Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

First order of business, we have uh the minutes from our November 10th meeting. Like a motion to approve those. A motion second. All in favor say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. New business. Mark, item A.

The first item of business on your meeting today is a drainage approval for SD 2025-9, which is the Byron Fugate subdivision and the DG partners. The drainage has been reviewed by our reviewer and cleared as of December 8th, 2025. I'll just pull the drainage plan up so you can get a eyeball on it. This is uh the DG partner site at 1100 North and 231. And as you see, they have a detention area with a outlet of a level spreader on the onset property that releases at our required discharge rate. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Uh just remember that you did uh say approve the final plat with the uh drainage approval pending the drainage approval. Any questions for Mark?

And it looks good to you, Mark. Again, our reviewer cleared it. Uh, and yes, it does. Look at us. It meets our current storm water ordinance.

Okay. Do we have a motion to approve the drainage plan? Have a motion, a second. All in favor say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Thank you. Item B, ZA 2025-3, public hearing for article 22 data centers. ZA 2025-3 is a new section of the zoning code of chapter 159 of McGomery County Code, article 22. Article 22 establishes language [snorts] for data centers. Quick summary of the data center approval or data center article 22. This is a new zoning district. Uh the amendment would create a DC for data centers. This change would require developers of data centers to apply for reszone in order to be allowed to develop such centers. The requirement of a reszone gives McGomery County the most discretion in reviewing such development because the board of commissioners has discretion in making reszone decisions. Data centers would not be allowed as permitted use in any other district. This would add development plan requirements. The amendment would add data centers to the list of developments which would be required to submit a development plan. It also adds development standards. So article 22 provides for development standards which would apply to data centers like lot size setbacks, lot coverage, height, building materials and design and exterior lighting. It also adds fire

pres prevention. The amendment requires submission of a fire prevention plan and suppression plan. It also adds regulations for noise. This is the same regulations which apply to solar and wind projects would apply to these data centers and study is required. Uh this ordinance also in adds energy and water impacts to the major issues with data centers are uses of energy and water and the amendment would require developers to provide information which shows the data center would not adversely impact other users of electrical power and water. And then the application requirements. The requirements are as they're found in section 22.18 similar to other application requirements that we have in other articles of the zoning code. And that is the summary of the proposed amendment. You do have the proposal in uh in your packet today. Thank you, Mark. Any other questions for Mark? Okay.

Okay. So, this is where we like make our ask our questions within the board. Okay. So, for setbacks, I was comparing what we have for battery and solar and battery is 300 ft and also the verbage is different. Um, so I didn't know like that matter that we're not saying consistent with how it's being ordered. Um, like property line is not used here, but it's property line is used in battery storage. So it's 300 ft from any property line, 1,000 ft from any um residential property line. So I'd be interested in increasing those. Um I have other stuff later but I'll start with setbacks.

Okay. Um the in section C the roof mounted mechanical equipment. Um, it doesn't say that we allow solar panels, but I feel like maybe that should be something considering they have we have that they have to show that they're not adversely impacting energy use. Um, and then for the section D landscaping, um, it didn't match the other landscaping section of our ordinance. um those missing shrubs like the the rate was still the same but once again the verbiage was different like um in the landscaping section of our general ordinances it says one evergreener shrub for every 30 feet um so the math is still the same number of trees but it's just once again different um and then mounds like mounding is not mentioned but it's mentioned in our other section so I like my is if someone's building one of these, do they have to not follow the mound rule or they do need to follow the mound rule because it's not outlined in their specific landscaping thing. I'm sorry. And then uh fencing um once again just inconsistent with battery and solar. Battery says a minimum of 8 ft. Solar says a minimum of 8 feet to a maximum of 12 feet in height. So if we want everything to be 10 feet, then we should just say 10 feet. is my comment. Um and then my last question is about the energy and water impacts. Do we generally need to define what an adverse impact is or like adverse impact is just enough?

Take a reverse order then. the uh ordinance, the text amendment would impose the duty on the applicant to show no adverse impact. So we are not defining that. Uh these these uses use an incredible amount of water and energy like we don't have other uses that will would even be close. So what uh communities are doing across the country is uh they are generally like we're saying it, which is you have to show us no adverse impact. Um, and so what would happen is it'd be a little bit more of a flexible approach, but the applicants have got to come in and say we we have we don't believe there's any uh adverse impacts. Here's our study that shows that

and then it would be up to you all in looking at a reason application to be satisfied that you think there are no adverse impacts. It may also be receiving the applicant studies as to water energy that you would want your own study done which you have the you have the ability to request and so that you have your own data but the u our research showed when we before we drafted it our research showed that um the daily water use for example was the same as a city of 25,000 people and the energy was about the same and so you're about things that are just really really pretty dramatic. So we you could make it whatever you wanted, but that's why we drafted it the way we did.

