KSHB 41 News (Kansas City), by Isabella Ledonne · October 21, 2024 (updated October 23, 2024) · News article
Reports that Peculiar, Missouri's Board of Aldermen unanimously removed the "data center" definition it had added to the light industrial zoning code, blocking a proposed 500-acre data center campus next to homes and businesses. An alderman said staff had compared data centers to software and computer equipment manufacturing, and residents in Peculiar and Raymore organized for four months against the speed of the code change. The mayor's statement and residents' comments on trust and on getting zoning in place first are quoted.
“The Board of Alderman reversed that decision on Monday by removing the definition from the ordinance.” (body)
“Small rural communities aren't ready for this and they need to get their zoning stuff in place first” (resident Chad Buck)
Who should read it:
Small-town officials in the Kansas City region considering adding a data center use to an existing district.
Limitations:
News report, not the ordinance itself; the ordinance text was not located.
Cite as:
KSHB 41 News (Kansas City), by Isabella Ledonne. “Peculiar reverses zoning for data center after cries from neighbors.” October 21, 2024 (updated October 23, 2024). https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/peculiar-reverses-zoning-for-data-center-after-cries-from-neighbors
City of Independence, Missouri · undated page (meetings listed December 8, 2025 through March 2, 2026) · Web FAQ page
The city's FAQ on the Nebius data center campus at the NorthPoint-owned EastGate Commerce Center off Little Blue Parkway and Missouri Highway 78. It states the site was already zoned for industrial and business park uses so no rezoning was required, with site plan review and permits handled administratively. It describes power of at least 800 MW from a privately financed plant at the retired Blue Valley Power Plant site, ratepayer protections for Independence Power & Light customers, a closed-loop cooling system with a one-time fill, noise and lighting review, a Chapter 100 tax abatement approved 5-2 on March 2, 2026, a community benefits plan, and why some discussions were held in executive session.
“Data centers are an allowed use under the site's existing zoning, meaning no rezoning is required.” (How does zoning apply)
“This project will require at least 800 megawatts (MW) of power” (How will the project be powered)
“Nebius will use a closed-loop cooling system, which requires a one-time fill of approximately 1 million gallons per 200 MW building” (Water)
“The City Council voted 5-2 to approve a Chapter 100 tax abatement for the Nebius development”
Who should read it:
Kansas City region officials evaluating a project on land already zoned for it, and staff writing a public FAQ.
Limitations:
City-produced project FAQ; the page gives both "2.25 million square foot" (overview) and "Approximately 2.5 million square feet" (What is being built).
Cite as:
City of Independence, Missouri. “Nebius Data Center FAQs.” undated page (meetings listed December 8, 2025 through March 2, 2026). https://www.independencemo.gov/community-faqs/nebius-data-center-faqs
KQ2 (KQTV, St. Joseph, Missouri), by TaMya Bracy · July 13, 2026 · News article
Reports that at a July 13, 2026 work session the St. Joseph, Missouri City Council agreed to stop accepting new data center applications until its zoning code is updated and to seek an outside consultant for the update. A rezoning application for a proposed data center at 6321 Pickett Road had been withdrawn. Council members discussed whether current zoning is adequate, environmental effects, resource and taxpayer guardrails, and favored a condition-based approach; the mayor suggested visiting a community that hosts a data center.
“The council agreed not to accept any more data center applications until zoning codes are updated.” (closing)
“many council members agree a condition-based approach would be best when it comes to data centers” (body)
“Do we have adequate zoning regulations currently in effect to address this issue?” (Council member Gary Wilkinson)
Who should read it:
Councils in mid-sized Missouri and Kansas cities weighing a pause while they rewrite zoning.
Limitations:
News report of a work session; no ordinance text.
Cite as:
KQ2 (KQTV, St. Joseph, Missouri), by TaMya Bracy. “St. Joseph City Council pauses data center applications, seeks zoning update.” July 13, 2026. https://www.kq2.com/news/2026/07/13/st-joseph-city-council-pauses-data-center-applications-seeks-zoning-update/
City of Edgerton, Kansas · Public issue September 4, 2026; proposals due September 23, 2026 · PDF
Edgerton, a Johnson County, Kansas city of about 1,900 residents that hosts Logistics Park Kansas City, seeks a consultant for a community engagement campaign on emerging industries such as data centers, battery energy storage systems, energy production facilities and vertical farming. The RFP says the effort was initiated after public comments about a data center project and is the first of two steps; the results will guide an update to the Unified Development Code. It sets a schedule (Council consideration October 22, 2026, completion in early 2027), an anticipated budget range, required cost detail by task, and a scope beginning with project coordination and a list of emerging industries.
“This project was initiated by City Council following a series of public comments received during city meetings ... regarding concerns over a data center project.” (IV. Public Information)
“This public engagement campaign will serve as the foundation to guide the forthcoming update to the City's Unified Development Code (UDC)” (I. Introduction)
“The City anticipates proposals in the range of $15,000–$30,000.” (VII. Pricing)
Who should read it:
Small cities that want to run engagement before writing data center zoning rules.
Limitations:
A solicitation, not an adopted policy; only the first several pages of the scope were read. An Addendum 1 dated September 4, 2026 exists and was not read.
Cite as:
City of Edgerton, Kansas. “Request for Proposal for Community Engagement Regarding Emerging Industries 2026.” Public issue September 4, 2026; proposals due September 23, 2026. https://edgertonks.org/wp-content/uploads/REQUEST-FOR-PROPOSAL-EMERGING-IND-COMM-ENGAGE.pdf
City of Kansas City, Missouri, City Council (Legistar record and authenticated ordinance) · Passed January 15, 2026 · Legislative record with authenticated ordinance PDF and attachments
Kansas City's zoning code amendment (case CD-CPC-2025-00078) creating a Data Center use (Section 88-339) and a Large Format Uses category (Section 88-353) for buildings with a continuous footprint of 500,000 square feet or more, and moving data centers out of the Communications Service Establishments definition. Every data center must submit a utility Service Availability (Will Serve) letter confirming capacity; in business and downtown districts data centers need a special use permit and may not exceed 50 percent of the ground floor of a building with street frontage. Large format uses require a traffic impact study, may not produce noise, light, vibration or other impacts detectable beyond the property line, and face facade and screening rules including a 500-foot setback and berm, evergreen and fence buffer next to residential districts, parks and parkways, and 250 feet next to schools, hospitals and libraries. The record lists four actions from December 4, 2025 to passage on January 15, 2026 and posts more than 100 public testimony files.
“Data centers may not exceed more than 50% of the ground floor gross floor area of any building with street frontage.”
“Large format uses shall not produce odors, dust, vibration, noise, spillover light, or other external impacts that are detectable beyond the property lines”
“Large format uses are any large-scale industrial use facility with a continuous building footprint of 500,000 square feet or larger.”
Who should read it:
Kansas City region planners and councils, and any city writing a will-serve requirement or size-based review threshold.
Limitations:
Use tables did not extract cleanly from the PDF; table-based setback figures were read from extracted text and should be checked against the codified Chapter 88. The quoted provisions are from the attachment 'LFU Text Amendments_final to CC' posted on this Legistar file page, not from the page text itself.
