Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, I'd like to call the um York County Planning and Zoning Committee to order. And looks like we have to approve the minutes for November 24th. Motion to approve. Second. All in favor? I. Okay. So, let's discuss Jonathan. I'm assuming you're going to do that for us. Split zoning. Yes, ma'am.

So, just a reminder of our conversation. It's been a few months, but um here is a map of all the split zone parcels in the county that have blue outlines around those parcels. So that uh any parcel that has uh more than one zoning district included inside of it. So uh quite a few inside of it.

So as we talked about last time, we gave you all a couple of options on how to move forward with a potential text amendment to treat uh those parcels and some different strategies. And the one that you settled on was the majority rules approach. So that whichever district has the highest percentage uh of the area on a particular parcel, all of the rules that would govern that district apply to the full parcel rather than having to worry about I've got three different zoning districts, three different sets of rules, three different setbacks, three different bumpers, all that kind of thing.

Uh so with that in mind, uh on this screen here is the proposed amendment that we've put together for that. So we have a couple goals. So the first being to reduce the number of reasonzoning applications um because as you'll see a lot of folks have might have a big parcel and they might have you know percentage of an acre that is in another zoning district and it's right now by code they can't combine that with another large parcel that's with another zoning district so they have to reszone first. Mr. Atkins has an example.

Perfect. So, the second uh goal of this is to add flexibility for folks that are looking to either buy a sliver of property from their next door neighbor that might just happen to be in a different zoning district uh or they're looking to combine some property together. They might own several under their ownership that might be multiple districts. So, trying to make that easier. One of the things we also wanted to do is make sure we're guarding against abuse. So you don't necessarily want to have folks that have commercial intent or industrial intent and be able to buy property that's adjacent to them and have a de facto reszoning. So we wanted to guard against that. And we also want to limit introducing new problems. So we're trying to make something easier here. We don't want to break something else and cause another type of problem we'll have to solve down the road. So those are the goals here. So the text here would be inserted into how to interpret the zoning map. Um so here the language is if one or more district boundaries divides a parcel, a district governing the greater portion of the parcel shall apply to the remainder of the parcel for the purposes of applications for new development. So, anyone's got a a plat that comes in, anyone's got a new development that they want to come in, we're going to look at, you know, what's the majority of the property, what's that zoning district, will apply those rules. So, here the individual plat for land divisions currently it says shall not uh be combined and shall not include more than one zoning district. Here, the proposal is to allow more than one zoning district if you are uh combining parcels or recombining parcels. uh when they are composed exclusively of residential districts. So if you've got ABC and RSF40, RSF 40 and R RMX20, you could combine residential districts. But

what you couldn't do is have uh you know a GC parcel and combine that with u you know a residential RS40 because then you might get into shell games with people trying to get around having reszoning by just buying property and combining it and expanding their commercial use. So we think we've thread the needle uh with that to some degree hopefully. And there's one additional piece in the code that references split zone lots and that's uh with reszonings. So this is the existing text and and we're proposing that stay asis. So that if you are proposing to reszone property that you are not intentionally creating a new split zone district. So you're not going to come in and say I've got acres I want half of it to be GC and I want the other half to be RSF40. So preventing new split zoning districts being created by a reszoning. So we think that's important to keep.

Okay.

And just to give you a scale, you know, we saw the map already. There's over a thousand parcels that are splitz zoned. Um so a good majority of those have a higher than 8020 split between districts uh percentage-wise. So like I said, a lot of those are going to be might have a little sliver. Maybe it's a map error. Um you know, maybe over time you just had some road frontage that happened to be in a different district. Um, so that's the majority of it. Uh, there are less so about a third of those split zone parcels that are in the range that's approaching 50/50. Um, and I think something that's important is 3/4 of those parcels are already comprised of exclusively residential districts. So that that's a good sign for what we're trying to accomplish with making this easier without creating new problems necessarily. So that's what I have on that. open to any questions and then uh if you're satisfied with what we presented, we just ask for a vote to move this on to planning commission.

So, just so that I'm I think I'm following it. I I thought I followed it pretty clear last time, but over on uh Standifer where we just did those points, I know those are split zones. So somebody can come in today. Can they subdivide one of those larger properties and then the split zoning will be fixed at that point or is this only for recombinations and um whatever I saw on that last slide, I forgot what it was. Yeah. So if you wanted to do a subdivision um and create a lot, you could already today subdivide along the district lines. So if you But those were you know those work uh parallel to the road.

That's right. Split the other way. So right now you can split on the district lines. You cannot split u you know so you're creating one or multiple lots that have split districts in them. So this ordinance amendment would allow you to but that would allow it. So it's it would allow for splits and for recombination. That's right. Okay. Cuz like like this gentleman right here purchased 16 acres, but just the corner was where our old road bed was. And it's funny how we talked about this night cuz it's going to be a nightmare to try to. But if this passes, he'll be all right. I'm okay. Okay. Do Do we need a motion?

Yes, please. Did you make a motion to send it on to planning commission? Uh motion to send the split zone uh provision to planning commission. Second. All in favor? I Okay. Now, uh we're going to discuss nonconforming manufactured home replacement.

Yes, we talked about this at the last meeting. Also, you'd ask for a draft text of what that would look like. So, here's that proposed text and really that first change is a subparagraph reordering. Uh, but this paragraph B would be the new one where it would read a non-conforming manufactured home whether as a non-conforming use or a non-conforming structure may be replaced with another manufactured home regardless of dimensions. So really we're talking going from a single wide replacing a non-conforming single wide to a double wide because a single wide to single wide you could already do it was when it gets bigger and you're making that nonconformity uh worse um in concept uh that that was the original issue u if all other applicable requirements of this chapter are met. So you can go from a non-conforming single Y to a double Y as long as you're uh maintaining your required setbacks and all those other elements of of the site. So this one's very straightforward.

Does this happen at all? No, I mean I thought this a critical path. Um no, it is not a critical path but uh it does solve a problem we had come up. I guess it was late last year. Um, Bingard and it could come up again. Bingard, was that the uh I don't recall. Might have been,

but you know this, uh, we had that one example. There could be ones in the future. There's not a lot of, uh, non-conforming manufactured homes out there. And the ones that are out there, um, people either, uh, move out, build a stick. We haven't had a lot of instances where someone's looking to replace a non-conforming single with a double, but uh in the future, this would make that easier. Yeah. There are folks that do do in my district a lot. Okay. Do you want to We need a motion, I'm assuming.

Yes. To send it to planning commission. All right. Motion to uh send the replacement of non-conforming manufactured homes revision to planning commission. Second all in second.

How you want to do this? Did you want to read the uh item the order on the business? Oh, okay. Uh this is regarding the data center standards discussion.

All righty. So, I'll start off. Um, council at second reading had some amendments. Uh, so I've incorporated those into the draft ordinance. You should have a paper copy in front of you. I sent you a digital copy in advance of the meeting as well. Uh, had to change up the structure a little bit uh to match the additions that were read off as part of the motion to approve second reading. So, I'll just go through what those changes were. Um so the first one relatively straightforward uh data center uses uh through that motion would be prohibited in alli going forward u retaining the special exception for ID districts. So any questions on that change. The second change would be to provide both water and power consumption estimates at the time of application. So when someone's proposing a new data center in the industrial district, they have to apply for a special exception. So this would be information they would provide in their application for staff and board analysis as part of their request for that use on on that particular site. So any questions on that? Okay. So following along with the utilities estimates um as part of the application for number three here they would also have to provide a willingness and capability letter um similar to what we have for other projects now uh for water and sewer. they would need to uh provide that willingness and capability letter for both uh the water uh provider and for the uh power provider stating that they are willing to provide the power that's quoted in the estimate and uh they are capable of providing. So they would need to have that uh signed letter from those providers before they could move forward with their application.