Okay. So then can we add um like the term study instead of information? You can you certainly can. And then if we ever, this is just once general question, if we ever did our own study, we'd have to fund it ourselves. Yeah, we wouldn't. We would. Yes. But as you can see there, the fees, yes, that are structured in 2213 assumes that we'll have some work to do. I notic that

in review. And then as to the some of the development standards, and of course they can be whatever you want, but we we don't try to make it like everything else. We're looking at uh some pretty large land use with these data centers, although there are four different types. H, you know, the hypers are the huge ones that you hear most about. Iowa has the largest one in the country. Texas, I think, is second largest, but some of them are huge. uh facilities. Then there are some that are smaller, but um so because of the size of them, some of the standards developed uh again, we looked at several ordinances from all over the country to come up with these. You can make whatever you want, but we we um you're talking about probably sites covering tens or maybe hundreds of acres, not sites where you're going to be very close to. Um so that's why some of this looks different than if I mean battery storage for example, those are about 20 feet in height. You're looking at a lot more height and so some of the things are different. uh noise. There is less external noise at a data center than um say a battery storage but a lot more noise inside. They are very very noisy inside. The buildings are different. These are generally as you can see we said these are going to be masonry structures. Um, so a lot of the impacts inside we don't have to worry so much about. Uh, whereas some of the other things you regulate are really just sitting on the ground. And so these tend to be very very large structures um in

masonry. So So that's why some of the standards are different. Uh, but we didn't pull them out of nowhere. We looked at um what other communities across the country have done who have regulated them and we tried to and we had discussion on at the staff level of what he went to be. You you are free to if you want the setbacks to be greater. If you you guys can build a consensus it's absolutely fine. We were just trying to hit hit the middle a little bit here. The key thing is unless you have a regulation saying that a d We're going to create a new district that I mean somebody could build a data center here tomorrow. We have we could do nothing. We don't we don't even use the word data center in ordinance. First of all, that's our first problem. And secondly, um we think it's really important I should say. I think it's really important that we establish we get something and then if we want to amend it later and move things around later, that's always fine. But I think One thing is let's create a district. Let's set some general parameters and let's get this, you know, get this on the books so that we have some protection. Uh our approach is just like other uses. We've tried to say look we are we're a little afraid of them. So, we want you to we want to make sure we have um you you all looking at a reason application and making a recommendation of the county commissioners where they have discretion. We're asking for a lot of information. You know, there's a case up in Clinton County right now where the county commissioners did not feel like they had much information on which to make a decision and that's because they didn't have something like this which says you're going to have to submit all this information to us. Um

but again if you want to make setbacks bigger you may do so on the u on the mechanical and equipment uh they can we're not limiting what they can be up put up there but most of these most data centers if they use solar it's a huge ground farm and if they use wind they have wind there you know they use wind also they use gas turbines and they use nuclear power. That's that's what they're doing. So, uh I I don't know of a data center where it's on the roof. I think it's going to be on the ground. Um which then goes to the ground mounted mechanical regulations. Landscaping a mound is an interesting idea, I think, because uh you know, if you live next to a steel mill, that's something you don't really want to look at. And these data centers are like that necessarily like it's not something you're going to look at your window and say, "I wish I couldn't see that." But um certainly if if you feel inclined to require a a mound in addition to the um the landscaping to provide screening, you know, that's fine. You can do that. We we just we had not we had not seen much of that. U again most of the data centers are very very far away from the road but if you want to screen that building by using a 10-ft BM with landscaping on top you're going to do you know if you're thinking about pedestrian and motorist view and neighbors views that's going to that's going to be a pretty good screen. And again on the gates on the fences and gates we looked at the kinds of fencing that are around these existing facilities and what they look like. So we we were not from a point of view we

were we were trying to draft something specific to this use but if you want to make changes there that's fine as well. That's what we were trying to do. I was just yeah I was just comparing consistency with the rest ordinance. Yeah. So like in section 18 article 18 landscaping and screening then do we want to like add this zoning new zoning district data centers to like that's is do they have to be added in both places is my question. No, we we want any landscape requirements for data center specifically, we want in our

from a developer standpoint, we don't want them to have to be switching back and forth between chapters. So, whatever you would add, we put it right there in

any other comments amongst the board. As far as the mound, I get a great question that brought up. Wasn't that brought up a while back? scenario and they asked for it and we approved it or is that

