Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we're live.

okay is everybody ready to go uh today is the june 23rd 2026 coffee county planning commission meeting uh it's a little after four we've got a we have a quorum here we've got a couple of members in route that have had some problems today uh but i'm going to call the meeting to order and the first thing we're going to have is public comments We have anybody want to make any public comments? Yes, Nick.

Afternoon, everyone. I just wanted to take this opportunity to speak about something that I'm going to be bringing up.

Oh, pardon me. Nicholas Northcutt, Northcutt Surveying.

I'm not speaking about any specific item on the agenda tonight. Um, but I am planning on bringing, uh, this up, I'll be, uh, putting in an application and whatnot or whatever necessary things are to do to bring this up for a vote at the next meeting. But what I'm asking y'all to consider here tonight is to open a discussion to, um, to allow for minor divisions to be allowed to be done in an a one zone again. I feel like that this falls in line with the intent of the recent changes for responsible growth. It still keeps the major divisions in the RS1 and the C1 zones, but promotes smaller and more sporadic growth out in the counties that won't strain infrastructure. But mostly it allows property owners in the A1 zones more flexibility to use their land, which is nine times out of 10 is their most valuable asset. And so I'm just bringing this up tonight to maybe get the ball on the discussion rolling, and then I will be planning on asking it to be put to a vote at next month's meeting, but I just thought it was prudent, and Kurt thought it was prudent also to, you know, have at least a month of discussion prior to the meeting where the vote would be. And so, I know y'all have got other fish to fry here tonight and whatnot, but I could answer any questions that y'all might have on that or that was off the top of your head. Also, you know, I'm sure y'all can get a hold of me if anybody was available or wanted to have a phone call later. You could give me a shout, and I'd be happy to talk about this with any one of y'all. And so there again, you know, minor divisions would allow for four lots or less on attractive land.

I would like to remind the members they are not allowed to speak to individuals regarding zoning business outside of this meeting. But county commissioners can. So we actually have two county commissioners that sat on the planning commission. So if there were either one of those were to call you and identify themselves as county commissioners and wish to speak to you as an elected county commissioner, that would be okay. Gotcha.

We're not allowed to discuss one-on-one with anybody. That's a big no-no for us.

Understood, yeah. Well, I didn't mean to suggest anything like that. Well, while we're all here tonight, if anybody had any questions or anything you wanted to bounce off, I'm available. But anyway, I just wanted to throw that out there and let you all know that it's coming down the pipeline.

And I might throw out that requires amending the zoning resolution, which you would have to go through an application process with the zoning office to make an application to amend, just so you follow the process. Mm-hmm.

Well, my understanding would be I would have to come before y'all next month, and then it would have to have, would it have to be two readings with the full commission? No.

But he has to have the application to come before the planning commission. That's right. Okay.

Y'all would give a recommendation to the legislative body, and then you'd have to go right at them. Yeah.

There's almost nothing that the county legislative body has to vote on twice. Very few things. There's a few, but very few. But not this. Okay.

Great. Thank you, Nicholas. Appreciate it.

I have a question. What is it that you're asking for the minors of the region? What is it that you're asking?

Well, the recent changes for the five acre minimums in the county eliminated any division essentially in the A1 zones. And so what we're seeking permission to do is to, or what I'm going to seek permission to do is to go back to the bulk regs that were prior to the amendments and allow for four lot divisions on attractive land with those same bulk restriction requirements. Like if you're meeting the fire protection and all that, you can get down to eight-tenths of an acre, otherwise it's an acre to two acres depending. But just to allow for those minor divisions to be back in that agricultural zone. I think there's a couple of ways you can do that, isn't there?

Well, I would like to make a comment that our Board of Zoning Appeals has almost a perfect record of approving minor divisions.

Yeah, but it's only one lot divisions for family members.

No, the word family is not in there. And I wish people would quit saying that. Anybody, anybody has the right to apply for the special question variance, which is the fourth power adopted by resolution for our Board of Zoning Appeals. And they've been doing a really great job with it. I don't know that there's been over two that's been denied, and I can't speak to the reason they denied them.

How was those two? Okay. Okay. Well, so I guess what I would be seeking is to not have to get a variance to do a minor division.

You just want to do away with the five-acre minimum is basically what you're saying.

No, I want to be able to do minor divisions without having to get a variance.

Any questions? Is that all?

Or going to the old bulk rags. So, no, five-acre minimums is not necessarily doing away with that, but it is allowing for minor divisions.

Is that it?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Nick.

All right, we'll move on to the approval of the agenda. Excuse me, any more public comments? All right, we're going to go to approval of the agenda. I have a motion for Ms. Laura Vasquez. I'll second that motion. I have a second for Ms. Laura Nettles. Y'all are going to get me confused. Okay. I've got a motion and a second for approval of the agenda. Is there any discussion on the agenda? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Unanimous. Now, I hope you've had time to read the previous minutes. And if you have, I'll take a motion to approve the previous minutes. I make a motion to approve them. Mr. Harrell makes a motion to approve the previous minutes. Do I have a second?