Cite as:
City of Kansas City, Missouri, City Council (Legistar record and authenticated ordinance). “File #: 251031, Committee Substitute for Ordinance No. 251031 (Large Format Uses and Data Centers).” Passed January 15, 2026. https://kansascity.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7770725&GUID=10583898-2974-4B4E-B032-0FB3FD070094
KCUR 89.3, by Savannah Hawley-Bates · January 16, 2026 · News article
Explains Kansas City's unanimous January 2026 zoning change in plain language: data centers were previously treated like communications service establishments and could be built by right in most of the city. The change creates separate data center and large format categories, prohibits data centers in rural, residential, neighborhood and retail districts without rezoning or a special use permit, limits downtown data centers, and adds utility capacity letters. It reports about 30 data centers in the city, public testimony for and against, and council interest in studying water, energy, incentives and the Port Authority of Kansas City's tax breaks.
“There are about 30 data centers in Kansas City, Missouri. Until this week, developers could build one in nearly any part of the city.” (opening)
“The zoning change would reclassify data centers in their own categories.” (Details of the data center change)
“Many times you have more community engagement to put a fast food chain on North Oak than you do an actual multi-million or half a billion dollar data center” (Council member Nathan Willett)
Who should read it:
Residents and officials who want a readable summary of the Kansas City ordinance and the debate around it.
Limitations:
News summary; rely on the ordinance text for exact standards.
Cite as:
KCUR 89.3, by Savannah Hawley-Bates. “Kansas City just changed its zoning to make data centers harder to build.” January 16, 2026. https://www.kcur.org/housing-development-section/2026-01-16/kansas-city-zoning-data-centers
Leavenworth County, Kansas, Planning & Zoning · undated page (application numbers DEV-26-113 and DEV-26-114, Draft 1) · Web page listing application documents
Leavenworth County's public posting of the Project Bluestem applications near Tonganoxie: a Western Meadowlark Technology Park/Data Center planned unit development rezoning (DEV-26-113) and a companion Western Meadowlark Power Generation PUD (DEV-26-114). Each packet lists the exhibits submitted, including a conceptual site plan and cross sections, geotechnical investigation, wetlands delineation, Phase I environmental site assessments, water quality sampling, threatened and endangered species survey, traffic impact analysis, ambient sound monitoring, narrow band frequency and tonal analysis, will-serve letters, and proposed Planned Industrial Technology District regulations.
“DEV-26-113 DRAFT 1 Western Meadowlark Technology Park/Data Center PUD Application” (page heading)
“Exhibit L - Narrow Band Frequence Analysis and Tonal Analysis” (exhibit list)
“Exhibit M - Will Serve Letters” (exhibit list)
Who should read it:
County staff deciding what studies to require in a data center application, and residents following the Kansas City area's largest proposals.
Limitations:
Only the index of exhibits was read; the exhibits themselves (applicant documents) were not reviewed.
Cite as:
Leavenworth County, Kansas, Planning & Zoning. “Project Bluestem.” undated page (application numbers DEV-26-113 and DEV-26-114, Draft 1). https://www.leavenworthcounty.gov/departments/planning___zoning/project_bluestem.php
American Planning Association (Planning magazine), by Jacques Fluet · July 22, 2021 · Web article
A Planning magazine primer, written by the data center technology program director at the Telecommunications Industry Association, explaining traditional versus edge and colocation data centers for planners. It notes that traditional facilities range from 10,000 square feet to more than a million and need large amounts of electricity, water and redundant fiber. It flags security fencing, lighting, cooling fan and backup generator noise near residential areas, and on-site diesel or gas fuel storage as zoning issues. It recommends defining data centers as a distinct use rather than relying on ad hoc use determinations, and cites Loudoun County, Virginia as an early example.
“relatively few local zoning codes define and regulate data centers” (section introduction)
“By making data centers a distinct use, cities ensure clear zoning requirements are well defined” (Zoning, permitting, and regulation)
“some facilities can make significant noise, whether it be cooling fan systems or backup generators”
Who should read it:
Planning staff and commissioners in places whose code does not yet define a data center use.
Limitations:
Written in 2021 with an emphasis on 5G and edge facilities; the author is from an industry association; predates the AI-driven hyperscale wave.
Cite as:
American Planning Association (Planning magazine), by Jacques Fluet. “Data Centers Evolved: A Primer for Planners.” July 22, 2021. https://www.planning.org/planning/2021/summer/data-centers-evolved-a-primer-for-planners/
American Planning Association, Zoning Practice, by David Morley, AICP · June 1, 2022 · PDF
This Zoning Practice issue explains why cities, towns and counties may want to define and regulate data centers and cryptocurrency mining as distinct uses. Per the catalog abstract, it reviews the factors that drive siting demand, the key planning issues (electricity and water use, noise, safety and security needs, and low employment densities), poses questions to guide code drafting, and closes with short profiles of local zoning approaches that may serve as models.
“Data centers are the physical facilities where the internet lives.” (abstract)
“the operational characteristics of these facilities are typically quite distinct from those of surrounding land uses” (abstract)
Who should read it:
Code drafters and planning directors preparing a data center or crypto mining text amendment.
Limitations:
Only the catalog page and abstract were read; the full 8-page PDF requires sign-in (list price $10.00; free to Zoning Practice subscribers).
Cite as:
American Planning Association, Zoning Practice, by David Morley, AICP. “Zoning for Data Centers and Cryptocurrency Mining.” June 1, 2022. https://www.planning.org/publications/document/9249180/
National League of Cities · undated · Web resource
NLC's tracker of local government actions on data centers. The public landing page describes it as following how cities, towns and counties are adopting zoning standards, negotiating development agreements, reviewing infrastructure impacts and establishing moratoria. The tracker itself sits behind a member login or a free registration form, which was not submitted.
“Cities, towns and counties are adopting zoning standards, negotiating development agreements, reviewing infrastructure impacts, establishing moratoria” (landing page)
Who should read it:
Elected officials and staff who want to see what peer jurisdictions have adopted.
Limitations:
Tracker contents not read because access requires NLC login or a registration form.
Cite as:
National League of Cities. “Data Center Local Action Tracker.” undated. https://www.nlc.org/resource/data-center-local-action-tracker/
National League of Cities, by Kelly Aves · October 7, 2025 · Web article
Introduces NLC's three-part fact sheet series for local governments: a primer on data centers, a sheet on water and energy use, and a sheet on community strategies for zoning, permitting and policy tools. It notes that speeding data center construction was a priority in a January presidential executive order and the resulting National AI Action Plan. NLC urges local leaders to plan proactively and to work with state regulators, legislators, utilities and neighboring communities.
“By thinking about data centers proactively, instead of reactively, local leaders can position their city, town or village” (closing section)
“Cooling systems, which require significant amounts of water, can vary greatly in their water re-use levels” (body)
Who should read it:
Mayors, councilmembers and city managers new to the topic.
Limitations:
Short overview; substance is in the linked fact sheets.
Cite as:
National League of Cities, by Kelly Aves. “Helping Communities Understand the Data Center Boom.” October 7, 2025. https://www.nlc.org/article/2025/10/07/helping-communities-understand-the-data-center-boom/
National League of Cities (with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, per NACo's listing) · date not printed on the page · PDF
A three-page fact sheet on zoning, permitting and policy tools for data centers. It explains by-right, conditional use and special exception pathways, and profiles Fairfax County, Harrisonburg, Loudoun County and Prince William County, Virginia; Limerick Township, Pennsylvania; and Chandler and Mesa, Arizona. It covers overlays with noise, aesthetics, setback and environmental rules, energy and water benchmarking (Detroit, Chicago, Atlanta), and a New Albany, Ohio tax abatement paired with community benefits. It recommends early community engagement, converting buffers into public green space, and coordination with utilities and public utility commissions.
