Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plain City council debates tougher data‑center zoning, including proposal to double stream setbacks
Summary
Councilors discussed a package of zoning changes for data centers — including a proposal to double stream setbacks (up to 2,000 feet for the main Darby channel and larger buffers for tributaries), tighten PUD language and add noise/vibration limits — and agreed to prepare revised text for a 2nd reading.
Councilors spent the bulk of their June 22 meeting debating revisions to the village's proposed data‑center zoning rules, focusing on setbacks from streams, whether planned-unit developments (PUDs) create a loophole, and measurable noise and vibration limits.
A council member proposed "to essentially double all the setbacks that was here," saying the draft should protect the primary tributaries and the main Darby channel. That exchange included specific buffer figures discussed on the floor: tributaries were discussed in the range of 400 feet and the primary channel in the range of 2,000 feet. Another council member favored treating smaller tributaries the same as the main channel to capture numerous feeder streams.
Councilors also debated the zoning districts where data centers would be permitted. One member urged striking PUDs from the permitted location text and limiting data centers to I‑2 (limited industrial) zoning to prevent a developer from using a PUD to place a data center near residences. "To me, that's a loophole that a contractor or developer could come in," a councilor said, urging tighter language.
Noise and vibration limits drew concern about enforceability. Speakers reviewed DBA/DBC metrics and discussed daytime/nighttime thresholds, with some councilors warning that subjective language can be hard to apply. The group discussed specifying measurable limits and including penalties (a 5‑decibel reduction was mentioned in the packet discussion).
Rather than vote on final language, the council agreed to direct staff to prepare amended text and circulate an updated packet for a second reading. The mayor noted the packet will be updated for council review and that a 2nd reading could proceed at a future meeting; earlier in the meeting the council had agreed to consider a 2nd reading July 1 if the revised text is ready.
The discussion followed a public hearing and was framed by multiple council members as an attempt to craft clear, defensible regulations before any developer request arrives.