I'll second that.

I have a second for Ms. Laura Nettles. Any discussion on the previous minutes? All those in favor of approving the previous minutes from May the 25th, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, no. Okay, so it's another unanimous. Okay, we're going to move on to my favorite topic, bond review, Kirk. No bonds, no bond review. Okay. I don't know why that's anyway. Uh, now the next item is the construction plans phase, uh, five country landing major subdivision. This is phase five.

I'm Ryan Patterson. We're St. John engineering. Um, and this is like you said, country landing phase five subdivision. This phase consists of 16 single-family residential homes, and this connects to the back of what was phases one through three, and I guess also phase four. It's the leg on the left side of that screen.

We've looked at this all the way through, haven't we, Kirk?

Yeah, that was the one that had the road crossing and stuff. They're working on this one right now.

Anybody got any questions for Mr. Patterson? Curt, everything in order as far as you're concerned?

Yes.

Good afternoon, Sammy. We are looking at the construction plans phase five of country landing major subdivision. Are there any questions on this? None? Kurt, you're saying everything's good? Yes. Okay. Everything seems to be in order. Of course, this is not a final. This is a construction plan. If there's anyone who wants to make a motion to approve?

Well, it just brings it to y'all's attention.

We don't have to vote on it? Okay. All right. Well, that was easy enough. Thank you, Mr. Patterson.

I appreciate it. Thank you.

Okay. I'm going to ask the mayor to help us on this next one. We have our county attorney, Mark Williams, here today. We're going to be going over the resolution on data centers, which we went over in depth the last time. Mark, you've been over it pretty comprehensively. Do you have any problems with it?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have reviewed it. I think it's a great, very thorough document. I do have a few comments here and there of things, because I don't know what you all have already discussed, or if you've made other amendments.

Do you want us to start going over it, and then you join in when you have something to say? Would that be good for you?

I mean, I think that would be fine.

May I, Mr. Chairman? Yes. Since I have two employees here, EMA director. I would like for Wade Evans, our EMA director, to make a short appearance at the lectern to give his take on data center and what may or may not become something under his umbrella as the emergency management agency director.

Thank you. That's good. Those guys need to get back to work, I'm sure.

I'm not going to go over the electrical stuff. If you have any questions, I will. The big thing during an emergency, we're just going to be fighting to keep power up in areas. Water is going to be the same thing. Data centers take a lot of water. The big one on my side is going to be fire protection and hazardous materials. It's going to be coming into the The county, you're gonna have large scale battery energy storage systems for backups for the system if power goes down, which is gonna become a fire hazard plus hazmat coming into the county. The diesel fuel is gonna be a lot more on back roads that we're gonna have to deal with for backup generators also. The cooling systems for them and the chemicals is all going to be in the hazmat rim so any leaks is going to be environmental problems again the batteries the lithium ions are a fire hazard the the need for specialized fire training on all of these data centers you're going to have to work hand in hand with the fire department and that that company that owns that data center because they're gonna have to know how to go in there and shut down power and pop fire in case of an emergency there. If we have a tornado come through, it's gonna be the same thing. We're gonna have to be able to isolate power in the areas that we're in because it's got a redundant backup generator plus a battery source usually. The critical infrastructure, they're gonna wanna be a priority on the power service, so they're gonna try to get their power back on quick. As much money as they're paying to a power company is probably gonna happen. So that's gonna hurt us on the regular people getting their power up quickly. We're gonna have to increase our coordination with state and federal agencies when we get them in here. Just because the amount of chemicals we've got coming in, the more responses we're gonna have due to leaks and spills. Cybersecurity threats is a big thing that a lot of people worry about. I kind of described them down there. Transportation on the emergency side is just gonna be the traffic going in and out and being able to get emergency fire trucks in ambulance is in, so just in our planning, if we approve one to come in, we're going to have to plan for bigger parking lots and make sure that it's not just minimum parking. Again, training with fire, EMS, and your hazmat training, or your hazmat material team, probably going to have to get some specialized equipment. There's not a lot of information out there on data centers, so knowing exactly what equipment and the cost of them is unsure right now. But that would be sitting down with the safety person of the data center and going over their plans and trying to work with them. Hopefully, with it being that big of a business coming in or that big of a building, they're going to have some response personnel there, but they'll have to have a safety plan.

anything else that I got a question that I mentioned a few minutes ago to Steve our bond our firefighters out in the county they're volunteer firefighters correct yes sir okay they're gonna have to have special training a whole lot more hazard training and stuff you know it's they already have a lot on them to begin with. Also the response to get there. Because I mean, they've got jobs.

And they have the amount of personnel that you need for right.

And that's what I'm saying. And I mean, like I said, the equipment and stuff. You know, it just seems to me that they're asking a whole lot from the volunteers.

I do agree. That would be a lot of the working with that company is you're gonna have to basically try to put every whatever district it's in. You're gonna try to put every one of them firemen do training with that company to be able to go inside and fight that fire.