“older zoning codes do not explicitly address data centers. These facilities often fall between classifications.” (Zoning and Permitting)
“Harrisonburg, VA took a different approach by removing by-right permissions and requiring special use permits” (Zoning and Permitting)
“In return for a 15-year, 100 percent property tax abatement, the developer committed to stormwater mitigation, scholarships” (Policy Tools, New Albany, OH)
“Community engagement should begin early, before zoning changes are proposed” (Community Engagement and Placemaking)
Who should read it:
Planning directors, city attorneys and councils comparing zoning pathways and peer ordinances.
Limitations:
Brief summaries only; readers should confirm each jurisdiction's current adopted text.
Cite as:
National League of Cities (with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, per NACo's listing). “Community Strategies to Address Data Center Development and Operation.” date not printed on the page. https://www.nlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Data-Centers-Fact-Sheet-3.pdf
National Association of Counties (NACo) · February 24, 2026 · Web page with downloadable PDF
A framework for county elected officials, administrators and planners to evaluate, permit and oversee data centers. It explains how counties act through zoning ordinances, conditional or special use permits, site plan review and development agreements, and notes that state law may limit or share county land use authority. It summarizes common standards: setbacks of 200 to 500 feet from residential property, noise limits of about 65 decibels at the property line and 55 in quieter areas, A-weighted and C-weighted testing, daylight-only generator testing, office-like architectural treatment, and water balance studies, discharge standards and monitoring with curtailment triggers.
“their operations and infrastructure requirements more closely match those of a factory” (Zoning: Setbacks)
“Typical building setback requirements from property lines range from 200 feet to up to 500 feet from a residential property or zoning district.” (Setbacks)
“setting noise limits, often 65 decibels at the property line and 55 decibels in quieter or residential areas” (Noise)
“water balance studies, discharge water quality standards and long-term monitoring programs with defined curtailment plan triggers” (Water)
Who should read it:
County commissioners, county administrators and county planning directors.
Limitations:
NACo states the content is "intended for educational purposes only" and that it "does not endorse any particular strategy or approach."
Cite as:
National Association of Counties (NACo). “NACo Informational Primer and County Considerations: Data Centers.” February 24, 2026. https://www.naco.org/resource/naco-informational-primer-and-county-considerations-data-centers
National Association of Counties (NACo) · July 10, 2026 · Web resource hub
NACo's collection of data center resources for counties. It lists a fall 2026 webinar series (economic considerations on August 11, electricity trends on August 28, water use and cooling on September 11, 2026), 2026 Annual Conference summit slides, a December 14 to 16 peer exchange in Dorchester County, South Carolina, and county spotlights: Cuyahoga County, Ohio development recommendations, the Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania ordinance as a decommissioning model, and a Maricopa County, Arizona city ordinance with noise mitigation and mandatory neighborhood engagement. It also links partner resources from NADO, ULI, Climate Mayors, AAAS and NLC, and Brookings.
“Susquehanna County's ordinance provides a local model for data center decommissioning” (County Spotlights)
Urban Land Institute, ULI Americas Data Center Product Council (lead author Hannah Miet) · 2024 · PDF
A white paper that explains data center types and how they differ from warehouses, then lays out four regulatory options: an overlay district, a planned innovation, research and technology (PIRT) district, preferred locations in the comprehensive plan with owner-initiated rezonings and proffers, or a data center zoning district defined by ordinance, which it recommends as a best practice. Its model ordinance guidelines say data centers are not appropriate in residential districts, should be permitted in all industrial districts, and may be permitted by right in commercial districts if equipment is enclosed or screened, entrances and facades are articulated, and at least 30 percent of the primary facade is fenestration. It proposes a 200-foot separation from residential or noise-sensitive uses in industrial areas, heights to 100 feet, and parking based on actual office area or a staffing plan.
“offering a balanced model zoning ordinance for data center development that authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs) can adapt straight from the page”
“we believe that data centers are not appropriate in residential districts”
“be located at least 200 feet (61 m) from the residential or noise-sensitive use”
“A minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the primary facade shall be comprised of windows, doors, or similar fenestration design features such as faux windows”
Who should read it:
Planners and attorneys drafting a first data center ordinance who want model text to adapt.
Limitations:
Written by an industry product council; ULI states it "should not be relied upon as business or legal advice." The model leans toward by-right permission.
Cite as:
Urban Land Institute, ULI Americas Data Center Product Council (lead author Hannah Miet). “Local Guidelines for Data Center Development.” 2024. https://knowledge.uli.org/-/media/files/research-reports/2024/uli-data-center-whitepaper_hm_2024-11-12_final-final-round.pdf
Energy Policy and Innovation Center (EPIcenter), Georgia Institute of Technology (Yang You) · date not printed on the page · Interactive web dashboard
A side-by-side dashboard of Georgia local data center ordinances built from a review of municipal codes for over 180 Georgia cities and counties, with examples from other states. It is organized in five themes (site planning and building design; infrastructure and utilities; environmental and community protections; public safety and security; lifecycle governance) and topics such as setbacks, height, parking, power lines and substations, water, stormwater and sewer, noise and vibration, buffers, lighting, fencing, and decommissioning. Each topic offers summaries, exact adopted ordinance language and templates, plus a Georgia moratorium tracker and legislative activity tracker.
“Municipal codes for over 180 Georgia cities and counties were reviewed to identify ordinances specifically addressing data centers.” (About)
“users can access summaries, exact ordinance language adopted by jurisdictions, and ordinance templates” (How to use)
“does not constitute legal advice. Users should also consult official municipal codes for authoritative language” (Notes)
Who should read it:
Planners and attorneys anywhere who want to compare exact ordinance language topic by topic.
Limitations:
EPIcenter states it is "not a comprehensive review" because of limits in publicly accessible code data. Part of this note was removed because a number in it could not be matched to the source page.
Cite as:
Energy Policy and Innovation Center (EPIcenter), Georgia Institute of Technology (Yang You). “Georgia Data Center Ordinance Hub.” date not printed on the page. https://epicenter.energy.gatech.edu/data-center/
Georgia Tech Research News Center · March 30, 2026 · News release
Announces the Georgia Data Center Ordinance Hub, explains its five thematic areas, and describes the method: researchers reviewed municipal codes for about 180 Georgia cities and counties, identified data center-specific ordinances, and organized provisions such as building placement, setbacks, infrastructure and environmental considerations for comparison, adding examples from other states.
“We reviewed municipal codes for about 180 cities and counties across Georgia and identified ordinances that specifically address data center development” (Yang You)
“In total, we found 19 data center-specific topics that ordinances tend to cover.” (Yang You)
Who should read it:
Officials deciding whether the hub fits their needs.
Limitations:
Launch announcement; the live hub has since been updated.