Yeah, that's been done. I mean, we even require mounting industrial for industrial sites. We like mounting anytime we're going to have two conflicting uses. It's like residential next to like an industrial. We require not just spacing but also mounting. And so mo many of these data centers are out in the middle of nowhere. You know, that's where they are. doesn't mean that's where they always will be. And so, um, you know, if mounding is something you want to do, we could add that in there. Most of the time when you see mounding, it's six to 10 feet. The idea is to get it high and then put put the uh, evergreens on top of that, which creates another could be an additional 30 feet someday of screening in height for pine tree. So, you're talking about a pretty good screen. And then your if you think about your sight lines, you don't need a 65 foot screen to not see the top of a 65 foot building. But you need if you had a 40 or 50 foot screen, you wouldn't see uh see that much. The other operating assumption on landscaping is that uh these evergreen trees with fully grown have a um generally have a 20 to 40 foot radius depending on the tree. So that's why they're spaced. That's why we we chose them to be space. It would not be a solid screen, but it close.

Most landscapers would tell you 30 feet. They're just going to grow together and stop growing. Um can we add though that what matches in the current that says trees must be at least six feet high at time of planting. Sure.

And if you want a mound, then what size what size of m can I just repeat what's in the current? You may do whatever you want.

So the landscape buffer consists of a mound which has a minimum top width of two feet and maximum side slope from front to back of three to one vertical. Such mounting will be set at least six feet but no more than 8 ft in height. All will be planted ground cover and trees evergreen trees trees must be at least six feet in height time. And then it has setbacks I have for streets and roads from the center of the road. This 300 ft for battery 200 feet matches our solar ordinance and then the additional setback of so it's supposed to be 100 from our residential an additional 100 plus another 100 it's next to resial so that matches solar battery It says that it has to be when it's next to res and our battery is 300 instead of 200 like the verbage and language is just written differently in the two sections. So that part was I mean like the solar one has a nice

littleart and kind of like this and then this one like visually they are different how they saying that matters but I'm just saying to understand the difference like like I said the one doesn't this one says the setback is not less than 100 ft from a side of a lot does that mean property line Yeah. Okay. So, I was just like it says property line somewhere else in the ordinance, but then it says side of a lot here. most common thing to a data center that we have in our ordinance. So, I was just comparing it to that that we're staying consistent. Um, it doesn't have to. I mean, like like I said, I like like I trust that Dan like you know, he looked up a lot of these and like like you said, he shot for the middle and that's generally a good place to be. I

just um I know that like my that the setbacks for solar was something the community really cared about. So, like I just I imagine they show up today, but I imagine that's ever the same type of meeting. Sir, you want to use the verbiage setbacks what's in our solar ordinance.

I I want this to be everyone makes it. I just wanted to entertain that we that I I brought it up and that they don't like that they're all different and that's basically it. And like it's fine if they're different. I'm fine if they're different. I just wanted to make sure they got brought up. We had a discussion on a I agree that consistency is key, but as Dan noted, I think there's a little bit different uses here and so I don't necessarily have that issue with setbacks. Does it make it more challenging to keep uniformity and knowing each? Well, I think we're gonna have different presenters for each I mean for battery and solar versus data center. It's not like they're all three mandates. So, they're all going [snorts] to be going within whatever text they have presenting. My take on it. Okay. Any other comments amongst the board? I guess what changes to Any public comment on our data center ordinance at this time? Start the public hearing at 426. None closed at 426.

So now are comments amongst the board. What changes do we want to make before this goes to the board of commissioners if any? set 300 street the front. I was kind of like, doesn't that mean street mode? I mean, not always, but I

think

No, I wasn't thinking of changing it at all because I didn't know how it applied. So yeah, that's You can make whatever [snorts] propert. I'd say a minimum of 200 to start off. next to res and then the only other thing I think we talked about was the I guess the term

study versus information which is like harsher. Okay, I think that's a very good idea. At this time, I'd entertain a motion to approve um article 2022 data center ordinance, including the changes that we just listed. Okay.