That's what I'm saying. I mean, that's putting a lot more. They have enough risk as it is now, in my opinion. And also, I know in the areas, especially the rural areas, we don't have the fire protection. It needs to be there. We don't have the water. We don't have the fire protection. Don't have the size of lines and stuff that can actually accommodate anything like this.

And you're also pulling that demand on your water system already.

Yes.

So then you're trying to hook a fire truck up to that. You're not going to be able to have a water supply.

you don't have the line size that you need to supply the fire truck for a fire this size.

Yes, sir. But that's also going to come into play any houses in the area of where that data center would be at because you're going to pull that strain all the time to that data center for the water system, and then you're going to try to hook onto that system just to find a regular house fire.

One of the things that really bothers me is I don't want the county to have to foot the bill for this. Why do we need to buy the specialized equipment? Why don't they buy the specialized equipment? Why isn't that part of the deal?

And some companies will, but that would be something that you have to work out in the planning process.

hold on come up here this is brandon gunn he works with the fire department at arnold air force base and i was going to ask you specifically because arnold air force base actually was on the radar screen sure to receive a data center on their property did you guys as a fire department ever have conversations regarding the data center if it were to locate we were

Very limited. And I think they was looking at adding a second fire station to cover that.

Okay.

But that was small details. But like on the county side, just looking at it, no, the county departments have an aerial. You're talking about a commercial structure. That's a $2 million fire truck. And the county don't buy the fire trucks. So, I mean, you start adding up quick.

Again, they need to provide their own fire truck.

And it would take more than one. Right. It would take more than one.

Pay for the equipment and training and everything that these guys would need.

And higher upkeep. Aerials are hard to upkeep. They cost twice as much. I mean, big trucks aren't cheap. And any time you tag fire service on there, it jacks it up about three times just because it's fire service. So, um, yeah, it would be a big expense on the fireside and plus an aerial 2000 gallons a minute. We don't have water infrastructure that there's, there's no way you can't haul enough water.

Well, we don't have any water lines in the county that can actually do that.

No, you'll collapse them.

Yeah. You'll collapse them.

You'll collapse.

Uh, and I mean, if you pull that big at a man on a four inch or even a six inch, you're going to collapse it. And then you don't have no protection.

No, then what are you going to do to your residents?

Right. Your residents are going to be out and everything, and you're not going to have anything to fight with or anything. So, yeah, and it can happen. Very easily. I saw it happen just two months ago.

Yeah, during the water loss, the freeze, we had a fire out by Home Depot. We was limited on water. It was getting pretty scarce when you're in.

I saw a water line where they hooked a fire hydrant to a fire hydrant, and it just so happened just right down the road was a four-inch, and it collapsed that four-inch in four different sections.

Yep. Yeah, every year Hillsville used to send out things to the fire department's letters saying that we wasn't allowed to hook in to certain size lines. Well, I mean, I knew in Hillsboro alone that took half our fire hydrants off the map. I mean, we'd use them if we had to.

yeah but but most of them are 500 red tops or less yeah or less i would like to say that this body is charged with the technical issues regarding placement of these facilities and i think one of the prerequisites would be the placement should be where there's mutual aid already in place, you know, where we have mutual aid agreements with both municipalities. So that's something that you guys really need to take into consideration.

You want to go ahead? Do I?

Does anybody got anything else for me? The water supply is the biggest thing and the hazards coming into the county. Like the mayor said, you know, have mutual aid the only thing about mutual aid is we're still taking these big trucks out with no water supply especially if it's out in the county so that's another thing it's just the area that we're going to allow them to put it need to make sure that we have a decent water supply anybody got any questions for

wide before he can go on about his business. I'm sure he's about ready to go home.

Thank you for being here, both of you. Appreciate it very, very much.

Thanks, guys. Thank y'all.

All right. Anna, good to see you.

So, Mr. Chairman, maybe throw out a couple of quick comments before you get started in your review, just kind of looking through the – The code, of course, you know, the Tennessee code is where the county derives its ability to zone, right? And the purpose, or if you will, or the zoning regulations, according to the code, are designed to enact and promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity, and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the state and the counties. And I've heard at various times people say, You can't exclude something that's a legal business. It's not necessarily 100% true, but the standard is a very high standard to do that. And there's been a couple of court decisions have looked at that, and what the courts have said is, is that, of course, nothing in the Enabling Act, 13-7-101, authorizes a county to completely exclude a lawful business. But a total prohibition would only be lawful if the business is shown to be particularly objectionable and undesirable, and the prohibition is prima facie designed on its face, designed to protect the public interest. It's a little hard right now in some respects. We don't know a lot about some of these data centers other than what we've heard without seeing any specific plans. I've also heard people say, well, we'll just make it in such a way they can never comply. Well, that's another thing. You can't take it too far. The courts have said that you can't just effectively prevent a lawful activity from occurring anywhere in the county without some determination that it's in the public interest. So gotta be sort of careful how we navigate that. Now that's not to say we can't regulate and make sure all of these items which were brought up just a few minutes ago and which you all have asked about would be considered I think both by the Planning Commission were one of these to come up and I think it's important to make sure people realize we don't have one of these currently. pending before this body, correct? We're looking at a resolution to amend our zoning resolution to address them should they try to locate in Coffey County. And so I just want to be clear on that. And then I think the other thing that's important is just to remember that, like we said, where this draft or something along those lines go through, I think part of what we'd be looking at like what was talked about was by locating this in an M2, right, so unless there's already an M2 area that would be available, that all of these items are certainly things I think that this body and the County Commission would be evaluating were somebody to request a change of zone from A1 or whatever it would have been to an M2. So I think we'll be able through this, through a resolution, whether it's exactly this or some modification of it, which I think it would be, certainly to decide where to locate. You're probably not gonna just locate a M2 zone up in the middle of Beach Grove or somewhere that doesn't, where those types of things would not be available. I'll just throw that out, and then as you want to go through the resolution, I'm happy to give you my comments on some of the different sections.