The doors open because y'all want to discuss these as we go down the list or as they're written in the ordinance or how what was y'all's plan on on this discussion? Well, being that these haven't been adopted totally, right? Uh, they have. Yes, they're in

those have. Okay. So, then I have some things that I wanted to bring up and I don't Tommy, I'm sure you got some things you want to bring up. So, I was just going to work down the the ordinance, but but while you were going through that, I didn't want to interrupt where you were going in your explanation of those particular pieces. Okay. So, uh maybe I'll just cover the last two.

So, the the fourth one here, very straightforward, groundwater use would be prohibited. So, no wells on the site. And the fifth one, um, this was the more uh complex one and and was the biggest addition uh language wise to uh text because it's very specific and it's uh you want to make sure you're you're covering your bases and requiring bonding and things like that. But a decommissioning plan would also be required at application. Okay. So, um, mine are just kind of all through here. They're not in any kind of order.

So, have you got some things that you want? I mean, I was just mine are in the order of of the actual order in the ordinance. Okay. Um, and I guess the second part of this would be a just ask, do we want to do a vote on each piece individually or you want to try to do all of the revisions as one motion? I know I think we all agree on this taking the special exception out so that it has to come before council and not BZA. Not necessarily. Oh, okay. So, I think we'll have to talk about that one.

Okay. Okay. So, do you have anything else besides that one that you Yeah, I have a whole list. I figure we can get to them when we uh however y'all want to do it. I'm not sure how to do this because each one of us has different things different things. So then let's take item by item of our items or on the list. Let's do it. You have the list, right? You have these in a certain order. So uh this is the the ordinance as the ordinance

that would be presented to third reading. Um you get there unless you all make additional changes. So, um, if you're okay with everything that's in here, you wouldn't necessarily need to make any amendments. But if you have other amendments or you want to amend anything that's in the draft, then yeah, you would read them out one by one. And if we're thinking those are going to be different, let's do those one at a time. Okay. So, we'll start here with um maybe that's easier to start with the text on the page and then do stuff after that. So, so we're talking about just direct amendments to what is in this drafted ordinance. Let's do that first and then if there are additional items or changes then let's go through those.

Okay. So we'll start with the power and I think this is the best way. Okay. Power needs estimate. What do you want to start back over here? This is where it says the talks about the special exception in BZA. All right. Well, then we need to just read the whole thing. Yeah, the legislative findings. I didn't have I mean, that's just basic information.

Yeah. A lot of a lot of the We can go through the legislative findings if you want, but a lot of that is just something that county attorney's office does to make sure that we're legally covered. Okay.

It's exciting. Well, I I I would think though having if if we kept it in there at at least if if we did a moratorum to wait until the state cuz they got all kind of bills passing through there and make up with our own ordinances just for the time being while waiting on the state. You get what I'm saying?

Yeah, Mr. Sorry to interrupt. Maybe that's maybe that's a good time to talk about those pieces

just to give you a little bit of an update. Um so there's a number of bills in the uh you know at the state level u what they've got proposed uh to my reading there's really only one that has any remote shot at being passed this year and probably not uh would be that first one u Senate Bill 867 and there's a lot of things in there u the biggest piece being they create a new office in dees that would control sighting uh and things like that they would leave power to the the public service commission. Uh they would tier these uh centers so that the smaller ones aren't as regulated as heavily as the the hypers scale ones. Um and it has a lot of things and really the one bit of overlap that might prove problematic uh would be decommissioning. So that bill has decommissioning required in it has require required bonding that would have to be uh bonded with the state and as this draft is that decommissioning bond would be with the county. So that's the only point of conflict but um again I don't think it's likely that bill is going to pass before the end of the session.

I don't think I don't think anything's going to get passed this session. So I do have a um a recommendation on a temporary moratorum on new data centers for 18 months to allow the county sufficient time to complete several things such as a 10-year comprehensive plan, allow the state to consider the bills before them, which there are even more as I understand. I even have one that's not up there. Um the bills um before them relating to the regulations and to allow the retention and consultation with necessary uh utility providers such as your water sewer professionals. So that would be um my recommendation on the moratorum, but I have other things prior to that if you kind of want to put that off to the side. The moratorum.

Sure. to discuss. Um I'm not interested in moratorum, but I also don't know that it's are those I know there very strict requirements for moratoriums. Are those do those meet those requirements? So if there are other things you you guys want to discuss first, you're welcome to do that. And then if you want to get into specific legal advice on on moratoriums, I'm happy to go into executive session and do that. Okay, that would be a fair way to do it.

Okay. Um I'll just jump in. So, one thing that has been um that I've been very concerned about is the setbacks and to um make all the um increased setbacks in the current proposed ordinance apply to all adjacent parcels, not just residential. But if we can't do that, at the very least apply it to residential and any parcels that are actively engaged in agricultural uh activities, and I know that we do have setbacks in here. So,

you're talking about the increased setbacks to go to uh 200 ft from a shared property. Quick question. Can is it still in the in the realm of can we make this apply to all manufacturing and those type of uses in this particular zoning district or because the title is listed as data center only. So for this particular item, we are limited to data centers. Um I would say if we want to make that an item at a future meeting andor consider that as county council and have that referred here for discussion on any of these items applying to other uses, we can we can certainly have that discussion and do that.

Okay. And that's what I'm hearing you say that that you want to pursue something like that. Well, I've asked for it before. I don't know that I haven't gotten any feedback from the rest of council that they're interested in applying these regulations to any other uses. So, uh we'll just let it lie and hope that nobody decides to build anything worse. Well, I think that um that's where special exceptions comes in and the fact that data centers are an animal onto themselves. In my opinion. Okay. Each to his own.

Okay. Okay. So, the next uh So, you got that one down, Laura. Well, I want to make sure I'm clarifying that. So, are you talking about only related to setbacks or are you talking about some of the other things? I'm talking about this whole entire ordinance being applicable to to more than just data. Yeah. To petroleum manufacturing companies, to mining companies, to uh steel manufacturing, landfields, anything that could be put on ID Ally B properties. I mean, why does a warehouse get to be 50 ft from the property line, but a data center can't?

Why does Walmart get to have a whole bunch of lighting, but a data center can't? No, I'm clarified. I'm sorry. Well, I guess I'm clarified now. You're clarified. That would be suited for the surroundings around it. this property, the ID properties allow a whole lot of very intensive uses. Oh, yeah. But you're but we're only increasing the requirements on data centers and none of those other way worse

tackle one. Yeah. The biggest thing be this here first. This is our Well, it's poor governance to pick at little things and fix only if we can fix all of it at once. But there ain't very many of those other usages though that put as much strain on the power grid though as these. We can't regulate power grids. No, we can't. But we can try our best to oversee it. Yeah. I mean it's federal of the power grid. We can't regulate the power grid doesn't I know we can't regulate I know all about the power grid

but at the same time we don't want to do anything to overload if we can all help it and not have a a situation where people do without power in our county. That's not our requirement. Our that's not what we're tasked with. If the electric company says that they can fly the power, I mean, we're not at that point in the ordinance yet, but they say they can do it, but they have Well, there's been incidents though where they have said that they can supply and not come through this all over everywhere. Okay.

