Meeting for July twenty-eighth.

My name is Steve Rice.

I'm the chairman of the planning commission.

Appreciate all of you showing up.

Sorry, there's not enough chairs for you this evening.

Before we get into the agenda, I'll introduce the folks that are in front of you so you know who's who.

First, if you'll look up here at the panel to your far left, is Aaron Hawkins, he's the head of our planning commission for the city.

Next is Matt Hess, our legal counsel.

Then you have Corey Blunt, myself, and Kyle Silarep, who are all voting members for the Planning Commission.

The other two are not here this evening.

And then lastly, we have Marty Fulkerson, our representative from the city council.

He is a non-voting member.

Also down at this table down here, uh short table down there to your left.

Um the one with the darker hair is Nikki Fox and also Madeline Drake, their planners.

And I think you mess met Ashley Smallwood down when you came in.

So again, welcome this evening.

We do have an agenda to follow.

Uh the first order of a business is approval of minutes for July 14th, 2026.

Commissioners, you've had a chance to get those in advance.

I'll entertain a motion for any corrections or approval therein.

I move we approve as presented.

I hear a motion to hear second.

Second.

We have a motion made in a second.

There's any question on the motion.

Seeing none, I'll now call for the vote.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Let the record show the vote was 3-0.

The next item of business is public hearing number 2026 PC 12 for area wide zone change compromise of R4, R5, C1, I1 to C5, Downtown District Area Wide Zone Change.

And I'm going to turn that over to Mr.

Hawkins, the head of our planning area.

He's going to make an announcement.

Yeah, so that um so I do not have a formal presentation tonight because that application has been withdrawn.

Um I know we've had a um we attended a public meeting at the revival uh bar in Helm Street with uh quite a few residents that were concerned.

Um and um, you know, I just wanted to point out that there's often a lot of talk um specifically about this body, but you know, uh planning and development and then Elizabeth Town, Elizabeth Town government in general, that there's a lot of preconceived or preconceived determinations and decisions, and we don't listen to what the public wants.

But uh I just I I want to say this on behalf of the planning commission that this is a prime example of how we do listen and and the process is you have these public meetings and you have these public hearings, and we we consider that input, and then they make decisions um before they make a decision.

Staff does an analysis on whatever the application is, and staff makes a recommendation.

But um when we started the master plan process about a year and a half ago, um our consultants did a public meeting, they had uh an online survey trying to get as much input as possible from the public.

Um and you know, with the input that we did receive during those during that process, they formulated the downtown master plan, which was um in April this year adopted as an addendum to the comprehensive plan.

Um so that is what staff used to create this application to do the area wide zone change to bring the downtown zoning in compliance and conformance with the recommended core downtown boundaries of downtown of the downtown master plan.

Um so when we filed that application, the intention of that is to get public input, which is why we scheduled this public hearing tonight.

Um it just so happens that we received a lot of input prior to tonight, and like I said earlier, we did have uh or there was a neighborhood meeting that we attended, and we got a lot of good information, we got a lot of good feedback.

Um so clearly there was a need for more input and more public um information from this process.

So we we decided um instead of trying to force the only tool that we have, which is our downtown zoning district and classification, uh, we were gonna withdraw and cancel this application so we could hold two additional public meetings, uh, one in August, one in September, to give people as much opportunity as possible to come and give us the input that we need to give us a direction on how downtown will go over the next 20 plus years.

So I just I just wanted to say that, and that um, you know, we're the the process obviously it worked because um we knew that the the recommendation that we were making is not what's in the best interest of not not just the city but the residents in this area as a total um because they have a lot of valid concerns.

So um the hope is that throughout the public input process in August, September, and whatever happens after that point, um, we'll have a clear direction of not only what the downtown master plan says we should do, but also what the residents in the area say we should do.

So um we really do obviously we would like every single person in the city to come to these public meetings.

That's not how this works.

People have to work, it's just it's not possible to get everybody, but we need and want as many people as possible to come to these meetings.

Um we did announce that we were gonna say tonight when the meetings were.

Um the first meeting will be August 18th uh at the Pritcher Community Center from 5 to 7 p.m.

Um, and then the second meeting will be September 29th at the State Theater Magnolia room, and that will also be from 5 to 7 p.m.

It'll be an open house format.