I'm sure you've got some notations like we all do, particularly that one over there. Appendix 1, the data center. One of the things that the mayor and I have discussed and we've discussed it in training sessions is – we feel like we need to get our definitions separated out and put in the back of our zoning resolution, but leave them in the text also so they're in two places. And that's what we've done in other resolutions that we've done. But that's pretty self-explanatory. Anybody else? I'm waiting for you to get your stuff pulled.

I know.

Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate, would it be okay if our attorney just went over the whole draft and by paragraph and let him make his suggestions which may uh coincide exactly with some of the guys already have but uh and if it's contradictory then we need to hash it out and let him tell us why uh so if if we would just let him start at the very first paragraph of the draft and work his way through.

If you're prepared to do that. Yeah, happy to do that. So as you were talking about the definitions, I think those were pretty comprehensive for both a data center and a data center accessory use, unless somebody had something else to add. I think those were... Those were pretty comprehensive. Of course, looking on to the next section two, talking about amending it to add this as a special impact industrial zoning M2 district, or part of that district, which I think would be certainly appropriate. It would have to be permitted by conditional use, which is simultaneous, or synonymous, I guess, with special exception. right under our zoning resolution in this section i'm not sure why when it talks about the different power capacities it says any data center in which the looking at c any data center in which the processing capacities are either unknown where the lesser owners or owners refuse to provide processing capacity under oath i'm not I'm not sure why we would allow anybody to do it without providing that data. So it seems to me, I'm not sure you need to have to put that in because that implies people could do it without providing that information. And I think in order for this body or the commission to make an appropriate evaluation of that, project you would have to know some of that information and if they won't provide that information then I don't think they would qualify.

That was one of the things we reviewed was for the data size we wanted to instead of doing it based off square footage we wanted to put in as far as the sizes you know I guess power output that we would require you know because some of them could be small but That's just one of the things I had in the notes is not necessarily by size only.

I think that's good. I'll make a note, and I can make some adjustments on some of these, too, based on that.

And most of what we looked at, they're usually classified them as small, medium, and large. Is that not correct?

Yes. And we have a copy of Metropolitan Nashville in Davidson County. They do categorize it data center size, large, medium, by square feet, and also electricity usage. So a lot of the counties are already doing that. So it's not just based off the size.

Right. I think that's good. And then also in that section just was a little minor where it refers to the Coffey County Board of Commissioners. I would just probably change that to the Coffey County legislative body. Just some minor... minor thoughts there uh looking at section three uh article three admitted to add section 3.09 i think we've got a 3.09 already i think that was development standards for manufactured homes so i think it would actually be 3.10 probably so zero good catch And then I think that the first, section A, don't it's it's somewhat seems maybe a little bit redundant from some of what we've already said about it's only in as a conditional use only in an empty special impact industrial district so to say again data centers shall be permitted by conditional use in the empty special empty special impact industrial zoning district seems a little redundant there I'm not sure we have to have that Maybe if I was going to keep it, I would change it to instead of shall be data centers, which are permitted by conditional use once that's been approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. But I think we could just take that section.

What about the accessory uses? Was that mentioned prior?

Well, in Section 2, data center and data center accessory uses shall be permitted by conditional use only in M2 special impact. industrial district. I think it's already addressed. Now, I don't have a particular thought on some of the dimensional standards. I don't know what you all have thought about that other than to some extent talking about fire protection and based on height. Is there appropriate equipment to address that? So that was something I don't know if you all have addressed.

I think we all agreed Our height limit, Kirk's gone, but our height limit in Coffey County is 35 feet, and that's what we think, not 65, but 35. Two things that does, it will cut down the sound a little bit, and it will definitely cut down the light pollution a little bit.

Okay.

And the setbacks, I think we'd all agreed, to 300 feet from each, from every lot line, but I'm not sure it doesn't need to be 500 feet after looking at it close, after looking at what 300 feet looked like. That's up to everybody else. 300 when you get.

300 is a football field.

That's it, that's all it is, is a football field.

So you have to go 500.

Well, that's up to you all. I don't have a position one way or the other on that.

Let's do 500. Yeah, I agree.

Would that possibly be left to the BZA when applying conditions?