Can I continue with ma'am? Oh, we didn't finish the setbacks. So, uh, I don't agree with making the larger setbacks on any if you're industrial against industrial, why would you have a 200 foot setback against another industrial property? Well, I think what we're concerned about is setbacks that would be um to residential for residential. I think that's more well that's what's written here already

and maybe if it helps the discussion when it says uh located within a residential zoning district you see that's all in all caps that's a defined term in the code and that's everything from AGC all the way to RMX6 so that's anything that allows a residence so I know you mentioned you were looking to protect agricultural properties so we can capture AGC as well and agricultural areas.

So, yeah, this section would already protect the AC. Um what I would like to investigate is making the um and maybe it's covered but because we've got this now in multiple sections um happen at an undisturbed buffer not a planet but a undisturbed so that if there's you know existing trees and stuff there they have to keep it. So I was thinking like a 75 ft completely undisturbed and by ordinance the ordinance prefers undisturbed buffers prefers but doesn't require so

well it is required that if in order to get uh something other than an undisturbed buffer they would have to uh do an alternative buffer compliance and they have to prove to staff that oh well we're going to uh remove this section here u because we need to um you know grade or whatever it might be and we'll plant it back. Maybe we'll have more of a undisturbed buffer on another side somewhere else. But I'd rather have it just be a pure undisturbed buffer because out on QT uh QTS property if we had left all the trees in an undisturbed buffer that would be much better than them trying to replant or build a BM or anything else that they were doing.

Yeah. And right now they have a much Right. And I I I agree with that. Um, and I would like buffer all the way around. I think along the other road they didn't have much of anything. They're just going to plant it back. But they had a nice buffer at one time. Yeah. But they have to main Can we put in on the natural buffer like that that they still have to maintain it if trees die off? I would want to be when you drive down the road and you pass a falls the woods with dead trees in it or whatever. Yep. Yeah.

Just leave it like that. I think that's the most natural camouflaging way to look at. Uh the one I use is um going down Allison Creek Road. If y'all go down there, they got nice wooded fans of trees on both sides that kind of block out because it was undisturbed and they didn't cut out all the trees. I don't I mean, there's other places around town, but Mhm. I have to drive that right. Okay. But I'd like to increase it a little bit more than just 75 ft.

Well, I looked at the ones we had. We got 50 ft for subdivisions and that hide stuff pretty good. But I figured an additional 25 ft would get it. But I mean I do 100 ft. I think that would be plenty. Okay. 100 feet is a long way. So on each thing I'm assuming we need to make a motion. Yep. Okay. So So go for it. Um you you like 100 ft. I do. Do you want to go more? Well, I'm trying to put it in the picture in my mind how long my driveway is.

I think anything more than that that starts taking up a lot of space on home own properties because it we're not just talking about at one time my thought was on have it uh step according to the size of the property. So if you had a 50 foot a 50 acre property, the setback or the buffer might be a little bit different than because it eats up a lot of the property. But if we include the 100 ft buffer and we make cuz the building setback's going to have to be Jonathan determining what we make that setback be could add the difference. Right? You got the 100 foot buffer and then from that line or the property line to the building.

So you're saying from the buffer? Yeah. Say say if we make set back total from the property line say 200 ft. Yeah. 100 of it would be undisturbed. 100 of it non-disturbed.

Well, yeah. You would come at that in two different ways because they're two distinct things. A setback is the distance between the edge of your building to the lot line and your buffer is uh how far back your um trees go from the lot line to the edge of the buffer. So most of the time uh your setback is going to be further than your buffer. Uh well your buffer for industrial ones largely going to be bigger than your setback. So, uh, your buildings aren't going to be allowed to go into that buffer, but for the buffer requirement, they could be a lot closer. So, it's in effect an additional setback. Y'all see any problems?

So, uh, maybe if it helps the discussion, as Mr. Linton mentioned, you know, our code currently scales uh the required buffer according to the lot size of your development and it's we got three uh buckets. So if you've got property that's less than 2 acres uh between two and 10 and then 10 and higher and you know right now QTS is hypers scale data center that doesn't mean that you might not have one that comes in the future that's one or two buildings that's still goes on out there less common than the hypers scales in this immediate moment.

Uh so just to give you an idea of what those look like. So this first ch one of the first changes in the ordinance would move it to a different section of uses and so that would require a higher higher level of buffering. So typically up against residential it's going to require type D. So for property that's less than 2 acres that's going to be a 30ft buffer. If they're between 2 and 10 that's uh either 75 ft uh or it's going to be 50 ft with an 8ft fence. And then for projects like QTS, the hypers scale, that's certainly going to be way more than 10 acres. Uh that's already going to be at I lost it, but it was 100 uh feet with a 6ft fence and 75 ft with an 8ft fence.

What I was avoiding. So, but with those buffers, you can those can be replanted, correct? Or a planted buffer. Uh the the goal is for it to not be for it to be undisturbed buffers, right? But if you want to spend the money, you can go out there and and I'll be honest with you, we get very few of those that uh Yeah, cuz it's much cheaper to just leave the trees that you got there, however junky they might be, however, you know, uh forested they might be and hardy, uh than it is to clear and buy a bunch of brand new trees and put them in. That's very rare. That sound like the buffer cover then possibly. Yeah. make it. Is that what y'all understanding?

Already covered under the the buffer ordinance. Yeah, I think you know. Yeah, but it ain't much of a QTS. No. And that's because they're under the current standards where they're in the same bucket as like a medical office. Yeah. I mean, it ain't it's lucky to be 15 ft in some spots, right? So, natural trees. Yeah. So I think the change to move it into the industrial category of uses plus the additional U setbacks for adjacent to residential which includes AGC and RUD I think gets you to where you're so that would get us covered without having to make a whole bunch of other I believe so. Okay. But then it sounds like this gets you covered. So we're going 100 on 100.

Mhm. Okay. I have a motion. It's already in the order. If we pass this ordinance, it gets pass. It'll get you where you want. It's good. We don't have to. Okay. Okay. So, while we're talking about Sorry. While we're talking about the setback, um, do we have the site plan? I haven't measured the setbacks on the site plan for QTS, are any of their buildings within the 200 ft? Mhm. I mean, they seem all their buildings already seem to be way off the property lines except for along the roadway. Don't all around Hans Mill they're not within 200 feet I don't believe Campbell Road maybe gets close one

certainly if they're clearing that that close but the buildings yeah because some place it wouldn't been 75 ft no the clearing the clearing is but I'm talking about the actual to meet the setback requirements the buildings are not yeah in there on the Campbell roadside I believe there's at least three rows of parking if I'm recalling correctly So it it would be close. I can get that for you if you'd like.

Okay. Do we get incre increased setbacks on the road with any of this? I know we talked about we don't get any. Y'all want to increase the setback on the road because I think currently it's 30. I would like to see that it's 20. I think it's 20 across the board for Okay. Because it's a right of way buffer rather than a use buffer. Um, you want to see that one increased then? 100. Yeah. Which one of those roads is Campbell's the one with the uh comedian center on it?

Right. But I'm saying which one would be the closest road to actually That one's got the buildings right up on closest to it, but they're not they're still pretty decent ways away. The buildings are because I mean going down 274, it's a long distance from 274, but there's not much wood there to those. Do we have any kind of picture about the buildings that are currently going up or not on hand for this meeting? Can you pull it up? So, I would uh Can you pull that?