Cite as:
Georgia Tech Research News Center. “EPIcenter Launches Georgia Data Center Ordinance Hub.” March 30, 2026. https://news.research.gatech.edu/2026/03/30/epicenter-launches-georgia-data-center-ordinance-hub
National guidance: research and policy organizations
Federation of American Scientists (FAS), State & Local Innovation · September 10, 2026 · Web report with downloadable PDF
A 2026 landscape assessment for local governments with three parts: an analysis of 42 local ordinances and ballot measures plus 12 state actions, a sample of data center taxable value over time in six counties, and a first comparison of ten executed community benefit or development agreements (Cedar Rapids, Pima County, Marysville, DeKalb, St. Louis, Festus, El Paso, Lancaster, Warrenton and Frederick County) obtained partly through public records requests. It finds most jurisdictions pause first, then reclassify data centers as industrial, require special use review and add setback, noise and water conditions; it tallies how often ordinances address moratoria, water and cooling, noise, definitions, setbacks (200 feet up to 1,500 to 2,000 feet), will-serve letters and decommissioning bonds. Field interviews stress that community benefit agreements supplement, not replace, zoning, that decommissioning enforcement is untested, and that jurisdictions should decide whether, where and under what conditions before negotiating.
“of 42 local ordinances and ballot measures reviewed, 33 of them were passed in 2026 alone, compared with two in 2024 and six in 2025” (Ordinance Analysis)
“a CBA cannot fix a zoning gap and a zoning ordinance cannot capture specific project commitments like a CBA can” (What We Heard)
“Determine up front if you want them, where you want them, and under what conditions you will take them.” (interviewee, What We Heard)
Who should read it:
Elected officials, city and county attorneys, and economic development staff negotiating incentives or community benefit agreements.
Limitations:
FAS states its 42-ordinance set "is not an exhaustive list"; property value sample covers six jurisdictions and does not analyze neighboring property values.
Cite as:
Federation of American Scientists (FAS), State & Local Innovation. “Before Breaking Ground: A Local Government Guide To Better Data Center Policy And Community Benefits.” September 10, 2026. https://fas.org/publication/before-breaking-ground/
National guidance: research and policy organizations
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Land Lines magazine, by Jon Gorey · October 17, 2025 · Magazine article
A land policy view of data centers' demands on land, water and power, drawing on a Lincoln Institute conference and experts from the Piedmont Environmental Council, Thames Water and USC. It covers Northern Virginia's concentration and Loudoun County's tax reliance, the loss of jobs per acre compared with older office campuses, backup diesel generators and air quality, evaporative cooling and basin-level water impacts, Newton County, Georgia's water use, and how regional costs spread beyond host communities. It urges early engagement of water utilities, integrated land, water and energy planning, state oversight of regional impacts, and greater transparency in place of nondisclosure agreements.
“Water is often one of the last things that gets thought about, so one of the things that we're really promoting is early engagement” (John Hernon, Thames Water)
“The only approval that they really have to get is from the locality, and the locality is not looking at the regional impacts” (Julie Bolthouse, Piedmont Environmental Council)
“In Newton County, Georgia, a Meta data center that opened in 2018 uses 500,000 gallons of water per day” (Putting a Finite Resource First)
Who should read it:
Local officials and water utility managers weighing land and water tradeoffs.
Limitations:
Journalistic feature with advocacy perspectives; figures are attributed to cited studies and interviewees.
Cite as:
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Land Lines magazine, by Jon Gorey. “Data Drain: The Land and Water Impacts of the AI Boom.” October 17, 2025. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/land-lines-magazine/articles/land-water-impacts-data-centers/
Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Data Center Working Group · May 2026 · PDF
A practical guide for Cuyahoga County municipalities. It explains data center types, recommends a temporary moratorium to assess infrastructure and update zoning (citing Aurora, Illinois's six-month moratorium), and advises creating a data center use category, stronger-than-industrial setbacks and screening near homes, schools and parks, and conditional use permits with specific, measurable, enforceable conditions. It lists warning signs of an undisclosed data center proposal (vague project names, 100 to 300+ acre assemblages, anonymous LLCs, 50 to 200+ MW utility inquiries), a checklist of questions to ask developers, community benefit agreement terms for economy, energy, water and land, and a "What Not to Do" list.
“The conditions should be specific, measurable, and enforceable.”
“Do not sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).”
“Standard industrial setbacks may be insufficient for data centers with significant noise, light, and generator emissions.”
“Inquiries to the utility about 50 – 200+ MW loads”
Who should read it:
Mayors, councils and staff in any municipality that may be approached by a developer, especially before signing anything.
Limitations:
Advisory guidance from a county working group, not an ordinance.
Cite as:
Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Data Center Working Group. “Data Center Development: Recommendations for Local Communities.” May 2026. https://cuyahogacms.blob.core.windows.net/home/docs/default-source/sustainability/datacenterrecommendations.pdf
City of Chandler, Arizona, City Council · 2022 (Planning and Zoning Commission hearing October 19, 2022) · PDF
Amends Chandler's zoning code to define data centers and to bar them unless explicitly approved as part of a Planned Area Development zoning district; small ancillary enterprise data centers (no more than ten percent of the building footprint, not leased to third parties, not stand-alone) are allowed. Before building, the owner must mail notice to all addresses and HOAs within a half mile, hold two neighborhood meetings with a decision-maker present, post signs, and commission a third-party baseline sound study. The design must keep sound from exceeding the baseline ambient levels, with post-construction noise studies annually for five years, an on-site neighborhood liaison from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. on request, and backup generator testing limited to 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays with 24 hours of public web notice.
“Data Centers are not permitted to operate in the City of Chandler unless explicitly approved as part of a Planned Area Development zoning district.”
“sufficient to prevent the sound levels emanating from the Data Center ... from exceeding the ambient noise levels that were observed in the baseline study”
“backup generators may operate between the hours of 9:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays”
Who should read it:
Councils and planners in suburban communities where data centers may abut neighborhoods; staff drafting noise and notice rules.
Limitations:
The adoption day was not legible in the extracted text of the signed copy.
Cite as:
City of Chandler, Arizona, City Council. “Ordinance No. 5033 (Data Centers), City of Chandler, Arizona.” 2022 (Planning and Zoning Commission hearing October 19, 2022). https://www.chandleraz.gov/sites/default/files/departments/development-services/PLH22-0053-Ordinance-No-5033-Data-Center.pdf
Susquehanna County Board of Commissioners · Enacted December 29, 2025 · PDF
Amends the county Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance to govern the development, construction, operation and decommissioning of data centers, including crypto mining and server farms. It defines sensitive receptors (homes, schools, daycares, nursing homes, places of worship, parks and others), sets a bracketed 60-foot maximum height and 200-foot setback from residential or sensitive receptors, a 50-foot buffer with at least 25 feet of dense landscaping, and a 6-foot security fence. A professional sound study must show 67 dB(A) maximum daytime levels with a lower nighttime and weekend limit. Decommissioning must be completed within 12 months after 12 months of non-use, with an engineer's cost estimate and posted financial security.
“set back [200] feet from the boundary of [Residential] or the lot line of any property developed with a sensitive receptor”
“post and maintain Decommissioning Funds in an amount equal to Net Decommissioning Costs +10%”
Who should read it:
County and township officials, especially in rural areas, concerned about long-term liability and site restoration.
Limitations:
Several numbers appear in square brackets in the adopted text, suggesting template language; the nighttime decibel figure was cut off in the extracted text and is not reported here.