Well, if we say 500 and somebody wanted to go less, that would go before the board of town appeals, in my opinion. Okay, that makes sense. And with a certain kind of landscape, certain kind of terrain, 300 might be enough. Well, that could be changed to say it shall be set back a minimum of 300 feet. Okay.

course and that is talking about the boundary of residential zoning districts or something with a sensitive receptor so you know that's something else to think about do you want it to be we want it all the way around right but is it just residential zoning districts or is it all neighboring zoning districts I pointed out you've got cattle I don't want the data center within two or three

They've done a lot of studies on animals, not many studies on humans. I don't know why we got that backwards, but I think it needs to be from the boundary of the property. That's what we talked about last time, was it not, Anna? From the boundary of the property.

Yes. And we also discussed that from the boundary of the property as far as it goes for the buffer that was from the boundary, but any noise or anything will have to be tested outside of the boundary within a mile.

And I think that's a section coming up here in a minute on the noise. But maybe that could be changed then from the boundary of any other zoning district. Because you could have another M2 By chance, depending on where something was located, you could have another M2 adjoining it, and you wouldn't have to necessarily have that big of a space from another M2, but that's another heavy industrial. But certainly from other zoning districts, I think that would be.

So you're saying from the boundary of any zoning district?

Of any other zoning district.

Instead of just residential?

Correct. And then that would be the question in D, landscape buffer, when we start talking about that too, about having a landscape buffer between that and any adjoining residential zoning district. You may just wanna say, and any adjoining.

Properties.

Yeah, adjoining zoning district. It'd be simple to say. even if you had it by chance you had a nice building or something next to it that might have been a commercial building you know you still they may you may still want to have that landscape buffer there too okay i mean and i assume you all have looked at the types and the species and everything that this goes into i don't necessarily have a position on as far as the type of vegetative buffer that goes in there.

I think the screening and fencing and the vegetation thing is pretty self-explanatory. Did you have something on the fencing? No. Okay.

I guess my next thought is looking at paragraph 3 in that same section where it talks about the event that the existing vegetation is adequate to meet the intent of the required buffer i'd say that instead of residential i'd say other zoning districts sensitive receptors and public roadways the coffee county commission upon recommendation by the Coffey County Planning Commission, may determine that existing topography and or vegetation constitutes all or part of the required buffer yard. I guess my question is, does that question really need to go up to the County Commission, or is that something the Planning Commission can determine?

I would think maybe the BZA might address if it's going to be different, the requirements.

Well, if there's a question, it would definitely follow the Board of Zoning Appeals, would it not?

Yeah, I would think. I don't know why the Planning Commission couldn't actually do that. If you guys are looking at the minimum requirements for buffer and you see something already growing there that meets the requirements and the intent, why you couldn't give it a thumbs up at the planning commission.

You got a lot of pine trees there. You'd certainly be able to use them.

Because you would be evaluating the construction plans, the site plan, all those types of things. I didn't know if that was something really that couldn't just be addressed as part of your review process instead of kicking that all the way up to the county commission. Because you don't usually see that type of thing going up just for that specific question to the county commission.

So we'll take county commission out of that.

And change it to BZA or legal?

I think it would just be the planning commission.

Planning commission.

Okay. It would just, I would change it to say that the Coffey County Planning Commission may determine that existing topography and or vegetation constitutes all.

Because that would come before us in the preliminary plat, wouldn't it, Kirk?

Because that's really not a great departure from intent. I mean, yeah, it wouldn't even take the BZA.

Okay, on the screening and fencing, I would just, unless you all had something specific there, I would just tie that back to... some of our same language that we had on our prior that we had in there with the landscape buffer.

I don't think we had anything to say about the screening and fencing.

Because we're back to the 300 feet of a public roadway. I would change that from take residential out and say a different zoning district or the lot line of any sensitive receptor. Any other questions on that one?

So that 300 feet we changed to 500?

If you're going to – well, are we going to say – I think we changed the other one to say a minimum of 300, didn't we?

Yeah, to say a minimum of 300. Okay.

Meaning it could go larger. It could go bigger. If you determine that, right?

Correct. Yes. But not less. All right, so then F – that's where we get now to noise and vibration and I think it's up to you all on the standards I don't really have a position on on that as far as the decibels and and whatnot my only question is a little bit about it just are the somewhat relate to the process so For example, a preliminary, looking at little a, the first subparagraph there, a preliminary study shall be conducted as part of the conditional use process. That might be the conditional use application process, where they're applying for that conditional use. And then, of course, a preliminary sound study, I would imagine, is gonna be quiet. If it's preliminary, it's before it's even built, are you really,

testing anything at that point other than to just know what the current sound level is i guess i'm just kind of trying to think through think through that a little bit one of the things that we brought up under this heading was who chooses the company to do the study and we think the county ought to have a hand in choosing the company that does the study

too many companies choose somebody that rubber stamps in my opinion and i would like to the county to be able to approve whoever does that study well i'll look at that and maybe that could be some sort of there could be sort of a list of uh so i imagine it's going to be some type of an engineer that would be doing that um and if they have to stamp it and put their license on the on the line for it you know that that That might be something that, you know, we don't necessarily regulate the other engineers that bring plans into the county, I don't think, do we?