Uh, no. I don't I don't have any access to pull that up. You got it right. Um, am I allowed to take anything? You're meeting. You're meeting. You can do whatever. Well, no. I mean, okay. Well, I mean, they have the picture right there cuz I think um can somebody go get it? What's the buff? Is the buffer 20 ft along roads? Yes. You want Youall want to put larger buffer. Make sure it's the right one. Yeah. Yeah. It's along the road.

So, this is road. So, which that the building is way over here. This is the parking lot and stuff. See, that's a parking lot. You want to make sure they're looking at the right one. Transformers that there on this green right there. right there.

Since it got this far, I mean, right? There's no giant overhead power lines right there. So, there's no trees. There's nothing there. It's all underneath power lines. So, it's compact. It's right if you're coming from Newport. Yeah, it's it's before you get to you can't miss it if you go look at it. Yeah. Plus, they got to keep certain amount of distance around from away from that cuz if trees fail or tree limbs, you'd be out right quick.

So, when we go to setting up, this is not one of mine. So, I've got more um on the table, but like something like this, which they do have to cut underneath power lines. Um that's my Duke Energy training right there. Um can we make some type of um an ordinance where power grids like that do not border a main highway? You can't do that. That's federal. They have to go to the road. It's not within the county zoning authority to do that.

They have to go to the road like that. They have to be on I don't know what their sighting requirements are. I just know that we don't have any ability to review or dictate where they can or cannot go. I haven't seen very many substations that ain't near where they want to go. I don't think I've ever seen able to control a substation that ain't near a room cuz they can't have no woods or nothing around because trees can't Well, I know they have to. But I was just saying if that was back here. Well, but the power lines are there and so they they have to go where the power be where the power lines are.

Okay. All right. Okay. So, where are we in this? the we're at the setting backward or more of a buffer on the road. Okay. Um again, it wouldn't be any different than what's out there, but I just thought I would throw it out there because I know it's okay. What What do you think, Tommy? I'm I'm good with making I'd still like to make that 100 ft. 150 100 ft. 100 ft. Yeah. in that scenario because you talked about right there and the

Yeah. So the road is right here. This is a whole parking lot right there and that's parking lot. So time you get to this building over here, you're still well past 100 ft back. They just have to clear all the roads or all the trees all the way up to the edge of pavement except for a little strip of cement trees. Um, is that part of that natural buffer that we're putting in there? Well, the natural buffer is only for property lines and not right aways. They do have to plan it back. So, the rightway would have to remain natural also. Yeah, the rideway would too.

Yep. All buffers are required to be natural. Okay. Well, I think it needs to be more than 30. Well, it was 20. So, yeah, it needs to be You want You want 100?

I squared the thing up. Again, I would I would prefer to have this on every industry. I know you were getting it. Let's just do this right now. Okay.

So, one one thing before you make a motion and vote on it, um, one thing I encourage you to consider is, you know, you've got to make sure that you're uh you have a clear public purpose uh for any standard that you might apply because that's how it survives scrutiny down the road if you're ever challenged on any standard that you might apply. Um, and so just be aware that countywide any other use is 20 foot right away maximum smaller than that. Uh, if you allow a smaller lot size

that can apply to a lot of things. Absolutely. I mean, don't even go there with me right now. So, okay. How about I'm going to go back to what I said earlier. Well, why talk about the mortorium? Yeah, but why can't we just do that to give us time to figure this mess out and we're going to be working on we got to put some things in place because the moratorum might take a little while to get that. Well, we could still be working on these ordinances. Let's continue on. Let's continue on because somebody decided they want to rush stuff. I don't know. Go ahead. So, make a motion 50.

Make a motion to um include a 50. So, that would give us that's double what's already allowed and that might keep us from getting sued again. Yeah. Okay. Well, let's do that. Evicted from the road from the road right away. So, I second. Okay. All in favor? I Next, no heat shall be produced through the ground as detected with the aid of geothermal instruments at any point beyond the center property line.

Uh, first question is what is the center property line? Well, would you say the center of the property? the center of the property. Wait, what? I understand. Okay, you go heat from the center of the property that can be detected with that geothermal instrument.

Do you mean maybe the center point of the property? Center point of the property. It would have to be the center point. You couldn't say this is center point or that's center point because that's not the center point of the property. But most ordinances are written to the edge of the to the property line. Not you can't do anything outside of your property. So well this is a whole different animal and it's going to there there are issues with this heat

as I study it. You You're not happy with that one or you don't understand? No, I understand. But no, I'm not happy. I'm not going to vote to the center of the property for heat. I mean, I mean, I would be Well, it could be it could be. I don't even know what through the ground. What's through the ground mean? Like if I dig a hole? Well, they use those instruments

to detect heat. I mean, I I am not the type of instrument. I'm not an engineer that knows about this geothermal. I'm not a geothermal engineer either. But I could be married to one. I'm not saying that I am. I think what you trying to say, you're not. I'm still trying to figure out. They're going to have their water circulation running through the ground and you wanting to detect any heat any heat transfer from the piping to I mean this is this is a a thing. It's a thing. But won't they have meters and monitors or

Why would anybody monitor that? How? Well, on geothermal systems, they do check that, but it's Can you get rid of enough heat in the ground? Oh, yeah. Get rid of the heat. Yeah. You know, the sugar a percentage of heat. Yeah. That's how the whole system actually as compared to the air which is more I ain't going to say because on geost thermal systems they can keep climate control the same. all year long. You can you can create you use it for heating and that but

I don't know what their coolant system up top looks like like if I'm supposedly doing this closed loop in in an effort to help. May I ask what what are you trying to achieve with the geothermal measurement? Because there have there are actual many data centers all across the country who are are being you know looked at very strenuously by the community because the heat that it's generating through the ground is causing issues with uh vegetation dying.

Okay. and that natural beautiful buffer that you want. All those trees are going to be dead.

So that's what I mean. I'm not saying this one is cuz this one is gone. But in the future, we need to put things in place to make sure that we don't have vegetation or it goes as far as agricultural land that's on the site or trees that are being grown for Christmas trees. I mean, I could go with the performance standard that it's no more than five degrees Fahrenheit on one side of the property line versus the other or something, but well,

I mean, it's got to be something measurable and it's got to be uh and and I'm sure that there is some more to this that we could add to that. Do you know anything about this, Jonathan? The geothermal. So uh in our uh research on how other jurisdictions are handling data centers, I've not encountered anything on enforcing ground.

Can we look into this one a little deeper because I think it's very important because it we do not know anything about the effects of this data center and what it's going to do to the community or the land around it. All I'm doing is I'm bringing attention to things that are happening in other areas of the country and they didn't know either and it was too late for them. We have the opportunity to to correct a very bad you know a very bad

say it this way. No change in the greeds of from from their property line or state to state of their property line to the border out of the border. Difference in temperature readings. I like I don't think there would be but a I mean but you just you don't know that's a long way. if if I may again to help or to keep from going down a slippery slope. Um because I have a few more

understood. But I but I think I think if if we're going to create some kind of a standard or language for this, you know, we we would have to rely on some kind of u subject matter expertise that maybe the the staff doesn't have to verify it. And I'll give you a very brief example. In a previous jurisdiction I worked in and maybe even here, cell tower sighting. And of course, many years ago, cell towers were considered to be or or have various negative impacts. But we used a cell tower consultant who knew all about cell tower engineering who would, you know, verify whether it met the standards of our cell tower ordinance. it was safe and so forth. With something as highly technical as as this, I think we'd have to be very careful on how to script the language in in such a way that we can verify information from an independent source and at the same time know the kind of measurements or standards that we're looking for. Does that make sense?