Cite as:
Susquehanna County Board of Commissioners. “Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania Ordinance No. 2025-01 (SALDO amendment, Section 713 Data Centers).” Enacted December 29, 2025. https://www.susqco.com/getmedia/4304e65c-d89c-4541-9c34-11e7cfc62dc3/Ordinance-2025-01-SALDO-Data-Centers.pdf
Fairfax County, Virginia, Board of Supervisors · September 10, 2024 · PDF
The adopted text of Fairfax County's data center amendment. It requires cooling, ventilation and generator equipment to be fully enclosed or screened, caps buildings at 40,000 square feet in C-3 and C-4 and 80,000 square feet in I-2, I-3 and I-4 unless a special exception is approved, and requires buildings to sit at least 200 feet and ground equipment at least 300 feet from residential lot lines (or be shielded by the building). Data center buildings must be at least one mile from a Metro station entrance, and pre-site-plan and post-construction noise studies must show compliance with the county Noise Ordinance. By-right buildings need a distinct entrance, facade changes every 150 horizontal feet and at least 30 percent fenestration; the amendment also removes data centers from the PRC district and adds grandfathering rules keyed to July 16, 2024.
“Any data center building must be located at least 200 feet from the lot line of an R district or a property developed with a residential use.”
“A data center building must be located at least one mile from a Metro station entrance.”
“a post-construction noise study must be submitted demonstrating to the Zoning Administrator's satisfaction that the operation complies with the Noise Ordinance”
“comprise a minimum of 30 percent of the individual façade”
Who should read it:
Code drafters who want tested, adopted standards on size thresholds, separation distances, transit proximity and design.
Limitations:
Parts of the use tables did not extract cleanly from the PDF; consult the county's codified ordinance for current text.
Cite as:
Fairfax County, Virginia, Board of Supervisors. “ZO 112.1-2024-9 / ZO 112.2-2024-8: Adoption of an Amendment to Chapters 112.1 and 112.2 (Zoning) (Data Centers).” September 10, 2024. https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/sites/planning-development/files/Assets/Documents/zoning%20ordinance/adopted%20amendments/ZO_112_1-2024-9.pdf
Loudoun County, Virginia, Department of Planning and Zoning · undated page; open houses scheduled September 28 and 30, 2026 · Web project page
Loudoun County's project page for its data center comprehensive plan and zoning amendments (CPAM-2024-0001 and ZOAM-2024-0001). The Board initiated the review on February 6, 2024; Phase 1, approved March 18, 2025, made data centers a conditional or Special Exception use where they had been by right. A Grandfathering Resolution covers certain applications accepted before February 12, 2025, and an Application Pathway Guide explains it. Phase 2 is developing use-specific zoning standards for data centers and utility substations, with drop-in open houses in September 2026 and Planning Commission review expected in February 2027.
“to designate data centers as a conditional or Special Exception (SPEX) use in areas where the uses were previously allowed by-right”
“certain data center applications accepted prior to February 12, 2025, may continue to be reviewed and processed without obtaining SPEX approval” (Grandfathering Resolution)
“noise metering demonstrations from county Zoning Enforcement” (open house description)
Who should read it:
Officials considering a shift from by-right to special exception review, and staff planning public engagement on standards.
Limitations:
Phase 2 standards are not yet adopted.
Cite as:
Loudoun County, Virginia, Department of Planning and Zoning. “Data Center Standards & Locations.” undated page; open houses scheduled September 28 and 30, 2026. https://www.loudoun.gov/5990/Data-Center-Standards-Locations
Explains where data centers can locate in Loudoun (only on land zoned for office and industrial uses; not in the rural policy area covering about two-thirds of the county) and why the county says it cannot adopt a moratorium under Virginia law. It describes the March 18, 2025 amendments that made data centers a special exception use, explains by-right development, and notes the county has no formal role in routing high-voltage transmission lines, which the State Corporation Commission approves.
“Loudoun County does not have the legal authority to implement a moratorium on new data center applications.” (body)
“This eliminates data centers as a “by-right” (use in the county." (Data Center Standards & Locations Project)
“Loudoun County has no formal role in the approval process for the route of high-voltage transmission lines.” (Transmission Lines)
Who should read it:
Officials and residents asking whether a moratorium is legally available; staff explaining by-right versus special exception.
Limitations:
The moratorium analysis is specific to Virginia law.
Cite as:
Loudoun County, Virginia. “Data Centers: Land Use Considerations.” undated. https://www.loudoun.gov/6410/Land-Use-Considerations
Overlay districts and pending amendments: Virginia
Prince William County, Virginia, Planning Office · undated page; Board public hearing scheduled September 22, 2026 · Web project page with staff reports
Tracks Prince William County's 2026 zoning text amendment to its Data Center Opportunity Zone Overlay District. Initiated March 3, 2026 (Res. No. 26-125), paused May 19, and re-initiated June 9, 2026 (Res. No. 26-374), the amendment shrinks the overlay to parcels meeting one or more of five eligibility pathways and closes it to future expansion. Outside the overlay, new data centers in business, office and industrial districts would need a Special Use Permit. On September 9, 2026 the Planning Commission recommended approval, extending an eligibility window from 90 to 120 days and adding a 500-foot setback from existing homes and schools for one pathway.
“the Overlay is closed to any future expansion” (body)
“This structural shift establishes the SUP as the primary pathway for new data center development outside the DCOZOD” (body)
“maintain a minimum 500-foot setback between data center structures and existing homes and schools”
Who should read it:
Officials in jurisdictions that used a by-right overlay and are now considering narrowing it.
Limitations:
Not yet adopted as of this page; Board hearing set for September 22, 2026.
Cite as:
Prince William County, Virginia, Planning Office. “DPA2026-00006: Data Center Opportunity Zone Overlay District (DCOZOD).” undated page; Board public hearing scheduled September 22, 2026. https://www.pwcva.gov/department/planning-office/dpa2026-00006-data-center-opportunity-zone-overlay-district-dcozod
Overlay districts and pending amendments: Virginia
Prince William County, Virginia, Planning Office · undated page (project initiated May 18, 2021) · Web project page
Explains the purpose of Prince William County's Data Center Opportunity Zone Overlay District: to steer data centers to areas with existing infrastructure while limiting impacts on surrounding communities. It records the Board's May 18, 2021 initiation (Res. No. 21-327) of amendments to the overlay, the Design and Construction Standards Manual, the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance, and lists the eight zoning districts where new proposals outside the revised overlay would need a Special Use Permit.
“created to promote the development of data centers within areas of the County where there is existing infrastructure that could adequately support the proposed use” (intro)
“Data centers are on the Board of County Supervisors adopted List of Targeted Industries” (intro)
Who should read it:
Planners evaluating an overlay-district approach to siting.
Limitations:
Project page; task documents are in collapsed sections not reviewed here.
Cite as:
Prince William County, Virginia, Planning Office. “DPA2021-00020: Data Center Opportunity Zone Overlay District Comprehensive Review.” undated page (project initiated May 18, 2021). https://www.pwcva.gov/department/planning-office/data-center-overlay-district-comprehensive-review
Overlay districts and pending amendments: Virginia
Prince William County, Virginia, Planning Office · Update: August 5, 2026 · Web project page
The county's record of the PW Digital Gateway, a comprehensive plan amendment (CPA2021-00004, adopted November 1, 2022, Res. No. 22-508) creating a technology corridor for data centers along Pageland Lane near Manassas National Battlefield Park and Conway Robinson Memorial State Forest (study area review), with three related rezonings. The August 5, 2026 update states that after a July 29, 2026 Virginia Court of Appeals order, the Board's rezoning approvals are void and zoning reverts, while the comprehensive plan amendment was upheld. Any new rezoning would need the normal application and hearing process, and properties are being reassessed for tax purposes.