Uh come and you come and go as you please.

We'll have people stationed around.

Uh, we'll have boards for you to give us input and and give your thoughts and considerations.

Um and we'll be you know have plenty of people to talk to.

So um we really hope that you can make it to one of those um after those two meetings.

That's when we'll try to to gather all this data and this input and then formulate what our next step is in this.

Um I I did want to announce that, and we did have at the bottom.

I know there's still some people that have come in, and we'll put this back out before the meeting's over, but we do have a mail list um for you to sign up.

If you would like us to send you a notice of when these meetings are, we'll be happy to do that.

We're gonna go ahead and send a notice to everybody that received a notice for this public hearing, just so they have it.

Um, but if you would specifically like to have a notice sent to you, we just need your name and address so we can send that in the mail.

Uh so please sign that if you have not done so already.

We'll have it down up front on the table as you walk out.

So um, but no, we this this application has been has been withdrawn.

So uh there is no consideration for an area wide change of C5.

Again, I can't comment on what's going to come out of those public meetings because we haven't had that yet.

Um, but any future recommendation or proposal will be different than just a blanket C5 zoning classification.

So again, please make it to one of those meetings if possible.

Um if you cannot make it to one of those meetings, feel free to give us a call, uh, schedule a meeting, come in our office.

We'll be happy to sit down with you and you know, listen to what your thoughts and recommendations are, and then um we'll go from there.

So are there any questions of regarding this?

Uh if not, I can have okay.

So one little housekeeping thing we're gonna do here real quick is if you're gonna address us, you need to come to the podium, state your name and address for the record.

But I will tell you that I'm gonna have our legal counsel explain to you why we're not doing the hearing tonight and why we can't take testimony.

Would you do that, Mr.

Hess?

Uh sure.

If you have a question, uh we don't mind to explain more of the process and what we intend to do, but the the hearing tonight on the downtown C5 is is not going to occur because the application has been withdrawn for um so as of now, status quo for uh with no zone changes uh on that downtown zoning area because uh the application's been withdrawn and there may be a future hearing.

That future hearing is where uh a record would be built for any potential changes to the downtown zoning.

It would be inappropriate for testimony to be given tonight uh in the hopes that you know the three commissioners might decide at some future meeting uh for the way you'd like something decided in that downtown C5 zone.

So I'd we're gonna have these future public meetings to get input, and then there if uh a zone change were proposed, there would be another public hearing like this one noticed where you would have the opportunity to again come in and address this body.

But we're we're happy to take questions, but we're not gonna take testimony about the downtown C5 issue since the application's been withdrawn.

So uh yes, ma'am, come forward and give us your name and address again, make sure it's a question.

Okay.

Downtown.

Could you please repeat the times and the dates and the places and explain where they're at?

Because I don't know Magnolia Room.

And then also my other question was the materials and the documentations that have been submitted, the letters and all of the different um petitions.

Will those still be considered by the committee when we have other meetings, or do we still need to add more letters after these meetings?

The the letters and the petition that was signed, that was for this specific.

So I mean, that's applicable for this one, which was withdrawn.

So I mean, if you have I mean, you there's really nothing to write a letter about of a future hearing because we don't even know what would be considered in a future hearing.

So you would need at time of a future uh notice or a future hearing, that's when you would need to write another letter because it's not even applicable because as I mentioned, I mean, there will not be a blanket C5 Um recommendation.

So the committee still get to see all of that documentation.

Yeah, I mean, we have it on file.

It's in it's in the file for the hearing, yes.

Uh because you know the petition of over a hundred people who actually own the homes would say a lot.

Right.

Uh I would recommend I would recommend that you take that petition.

And when there is another hearing, I'm assuming some of some of the contents of that petition would probably apply to to any zone change.

I'm just guessing.

I'm not saying because I don't know what may come up.

I don't know if there will be another petition or application on this.

Um, but you're free to take that same petition and refile it uh when that uh next hearing is scheduled and then appear at a hearing and explain those things.

But I I would just making sure that the committee has seen all the documentation that has been presented for tonight's meeting, even though the you know the C5 rezoning was withdrawn, did they get to see all of that?

Well, here's what I want to make sure uh they get a packet before the meeting.

Um but because this particular application has been withdrawn, and there may be another different application.

