Emotions ran high during an Aug. 12 Regional Planning Commission meeting, when area residents once again packed Shalersville Town Hall to object to a proposed data center campus.
At issue is the plan of landowner Shalersville Holdings (an arm of Geis Companies) and Bitdeer Technologies Group to install a 15-building data center campus on 257 acres of Turnpike Commerce Center, located near the Ohio Turnpike interchange. Shalersville Holdings currently owns the land.
Concerned about the size and scope of the project, township trustees have been exploring their options for months. Since data centers are currently a “conditionally permitted use” in the township, Shalersville’s zoning commission recently submitted four zoning code amendments for the Regional Planning Commission to review.
Turns out those amendments didn’t make the grade. Deciding that they need additional work, the Regional Planning Commission tabled the matter. Its staff will recommend acceptable verbiage to the zoning commission in preparation for a Sept. 9 commission meeting.
Should the commission accept those recommendations, the proposal would make its way to the township trustees. They could — or could not — enshrine the amendments into Shalersville’s official zoning code.
The township’s moratorium on data centers ends the first week of November. If the proposed zoning amendments aren’t in place by then, Geis would be able to apply for the project as a conditionally permitted use. Lawfully permitted, the ultimately 15-building campus would proceed.
The zoning commission's proposals
- Though Shalersville Township does not have any land zoned for “heavy industrial use,” the zoning commission recommended adding “any use with excessive power demand or excessive water use” to its definition of “Industry, Heavy.” The zoning code now defines heavy industry as a business that processes or makes materials or products mostly from extracted or raw materials; that stores flammable or explosive materials or uses them to make their products; or that engages in “storage or manufacturing processes that potentially involve hazardous or commonly recognized offensive conditions.”
- Light industry, by contrast, would be defined as “not having excessive power demand or excessive water use.” The zoning code now defines light industry as manufacturing uses that are “relatively clean, quiet, and free of objectionable or hazardous elements such as smoke, noise, odor, or dust." They must operate and store within enclosed structures and generate little industrial traffic and “no nuisances.” They may produce small goods to be sold to the people who use them, rather than to another manufacturer.
- The proposal also defined excessive power demand as “any use that has an aggregate monthly demand or peak load of greater than 25 megawatts, no matter what energy source or sources that demand or load may be derived from.”
- Zoning codes being legal documents, the township zoning commission also proposed tweaks to Shalersville’s definition of “use.” They wanted it defined as “the principal purpose for which a lot (parcel), or contiguous, adjacent, or otherwise aggregated real property lots (parcels), and/or the main building thereon, is designed, arranged or intended and for which it may be used, occupied or maintained.” (Proposed new language in bold.)
Regional Planning Commission Director Todd Peetz and his staff noted that the first two proposed zoning amendments did not clearly define “excessive power use” and “excessive water” and that the word “excessive” should also be quantified in the third one. Peetz said the lack of specific language could lead to litigation, an outcome Geis Companies has already stated is certain.
Commission staff had no problem with the final proposal.
Additional concerns
In a separate interview with The Portager, Peetz outlined additional concerns. He pointed to Ohio law, which defines electric generating plants and associated facilities designed for, or capable of, operating at 50 megawatts or more as “major utility facilities.”
The Bitdeer project would be anticipated to draw 750 megawatts.
If the state calls a facility operating at 1/15th the capacity of Bitdeer’s proposed project a major utility facility, Peetz does not see how they or Geis hope to site it on land zoned light industrial. He said a facility operating at 25 to 50 megawatts may be more realistic.
Peetz also questioned potential noise concerns associated with the proposed data center campus. Peetz said Bitdeer “seems to think” it should be able to match the 55 decibels of noise already coming off the turnpike.
“We think 55 decibels may be a little high, especially at night time,” he said.
The company has stated its intent to erect some kind of noise barrier, but without a formal proposal or site plan, its form and effectiveness are anyone’s guess, he said.
Peetz stated his intent to continue meetings with Geis officials in preparation for the Sept. 9 commission meeting.
“We have a lot more work to do because some of the parties are not happy with what we’re doing,” he told meeting attendees on Aug. 12.
Massillon provides a roadmap
Peetz also referenced an Aug. 3 ordinance Massillon City Council authorized in which they defined and set regulations for large and non-large scale data centers, as well as defined computer data center businesses, electronic information services and data center equipment.
The city only allows data centers with a 25-megawatt capacity.
The ordinance states that all data centers must specify their projected use of electric, water and wastewater treatment utilities, specifying that site plans must quantify the capacity of incoming electric lines and how much of that capacity is already in use. Developers that plan to supply their own energy must have those proposals certified by an expert.
The local water provider must certify that the facility’s water use will not adversely affect other users, and the local wastewater treatment facility must likewise certify its ability to keep up.
Noise levels must be measured on both the parcel that holds the data center and the nearest residential zoned district, the ordinance states.
Massillon Mayor Jamie Slutz approved the legislation on Aug. 5.
How or if Massillon’s ordinance would translate to Shalersville is anyone’s guess.
Though it also fails to quantify the word “excessive,” Peetz said the ordinance could serve as a good starting point for Shalersville. It specifies certification by experts, requires 400-foot setbacks from residential neighborhoods, sets numerous standards and mandates follow-up inspections to ensure the companies adhere to them.
“Everything's to be determined. We don't have all the facts in front of us. We don’t have a site plan in front of us. There might be things they want to do that we just don't know about,” Peetz said.
The legal maneuvering begins
Shalersville Holdings does not intend to wait on the Regional Planning Commission’s, zoning commission’s or trustees’ pleasure. On Aug. 6, Regional Planning Commission staff received a letter from Shalersville Holdings attorney Joseph Miller of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, a Columbus-area law firm.
Miller stated that the proposed amendments exceed the township’s zoning authority. Since no property in the township is zoned for heavy industry, the proposed amendments “effectively ban any use with ‘excessive power demand or excessive water use,’ including any data center that may use greater than 25 megawatts of power,” he wrote.
Miller also took issue with the term “excessive” being undefined, stating that the township could “arbitrarily select which property owners use ‘excessive’ water and which do not.”
He characterized the proposed amendments as “not only illegal and unenforceable," but also exposing the township to legal action.
Also representing Shalersville Holdings, Roetzel & Andress attorney R. Todd Hunt on July 3 objected to aspects of the township’s existing zoning code and demanded they be repealed. Regional Planning Commission staff proposed revising the code to make clear that Shalersville retains enforcement powers if a conditional use certificate is violated.
That matter is now being reviewed by the county prosecutor’s office.
Assistant Portage County Prosecutor Brett Bencze weighed in separately, writing a May 6 email to Peetz that “there isn't much case law out there yet on how the courts will handle it.” He also raised the possibility of “constitutional, regulatory, and legislative action” and promised regular updates.