No, but not a lot of them have the effect this does. Yeah.

And we also had two notes here. As far as noise and vibration, we wanted to, like you said, initially it's going to be really quiet, so we wanted to require after testing, which we did not confirm whether it was going to be quarterly testing, annual while the data center is operational and then we wanted to put a cap on run time for the generators so during a case of an emergency they can't consistently run for let's say two or three weeks at a time we wanted to limit them to 72 hours I have Metro yes that did that yeah so several of their other counties are limiting they run time for the generators and then again for the noise testing it needs to be a continuous thing so we can monitor that they're not continuously running the generators or we're having some data that it's not exceeding the noise once it's tested initially

I think the last suggestion we had was to test quarterly. I don't know if we ever made a decision on that. Yes.

I was going to ask something to that effect, and I didn't know if you just wanted it to be annually. But it can be quarterly. It can be whatever you want. Or semi-annually. It can be whatever you all want to propose. And, of course, then it would be up to the county commission to actually adopt.

That's noise, air quality, and water. All three of those to be tested quarterly. Correct?

Yes. Yes.

All right, so then looking at the next at B, small b, an interim sound study shall be conducted during the building permit approval process. Well, I guess my question there is, if they're getting their building permit, They haven't built anything.

You don't hear anything.

So you're right back to where you were at the part of the conditional use process. So I'm trying to think, you know, just from a process, I understand wanting to check it and know once it's running and whatnot what it is, but at the same time, I don't know that you're going to get any different result because as soon as they get, if they were to get approved for a conditional use, then they still got to go get the building permit after that and then If they go right back out and test it again in order to get a building permit, it's just a duplicative test, it seems to me. So I'm not sure that there needs to necessarily be an interim sound study. Maybe there's the original prior to getting the conditional use permit or seeking a conditional use permit, and then there's one as built.

That way you could have a comparison of before and then after about the sound.

Because I think that's what you're looking for.

That's exactly what we're looking for.

And I don't think the one in the middle is going to give you any additional information. That would be my thought. You would scrap B? Correct. Or I may readdress that just a little bit, but I just don't know that necessarily. I may leave in, you know, any sound reducing materials or systems recommended by the, and I would probably put the initial sound study. shall be incorporated into the construction plan. There's just some little things I would probably just edit on that, but not necessarily require that interim sound study. So then we get into C, which is sort of getting to where you're talking about on the as-built, right, once it's done and running. So be conducted within six months after issuance of the CO. And then it talks about in prior to the final escrow release for any land development phase. I'm not sure what we're talking about there with the final escrow release for any land development phase because that's not something I think we address anywhere else in the zoning resolution. I don't know if that was designed in an area where in some places have escrow when they're related to various projects and there's funds that are held or not held. So if that's something specific we want to do, I guess I felt like we needed some more clarity around exactly what that meant.

Anna and I and Randy, all three, agreed on some type of escrow account. Again, my goal in all this thing is not to cost the county anything more than a legal fee.

Mm-hmm.

Which can be high.

That's okay. Whatever we save on this, you know, we get. Just kidding. But that is one of our goals.

Okay, so if that's the case, then we need to provide somewhere in here for that because I don't think that was provided for.

I don't know exactly. I thought maybe you could tell us where that needs to go.

What was a bond be synonymous with this escrow requirement?

It's just something I would need to look into a little bit and decide and come back. That's why I just wanted. to know myself exactly what you were intending there.

We discussed that, we asked Kirk, because you know the bond runs out once the building's built and it's released. So our biggest concern was decommissioning and abandonment. So what we discussed is having some sort of, we weren't sure exactly what it's going to be called, some sort of surety bond, escrow account, or possibly like a remediation fund. And what we were looking to do is, you know, have an impact fee per megawatt or whatever that power is used for them to keep while the building is operating for them to put it into a bond that way. uh one you know if they belly up they've been paying into this fund where we have something where we can decommission the building or if the land is no longer of good value you know like solar panels they just kind of dip out went bankrupt and we have nothing else to clean up and the county stuck with that so if they were to pay per megawatt usage like a remediation fund while it's on operation or something different we're open to it we weren't sure exactly what to call it but we thought maybe some sort of community impact fee or a decommissioning fund is what we were looking at. Essentially, that's what we needed for, and we're just not sure exactly how to.

All right, well, let me think about that a little bit and how best to address that, and I'll propose something for you all to consider related to that. um let's see now we've got in two maximum decibel levels specified here and shall not apply during times of power outage which i think would be when i think you were talking about generators so would the generators actually make it louder

Yes. I think you should.

So we're saying it's okay to be louder when the power's out, but we're going to limit it to 72 hours. Is that what I heard earlier?

Yeah, essentially. I mean, if you guys want to change that, but that's what we're looking at. We figured we'll give them a limited run time, which generators are going to be – you know, a little bit louder than electrical, obviously, no matter what you do. And currently, all the fiber buildings and a lot of the emergency centers already have that, so I feel like we couldn't really eliminate the generators.