I I agree. I mean just a quick look thought about this. I mean I think it needs to have a depth you know it can't be just surface level. It's got to be like a foot deep. That's why you have I know but geotechnical people doing it. You're not I'm not you're not qualified. So we won't need Can we put this on a wish list or something? Can y'all investigate it for the next investigation? Yes, we don't need a vote for that. We can just ask for that, right? You've given the direction and I believe the direction is received.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Laura. Okay. Um, so all data centers must meet all state laws, conditions, and requirements. Any state requirement passed after the approval of the data center shall require the center to meet the new requirements within 12 months of enactment. So in other words, all these state legislation things, something passes and we've had a data center to come in and it's gone through all

they have to update. they would have to update if new legislation came on board. What if it's been built and it's 10 years old and a new law was passed?

I think that's one that you all probably will want to direct me to look at and follow um because some of that is going to depend on what ultimately the state legislature does and how they word any laws they pass. So state laws can be passed in a variety of ways. Some some of those ways essentially the state is taking ownership of a thing and local government is not involved in the regulation of that thing. Some of it is more open-ended and then you you also want to be careful that you don't run into some issue where you're dealing with the any potential for something to be retroactive. So that would just take some careful wording and and following what the state legislature ultimately does

and then legal providing providing an update on the outcome of that legislation. Okay. So can you that is noted work on that one? Yes ma'am. Okay. Is that okay? Is that okay? Yeah. Okay. Um Okay. So, the data center must provide a satisfactory decommissioning plan and a bond to the county prior to approval to ensure all equipment and the property has no onsite hazards or issues remaining. And I know we have a decommissioning plan here.

I actually want to take the decommissioning plan out. Don't see a point in it. I mean, we don't have that for anything anywhere ever. Now, it would have been nice if I had that one for uh Heritage Tower. I was thinking heritage tower. No, I think there needs to be one for that one. Sil is going to be in operation. Two uses that require a decommissioning plant. It's resource excavation and solar solar panel facilities. Yes. So, it's the solar farm. Yeah. To bring them back to

And that's that's typical. you would see for a decommissioning plan on on something that is using large swats of earth and it's got implements on it or holes in the ground less typical for no future use but we don't I mean one thing to use lifespan but I mean they can be reused so in the decommissioning plan that we currently have okay is there language in here concerning um the part that I wanted to put in about the bond. Yes. Okay. So, pretty much what I've said is everything that I've said in here,

isn't it? Okay. How are you going to enforce it? What's our enforcement mechanism on decommissioning plan? It's a good question. Well, I I think the the performance guarantee or the bond with the with the bond, but

yeah, I I mean, you know, enforcing decommissioning, you know, you're you're kind of hoping that they will abandon the property properly without ha having to enforce the shity. And of course, assurity's there to to make sure that if if the company fails to do it that there are sufficient resources to carry out the decommissioning and abandonment. Well, I don't want no part of that. How come

how much would the environmental folks anyway be involved say especially if they had a fire or something since all that's a lot of plastic and batteries and all of that that would be mandatory to a degree right for a company to clean up hazard material that fall back to an emergency meeting. Yeah, I mean that really falls in the uh federal regulatory space. You almost got it in my eye.

Well, I think it's always to have, you know, something for um the county to be able to fall back on. I mean, the the bond is very important. If something happens, you never know what's going to happen. And that's applies to everything that we do at the county. Everything. Yes. But it's good. We have this chance to make to do something, right? We haven't had that chance too many times. Okay. So, what do we do about this? Do we vote on this or Well, the decommissioning plan is already in there. It's already in there. So, it's already there.

Yeah. Unless you want to vote to take that's fine. Okay. So, um data centers are responsible for paying all utility infrastructure cost and must provide asurances from the electricity provider uh that will charge any of the required capital components. uh will not require any um of the capital components to the rate payers. We can't that say that one more time. Let's see. Let's see what the law says. Do you mind repeating that for me?

Okay. So, uh I think I left a word out here when I was typing. Data centers are responsible for paying all utility infrastructure cost and must provide asurances from the electricity provider uh that will charge any of the required capital components to the rateayers. I think I meant not require. Okay. So I would ask that that is one you give me an opportunity to review. When you start talking about who is going to specifically bear the cost with regard to rate making you're going to run into office of regulatory staff public service commission and even

I have a reference consumer affairs. It's a bill. It's not one of those. Oh wait a minute. It is 4583. 4583. So, um, when whoever wins the lottery up there, whichever one of those, if it's 4583. So, that's that's where we're at on that one. I mean, you you're going to check. Yes, I'm I'm happy to reach out to to those agencies. I know one of those even um

proposed or contemplated having the consumer advocate get involved in those things to represent rateayers with regard to data centers. So some of that's going to be which if any of those end up passing and then I need to touch base with those regulatory agencies to ensure we're not stepping into something that's out of bounds for us completely. I'm glad y'all were uh looking at jumping into telling businesses how to run their business. I'm just going by the legislation. That ain't going to pass. Well, the the biggest thing

passes would address it then, but I I wouldn't. The biggest thing is is

I'm sure that whether we realize it or not to a certain extent do whenever they're building is that's what you need to find out. What percentage by law does the law allow them when they're upfitting or upgrading or building to cost increase what they're ask you as an interesting question Tommy um and I do know a little bit about how that process works have a utility who is regulated under South Carolina law and they want to invest in new infrastructure they want to raise rates, change their rate tier structure. There is a process they have to go through to do that. That involves office of regulatory staff um who comes in and looks at looks at those requests in a very technical way. Uh you have the South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs which has the consumer advocate who specifically is allowed to intervene in ratem cases before the public service commission in order to represent the interests of consumers, consumer rateayers before the public service commission. And then ultimately that commission sits as the deciding power for here's a rate that's acceptable or the rate you increase you've requested is inappropriate and or here's why there's a lot that goes into that. That's why I said um for what what Debbie was suggesting that I need to ensure whatever we do is not something that would cause us to run into conflict with those agencies.

So this part is going to depend on 4583 and what happens there part of it. Yes. Um, and then to the extent what if any power or authority does the local government have in that process is also a question I'm hearing you want me to answer.

Yes. Okay. Um, maximum height I would propose that we change that to 60 ft. We raise this to 80 ft and it needs to be returned to 60 ft. No, Tommy, what do you think? I'd be all right with that because I've been looking and I swear to good found any of the other ones that have been built that are 80 ft. How tall, Tom, was that one y'all went and looked at? Was it 80 ft?

Uh, the one the one in Atlanta? Uh, I can't I can't tell you specifically. I had been asked about a month ago about a QTS center in nearby Fateville, Georgia. Uh their uh zoning requirement was 60, but they permitted QTS in Favville to have a 15 ft variance, hence 75 ft. you know, based based on just eyeballing it, uh, when I went to the Atlanta site, it it was there was a portion of it or portions easily over 60 ft. Okay. So, do we need a motion on this one?

No, I think I think if you're going to look at that again, I would recommend you look at peers again. I mean, when we talked about this last time, there were there were reasons behind it, and I would just beckon this committee back to those reasons as a reminder at least. Yeah, we chose it for a good reason already. Well, cuz they were worried about the coolant fans, wasn't it? Yeah. I mean, but the the technology is changing so fast. So, do I have a motion on this that we re go back to 60 ft? Yeah. I second. All in favor?