“The Board of County Supervisors decisions to approve the rezoning of the property are void”
“The Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property remains in place, as the Court of Appeals upheld that action” (Update)
“Real Estate Assessments will now work to reassess all the individual properties and update the tax bills.” (Next Steps)
Who should read it:
Elected officials and county attorneys weighing large corridor rezonings and the procedural risk of legal challenge.
Limitations:
The page does not explain the court's reasoning.
Cite as:
Prince William County, Virginia, Planning Office. “PW Digital Gateway.” Update: August 5, 2026. https://www.pwcva.gov/department/planning-office/pw-digital-gateway
Frederick County, Maryland, Livable Frederick Planning and Design Office · undated page; County Council hearings December 16 and 17, 2025 · Web project page with maps
Frederick County's record for the Critical Digital Infrastructure (CDI) Overlay Zone comprehensive plan amendment and comprehensive rezoning. It posts the overlay maps, property owner inclusion requests, the Planning Commission's recommended amendment and Resolution 2025-1, state agency and neighboring jurisdiction comments, and the adopted County Council Resolution 26-01 and Ordinance 26-01-001. It lists Planning Commission workshops (July 2025), hearings (October 15, 2025) and County Council hearings (December 16 and 17, 2025), and dozens of batches of public comment.
“County Council Ordinance 26-01-001: Comprehensive Zoning for the Critical Digital Infrastructure Overlay Zone” (Documents)
“The official record was closed on October 15, 2025, at 3:31 p.m.” (Public Comment)
Who should read it:
Staff designing a map-based overlay process and a transparent public record.
Limitations:
Index page; standards are in the linked ordinance and code sections.
Cite as:
Frederick County, Maryland, Livable Frederick Planning and Design Office. “Critical Digital Infrastructure Overlay Zone.” undated page; County Council hearings December 16 and 17, 2025. https://frederickcountymd.gov/9128/Critical-Digital-Infrastructure-Overlay-
Frederick County, Maryland Code of Ordinances (American Legal Publishing) · Bill No. 25-09, September 2, 2025 (code supplement 2026 S-45) · Online codified ordinance
The codified overlay zone text. It directs data centers (Critical Digital Infrastructure Facilities) and their substations to industrial land near data conveyance infrastructure, allows the overlay only on land planned Limited or General Industrial, requires the Council to consider proximity to schools, colleges, daycare, health care and homes, and caps the overlay at less than 1 percent of county land. Within the overlay, data centers and substations are principal permitted uses subject to site plan approval only in LI and GI districts, and must meet separate use standards in sections 1-19-8.402 and 1-19-8.403. Natural Resource land within parcels is excluded from density and overlay uses.
“directing Critical Digital Infrastructure Facilities and Critical Digital Infrastructure Electric Substations to industrial lands in proximity to data conveyance infrastructure” (A)
“shall include less than 1% of the total land area of the county”
“the County Council shall consider proximity to schools, colleges and universities, daycare centers, healthcare facilities, and residential uses”
Who should read it:
Counties considering a capped, map-based overlay rather than districtwide permission.
Limitations:
Use-specific standards in sections 1-19-8.402 and 8.403 were not read.
Cite as:
Frederick County, Maryland Code of Ordinances (American Legal Publishing). “§ 1-19-10.1100. Critical Digital Infrastructure Overlay Zone (CDI-OZ).” Bill No. 25-09, September 2, 2025 (code supplement 2026 S-45). https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/frederickcounty/latest/frederickco_md/0-0-0-63013
Linn County, Iowa · undated page (ordinance approved February 18, 2026; moratorium effective July 1, 2026) · Web project page with ordinance
Linn County's page on its February 18, 2026 data center ordinance and its later moratorium. The ordinance creates rules for small and large data centers covering setbacks, noise, traffic and road impacts, emergency planning and site plan review, and requires large projects to complete a water study, sign a water use agreement with tracking and drought provisions, and sign an economic development agreement that includes a community fund. On top of that, the Board approved an 18-month moratorium, effective July 1, 2026 and running to January 1, 2028, on new applications to rezone land to the EU-3 Large-Scale Data Center district, to study cumulative impacts on water, power, roads and emergency services. The page notes the moratorium does not apply inside cities.
“an 18-month moratorium on accepting new applications to rezone property to the EU-3 Large-Scale Data Center Zoning District” (Data Center Moratorium)
“The agreement must include a community fund to support things like infrastructure, services, environmental protection, and workforce development” (Data Center Ordinance)
“The moratorium does not apply to cities within Linn County because the Board of Supervisors does not have jurisdiction over zoning regulations in cities.” (Data Center Moratorium)
Who should read it:
County officials, especially where water supply is a central concern, and those considering a pause after adopting rules.
Limitations:
Links to unsigned approved versions of the ordinance and resolution.
Cite as:
Linn County, Iowa. “Data Centers in Unincorporated Linn County.” undated page (ordinance approved February 18, 2026; moratorium effective July 1, 2026). https://www.linncountyiowa.gov/1862/Data-Centers-in-Unincorporated-Linn-Coun
Linn County, Iowa, Board of Supervisors (Planning & Development) · Approved February 18, 2026 (unsigned approved version) · PDF
The ordinance text creating an EU-3 Large-Scale Data Center district and standards for small-scale data centers. Applications must include utility verification from the power provider, a lighting plan with full-cutoff fixtures, a backup power plan (generator count, testing, emissions, fuel storage), a road use agreement with pre- and post-construction road surveys and possible financial assurance, a pre-construction noise analysis, a water use agreement and an emergency response plan. Setbacks are 200 feet to property lines and 1,000 feet from the nearest building to places of public assembly and residentially zoned property, including in cities. Noise is capped at 55 dBA or 65 dBC hourly average at occupied homes (65 dBA or 75 dBC at other occupied structures), with generator testing limited to 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. weekdays and noise re-evaluations every five years.
“1,000 feet (measured from the closest outer wall of the closest building on the data center property) to the closest outer wall of a place of public assembly and to the property line of any residentially zoned property”
“The average hourly noise level shall not exceed fifty-five (55) dBA or sixty-five (65) dBC”
“Equipment testing, maintenance activities, and construction activities that generate elevated noise, including generator testing, shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday”
“Approval for large-scale data center projects shall be conditioned on the applicant demonstrating there is sufficient reliable water supply”
Who should read it:
Code drafters who want model language for dBC limits, road use agreements, backup power plans and water supply review.
Limitations:
Part of this note was removed because a number in it could not be matched to the source page.
Cite as:
Linn County, Iowa, Board of Supervisors (Planning & Development). “An Ordinance Amending the Code of Ordinances, Linn County, Iowa, Chapter 107, Regarding the EU-3 Exclusive Use Three Large-Scale Data Centers District.” Approved February 18, 2026 (unsigned approved version). https://www.linncountyiowa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/27695/PA26-0001-Ordinance-PDF
Spencer County, Indiana, Board of Commissioners (prepared by Shiloh Counsel LLC) · 2026 (adoption date line blank in the posted copy) · PDF
Makes data centers a special exception use only in I-1 and I-2 districts, and only on a "Power-Generating Industrial Parcel" with current or recent power generation or a 69 kV or higher substation, citing the Rockport Energy Center corridor. Applications require a dBA and dBC pre-construction noise study, utility documentation of maximum megawatt demand, projected water use, cooling type and wastewater capacity, generator tier and emissions details, a microgrid feasibility assessment, and a ban on county nondisclosure agreements. Standards include 50 dBA Leq at the property line (or no increase over ambient), no dBC increase over ambient, a 500-foot setback from residential or occupied agricultural land (1,000 feet recommended), 20-foot effective screening, 60-foot height, 0.5 FAR, 10-hour minimum energy storage, annual water use statements, and 1,000-foot mailed notice. It notes state preemption of private generation under IC 36-7-4-1109.5 and ties sales tax exemption use to a county agreement under HEA 1210 (2026).