No, they'll have to be there. They're going to be a necessary evil.

Right, so I think the run time is a catch that we had.

If they're running on battery, too, then they may not. It depends on what's powering it. It could be quiet. Right. Okay. I don't have a problem with the vibration study. I'm not sure about the human sense of feeling beyond the property line. I just wanted to look at that a little bit. We see that a lot when people are doing blasting and whatnot. They can set up to determine if there's any vibration. seismic activity or vibration beyond a certain point so on g moving to that number one the use shall not be served by a public water supply so then when we go to two it says if the use is to rely on non-public sources of water well i thought we just said it has to it has to reply it if it can't connect to a public water supply then it has to be connected to a non-public water supply, right? So if we say if the use is to rely upon non-public sources, well, it has to, yeah, I think we take that out and just say the applicant shall provide a water feasibility study, because we've already said in number one that it's gotta be a non-public. Now when we say in that same paragraph, no data center shall be permitted to use existing wells, I'm not sure if, does that really, and a lot of this, I'm just also sort of playing devil's advocate, trying to think through the language. What would be the difference if there was an existing well and they just drill one right next to it?

Well, the state, and the state regulations by TDAC, which I can give you a copy of this when we get done. This is about the wells. We cannot... tell them that they cannot drill well or use an existing well. The one thing we can do, it's in this book, is determine exactly how many wells they can drill. There's got to be a distance from drainage systems, pavements, water, and contamination areas. And it's all in here. But like I say, we cannot, by TDEC regulations, we cannot tell them they cannot use that system.

And that was going to be my point. I'm not sure I really saw the point of that because what you do require in here is you require, you know, a study to determine the effects of any, you know, water they're going to pull out on other wells on other properties around so that's really it would make no difference whether they're using the existing well or drilling a new well they've still got to show that they're not going to adversely impact neighboring neighboring wells right does that make sense so if they can show that it doesn't matter whether they use an existing well or not right um I think that was part of also in I, determination of the effects of the proposed water supply system on the quantity and quality of water in nearby wells, surface waters, and the groundwater table. So I think we've got that pretty well addressed by those requirements. Then when I looked at the power supply, applicant shall not be permitted to connect the data center that would probably be or accessory structure works to the electric grid and i guess my question there was kind of trying to define what is what are we specifically because we've got to have this where people that are looking at it can know how to how to comply because I think it's one of the keys. It doesn't have to be necessarily easy, but it has to be something that can be complied with. If you make it in such a way that nobody could ever comply, that's where a court might say, oh yeah, you've basically excluded them without really a reason. So there's gotta be something they can do to actually comply with. Now the question then becomes, What is the alternative power? And anything they do alternatively as we have in here has to also meet whatever zoning requirement that would be, but are you trying to limit them strictly to solar, to wind, to what? Or does it count as what you are referring to as the electric grid if, let's say they were approved and they convinced TVA to run them do their own substation do their own substation run them a direct line similar to i'm sure what they have at the air force base and things like that is that considered they're getting electricity but is that considered the grit i don't think so i'm not sure that that would be considered randy that's a question for you i don't think that would be considered

the grid i think that would they would be forming their own they'd be forming their own now that's my opinion i don't know that okay and their own lines probably basically like a private system uh so no i wouldn't i would not say that would be classified under grid okay because they'd be like i said performance they'd be building their own private system gotcha so it's not we're not saying they can't use electricity

I may define a little bit more what that means.

We need a definition of grid, I think, don't we?

Yeah.

Yeah, that would be good.

And I can put something in there to address that for you all to consider. As I read that, I'm like, okay, well, if I was somebody else reading this, I'd be saying, okay, what does that mean? And so I want to make sure it's clear what we're meaning on that.

They do their own power station, and like I say, TVA or something like that, where it would not affect the area. In my opinion, that would be kind of like their own private grid or whatever. It wouldn't affect the main grid of the community.

They're not just hooking up, calling Duck River out to hook up a line from the transformer down to their building. Right. Okay. My next, as we get into emergency management, of course, I'd like to look back through some of what our emergency management people have brought to make sure those things are addressed as well. Again, on little A, just as part of the conditional use application process or permit, some of that's just little things. Ensure that all, this goes back to what you were talking about, I think, on some of the emergency management people being able to know what they're getting into if they address this. So ensure that all first responders receive adequate training specific to the installed system. So I think that's something that would be required that in theory they would have to educate the local people and I think they would have to provide the training.

so not only that i think we discussed is for hazardous materials any kind of lithium batteries refrigerants or anything like that plants that are in bedford county they have their own hazardous management team So, you know, if that's not something our, like the county's trained for, they have to have someone on staff consistently there that manages the hazardous materials or any kind of spill containments or just anything like fire suppression, chemicals, and all that.

And isn't that what... That's what we were talking about. Isn't that also what the, for example, is it the ink company? Are they still out in the... industrial park who's that the ink company sharpie they do the sharpies but what's the they have their own fire station their own Fire equipment, address their hazardous materials, et cetera.

