Posey APC works ahead of possible data center application

Posey Area Plan Commission President Joe Marvel attempts to get a point across during Thursday’s meeting at the Hovey House. Photo by Dennis Marshall

By Dennis Marshall

MOUNT VERNON, Ind. — Posey County still has no formal data center application, but county officials are already working on the rules that would govern one if a proposal reaches the public approval process.

The Posey County Area Plan Commission reviewed a rough data center amendment Thursday, July 9, during a meeting that stretched for hours and drew residents opposed to any data center development in the county. No final language was adopted, but the APC discussed major changes to the draft, including simplifying the project categories and requiring special-use review for the largest data centers rather than allowing them by right in heavy industrial zoning.

The discussion marked a shift from public concern over rumors, landowner contacts and Project Raider into the county’s first visible effort to define data centers in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Residents continued to press for a moratorium, while the commission worked through possible regulations on power demand, water use, roads, noise, lighting, emergency response and air emissions.

APC President Joe Marvel told residents no formal application has been filed with the county, but that the county has received four inquiries, which he described as questions about what zoning rules are in place for data centers.

That distinction became one of the main points of the night. County officials continued to say there is no project before them, while residents pointed to landowner contacts, utility-planning records and field activity in eastern Posey County as signs that work is moving ahead before the public process has started.

The rough draft discussed would amend the county’s UDO, the land-use rulebook that governs zoning and development in unincorporated Posey County.

The APC did not adopt the draft. Members worked through portions of it line by line, discussed changes and took public comments that are expected to shape the next version.

One of the clearest changes involved the way data centers would be classified.

The initial draft separated data centers into several categories, including enterprise, minor, medium, major and campus or hyper-scale facilities. During the meeting, members discussed removing the enterprise category because several existing businesses may have small server rooms that were not intended to fall under data center regulation.

The commission also discussed combining minor and medium data centers into one minor category, and combining major and campus or hyper-scale projects into one major category.

The second major change involved how the largest projects would be approved.

The draft that entered the meeting listed campus or hyper-scale data centers as permitted by right in I2 industrial zoning. That raised a key question: if property was already zoned I2, or later rezoned to I2, whether the largest data centers could move through technical review without a separate special-use hearing.

Members moved away from that direction during the discussion, saying the largest data centers should require special-use review wherever they are allowed.

That change matters because a special use requires a public approval process. A permitted-by-right use still must meet county requirements, but the county has less discretion to reject the use if the application satisfies the rules.

Residents opposed to a possible data center continued to argue that a moratorium is needed before the county writes approval rules. Several asked why the county is preparing regulations if officials say no proposal has been filed.

APC members and county officials pointed residents toward the Posey County Commissioners as the body that would have authority to consider a moratorium.

Commissioner Greg Newman, who also sits on the APC, said the commissioners’ current view is that a moratorium would delay the issue rather than solve it. He said officials want data center rules in place as quickly as possible.

Without data center language in the UDO, county officials said any application for a data center would be treated as an unlisted use and would go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. In that case, the BZA would have to decide how to handle the application without data center-specific rules already written into county ordinance.

The draft amendment is being built to avoid that situation.

Among the proposed requirements discussed were detailed site plans showing property lines, setbacks, existing and proposed buildings, nearby buildings, soil types, wetlands, flood-hazard areas, utility routes, cooling equipment, generators, transformers, substations, landscaping, fencing, buffering and stormwater facilities.

The draft also included construction requirements, including haul routes, emergency access routes, coordination with the county highway department, construction traffic studies and road maintenance. One provision would require data centers to maintain roads used during construction and resurface those roads with asphalt after construction.

Power demand was another major area.

The draft would require a letter from the serving electric utility identifying the total requested electrical load in megawatts, the proposed interconnection point, any required substation or transmission upgrades and the proposed routing of new transmission lines. It also called for information on energy efficiency, phasing of electrical service, projected power usage effectiveness, on-site power generation, renewable energy integration and battery backup plans.

Water use also drew heavy attention from residents.

The draft language included a water use and management plan, with projected peak and average daily water use, a breakdown of domestic and cooling water, the water source, capacity approval from the serving utility or agency, proposed cooling methods and wastewater discharge approval.

Residents raised concerns about wells, groundwater, low water pressure and the effect a large facility could have on rural water systems. Several said disclosure alone would not be enough if a data center required large amounts of water.

Noise was also addressed in the rough draft.

The proposal called for a noise impact study prepared by a qualified acoustical professional. That study would identify noise-producing equipment, model projected sound levels at property boundaries and at dwellings within 500 feet of the property line, evaluate low-frequency noise and describe mitigation such as sound walls, berms, equipment enclosures, silencers or changes to site orientation.

The initial draft included maximum sound levels at the property line, along with post-construction sound and lighting testing. If a data center exceeded the ordinance’s sound requirements after construction, the operator would have to implement a remediation plan.

Lighting, emergency response and air emissions were also part of the draft. Proposed requirements included dark-sky lighting, full cut-off fixtures, limits on exterior lighting temperature, emergency response plans, battery storage safety protocols, hazardous materials procedures, air-emissions disclosures and documentation of any required state or federal air permits.

The emergency response discussion drew concern from residents who questioned whether local fire departments would have the training, equipment and manpower needed to respond to a fire or hazardous-material incident at a large data center.

The draft included language requiring data center operators to offer annual training to fire departments that could reasonably be expected to respond to an emergency at the site. It also said operators would have to provide or reimburse the county for special equipment reasonably expected to be needed by local emergency services.

The meeting took place against a larger backdrop of concern.

Public transmission-planning records tied to Project Raider show a proposed 600-megawatt new customer along the Posey-Gibson line. The records do not identify the customer or describe the facility as a data center, but the size and location have become a central part of local concern.

Residents have also said landowners near Boberg, Hoenert, Downen and Stierley roads have been approached about selling or leasing property. No public document has identified Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft or any other company as being behind a possible project.

That gap — between no public application and continued signs of private land and utility work — drove much of the public frustration.

Residents questioned whether county officials know more than they are able or willing to say. Some asked whether nondisclosure agreements could be involved. Others said officials should not wait for an application before acting because land agreements, surveying and utility planning can happen before a developer appears publicly.

The proposed amendment is expected to return for additional work. Marvel said the county expects at least one special meeting on the data center amendments, possibly two, before the matter returns to a regular APC meeting for a public hearing.

Officials said the revised amendments will be made available for the public before that hearing.

Even if the APC recommends language, final action would still have to move through the county’s approval process.

For now, the county is moving on two tracks.

Opponents want development paused while officials study possible effects on farmland, water, electric rates, roads, emergency services, noise, air quality and nearby property. County officials are working to place data centers inside the UDO before any application is filed.

Residents also questioned whether the county would be able to enforce the rules once a large company was operating. One resident asked what would happen if a data center failed to follow the ordinance after construction.

Marvel answered directly.

“We will shut them down,” Marvel said.