I would encourage you to refile that because from a legal standpoint, if we had a hearing tonight, the record would be all of those things you mentioned and testimony we hear tonight, which would be the record that this body and the council and any court would review the matter on.

Because there will be a different uh from what we're hearing uh proposal next time.

I think you need to refile that.

You can refile the same thing.

Um and then uh uh and then also come to the hearing.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

And and just to just to reiterate the the days and times and locations again.

So the first meeting will be August 18th.

It's a uh Tuesday night um of this year at the Pritcher Community Center.

I don't know which room yet it will be in in the Pritchard Community Center, but hopefully everybody knows where the Pritchard Community Center is.

It's down US 62 going towards uh Lichfield going west, uh, right before you get to the overpass.

Um that will be from 5 to 7 p.m.

And then the second meeting, it's a Tuesday night as well.

That will be uh September 29th of this year.

Uh and it's the state theater uh gallery, that's what everybody knows it as.

We it recently changed from the um from the West Banco gallery to the Magnolia uh Magnolia room.

So it's right across the street.

It's the um the big open space to the side of the movie theater.

Um that will also be um from 5 to 7 p.m.

as well.

Yes, ma'am.

Uh Carol Dupin, eight Ottoman Court.

Uh you said something about a year and a half ago, you had a meeting where this comprehensive plan was brought forth or developed, correct?

Uh the downtown master plan is there or uh is there can is there minutes from that or is there something that we can see?

Because I was at that meeting and I I don't recall everything that I heard.

Minutes where it was adopted, yes, or what was proposed, uh you know, yeah.

I mean it was adopted at the city council meeting and well, no, what you all right.

We we we we propose it to count.

Is there some place where we can get a copy of that?

Yeah, the downtown master plans on the city's website.

If you go to the city's website, Elizabethtown KY.org, at the top, there's a banner of different options.

If you hit, I think it's your government, uh, it's a drop-down menu.

You can hit planning and development.

That's our page.

If you go to the bottom of that, there's a bunch of tiles.

Uh one says downtown master plan.

If you click that, it'll take you straight to the downtown master plan.

We have to plug in just that one.

Yeah, but that that's for the actual plan.

I mean, if you want the minutes of when it was approved, I mean, we have to I'd have to go and look at when those were, and we I mean, I can email you that.

Yeah, I would just like to see what was you know proposed and what was discussed and what options were at that time.

So that can be seen.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Just to remind this group, this is my packet for tonight.

It does not include what we're getting what we passed on today.

So everything that comes forth on a hearing, we see we review before we get to this meeting, and then we let listen to testimony.

So we do hear what is a part of the hearing.

So I I will assure you of that.

If there's no other questions, then since we've got standing room only, we've got two more public hearings.

If you were here for the first one and we're not having it, you're free to go.

I see one more hand, sir.

Yes, sir.

Good evening, gentlemen.

Jose Torres.

I don't know who who do I address the exact question to.

Does anyone want to take it?

So I'm just wondering if uh if anyone remembers the exact date that the three to two vote for against uh rezoning for the VA clinic.

Uh does anyone remember that date?

Can anyone can anyone tell me what date that was?

You can Google it.

I mean, I did.

It's pretty simple.

I'll give it to you.

I'll give it to you for time because you have a lot of things to do.

It was almost a year ago.

It was July 8th, 2025.

You voted three to two to not rezone that part of Orchard Road for the VA clinic.

And yet, every time I go by Pair Orchard Road, there's a VA clinic being built.

My only point is, and I'll sit down is to the people.

Congratulations for being here and making your voices heard, but continue to be here.

But just because they vote no doesn't mean that other actions won't be taken by the city council as they did with the VA clinic to move it forward.

So continue to have your your voices heard.

Continue to push what we want as a community, not necessarily what this entity wants or this or the city town council.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions regarding the uh withdraw on hearing.

Okay, if not again, uh if you were here for that, you're free to go.

Uh we're going to start public hearing number 2026 PC 13.

It's a uniform application for cellular antenna tower and development plan for KY0119 Ring Road South, Cell Tower location at 204.

Excuse me, 204 Ring Road.

Uh, before we get started on the presentation, uh, we're gonna read or listen to the instructions for the public hearing if we can have that right now.

What's up on the screen right now is the order that we're gonna take the public hearing, but there's still a recording we need to play for you.