Well, that's what I brought up a while ago. I think that needs to be, the burden needs to fall on the data center to provide fire protection. Most of their emergency, somebody that is the equipment and the people to staff an emergency management situation.

Okay. I'll put something in to look at that. Now, when we talk about here in number two, about any data center proposing battery storage in order to supply electrical energy at a later time, whether the energy is stored for use on-site or off-site, what are we thinking they would be doing off-site with their, do we even want them being able to store up energy to then sell or use off-site? I'm just asking because it's in here, so somebody's gonna look at it.

I'm thinking this was batteries, right? Right. I'm thinking that they have replacement batteries or depleted batteries and they want to store them somewhere else. It's the way I took it when I read that, that they may want to store them somewhere else. So do we want to control that?

Well, I guess when I look at it, when I read it, it says whether the energy is stored for use. So it's the use of the energy on-site or off-site.

Yeah.

So.

I would say it's the on-site.

Right. Okay. That they've got to demonstrate compliance with the fire protection if they're storing energy to use on-site. All right. Okay. all right and then next when we get into aesthetics um we had no comment on that mark well just you know when we get into this art deco neoclassical greek revival you know it's not something we have on any other commercial buildings in the uh in the county is that really something in a place that's going to be, in theory, way off by itself, landscaped with a 100-foot landscaping buffer, you know, however many hundreds of feet from any neighboring property owner do you really want to show?

And I'm sure they don't want it to leak, so they'll build a pretty decent building.

So... Maybe the aesthetics are that it's going to have to comply with existing county regulations related to other commercial or industrial structures and just kind of throw it back to it's got to be the same as anything else in the county. Does that make sense?

What did we get in trouble for, Dennis, when we had that homeowner's thing? They said high-quality materials. And so who defines what high-quality materials are?

I'm not sure that one couldn't be scratched entirely.

Entirely, that's exactly what I was thinking.

because we're not doing it for any other commercial.

Right, and that's kind of my point on that. There may be some things we can still have that, you know, the Planning Commission can require elevations, you know, material samples, et cetera, if you want to, and rendering sufficient to verify compliance, you know, just if you would on anything else. Be no different than anything else. And then last things, I know we've only got a few more minutes before we've got to go to the... public hearing yet the other things are just really some nitpicky things from me based on this initial drafts on the severability clause which basically means if there's any piece of it that's determined to be not allowed or illegal that that little piece is stricken but it doesn't affect the rest of the resolution gotta go so finish real fast

I'm sure Dennis told you that Section 7, we wanted it adopted immediately on passage.

Okay.

Okay? And I wish you would look into an end-of-life or decommissioning statement. And that's all I've got.

I've got... We do need to go. Four of us have to leave. That still leaves a quorum. No, she has to be gone. She has to be in here before six.

Can we adjourn?

Not yet. Here's what I want you guys to do. Say again? She doesn't have to be in the public hearing, does she?

She does not, but she has to run those.

All right, here's what I want you guys to do. if you agree with it i want you to somebody make a motion to amend section 4.047 which is the m2 special impact industrial district drop down to paragraph d add number two we already have number one number two will state data centers and data center accessory uses d is uses permitted as special exceptions which are synonymous with conditional uses so we i want a motion to amend the zoning resolution to add data centers and data center accessory uses under section d uses permitted by the adding a number two and in that same motion that we pull the definitions out of this draft document and place data center definitions in our definition section of our zoning resolution. That's two simple things that I really think you need to do tonight. Basically this nine page document are the conditions by which data centers will be approved. Those are something that you can still work on and we will do a subsequent amendment to our zoning resolution

to apply the conditions okay does that make sense we can make one motion and do both of those things that's what i'd like to see y'all do i need a motion i'll make a motion basically a motion to recommend that to the county legislative right that is correct correct i have a motion from randy harrell and a second from sammy anderson

Do I need to restate what this motion is that I'm requesting?

He's got it wrote down.

You've got it written? I do.

That way we have time. We're working on a timeline here because I need you guys to understand we don't have another county commission meeting until October after tonight's meeting. So this way we can take this simple amendment for the zoning resolution, have the public notice out, I said that wrong. We have another meeting July the 17th. And that way we can have this on that meeting to go ahead and get our zoning resolution amended by this motion that you guys are going to recommend. Okay?

Do we need to reread that motion?

No. And that just, I think, makes it clear.

That does.

That it's only in an M2 zone, whereas there's this question was raised. Could it fall into an M1?

It's ambiguous right now. And we need to make it unambiguous.

All right, we have a motion. We have a second. Does anybody need the motion repeated? Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? It's unanimous, Ms. Warren. Yes, sir.

Thank you for that, guys, because that way we can get that part of it taken care of.

I have nothing else.

Do you have anything else?

Do you all have anything else? No, I think we've covered it. Sammy, it's your time.

I'll make a motion to adjourn. I second. Hit the camera button, please. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor to adjourn, say aye. Aye. Thank you, guys. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mark. I appreciate it very much.