinance that would raise a maximum height to 60 feet, require large setbacks from sensitive uses and add special-use permitting — while staff and counsel warned of fire-protection limits and legal risk from an outright ban.
Get email alerts on the Data Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Austin Burgess, the county planner, told the board staff recommended raising a maximum height for data center buildings from 40 to 60 feet to ease cooling needs and reduce power draw. "If you update the height of it to 60, they pull a little bit less power, which then lessens the impact on the rest of the individuals," Burgess said, explaining that taller interior volumes can improve cooling efficiency.
Commissioners pressed staff on multiple fronts: Commissioner (S3) said he had not heard community support for a data center and asked why the county should relax height limits to accommodate the industry. Another commissioner questioned whether the county should set its own distance requirements rather than mirror industry practice. Engineering staff noted the ordinance requires a 300-foot vegetative buffer around stormwater retention facilities, and Burgess said the draft establishes a 1,500-foot setback from sensitive receptors, measured from structures. "If site plans include detention or retention ponds, we could change that tonight" to clarify how ponds are counted, Burgess said.
Legal counsel warned that an outright ban would be more vulnerable to legal challenge than a layered approach that confines data centers to industrial zones, requires rezoning when appropriate and imposes strict special-use permit conditions. Counsel advised that some communities have used a fallback approach — an initial prohibition that contains regulatory standards to apply if a ban is struck down. Counsel described the layered path: rezoning where needed, administrative reviews, a special-use permit with strict conditions, then permitting.
Commissioners also raised public-safety and infrastructure concerns: several said rural parts of the county lack sewer service and sufficient fire protection for large, power‑intensive facilities. Engineering staff said stormwater and retention ponds can be designed in multiple ways and that buffers are largely a planning choice rather than an engineering impossibility. Several commissioners asked for clear language about whether setback distances apply to the principal structure only or to related site elements like retention ponds.
The board did not take a formal vote on an ordinance at the work session. County Manager (S6) confirmed the draft text amendment for data centers is scheduled as a public‑hearing item on the afternoon agenda, allowing the board to hear public comment and consider final action later in the meeting.
