Franklin County work group refines data-center ordinance after May 13 public hearing

The Franklin County APC work group met to review public-hearing feedback on a proposed data-center/code ordinance and agreed to present the public-version draft and a companion feedback memo to the planning commission at its June 17 meeting. Dave, who led the discussion, said the group prepared a Word document listing public comments with the work group's proposed responses and an internal deliberative draft for staff review.

The group front-loaded several technical changes in response to public concerns. On water, the draft now requires connection to a public water utility for new data-center projects and prohibits large "significant withdrawal" wells as defined by the DNR; small ancillary wells under 10,000 gallons per day would remain allowed. "When you put that in, it made it a lot easier to manage the DNR significant withdrawal facility language," Dave said, explaining the change was intended to reduce risk to public groundwater supplies.

The work group also tightened air-quality and noise provisions tied to backup generators. Members said modeling and standards were added to make generator emissions and noise compliance clearer; the draft shortens certain noise sampling windows from the previous one-hour average to a 10-minute sampling period for short-duration events. The draft references applicable air-quality standards and adds fuel-storage and environmental-protection language drawn from technical guidance.

On electromagnetic interference and radio-frequency interference, speakers noted that intermittent interference can be hard to detect in pre-construction testing. The draft therefore emphasizes a neighbor-complaint investigation process so incidents can be investigated when they occur rather than requiring exhaustive pre-testing. The group left energy-storage technical standards to state and federal regulations but restored language addressing public concerns about batteries.

The work group declined to enshrine dollar amounts or line-item contract language for road maintenance and decommissioning in the code, saying those specifics should be negotiated in individual contracts because project conditions vary. To secure decommissioning obligations, the draft includes options for lifecycle agreements and provisions to address insurance or contractual defaults.

Members discussed community-benefits agreements and removed provisions that would allow third-party signatories in some cases; the draft narrows signature authority to local redevelopment entities where applicable. On building height, the group recorded disagreement: some members and APC representatives favored allowing taller buildings (70 feet) to limit sprawl, while others said a 60-foot maximum would be preferable.

The group agreed to present the public-version draft (version 3.0) already posted on the county website and to circulate the feedback memo to the APC so commissioners can hear how the work group responded to each public comment. Brian agreed to represent the work group at the APC meeting; Dave said he would be available to answer technical questions remotely. The members also agreed to check with legal staff (Terry Duffy or Jeff) about how and when to share internal deliberative drafts without running afoul of the county's open meetings or records rules.

The planning commission will receive the public-version draft and the feedback document at its next meeting on June 17; the work group asked that APC feedback be recorded in the minutes so the paper trail reflects commissioner questions and any requested changes.