“Data Centers are not permitted by right in any zoning district.”
“shall not exceed 50 dBA, measured as an equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) at the Data Center's property line”
Who should read it:
Rural counties with existing power plants or transmission, and anyone drafting dBC, NDA or energy storage provisions.
Limitations:
The posted copy leaves the adoption date and signatures blank; confirm final adopted status with the county.
Cite as:
Spencer County, Indiana, Board of Commissioners (prepared by Shiloh Counsel LLC). “Spencer County, Indiana Board of Commissioners Ordinance No. 2026-07: An Ordinance Amending the Spencer County Zoning Ordinance to Establish Standards and Special Exception Procedures for Data Center Facilities.” 2026 (adoption date line blank in the posted copy). https://www.in.gov/counties/spencer/files/commissioners/Ordinance-2026-07-Data-Centers.pdf
Limerick Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Board of Supervisors · date not printed on the page · PDF
Adds a data center definition and permits data centers by conditional use in the township's Logistics Center/Warehouse Conditional Use Overlay District on HI Heavy Industrial land (the Publicker site). It requires public water and sewer, arterial or collector access, a PennDOT-format traffic impact study with bonded transportation improvements, common open space of one acre per 30,000 square feet of building, and a second emergency access. Buildings are capped at 60 feet and set back 400 feet from existing homes, or 200 feet if sound studies show 65 dB daytime and 50 dB nighttime limits are met. Data center equipment may not sit in front yards and must be separated from residential districts by a principal building, with preliminary, interim and as-built sound studies covering normal and emergency (generator) operation.
“the minimum building setback and minimum parking and loading setback shall be 400 feet from existing residential uses”
“a maximum daytime (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) decibel level of 65 and a maximum nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) decibel level of 50 as measured from the property line of the Data Center use”
“DCE shall be separated from any adjacent residential district by a principal building.”
Who should read it:
Townships adding data centers to an existing warehouse or industrial overlay.
Limitations:
Superseded in part by Ordinance No. Part of this note was removed because a number in it could not be matched to the source page.
Cite as:
Limerick Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Board of Supervisors. “Limerick Township Ordinance No. 428 (Data Center in the Logistics Center/Warehouse Conditional Use Overlay District).” date not printed on the page. https://www.limerickpa.org/DocumentCenter/View/7420/Data-Center-Ordinance-No-428---Adopted-June-18-2024
Limerick Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Board of Supervisors · Adopted November 12, 2024 (per the township's document title) · PDF
Expands and revises Limerick's data center rules. It adds definitions for Data Center Equipment and Data Center Accessory Uses (substations, pump stations, water towers, cooling towers, backup power), sets data center noise limits of 67 dB(A) weekday daytime and 57 dB(A) nights and weekends at the property line with preliminary, interim and as-built sound studies, and creates a Data Center Overlay option by conditional use in the LLI district within three-quarters of a mile of a named intersection. Standards include public water and sewer (with capacity augmentation if needed), woodland clearing beyond 50 percent only with caliper-for-caliper replacement, 400-foot setbacks from homes (200 feet with sound compliance), a 120-foot height limit for data center buildings, and no FAR limit.
“a maximum daytime (7:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday-Friday) decibel level of 67 dB(A) and a maximum nighttime (8:00 PM to 7:00 AM Monday-Friday and all day Saturday and all day Sunday) decibel level of 57 dB(A)”
“The total caliper of the portion of disturbed woodlands in excess of the first 50 percent shall be replaced.”
“Maximum building height (feet) for a building housing a Data Center shall be 120 feet.”
Who should read it:
Suburban townships balancing industrial land use, noise and tree cover.
Limitations:
Page 9 was not reviewed; confirm the current codified text with the township, since later amendments may exist.
Cite as:
Limerick Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Board of Supervisors. “Limerick Township Ordinance No. 431 (Data Center Overlay Option and Data Center Standards).” Adopted November 12, 2024 (per the township's document title). https://www.limerickpa.org/DocumentCenter/View/7421/Data-Center-Ordinance-No-431---Adopted-November-12-2024
City of Aurora, Illinois, Zoning and Planning · Regulations adopted March 25, 2026 (moratorium enacted September 25, 2025) · Web page with ordinances
Aurora's page on the regulations it adopted after a 180-day moratorium on new data centers and warehouses. All new data centers are conditional uses requiring a public hearing, City Council approval, online, newspaper and mailed notice, and water, energy and sound studies with sound verification before final occupancy. Performance standards cover day and night noise, vibration, energy use (modular nuclear prohibited) and water use (evaporative cooling prohibited), plus on-site renewables of 25 percent of peak load or battery storage of 50 percent of peak load for 15 minutes. New and existing data centers must report energy and water use and noise tests annually, certify biometric data protection, test no more than two generators at a time, and monitor vibration continuously. The page explains the moratorium's purpose, its hardship and conditional processing pathways, and the task force and public engagement process.
“All new data centers are conditional use” (Transparent Public Process)
“Water use limits; evaporative cooling prohibited” (Performance Standards)
“On-site renewable (25% of peak load)”
“Currently, Aurora's zoning ordinance and building codes do not include specific standards for data center developments and instead classify them as warehouses.” (Why Enact A Moratorium?)
Who should read it:
Suburban cities considering a moratorium followed by a comprehensive performance-based package.
Limitations:
The mayor's quoted statement is dated 3/25/2026 and refers to the prior evening, while the presentations list shows a City Council meeting on 03/24/2026; confirm the adoption date in the ordinances.
Cite as:
City of Aurora, Illinois, Zoning and Planning. “New Data Center and Warehouse Regulations.” Regulations adopted March 25, 2026 (moratorium enacted September 25, 2025). https://www.aurora.il.us/Property-Business/Zoning-and-Planning/New-Data-Center-and-Warehouse-Regulations
City of San Angelo, Texas, City Council · Passed May 19, 2026; effective May 19, 2026 · PDF
Adopted after a proposed project and a consultant-led Northeast Sector Master Plan, it allows new data centers (excluding cryptocurrency mining) only by Conditional Use in Light and Heavy Manufacturing districts, with a detailed site plan, sound study and traffic impact analysis. Generator testing is limited to 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., with ISO 9613 sound modeling before site plan approval and post-occupancy verification.
“New data centers shall be permitted as a principal use by Conditional Use (CU) only”
“Minimum front building setback: 300 feet to nearest property line of residentially zoned property”
“limited to a maximum sound level of 55 dBa during the daytime and 55 dBa at nighttime”
“Generator testing conducted between 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.”
Who should read it:
Texas and other mid-sized cities facing a specific project and needing complete, adoptable standards quickly.
Limitations:
Pages 8 to 10 and 12 to 15 were read only in part. Part of this note was removed because a number in it could not be matched to the source page.