Because this is a public hearing, it is this evening's agenda includes one or more public hearings for a zoning map or text amendment.

Because this is a public hearing, it is being recorded.

The following procedure must be followed so everyone has an opportunity to be heard.

Each public hearing will begin with a chairperson announcing the request and opening that public hearing.

Staff will present an analysis of the request and a recommendation.

The commission members may ask questions of staff.

The applicant or a representative will present the request and any information he or she deems relevant.

The commission members may ask questions of the applicant or representative.

Anyone else in favor of the request will be allowed to speak next.

Then anyone in opposition to the request will be allowed to speak.

Anyone who does not want to speak in favor or in opposition, but wants to ask questions, may do so last.

After everyone has voiced their opinion or asked questions, the applicant or representative will be allowed to return to the podium to address any issues that were raised and answer any questions.

When all comments have been made and questions answered, the public comment period will be closed and the commission will deliberate.

No additional comments can be made by anyone in the audience unless it is in response to a question from the commission.

After completing its deliberation, the commission will take action.

It has the option of tabling the request to allow time to gather additional information.

However, in most cases, the commission will make a recommendation to either approve or deny the request.

The recommendation will be forwarded to the city council, which will make the final decision.

That decision is based on the record of the hearing held here tonight.

The city council will not take additional testimony, and it is not appropriate for anyone to discuss a public hearing request with the mayor or city council members.

Your participation is important to the decision-making process.

If you want to speak, please do so from the podium so everyone can hear and your comments can be recorded.

The chairperson will not allow questions or comments unless they are made from the podium.

To maintain order, a dialogue between the applicant, members of the audience, staff, and/or commission members will not be permitted.

Each person must speak during their designated period unless in response to a question from the commission.

Anyone who thinks they may speak during the public hearing, even if it is only to ask a question, must take an oath.

If a large number of people are in attendance, the chairperson has the right to limit the amount of time each speaker is allotted.

The chairperson may also limit testimony that is determined to be irrelevant to the request or is repetitious.

Your attendance at this hearing is appreciated.

If you have not done so, please sign the register.

So Saber, everybody understand the order in which we're going to take the presentation.

Okay, at this time I'm going to call legal counsel to swear you in.

So even if you're here for this hearing or the following hearing, you need to be sworn in if you're going to make a testimony.

Mr.

Hess.

Okay, so think you may make a comment or ask a question at either this hearing on the cell tower or on the text change for data centers.

I want you to take the oath.

So raise your hand.

Do you swear or affirm any testimony you give before this body will be the truth?

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll turn it over to staff.

Okay.

Just to clarify that recording does go over mostly um public hearings that are for text changes or zone changes.

This is neither.

This is something that the City of Elizabeth Town has decided several years ago that we would like to consider a public hearing, just so that residents and surrounding property owners have input when these come around.

Um, however, it will not be a decision made by council.

There will be no recommendation.

This body has the final say.

And there is no official zone change being considered or anything like that.

As both of the requests on tonight's agenda, though, are public hearings.

I would like to take a moment now to verbally enter the submitted application, the zoning ordinance, the subdivision regulations, and the Elizabeth Town 2040 comprehensive plan into the record for future reference, as well as a letter of opposition that we did receive for this uh proposal.

There are copies in the packet for commissioners.

This request is to construct a monopole cellular antenna tower on property located at 204 Ring Road and amend the approved development plan.

The property owner is JPAD's real estate LLC, and the proposed leaseholder for the tower area is Tower Code 2013 LLC.

This property is 7.96 acres and is zoned I2 Regional Industrial.

Current use of the property is manufacturing business known as modern plating.

The property in question is located within the industrial park on the southwest side of the city, just north of the ring road and north black branch intersection.

The abutting properties are home to Akibono to the north and Metalsa to the west, and then there is a vacant property owned by the Industrial Foundation to the south.

Shown here is a list of all adjoining property owners that received notification of this proposed tower and hearing.

The applicant sent notices to adjoining property owners and posted a site, a sign on the site per KRS 100 requirements.

An amended development plan has been submitted for modern plating to reflect this proposed addition of a cellular antenna tower and access path.

The proposed tower location is on the northeastern corner of the property.

An existing gravel path that extends from the parking area will be widened and extended to allow maintenance vehicles to access the tower.

