Smith County staff outline rules to allow data centers by special-use permit, residents press water, noise and secrecy concerns

Smith County staff presented details of a proposed zoning text amendment that would allow hyperscale data centers in some districts only through a special use permit, outlining proposed setbacks, noise and generator standards and community-notice requirements during a public Q&A at the county administration building.

"One data center alone could net 50% of the current tax revenue we receive from real estate," said the Staff member (S1), citing a Mecklenburg County example where a campus’s assessed real-estate value was described to staff as about $1,000,000,000. Using Smith County’s stated tax rate (69¢ per $100), S1 said a single campus could generate roughly $6,900,000–$7,000,000 in real-estate tax revenue annually compared with the county’s projected $14,500,000 in real-estate tax receipts this year.

Why it matters: The amendment would change where and how data centers can be sited in Smith County, bringing potential tax revenue and a small number of permanent high‑paid jobs while prompting residents to press for binding conditions on noise, water and emergency power to limit local impacts.

The proposal and proposed standards: S1 said the draft text amendment would allow data centers by special use only, and would include a suite of site-specific requirements. Key provisions staff cited include a required 60-foot setback to the nearest property line and a noise limit of 55 decibels at the property line, with lower thresholds when a "prominent tone" is present and frequency-based criteria spelled out in the ordinance. S1 said generators would have to meet Tier 4 emissions standards and that the county is considering operational restrictions on generator testing (for example, scheduled weekday tests) to reduce nighttime disturbance.

Post-construction monitoring and enforcement: Under the draft rules described by county staff, applicants must commission pre-construction studies; post-construction noise would be evaluated within 90 days of each phase’s occupancy-permit issuance and then annually for 10 years, with peak-cooling (June–August) operations used for the measurements. S2 added that applicants would pay for qualified acoustical engineers to demonstrate compliance, and that county staff or a qualified third party would conduct follow-up testing; if noise exceeded limits the county may pursue enforcement to obtain compliance.

Water, power and site-specific review: Staff emphasized there is no county-wide gallons-per-day standard because water availability varies by provider. S1 said the ordinance would require any proposed facility to work with the local water provider or, for wells or withdrawal permits, the Virginia Department of Health or DEQ, and to submit those approvals as part of the special use review. On electricity, S1 relayed comments from Jack Holmes "who was with us tonight from AP" that the utility as a whole has capacity but that capacity is site-specific and depends on the tap-in point and the size of the facility.

Public engagement and transparency: S1 said data centers would not be allowed by right under current zoning; a special use permit would trigger a public hearing and staff proposes an applicant-hosted community meeting in the immediate area plus property posting, mailings to adjoining owners and newspaper/website notice to broaden awareness before the county hearing.

Nondisclosure agreements and economic-development negotiation concerns: Several residents raised concerns that economic-development negotiations sometimes rely on nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) and closed sessions. S2 acknowledged NDAs and closed-session practices are common in economic development negotiations, but emphasized zoning-text amendments and special use permitting are zoning processes and that any documents filed with a special use application would be public records once the application is submitted. "Once the special use permit application is filed, any documents associated with that would be public information," S1 said.

Jobs and local impacts: Drawing from the Mecklenburg example, staff described construction activity that can persist for years, occasional road-wear from heavy construction traffic (which some jurisdictions required developers to remediate), and campus employment estimates S1 relayed of roughly 30–50 workers per building on campuses that commonly have 3–5 buildings (roughly 150–250 jobs per campus) and reported average salaries in the example jurisdiction near $150,000. Staff cautioned these numbers are from one jurisdiction and are site- and operator-specific.

Resident concerns and unresolved questions: Residents asked about vibration beyond audible noise; S1 and S2 said the ordinance uses decibel thresholds and frequency/tone rules adapted from other jurisdictions and that acoustical engineers would be required to demonstrate compliance. Residents also asked whether the county tracks farm closures and countywide carrying capacity; S1 said the county does not track farm closures and some infrastructure questions are site-specific and require provider input.

Next steps: S1 said staff and the planning commission are reviewing comments; the planning commission recommended approval in a recent hearing and staff will incorporate public comments into its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. No formal board vote occurred at the session.

The county invited residents with site-specific questions about Pathway Park or other locations to follow up with staff so the county can respond with site-level information.