At their meeting on Tuesday, Aug. 11, the Clayton County Planning and Zoning Commission held a workshop to further revise and refine its proposed ordinance for data center development in the county. The decision to hold another workshop came after a July 14 public hearing on proposed restrictive and prohibitive versions of the ordinance. The bulk of the workshop focused on further revisions to the restrictive ordinance, with a separate concern also identified in the prohibitive ordinance.
After reviewing and approving minutes from the July meeting, the commission discussed questions and concerns raised by the public and identified sections for further review or revision.
A question was raised regarding the jurisdiction of the Guttenberg Industrial Park and whether the county’s zoning ordinance would apply. Since the Guttenberg Industrial Park is within city limits, it is outside the county’s jurisdiction and any applicable zoning regulations would fall to the city of Guttenberg. Commission members noted the city was beginning the process of developing its own regulations. The Guttenberg City Council approved a moratorium on June 8 to pause data center development within city limits while regulations are developed.
In reviewing comments and concerns shared at the public hearing, multiple commission members said they were satisfied with revisions addressing common concerns, including water usage, closed-loop cooling requirements and limits on facility size.
There was discussion about adding a requirement for renewable or sustainable energy use. Commission members noted it could be difficult to determine an appropriate required percentage and how such a requirement would be enforced. Others noted it was not a requirement they had seen in other ordinances they reviewed. Ultimately, the commission determined not to include a renewable or sustainable energy component.
Two components that saw further discussion were provisions related to facility size and noise. The commission revised Section 3.2, which stated, “No two such facilities shall be located on contiguous parcels or within one thousand (1,000) feet of one another if under common ownership or control,” by striking “if under common ownership or control.” Members said ownership was irrelevant if the intent of the provision is to maintain separation between facilities.
The commission also considered lowering the ordinance’s noise limits but noted the existing standards were consistent with other ordinances they reviewed. They ultimately retained limits of 60 dBA during the day and 50 dBA at night, measured at the facility’s property line. They directed updates to timelines for responding to noise complaints and conducting follow-up testing. Conversation also considered whether additional time was necessary if a meeting of the Board of Adjustment needed to be scheduled.
Development requirements were also reviewed, including the requirement for a vegetative barrier when a facility is located within a half mile of a known sensitive area. The commission considered expanding the requirement to two miles but ultimately retained the half-mile requirement. Members also clarified that the provision is separate from and does not change the required 1,000-foot setback from property lines.
Cooling and backup power restrictions were also reviewed. The commission clarified the ordinance does not require water cooling, but if water is used, it must operate through a closed-loop system. Members were satisfied with previously added backup power requirements, which limit generator testing to four hours per month per generator and restrict testing to daytime hours. Generators would be subject to the same 60 dBA daytime and 50 dBA nighttime noise limits as the facility. Use beyond the four-hour testing limit would only be permitted during an active utility grid failure. The requirements also prohibit underground fuel storage and require above-ground tanks with containment and leak-detection measures.
Relating to application and operational plans, the commission added more specific requirements for what must be included in a site plan, including all building locations on the site, property lines, driveway access, required setbacks and distances from surrounding buildings, properties and other applicable features.
Zoning Administrator Caytee Jones also noted that a review of the prohibitive ordinance by the county’s own IT department raised a concern with the current definition of a data center or computing center. As written, the definition could unintentionally include server facilities used by county offices, the sheriff’s department, Osborne, libraries, Alpine, hospitals and other existing facilities that use servers to store data locally. The commission discussed adding language to distinguish those types of operations from the data centers the ordinance is intended to address.
The commission’s next meeting and workshop will be held Tuesday, Sept. 8, at 7 p.m.