This plan compile complies with all zoning ordinance regulations and meets the requirements of all appropriate departments and agencies.

Shown here is a street view image of the state of the site in question and a picture taken by staff of the sign that the applicant posted.

The goals and objectives sections of the envisioned Elizabeth Town 2040 comprehensive plan provides guidance on how Elizabeth Town should be further developed while still preserving its character and benefiting its citizens.

Goal two of the plan focuses on community facilities.

Elizabeth Town will responsibly expand and improve infrastructure to create a solid foundation for growth and development.

Objective B of this goal instructs staff to coordinate expansion of new infrastructure with the recommended land use plan to support redevelopment and new reader and new development opportunities.

This property is located in sub-area 13, which is the industrial park sub-area, and has a recommended land use of regional industrial.

Section 154.091 of the Elizabeth Town Zoning Ordinance regulates the integration of cellular antenna towers within the city to ensure safe and efficient integration.

To provide for such facilities in conformance with the goals and guidelines and recommendations of the comprehensive plan and to allow such facilities with the intention of protect of protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare.

This section of the ordinance identifies 13 regulatory components for the design of all new cellular antenna towers.

These include the zone, setbacks, height, construction, illumination, site staffing, fencing, screening, driveways, signs, number of service providers, lease agreements, and other agency approvals.

Staff evaluated this request for compliance with 13 regulatory components as well as the requirement for applicants to attempt co-location and has provided analysis points for several relevant provisions.

Staff found that excluding the standards requested by requested to be waived, the proposed cellular antenna tower meets all of the applicable standards set forth by the zoning ordinance.

Staff found that the property is zoned I2 Regional Industrial.

The proposed tower is a single self-supporting monopole.

The total height of the proposed tower and attached lightning rod is 130 feet.

The setbacks from each property line, starting with ring road, the ring road right-of-way to the east and going clockwise, would be 138 feet, 431 feet, 553 feet, and 60 feet to the north.

A waiver of the 130 foot setback requirement has been requested for the northern property line.

A six-foot-tall shadow box wood fence is proposed to enclose the tower, providing an opacity greater than 50% per requirements.

The submitted landscaping plan shows a total of 12 Norway spruce trees surrounding the site, surrounding the leased area on three sides, six foot tall upon planting.

The applicant is requesting a waiver of the tree screening requirement on the west side of the fenced area.

We can't find their screen.

It's all the way up.

But it's ringing when I stand too close to it.

Okay.

Can the commission hear me well?

Yes.

Okay.

Can you hear me now?

I can't tell what they're saying.

Okay, we're having tech issues with both speakers, but we're working on it.

Okay, is this better for the audience?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes?

Okay, you're welcome.

Absolutely.

The existing off-street parking area for modern plating has spaces available for tower maintenance personnel, and the existing access point on Ring Road will be utilized by tower personnel with an ingress-egress easement leading from that point to the tower location.

The applicant is requesting a waiver of the requirement for the driveway to have a hard-bound surface.

The proposed tower is designed to accommodate four total service providers.

The applicant submitted a determination of no hazard to air navigation issued by the Federal Aviation Administration and permit approval from the Kentucky Airport and Zoning Commission.

Your staff reports that the commission have only note that the KAZC was notified of this request, but staff has been updated post packet compilation that approval from KAZC has been made, and we do have a document supporting that.

The applicant submitted a statement from Celco Partnerships design engineer outlining outlining their attempts to co-locate their equipment and their conclusion that no other suitable or available co-location site was to be was found to be located in the vicinity of the site.

The applicant has requested waivers of three of the 13 regulatory provisions placed on cellular antenna towers.

The first requested waiver is of section 154.091 F2 setbacks.

The applicant is requesting to reduce the required setback from the northern property line from 130 feet, which is the height of the tower, to 60 feet.

The proposed location for this tower is an industrial lot that abuts two large manufacturing centers, Metalsa and Acabono, and a vacant lot owned by Elizabethtown Industrial Foundation to the south.

The distance from the proposed tower to the Acubono property is 60 feet.

Engineered calculations for this tower certified that the proposed tower will be designed to withstand a wind speed of 115 miles per hour without ice and 30 miles per hour with three-quarters of an inch of ice.

