Residents urge strict limits on data centers as planning staff finalizes UDC revisions

During the public-comment portion of the June 24 Planning Commission meeting, multiple residents and a council member urged the commission to restrict or prohibit data centers in Troy, pressing staff on whether nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) or confidential development practices have been used locally and asking that data centers be routed through a formal public-review process rather than admin-only approval.

Madison Hickman, a 3rd Ward city council member, said her board recommended being "as strict as possible to essentially ban as best as we can data centers" and also urged allowing tattoo parlors to occupy downtown commercial storefronts. Bradley Burner, a Troy resident, urged an outright ban and cited instances in other jurisdictions where commenters say NDAs and shell companies were used to conceal developer identities; he warned of heavy water use that could impact local wells and the buried aquifer.

Staff and the law director responded that they were not aware of NDAs used by Troy officials and noted that state law provides for limited confidentiality for certain economic-development submittals; the law director said changes in state rules have occurred and staff would need documentation before assuming NDAs were used locally. Dan Swank, another resident, asked explicitly whether NDAs had been used in Troy and recommended the commission review a Cuyahoga County study on data-center siting and standards; staff encouraged transparent public input and suggested the commission evaluate technical standards (water, electricity) and implementation methods.

Katie Kaler Wagner, who identified herself as a Troy resident and candidate for Ohio's House District 80, urged the commission to amend the draft UDC so that data centers would require planning commission or council review rather than administrative approval. Planning staff and the law director said the PD process could serve the same function as a conditional-use requirement by directing larger or sensitive developments (for example, by acreage threshold) to undergo PD review that includes public hearings.

Speakers on all sides urged transparency. Staff noted they will post the redline draft online and schedule a public-input meeting or formal hearing as dictated by statutory notice requirements. No regulatory change was adopted at the June 24 meeting; commissioners asked staff and legal counsel to refine draft language and procedural options before a future vote.