McMinnville planner outlines zoning options, legal limits and performance standards for data centers

Community Development Director Sean Garrett told a packed public forum in McMinnville that the city is drafting a regulatory framework for data centers and cryptocurrency facilities but cannot impose an outright ban.

"We cannot legally ban data centers. It will not hold in court," Garrett said, urging the city to focus on zoning definitions and enforceable performance standards before any developer submits a formal application. He said the city has roughly 18 months before an application could be submitted and wants rules, findings and a clear process in place ahead of time.

Why it matters: data centers can vary widely in scale and impacts. Garrett distinguished smaller data-processing facilities, which may have limited noise, water and heat effects and could be handled with conditional use permits, from hyperscale facilities and high-performance AI clusters that would require multi-step approvals, site plans, and stricter review. He said the city must avoid drafting rules so restrictive that no viable lots remain—what courts treat as a "de facto" ban.

What Garrett proposed: the city can pursue one of three main regulatory paths: (1) treat data centers as a conditional use or special review within existing zones (C3, I1, I2); (2) restrict higher-impact facilities to heavier industrial zoning (I2) and use CUPs or special review; or (3) create a new zone district tailored to high-intensity data centers that would require rezoning and legislative findings. Garrett argued a purpose-built district with adopted findings gives stronger legal grounding than squeezing new restrictions into older zoning language.

Practical standards Garrett said the city can and should adopt include measurable noise limits (he offered illustrative examples such as daytime and nighttime decibel thresholds), pre- and post-construction noise monitoring, buffering and landscape screening, setback and siting rules tied to "sensitive receptors" (residences, schools, daycares), limits on generator placement and containment, and requirements that developers provide state and federal permits and utility capacity studies. Garrett said the city code currently contains a general noise provision but not use-specific decibel metrics, and that the city could add enforceable, measurable standards.

Local inventory and site viability: Garrett said McMinnville has roughly 100 lots zoned I1/I2 and about 16 lots of 10 acres or larger (some are already developed or unsuitable). He recommended maintaining a reasonable percentage of viable sites—he suggested roughly 15%—so the city is not vulnerable to a legal finding that regulations created an effective ban.

Water, power and building codes: Garrett described trade-offs between cooling approaches (closed-loop systems, recirculation, geothermal) and their effects on water versus power use. He emphasized the limits of local authority over utilities: the city can require developers to submit utility impact analyses, permits, and evidence of state/local approvals, but cannot set utility or air emission standards that are governed by state or federal regulators. He also noted building code and NFPA standards (for example, NFPA 855 for energy storage systems) will affect construction, safety and siting decisions.

Noise measurement and wildlife concerns: residents raised concerns about low-frequency "hum" and potential effects on wildlife (bats, bees) and human health. Garrett said measurement technology and standardized thresholds for low-frequency sound are limited, which makes legally enforceable limits harder to craft, but the city can rely on construction and design controls (sound walls, screening, equipment enclosures) and monitor impacts.

State preemption and procedural constraints: Garrett warned of recent state rule changes that can fast-track permitted uses if the city does not act (a 30-day window for some permitted-use reviews). By contrast, legislative rezoning (a new district) requires public hearings and longer notice periods, which offer more deliberation time. Garrett also explained the city's authority comes from the Tennessee Code Annotated (Titles 13 and 6) and operates under Dillon's Rule—meaning local powers are limited to those granted by the state.

Enforcement and remedies: Garrett noted limits on local fines (city court caps) but said administrative hearing officers and injunctive relief/civil actions are available avenues for sustained or serious violations. He emphasized the importance of measurable, enforceable standards rather than vague restrictions that a court could overturn.

Next steps: Garrett said he will compile studies, relevant case law and draft language on a project hub on the city's website, consult with land-use experts and MTAS, and present drafts to the planning commission before any final action by the board. He invited the public to submit studies by email and said a follow-up meeting will revisit the same material to gather additional input.

Garrett concluded by stressing that any adopted code will be a "living document" that can change as new research and technologies develop; the city aims to be careful that regulations are legally defensible while addressing noise, water, heat and safety concerns.