This certification, along with the context of the abutting lots, leads staff to recommend approval of this waiver request.

The second requested waiver is of section 154.091F8.

Screening.

The applicant is requesting to waive the requirement for landscape screening on the west side of the tower enclosure.

The access drive and fence gate for the proposed tower will be on the west side of the fenced area.

Existing trees on the western portion of the property provide screening of this area from the west, and this side is not visible from Ring Road.

Staff recommends approval of this waiver request based on these special circumstances.

The third and final requested waiver is of section 154.091 F9 driveways.

The applicant is requesting to provide vehicular access to the tower site with gravel rather than a hardbound surface.

The access drive for this tower is proposed to overlap and extend the existing gravel drive on site.

The proposed tower compound is unmanned and will not see vehicular traffic other than periodic visits for preventative maintenance.

Staff recommends approval of this waiver based on these justifications.

Based on the analysis provided in this hearing and elaborated in your staff report, staff recommends approval of the uniform application for a cellular antenna tower with the requested waivers for property located at 204 Ring Road.

And staff recommends approval of the amended development plan for modern plating at 204 Ring Road.

Does the commission have any questions of staff on the presentation?

Would the applicant like to come forward and make uh additional comments for the presentation that you can do that at this time?

Good evening.

Uh, for the record, my name is Russell Brown.

I'm an attorney with the law firm of Clark Quinn Moses, Scott and Grand 320 North Meridian Street, Suite 1100 in Indianapolis.

I'm uh appreciate the opportunity to be here with you tonight.

Um I will staff's report is very thorough, uh covers many of the things that I would typically cover in a presentation.

Uh so I'll be brief in our comments.

Uh as noted, this is the application of Tower Co., who is a tower company.

They are a regional tower builder who works with Verizon Wireless uh in tow as their anchor tenant.

So Verizon would be the uh applicant or the proposed utilizer of the top center line of this tower upon approval.

So Verizon would have the 120 foot center line, and then there would be room for both ground and tower equipment for up to three additional co-locators uh within that 70 by 100 compound.

Uh as mentioned, uh this uh we do have uh various waiver requests.

Uh staff did a great job of covering those as well.

Uh just talk briefly about about them.

Um as mentioned, we do have a waiver request related to landscaping on the western boundary.

As you'll notice on the diagram that's on the screen, a large portion of that area is either uh gate or is turnaround area for uh the techs who would visit this site.

So we believe that uh that evergreens would not have a great chance of surviving that and would be uh kind of in the way in this area.

Also, uh, this is only uh visible from within the property, is not visible to the public right-of-way in any way.

Uh, secondly, as it relates to the gravel uh drive, as mentioned, we are proposing to utilize the existing gravel drive uh that serves kind of the north side or backside of this building, uh extending it just to this tower compound.

So we are not directly accessing the site from Ring Road, kind of utilizing that existing access that wraps around the building.

Uh after construction, this is a very low traffic utilizer, uh, usually a couple of maintenance visits a month, uh, so it is not uh frequently accessed by any sort of construction equipment.

And then uh the last uh item is the setback issue.

Uh, as you'll notice on the site plan, this is kind of sandwiched between the existing building and the property line.

There is no really any location on this property where you could meet that that setback to the northern property line.

And so we've uh attempted to uh place it in such a way that meets uh the setback in all other areas, but but in this area kind of uh is squished a little bit by the existing improvements on the site.

I'll talk just very briefly about what the purpose of this is from an RF coverage perspective, and then uh then I'm happy to sit down.

Um, as mentioned, this we do have FAA approval here as well as Kentucky uh Airport Zoning Commission approval.

It will not is not required to be lit at this height.

We do not have a lighting requirement that's been dictated by the FAA for this site, so it would be an unlit tower at this location.

The need for this tower comes from uh a need to infill uh coverage and capacity objectives.

So Verizon has RF engineers who determine where there are holes or uh inconsistent in building coverage, is the main issue that we're seeking to uh to remedy through these types of uh infill developments.

That comes from either insufficient coverage or what uh or a lack of capacity.

The analogy I use is that that is too much water in the bucket.

There are too many people attempting to access the wireless network at certain times of the day, and there's just not enough water uh in that bucket to feed uh all of those users.

So you build a new site, you are seeking to offload existing towers.

So there are towers here to the east and to the west of this proposed tower.