I make the motion for the federal recommendation of article 22.

Have a motion in a second. All in favor say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Thank you. Item C, SD 2025-11, public hearing for the preliminary plot of Rolling Hills minor subdivision. Okay, this case uh is SD 2025-11 and the case is to consider the preliminary preliminary plat approval of the rolling hills minor plant. The applicant is Jim Ratcliffe, 1400 South Loga Road, Crawford'sville. And property location is 1462 West 700 North in Crawford'sville. Your land use and zoning. Existing land use is there's a single family dwelling with vacant land behind. Existing zoning is residential. Neighboring properties are a and residential. The request is for preliminary plat approval of the rolling hills minor plat. The proposed plat splits parcel located at 1448 West 700 North and the property north which is the 1462 west 700 north. Rackcliffe in purchases the single family dwelling at 1448 and the 7 acre property adjacent to the north. The petitioner proposes splitting the 7 acre property into two additional lots and adding an easement through the joining

property at 700 north to 700 north. So the road system the property is accessed from 700 north and has a required frontage via an ingress egress easement for the three lot minor plat property. The third lot of the minor plat is the existing single family dwelling. Proposed plat will be served by on-site septic and private well. There's no special flood hazard area on the property. No delineated wetlands. Uh no drainage plan required because the due due to the size of the buildable lot and the addressing numbering system can be met on the proposed pled. A right-of-way permit would be required for the shared easement at 700 North. The petitioner has submitted the necessary preliminary plat and staff does recommend approval of the preliminary plat for the rolling hills minor plat.

Thank you, Mark. Any prehering comments among the board? 700 North at 100 West is where Pleasant Hill Elementary is. I'll zoom out and you can kind of see that Pleasant Hill Elementary is right here. Right at 700 is just down the road there. How are they being served by the on-site septic and private well that's getting the so the vacant home already had a well in septic. Okay. Does the petitioner have There's no other comments amongst the board. We'll open the public hearing at 4:34. Public hearing closed at 4:34. No comments.

I don't I don't know if it's on or not, but I've uh I got the land that is back east, 18 acres, and with three homes that he is putting in that back corner, that is going to cause all of that waterhed to come down on my ground and drown out my crops. It's happened before and I just now recently have got to where it's draining and I know that tile will not accept all of that. That tile runs clear pretty much diagonal of my property back through tight ends and goes around that back corner where he's going to be building. The reason we have this minor plat is to increase the acreage that is required for subdivisions. U obviously in major subdivisions we require at least one acre and we also require drainage planted for the for the subdivisions. Um minor plat is for paralization up to five lots including the parent parcel and we raise that acreage requirement to two acres due to having plenty of space for any impervious that would be on that lot. So that is the difference between our major subdivision and our minor subdivision. The the requirement of two two acres or more. Both of these laws are more than two acres

and we can set a condition of the limit of homes. Correct. Like this is a subdivision of seven acres. So we could write that as a condition we can set that there's no more that there'd be no more than two homes on this of this minor plat subdivision. Yeah. There's only two lots and they can only put two houses on these two lots. So yeah. But Mark, can you explain to Mr. F how there'll have to be compliance with our drainage?

For every building permit that we issue, we do a drainage evaluation of the property. And anytime we build on any properties, uh any tile that is displaced because of any building, it has to be reconnected by that owner or by that builder. So any sub subterranean tile that's there that is disturbed, which I, you know, I don't we don't have information on private tiles. uh would have to be reconnected by the developer. Um and we also obviously we do a storm water inspection per what amount of impervious is going to be on the site. So the size of the house and driveway and any impervious that's going to be on the property which they can't go over the top of 35 35% on these properties. Both of these are over the two acre mark. And so generally the evaluation is to not affect any land adjacent. So however the water flows now we allow them to let the water flow the same but not speed it up. So on sites there can be swells to keep the water on the site and other you know other uh tactics that are required and that's through the building permit process. Or are they going to do a mound with trees on that too?