No. All oppose. Sorry. Okay. Noise. I I would like that we would require a study to determine if a reduction in the standard noise level requirement should be required. So in other words, a study on the noise and it should be a requirement that there is a study for for the noise. Well, I I heard you. So, there is a a requirement for a noise study in this ordinance, but I think I heard you say a study to see if the standard noise level should be reduced.

Yes. Yes.

So, help walk me through that. What would that what would that look like? Who would make that determination? Well, again, all the talk with data centers, the big talk is that humming. And I think that as we go along in this process, I just feel very strongly about this that um it's it's one of those things that people probably would have never agreed to something like this in our area had there been more research on that. And I think we even had some folks come, doctors I think or pediatricians came and talked with us about the effects to the brain on uh this constant humming. And like I say, I do know that there are other areas of the country that are severe that are really looking deep into the um the effects of the homing on children, babies, everybody, older adults, pets.

So this is the ordinance thing. This is more of a uh planning commission needs to do a study for the whole entire the uh for the ordinance in general. Laura, what do you say about this? What is your say? So, we're talking separate and apart from the noise standards and the noise study required that is already in here. You're asking for it to specifically look at potential health impacts. Yes. related to the humming? Yes. Y'all ever undertaken a study like that or worked with anyone?

How do you get your determination on that? Because I mean, there's a lot of different companies. I mean, my goodness, the wastewater treatment plant can drive us crazy just the churn. And

how do they determine that? So, as this study uh requires, you have to have an acoustical engineer perform the analysis. And what they're doing is taking the design that's presented to them from the firm and saying whether or not it complies with the standards of the jurisdiction that they're trying to meet. Um so, you know, as part of their study, they might initially say, uh okay, well, looks like you're okay over here, but in this area, uh looks like you might be in breach of the local ordinances. And so that design firm is going to add some sound mitigation to their design and they're going to keep going back and forth until their acoustical engineer is able to submit, I would think, a study that will able be able to approve that would meet county standards. So one thing about sound is it doesn't necessarily matter who the producer of the sound is. Whether you know it's an animal, it's uh a vehicle, if it's machinery, if it's equipment, whatever the sound source is, the the sound produced u is going to have the same impact when it's at the same levels, you know, when it's leaving a property and impacting somebody else on another property. But I wouldn't think you would want to have a separate and distinct u noise requirement for one use over another because sound is sound. It's going to bother you like I said whether it's an animal or in some other place. Um so you know you mentioned maybe looking at the chem noise levels wholesale rather than just specifically for data centers. I would suggest that might be a better analysis of looking at are our current noise standards appropriate. And plus, if we get the 100 foot of trees around there, that's going to change that. I would think too.

I don't think so. Huh? I don't think so. I mean, I heard a horror. I'm going to change my saw me run. Well, if we go down this route, you rabbit hole, you aren't getting a sawmill anymore. Oh, I'm going to run my sawmill until code force comes out there and run. Yeah. Do do her do give her a little the the acoustic noise study. It's already in here. Yeah.

And it's already in the is and there's it says it's already in the public nuisances part. So this is just doubling up on what's already required, right? So yeah, what is uh new in the original draft was the requirement to do a noise study to demonstrate prior to uh getting approval of your permit that what you're going to construct will comply. Now, they're always required to comply. So you're right, that language is not new. It's just reminding them in this section specifically be required before they get Yeah. to do the noise study. But whoever we're talking about whoever originally set that standard

then that would be in the same vein as setbacks and applying those to something more than data centers. So they can make that recommendation um that we look at that and then we could follow up with county council as a whole before that came back to the committee because study like that I imagine would take some time. Whoever Yeah, that uh who originally sets that acoustic I'm not paying for it.

Yeah, the uh they want to be here sound limits. They've been around since the 60s. Um and they're really helpful for when you're near an airport because that's the loudest sound generator you can have uh for the most part. And they're really kind of static across the country. I mean, they haven't changed in decades. U they're pretty much uniform. Uh the only thing that's different is, you know, are you at 65 or 75 at the upper upper level is kind of where a lot of jurisdictions deviate. Do you allow variances for certain types of activity? Say like mowing your lawn, for example. and the county ordinance is you can go up to 85 while you're mowing your lawn because lawnmowers they got loud engines got bush hogs that type of thing. U so that's where jurisdictions might have a little daylight between them but by and large they're almost uniform nationwide for sound and there and sound is nuisance. So, uh, while it can be mentioned, um, in zoning, it's really kind of a nuisance concept. A nuisance law is its own web of spider system, as Laura can tell you.

I'm not interested in messing with it. Who determines who deter I'm not interested in messing with it, but it it's already in here. And that's exactly why nuisance law so complicated is who decides how much is too much for someone to bear. It's very complicated. And for what degree? I got a feeling that some of the um bills that are not up there because there are I've been talking to some of the legislators and I mean I got a list and it could be that something will come out about the noise in a bill. So do you pay attention to the state house? They get a lot of bills and most of them don't go anywhere.

That is true. Okay. Um, so we're down to uh a recommendation that I would like to make county council and that is that um we've got a couple of of these conditions that we talked about that you're going to do additional study and make a uh come back with some information on. And I think that was the um I think it was the was it the heat? Yeah. For planning staff that was going to be investigating ground heat. Yes. And you had a couple of items for Miz Dover.

Okay. So besides the couple of items that you're um going to check into then um I would also um have that have these added to the current ordinance um requiring a special exception for any new data centers. Uh yeah, that's in the ordinance. And that's in here. Yes.

Say something. Well, no. I was I'm waiting for you to go through your list so I can do my list. I thought you said you didn't have anything. No, I have my whole list. Okay. Okay. So, um, now we're to moratorum. Tom, are you Do you want to talk about your moratorum? Yeah. Okay. Talk. Well, I just think that it'd be a good idea. I take it that we got to do this study or whatever or is that actually how how does the moratorum work? Long. I make a motion that we go into executive session to discuss moratoriums and get legal advice. Second. Okay. So, what's your what's your item? We got votes.

You need to vote on it. Going into effective. Okay. So, do I have a motion? I said the motion. Second. All in favor? I I All right, y'all.

Um, okay. We're out of executive session and um, so we have some things. No action was taken. No action. So, okay. We're ready.

I just have a a couple more items. I covered most a lot of mine with Debbiey's. Um the main one is taking the uh data centers out of being a special exception and not putting them in the hands of the BDA leave them as or putting them back as um by right we'll have to vote on reszone because there's not that many locations currently available. Anybody? No. I like special exception.

I'm not in favor of having an unelected board that has no ties to this making these decisions. These decisions uh really need to come before us and we should be making all those decisions. All right. There was no motion or second board. So

Tommy didn't say I assume we're going to leave that one. All right. How about uh I was still going I was interested in leaving them in light industrial too. Oh, I guess you know my opinion. I know what your opinion is. There's no comments. No. All right.

Um, we covered this power. We're going to investigate uh what we can do related to the power. Um the one thing I would like to add, so I would like to uh I guess make a motion that we do not or we prohibit data centers from generating their own power. If we do that though, how would we

could it be worded in there for the regulation of the power being? So, yeah, you could have language in there that they would be prohibited from power generation on the site. I don't know if they could. Um, but I'm thinking Andy is saying if they generate their own power, letting them generate. No, I don't want program. You don't want them. So, that's been one of the major issues. Yeah, I I go right along with that. No, it's too hard to regulate that, right? So, my uh my motion is to prohibit data centers from generating their own power. Yeah, I'll second that.

