After receiving feedback from several residents at a public hearing Sept. 8, the Warren County Commission directed its legal counsel to make a number of changes to proposed regulations for data centers.
“Our Planning & Zoning Board, our Planning & Zoning Administrator, County Commission and legal counsel have worked extensively to modernize our zoning regulations for data processing facilities,” Presiding Commissioner Joe Gildehaus said in introducing the topic at the hearing, which was followed by separate public hearings on battery storage systems, outdoor recreational venues, and RV parks.
“We have gathered data, reviewed models from other counties, consulted state and industry guidance, and built regulations that are fair and consistent and protective of all property rights. These updates do not approve any specific project. Any future proposal must still go through the full public process, including notices, hearings, and formal review,” Gildehaus said.
Public comments on the proposed commission order, which is several pages long, touched on a variety of concerns.
Lisa Buchheit asked about noise and lighting at data center facilities that might be built in the county in the future. She asked if additional requirements could be added to further reduce the impact of lighting.
“When Warrenton recently had theirs, they did a lot about night skies and the lights had to go down, and they had to only be a certain height, and they had to go off,” Buchheit said.
Potential noise from data centers and the possibility of imposing additional requirements to regulate it was also brought up by resident Jess Sutton.
“I also noticed that you guys are going to require an environmental impact study,” Sutton said. “That’s great. Is that allowed to be done by the company that’s coming in, or are you asking that to be an independent agency?”
Later in the hearing, Gildehaus also asked for clarification on who would conduct the environmental impact studies.
“Normally, it’s the property owner that hires the environmental scientists as part of their site plans,” said Commissioner Matt Flake.
“So generally they would submit that as part of their package, and then you would review that in passing on the application,” said County Counselor Bradley Pryor. “But again, generally, they gather that data, prepare those reports, and then it’s for your review as part of the process.”
As part of the county’s review of a site plan and related environmental and hydrology studies, Flake said, the county would be able to have staff including a hydrologist and county engineers ensure the proposal meets all requirements.
“On the environmental study end of it, that is in here also, and as far as my reading of the order, it will be available to the public,” he added.
“They will be done before the job is permitted, and that’s part of the site plan, to get these environmental studies done, and also in there is that hydrology studies should be done. That’s separate from the environmental, but the hydrology studies can be used as part of the environmental study when those people do that.”
Noting that there were some questions at the hearing from members of the public about whether data centers other than those with “closed-loop” cooling systems would be allowed, Flake said this was already addressed in the draft order.
“Information technology and data processing facilities shall utilize only closed-loop cooling systems or air-cooled systems for heat management of all component parts of the facility operation, including, but not limited to, computers, servers, racks, power systems, and other similar equipment,” the draft order stated as of Sept. 8.
“No facility shall utilize evaporative cooling in any form, whether direct, indirect, hybrid, supplemental, or backup, for any data processing or computing equipment. This Section shall not limit the use of traditional HVAC equipment used solely for human occupancy comfort within occupied portions of buildings.”
Among other suggestions, resident Anna Farrar said the county should regulate the entire campus of any data center project as a single development, even if it includes multiple parcels.
“And you know how parcel to parcel works, one’s going to be a substation and one’s going to be this, one’s going to be that. When you divide it up, as the regulations are, they can have like four generators per parcel,” Farrar said, “so within the entire development, you know, depending on how many parcels there are, they could get away with using an incredible amount of generators for fuel storage, and I want to try to curb that.”
She added that the county should also put conditions on when data centers can use generators.
“We don’t want them to be able to use the generators just because it saves them on electricity costs because the fuel is cheaper,” she said, “so if there’s any type of provision or if we can strengthen that you have to only use them under these conditions, that would be ideal.”
Farrar had several other suggestions but said that “most importantly” the county ought to “require decommissioning or financial assurance, because I don’t think there’s any decommissioning clauses within the ordinance as it’s written, and you guys don’t want to be left with a mess if something goes wrong or if systems change.”
Adding language to address decommissioning of data center facilities was one of the suggestions that commissioners acted upon, approving a motion to have Pryor review the order and make changes as needed.
“I’m not saying tear down the whole building, but any kind of hazardous materials and that kind of stuff needs to be taken care of” if a data center closes, Gildehaus said.
Farrar’s suggestion relating to generators was also one that commissioners directed Pryor to look into further.
“I think it’s kind of a little bit of a loophole there of how many are allowed per site,” said Flake. “I would put that down to a number where they can’t put more than what we’re expecting just because there’s a different parcel.”
Another suggestion adopted following public comments was to increase the required setbacks from neighboring properties from the 100-foot limit included in the Sept. 8 draft order.
“I would like the legal counsel to look into possibly setting back a minimum of 200 feet from the property line, and then changing the setback from the nearest residence to at least 300 feet,” said Commissioner Dave Mikus.
Noting that the county has no overall noise order, Gildehaus said the county should nonetheless still try to find a way to ensure that any data centers do not cause excessive noise.
Other discussion topics included ensuring that first responders are familiar with any given data center’s operations and would be capable of dealing with any emergencies that could arise.
The commission voted Sept. 8 to bring back a revised draft order for consideration and possible approval at a meeting Sept. 24 after Pryor has had time to review it and make the various requested changes.