That is not a requirement. Maybe it should be. I don't want to see his houses. I've lived there for 30 years. I don't want to see anybody else's house. Well, the only question in front of the plane commission today at this stage of the proceedings is very simply whether the drawing of three lots complies with our subdivision control ordinance. If this were a reszone, then the whole question would be different and the review would be different. But uh the owner is allowed to build residential there by right. We're just saying are the lots do the lot sizes and the design comply with our ordinance. So the review by the plan commission today is pretty limited pretty pretty limited just to that fact. And if it complies, which the staff says it does, then the commission has no uh discretion. They have to approve it. So that's that's that's every uh hearing the plan commission has is a little different. But in a preliminary plat, the only question is the way those lots are drawn on the on the plat. Do they meet our ordinance? That's it. Again, if this were a reszone, it'd be a completely different kind of conversation. Uh but that's not what it is today. This is just re we're reviewing three lots drawn on a map. That's all we're doing. So it was small enough not to be a reszone. That's why there wasn't any reszoning of that acreage back there.

Yeah. This this type of residential development is already allowed by right [snorts] on this land. Yeah. Thank you. [clears throat] Thank you. Just to reiterate on the plat the back lot is 3.9 acres and the front lot is 4.2 acres. Any additional public comment? Public comment now closed at 4:40.

[clears throat]

Do we have a motion to approve the preliminary plot of rolling hills minor subdivision? We have a motion and second. All in favor say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Item D, Newore towers allocation area amendment approval. Yes, this uh comes to you from the redevelopment commission. The redevelopment commission is um wanting to rearrange some parcels uh between three different allocation areas at Newor. Currently, there are two new allocation areas. One is Newore towers which is essentially where if you drove down to county 5 county road 500 south and looked at that site now there are several buildings and that is new towers those parcels uh there is also what is called new codings which is where that large construction project is going just to the north of that across the road and then everything else is in an allocation called which we call new core road allocation and then parenthesis 2023 because it was created then. Um so it used to be all one area and in 2023 uh it was divided into three allocation areas. These allocation areas are designed to allow the capture of tax increment funding to uh funds uh usually infrastructure projects on the site. So the the new core tower structure that was created to benefit Newport Towers which said that it needed water uh run from 200 south to 500 South. So with the income from that uh property which we now call Newport Towers, the county

built that line and we'll pay it off with a bond over years using those tax payments by Newport Towers. Um but what has happened since 2023 New Towers has now purchased 35 acres to the east of its current site. And because that was not part of the original Newore towers, that new parcel sets outside of that in the overall new core allocation area. The redevelopment commission has an obligation to extend water to the east if that's ever developed. And so the redevelopment commission wants to add that new parcel owned by Newore towers to the new core towers allocation area so that if taxes tax increment uh funds are captured they will be used to benefit new towers and not the overall district. So this is a little bit of planning ahead for that next water project. whenever the and so this morning the redevelopment commission approved a declaratory resolution and when that occurs they have to send it to you and you have to decide whether the um pulling of that parcel out of the the original new core allocation area into new Towers is consistent for your plan for development for the county. Now, of course, this is pretty easy because this is all industrial. All three of these areas are industrial. Woods really pulling this parcel in because we're pretty sure that uh it's now owned by Newport Towers. Pretty sure it'll be part of that uh project. If you were to make a finding today, and that's what you're being asked to do is enter an order finding that that u putting that partial in the new court towers allocation area and pulling it out of the overall new court one is consistent with your plan of development. Then it your order has to go to the county

commissioners who have to agree with you. Then it goes back to the redevelopment commission in January where if they confirm their prior resolution, it will then have to go back to the commissioners one more time. And if all that happens, then this 135 acre piece of parcel becomes part of Newport Towers allocation area. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Yeah, I think it is in it. It's a good question. You know,

the allocation area just for your reference too for new runs all the way from 32 to about 550 south. It's a huge area and then we have these two little ones. So the allocation area for new codings is just part a small part of the overall new campus and then yeah there you can see the new towers. So it would come back. So voting on this pulls this into like the district.

Exactly. We call it the allocation area. Okay. um is allocation area means it's eligible to be used for tax increment financing. That's all it means. Thank you. So you would be expanding that uh over but that parcel is already in the new core allocation. It's just not zoned industry. Good question. Thank you. Any other questions? Being none, um I'll make a motion to approve the New Cork Towers allocation area amendment approval if there is a second. All in favor say I. I oppose. Same sign. Any other any other business amongst the board? Just a comment I have is I I will be gone next meeting. Steve will be running it. So um please make sure you can be here to And if you can't let Mark know ahead of time, please. Thank you.

Happy holidays. Have a motion to journ. Second.

Yes, sir. Mark, I think Trisha said she's going to be gone next meeting as well. Trisha, you're you're going to be gone next meeting.

You want to make sure you got It's usually