Okay. All in favor? I

All right. Um, I have a uh more of a a question. It's a general question. Uh, the low low water cooling systems. Um, it seems kind of specific in what's written and because this is an ordinance, are we going to force them into something? Is there can it be written a little more broadly in case there's some new technologies that come out? I don't really want to force them into air cooled closed loop. Uh if there's something better. Yes. And and I I agree with your premise there. So there's a second part of that that rolls on to page four. Um so it says data center uses shall employ air cooled closed loop chiller systems or other cooling systems that similarly use minimum water resources. The proposed cooling system shall be detailed in the application. So they have to describe in their application for a special exception what type of they're going to have and the other section requires that they state how much water they're

right. So you think that covers it fairly well? Yeah. Now we are talking about things in the county if there are what if Rockill decides they can supply the water for a regular cooling system. Do we want to stop them from doing that? The ordinance would effectively

I know. But do we want to do that? And since we're the controller of the water in the county, what if we decide we want to that we can supply uh because this would be for all data centers. What if there's a small one or something else that would actually uh that we could sell to, you know, we're in the in the business of selling water. Yeah, but I'd rather them have to that's getting you never you never know. One man you got water or one man you might not have.

Well, that's what the all the water utilities are there to do is to check that they have that capacity and they'll be able to supply us completely. But I don't think that they really know at any given time that I mean you can say I got plenty of water now unless they're going to do reservoirs and stop. I mean no we know we know I promise we know at least in the river basin we know how much water we have and how much we

Oh I know you know how much you have but I mean continuing drought though you don't know how much you have. We've got long-term forecast that I mean unless we go into something way beyond uh historical what is that Duke's got to keep what a certain level themselves

their level is way way below what uh creates issues for the water supply for the water utilities. I was just curious, are we willing to limit water utilities from selling water if they say that they can? It's only a question. So is are you asking yourself like we should get the right of first refusal. I I'm only asking is it a thing that we would look at or is it you know

well is and and do we want to limit another utility like Rock Hill from selling the water in the event that they were able to there's probably not a site anywhere that's close to Rock Hills water system but and they're probably going to say no they can't supply but I'm just saying is that a possibility Should we be limited? But now how much I wonder does that create on on the after effects of the runoff or the cooling? You know those systems that are set up like that? Do they have set up aation filter ponds where it returns back to or Anybody know?

It's another one of these. Don't nobody know. I've only seen a few places that had spray ponds to the city cool their water and then reuse it. Um I mean it is a possibility and I would do that before I just spent dollars buying new more and more water. For sure. It's just just a question. I ain't fighting for it. I don't care that much. I just want to ask. No, that's leave. All right. Um, groundwater prohibited. Can we Is that something we can actually do?

Can we What if the state uh or DHC dees approves whales? Not they not be able to get aqua for water. I done went through that struggle. do the so um you know if they were to get a permit from dees you know they would be in breach of our ordinance so we could put them under violation for the zoning ordinance but as to whether you know which one controls if they state issues a permit and the local jurisdiction says you can't have that particular type of permit in our jurisdiction

potentially that's one I would need to look at what specifically does the state law say? Does it preempt us or prohibit us from doing something stricter than them or do they leave that open and say, "Hey, here's the standard the state sets. Local government, if you want to build on that and make it stricter, go for it." I just need to look at that and get you an answer. Yeah. Can you look into that? Yes, sir.

Um, the equipment noise mitigation. Um, again, we're in some pretty specific requirements. Can we just put performance standards on it instead? You know, if they come up with some other method of attenuating noise or canceling out noise. Um, do we really want to put specific st uh those things like you got to use a louvered or st solid wall or Yeah, you certainly could. You mean if they come up with upgrades a way to lower

number a different way? You know, they're going to do a sound study which they're going to propose ways to do this. Do we really need to tell them here? I mean, I think is there any way they could quieten them down even more? Yeah. But I mean, maybe there's a better way than what these particular ways are specified. Why would you word that? new and innovative.

Well, yeah, you got a tradeoff there. So, um it might be that they've got, you know, a strategy or just pure distance that they could abide by uh the sound standards and not exceed any of the limits and then these criteria would dampen the sound even further. So, keep it well below. Um or you know they could have to do these particular items uh with the louvered walls on the on the roof or enclosing and they're still not there. I kind of doubt that they that those two things wouldn't get them there keeping the sound down, but certainly possible that they'd need to do other things as well. So it's kind of that tradeoff. Do you want to keep them well under adding some flexibility because you add the flexibility they might be closer to the maximum without these elements in it in theory?

Well, that's the reason we have those things. I mean, I'm not in the business of just adding unnecessarily cost unnecessary costs just because um y'all interested in the noise mitigation either just putting performance standards on it instead which are already kind of covered in the rest of in the rest of the our ordinance. I don't think so.

I personally do not think we can have enough mitigation on the lease. I don't think that's that's possible. So, what if they got a better a better way of doing it? And who knows when that might happen? Well, I'm not saying I mean they may have it now. years from now. No, they may have it now. I just don't we don't know. I mean, we're only as smart as the other ordinances that are written. Well, then we copy it. Laura, what do you think?

So, let me let me make certain I'm understanding you, Andy. You're saying someone has a better way of dampening noise andor keeping it lower than what is required right now. Do we want to allow them to do that? Do we want to allow them to present that? So, they've got to meet I'm going to make up a number. I didn't memorize the noise. Let's say they got to meet 70. Okay. They're going to do whatever it is to get to 70.

So, you know, if they do a louvered wall or they have something else they use, I mean, maybe plant trees around and bushes on the top of their building. I don't know what they're going to do, but maybe they have a different way of of meeting. So, I would rather just have performance standards. You have to meet this level and leave it at that and let them come up with the way to meet that level. Or you could say you have to use these materials except if you can make a showing that you're able to what? Fall further below whatever that limit is or to get to that limit

to to allow for that innovation. If someone says, "Hey, if you let us use this material instead of coming in at 69, we're going to be a 50 right to the lowest level." But they're not gonna I mean they're likely to whatever they do is going to get to 69 to stay right at the school. Nobody's going to go really above and beyond unless what what these two requirements already would force them to be well below the 60.

But even that doesn't have I mean sound dampening materials could be a quarter inch thick and wouldn't do anything at all. So we don't have any performance. We don't make them actually show that they're doing anything. It's just there for looks. But you said, Jonathan, those numbers they're required to meet now are the standard. Yeah. For everywhere. Countywide standard. Yes. On everything. Yes, sir. Wife yelling, whatever. Same thing. Yes, sir.