Cite as:
City of San Angelo, Texas, City Council. “Ordinance 2026 of the City of San Angelo, Texas, creating Zoning Ordinance Section 430 "Data Centers".” Passed May 19, 2026; effective May 19, 2026. https://www.sanangelo.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2255/Data-Center-Sec-430---Land-Use-Regulations-5-20-26-PDF
City of Independence, Missouri · undated page (City Council meeting July 6, 2026 listed) · Web FAQ page
Explains the Independence City Council's temporary 180-day moratorium on new applications, permits and licenses for data centers and battery energy storage system (BESS) facilities. It applies only to projects not already submitted, authorized or approved, so it does not affect the Nebius project. The stated purpose is to review zoning, building, fire, business licensing, development and public safety rules; the city says the moratorium may be extended and is not a ban.
“a temporary 180-day moratorium on new applications, permits and licenses related to data centers and battery energy storage system facilities” (What did Council Approve?)
“The moratorium does not apply to the Nebius data center project” (FAQ)
“The moratorium is not a ban.” (FAQ)
Who should read it:
Officials drafting a time-limited pause and explaining it to the public.
Limitations:
The moratorium ordinance text itself was not read.
Cite as:
City of Independence, Missouri. “Data Center & BESS Moratorium FAQs.” undated page (City Council meeting July 6, 2026 listed). https://www.independencemo.gov/community-faqs/data-center-bess-moratorium-faqs
St. Louis Public Radio, by Abby Llorico · May 20, 2026 · News article
Reports that the St. Charles, Missouri City Council voted 7-1 to pass a bill that defines data centers in the zoning code and lists them as neither permitted nor conditional uses anywhere in the city, effectively banning large-scale data centers. The vote made permanent a one-year moratorium adopted the previous fall amid opposition to a $1 billion AI data center proposal off Highway 370, whose developer, CRG Cumulus, withdrew its application. It notes the council had tabled an expansion of the moratorium in February.
“The bill defines data centers within the city's zoning code, and clarifies that data centers are not listed for permitted or conditional use anywhere within St. Charles.” (body)
“The 7-1 vote makes permanent a one-year moratorium on proposals that was put in place in the fall” (body)
“This is a straightforward step that closes a gap in the code and provides clarity for residents, staff, and applicants”
Who should read it:
Missouri officials weighing definition-plus-exclusion as an approach, and the legal and economic tradeoffs of a ban.
Limitations:
News report; the ordinance text was not read.
Cite as:
St. Louis Public Radio, by Abby Llorico. “St. Charles approves a ban on data centers.” May 20, 2026. https://www.stlpr.org/2026-05-20/st-charles-passes-a-ban-on-data-centers
Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, by Kala Hunter · Originally published June 2, 2026; updated August 20, 2026 · News article
A statewide survey of Georgia local responses. By the paper's count, 55 cities and counties have passed data center moratoria (33 active) and 37 counties and 31 cities have updated or plan to update codes. It describes Atlanta, Palmetto and Fayetteville prohibiting data centers, Cherokee County extending a moratorium by 180 days, a lawsuit over Coweta County's approval of Project Sail, DeKalb County's year-long text amendment process, Columbus's technology overlay (also challenged in court), and the contrast between LaGrange's two-page ordinance and Troup County's 17-page amendment with a 1,500-foot setback and Tier 4 generator requirement. Advocates recommend outside land use counsel during drafting.
“A combined 55 cities and counties have passed a moratorium on data centers in Georgia, according to the Ledger-Enquirer's latest count, including 33 active now.” (opening)
“Troup County ordinance is a 17-page, text amendment requiring restrictions such as a 1,500-foot setback, the developer to use Tier 4 diesel generators” (Best and worst outcomes)
“A protective ordinance can function like a ban” (Cyndie Roberson)
Who should read it:
Officials in fast-growing markets comparing the range from permissive to prohibitive approaches.
Limitations:
Newspaper tallies and advocate characterizations; verify each ordinance at the source. The on-page headline differs from the page title used here.
Cite as:
Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, by Kala Hunter. “Communities draft varied ordinances amid Georgia land rush.” Originally published June 2, 2026; updated August 20, 2026. https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/environment/article315964444.html
FPI News (nonprofit newsroom), by Carson Gerber · July 9, 2026 (per URL; map data as of June 25, 2026) · News article
Reports that more than a third of Indiana counties restrict data centers through regulations, temporary moratoriums or bans, per Indiana University's Environmental Resilience Institute. Marshall County adopted the state's first county moratorium in January 2025 and the first outright ban in April 2026; two counties have bans. Miami County passed a moratorium in April while drafting rules that could bar water-intensive cooling or siting near schools and hospitals, and Indianapolis is advancing a data center zoning district with setbacks, utility use and noise limits. It cites about 60 large proposals in two years and a May letter from 27 organizations urging moratoria.
“In April 2026, the county became the first to outright ban the facilities.” (Marshall County)
“In just the last two years, around 60 large-scale data center proposals have been filed in Indiana” (body, citing Citizen Action Coalition)
“The goal isn't to ban developments, she said, but implement setbacks and noise requirements aimed at protecting residents.” (Janet McCabe, IU Environmental Resilience Institute)
Who should read it:
Midwest county officials weighing moratorium, ban or ordinance options.
Limitations:
News reporting; figures are attributed to IU and advocacy groups.
Cite as:
FPI News (nonprofit newsroom), by Carson Gerber. “More than a third of Indiana counties now restrict data center developments.” July 9, 2026 (per URL; map data as of June 25, 2026). https://fpinews.org/policy/2026/07/09/data-centers-indiana-bans-moratoriums/
Seattle City Council (news release) · June 9, 2026 · News release
Announces unanimous adoption of amended Council Bill 121214, an emergency moratorium on siting new large data centers while the city studies impacts, and Resolution 32204, a policy framework directing departments to analyze grid capacity, water use, utility rates, land use, jobs and public health. The moratorium defines data centers by power capacity over 20 megavolt-amperes and uninterruptible power, can be extended six months, and takes effect immediately with a public hearing required within 60 days. It notes four companies had approached Seattle City Light about five large facilities totaling 369 megawatts, and that smaller colocation facilities serve 911 centers, hospitals and universities.
“Data centers are defined as facilities used primarily for storing and processing digital data, having power capacity over 20 Megavolt-Amperes, and requiring uninterruptible power.” (body)
“four companies had approached Seattle City Light to build five large-scale data centers”
“The ordinance will take effect immediately due to its emergency designation. A public hearing is required within 60 days.” (What's next)
Who should read it:
Cities with municipal utilities, and officials drafting a size-based moratorium that spares small essential facilities.
Cite as:
Seattle City Council (news release). “City Council passes emergency data center moratorium and policy framework.” June 9, 2026. https://council.seattle.gov/2026/06/09/city-council-passes-emergency-data-center-moratorium-and-policy-framework/
About this library
Why we put this together.
When a data center shows up on an agenda, the questions come fast, and the answers are scattered across federal reports, utility filings, state bills and local ordinances. We wanted one place a council member, a planner or a neighbor could start. We read what we list, and if we only got through part of a long report, we tell you which part. If something sat behind a paywall or the link was dead, we left it out.
Each entry includes
Who published it, when, and a link.
A short description of what it covers.
Quotes taken directly from the source.
Who should read it.
Its limits, including who paid for it.
A citation for your staff report.
We update the library as new information becomes available. No one paid to be listed, and government, industry and advocacy sources sit side by side, each one labeled.
Is a data center coming to your community?
The library is free. If you want an independent read before the first hearing, we can help.