And are you asking what what difference does it make what materials they use if they get to as long as they get to that standard, what does it matter? Why do we care? Why are we putting very specific things when and not allowing anything outside of that? I just don't like putting specifics to those type of Yeah, it's up to you how you want to approach that. I think the the the way to accomplish what you're trying to do textwise would just be to eliminate equipment noise mitigation uh sentences A and B. But I think that gets

well I wanted to talk about C a little bit. Um so it says uh in the event of emergency testing and there's backup power. I know that Duke and in other places have put in there for them to run their generators in the event that they need more power. Um, so would that be counted as an emergency or that unless contractual sorry uh so you're saying that they've got a contract with Duke that if Duke needs power they asked UTS to any other

they so their contract I talked to uh Sandy Martin I was at a meeting with him and he said their new contracts have uh disconnect for shut portions where they tell the uh data centers to run their generators in the event that they need power generation uh either so that they can save their power generation, pull it off to the uh facility. It's no longer an interesting

I've uh not heard that scenario before. So it had they did it I don't know where it was. It was out west during the uh they were running out of electricity. They cranked up all their generators and boosted the grid to supply power and put line power in the back. Right. Yeah. That could be it's kind of an emergency emergency case, but does it qualify as emergency or can we put in there contract unless contractually obligated to Well, we we don't necessarily want to I don't want to be in their contract, but

Right. So, I don't know that we want to use that, but what I want to do is look at what authority does the um utility company have in order to make those decisions. So are they making those decisions because the state has said utility company you are best placed to decide okay you guys need to run on a generator so we can redirect and do power this way for whatever period of time I'm happy to look at that will you look yes sir what we can do with their I just don't want to limit

their options if there's a legitimate need for the utility company to do those things I understand. But see, for them, that had to be some pretty technical dealings going on there because, you know, right now you have to isolate out between but if you don't cuz they could kill a lineman, right? But if they just needed a little boost to the system and it's I could see this happening and it's cheaper to get them to crank up their generators than it is to buy power from the grid, you know, the national grid. I can see him saying, "Hey, for the next three hours, I need you to run your generators."

Yeah. And I know utility companies do studies on those things, especially when they're looking at peak hours, pools on the grid, and pulls on their system. So, I can certainly look at that and report back to you guys. Okay. But I know good and well though they can muffled the sound of those generators down to point that you can't Oh yeah.

I don't worked on too many of them. Um let's see. So that the vibration do we should we have uh some performance standard for that? It says perceptible, but that perceptible to who? Yeah. So, uh, that's already in the county's performance standards. Is it? Yes. Okay. I mean, I said, see, it says it there, but I've never seen the actual vibration portion. Yeah. So, I believe it says um detectable without the use of equipment. I believe that's the language in. So, you know, if you're

What does that mean? So if you're standing on the property line u on the say a neighboring property and you can feel the ground vibrating and you know you can reasonably attribute that to coming from that site that would be but what if you can feel it but yeah Josh can't what do you mean so so if we're enforcing it would be the code enforcement officer that would have to detect so if he feel but if code enforcement officer A can feel that the code enforcement officer B has, I don't know, some leg problem, they can't feel it. I would say that that most folks have the same level of being able to to detect. You know,

I'm just asking if we should have I hate subjective things like that. And I only ask that we should we have a performance standard or me or have something that actually measures Yes. on the ground. And how much a a machine I don't think we need a seismograph but well I can tell you right now if a 50 ton shoot foot rollers roller me and you both know oh yeah they put it on vibrate you can feel it 300 ft away they can and when they run the the when they run our little five or 10 ton one you can feel it but I'm just

you got a wood leg with I just wanted Do we need a performance standard legally or is this subjective? So subjective is not the word I would use. Discretion is discretion. There you go. Um because when you have code enforcement officers and animal control officers um th those folks are commissioned to do those very things appropriately use their discretion in those situations. Does that in any way say that you guys can't decide we want a measurable standard? Certainly you can.

And then the question is what is the standard and how do you want it measured? Right. All right. I'm asking y'all now. Okay. No, I'm asking them. I'm not asking. Congratulations. I'm tired. Okay. So is surely by now somebody has done a study on noise vibration from data centers. I mean you mean like nationwide some someone doing some analysis somebody I mean there's too much information out there. Well each GPT I'm sure they'll tell you

make up the data. Well, I'll say a couple things because each user is going to be different, right? So, um, some folks are going to have ground cooling, some are going to have a lot of the cooling interior of the building. They're going to be rooftop. So, where they're putting their apparatus is going to be uh it differentiates how much vibration there's going to be, if any leaves the site. So, they're all going to be sight specific, all design specific. So, it's not even data center exclusive. That's kind of countywide. And that brings me to my other point is the performance standards are for any industrial use. So it's uh across all industrial users in the county. So if you'd like to take a look at vibration and adding a more defined standard into vibration, I would recommend examining the performance standards and not looking at it as a data center specific. So, that one would go with with what you mentioned um early on that you would want some of these things to be applicable

to that zoning district and and that sounds like it's a good candidate for that. Okay. So, we need a motion on that one. No, I think stay with the I think it's something that's brought up during the uh council non agenda items. We would ask for it to go back to Yes. to a committee and people. All right. Um, let's see. Do I have anything else? I think that covered everything I had. It wasn't too bad. What? Anybody else?

No, I'm I'm We've done about got all the way through this thing. I I mean, I I don't know what how much other stuff you can So I think that we have um do we have a summation of everything we've talked a little bit about what we've talked about that I need to

I believe we have a summation here. Um I want to make certain that that I'm understanding where where the committee is. Um certainly we have already invoked pending ordinance doctrine on this. So the revisions that have already been made um made prior which have been made after the other data data center was was constructed. Those are already in effect. You guys have done the pending ordinance doctrine. I I have a list of things some of which apply to Mr. one of many of which apply to me that you guys will want us to report back to you as soon as possible on. Yes.

Um I would say as soon as you want to get another meeting on the books, I will have those those items clarified and ready to go and I would ask Jonathan what what his thought is on that. But certainly we we will work to get those things done. Um because I would anticipate you guys also want to see the revisions you have approved tonight in redline version in order for this to go back to county council as a whole, right?

So that they can see. I think we have several revisions you guys will want to see and then we send those right back to county council and then we can keep that ordinance moving forward to its its final step and then cover all these bases you guys want covered. I want want to make sure we do the leg work on on those legal aspects of it. Okay.

There were several research elements in there, but the two items I have as definitive changes to the text are to add a 50-ft buffer from the road right away and to reduce the height limit to 60 ft. So essentially that would just be removing the additional height because that's the height limit in ID and the use is and this uh ordinance only allowed in ID. And obviously we're going to continue to track um what the state does. I know I will be reaching out to office regulatory staff, Department of Consumer Affairs and and getting some feedback on them on some of these items. Um there are some issues for compliance with state laws and just looking at those the proposed legislation that's out there and seeing if we're dealing with um a limitation issue that we don't run into any issues where we are overstepping into what the state is trying to do. So we want to work in coordination with them essentially let them do their thing and then let the county build on that wherever we can. Um, I have the groundwater prohibition. I need to look at that whether that's a stricter standard or whether we can do a stricter standard or the state has preempted us. Um, generator use limitations. That's something we're going to be looking at. And then the studies Jonathan mentioned and the rate making aspect of that is what um I said I would look at and follow up with OS and consumer affairs on make sure we're moving in the right direction on those things so that when we get this ordinance back to county council we're headed in a direction you guys all feel comfortable.

Forgive me I missed one of my notes on the text changes. You had also voted to prohibit data centers from generating their own on-site power. Yes. We've got a list of of items we need to work on quickly. Yeah. But that one will also tie into hers with the whole emergency in an emergency they can do it or as required

whatever. And so I really feel like that we've accomplished a lot tonight in the fact that um I knew that we've made some changes, but um I was very anxious to really get stronger um requirements on board here. So, we'll get the next meeting set up pretty soon so that we can get this thing to council.

Yes, ma'am. So, do I have any other items or anybody else want to say anything? A word of prayer. You need a word of prayer. Okay. So, um do I have a motion to adjourn?