Uh, the search ring for this area, the the prime area to locate this, is kind of centered on this property.

Kind of goes north and south uh a little bit, but but is very much centered uh on this proposed location.

Uh, when it's completed, it will offload those towers to the east and the west, provide an enhanced coverage uh and enhanced capacity in this area.

That's important to for reliability of in-building coverage, uh, and as you continue to have high uh you high volume users.

I notice I I know that there is a sports park uh kind of to the to the east of this location.

Uh having just retired from being a travel baseball parent.

Um, I know that at certain times of of the year and certain weekends that is filled with people filled with uh all weekend, and so those are a times of high coverage and high capacity needs.

This will help to fill uh some of that uh some of that gap.

Um we do have, as mentioned by staff in the letter, uh, that there are no available tall structures in the area that would would meet this coverage objective.

So we do seek that out first because that generally is a shorter process than having to file the uniform application that's before you this evening.

Uh, our obligation under uh KRS 19865 is to consider the likely impact on nearby land uses and values, and concluding that there is no not a more suitable solution which can achieve the coverage and capacity objectives by the RF engineer, and we believe the letter in the uh the file uh complies with that obligation.

As we all know, wireless coverage needs continue to grow in our communities.

They are not identified on your comprehensive plan typically where they should be, but there is a typically a need included, and staff alluded to that uh that there is a need for uh utility coverage and reliable utility coverage throughout all areas of your community, and we feel this will add to uh this uh in this specific area of the city.

Uh so with that, I'm happy to answer questions at the appropriate time, but we would ask for uh your approval of the uniform application, the approval of those three waivers, as well as the approval of the development plan, the amendment to the development plan as proposed this evening.

Thank you, Mr.

Brown.

Thank you.

Does the commission have any questions of the applicant?

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

At this time, um, we will open up the hearing.

This is a time when someone wants to come forward and present evidence or facts in favor of what we're considering.

Now's the time to come to the podium, state your name and address, and state why you're in favor of this.

This is the time to do that.

Okay, seeing none, I'll now turn it over.

We'll switch skiers, and if anybody wishes to come forward and make a presentation, not in favor of this consideration, now is your time to come forward and make a presentation.

Again, state your name and address for the record.

Okay, I don't see any.

I'm gonna ask this last thing.

Uh, is does anybody have any questions over what we're considering?

Again, either a question regarding the application or of the applicant.

I see one in the very, very back.

So you need to come forward, state your name and address, and make it in the form of a as a this is a question.

My name is Myra Dalwood, and my address is 202 Sunset Road, Elizabethtown, Kentucky, 42701.

Um, my question is is this cellular antenna tower?

Is this a 5G tower?

I'm gonna let the applicant mr Mr.

Brown, can you answer that?

Do you know that answer that question this will provide both 4G and 5G coverage in this area?

Uh proximity to the airport does limit the ability to utilize uh five some 5G spectr 5G spectrum in this area, but a uh at this a macro height, this is providing both 4G and 5G um uh coverage opportunities.

Thank you.

Did that answer your question?

That did, but now that I have this information, I have some objections to the to the building of this tower.

I didn't know that before, and possibly other residents may have an objection to this tower, knowing that it's 5G.

Um, may I present those objections at this time, or has that time now passed?

No, you can present.

Okay, my concern about having a tower that is 5G is how it pertains to public health.

We are still understanding what this high intensity radio frequency will do to overall public health.

It's not established, it's not clear either.

Is it negative or is it positive?

But there is evidence to indicate both.

That's my concern about 5G towers.

My other concern about having 5G towers enter our community is that in general, this radio frequency is high intensity and short waves.

So that means it can only travel so far.

And so it's not reliable.

And so what happens is that you must have more 5G towers in order to deliver such high-speed service.

So you're opening the door for something that potentially will require more of these antennas in order for it to be a useful functional technology, at the same time causing potential long-term health impacts to the local community, including uh concerns to how it affects the development of a fetus for the first 100 days.

The World Health Organization labels it as a possible carcinogenic to public health as well.

So we just need to keep this in mind, and that's my opposition to having this cellular antenna tower.

Should it have just been 4G?

I wouldn't have a problem.

But because it's both, that's my concern, and I recommend that everyone consider these public health concerns as we invite this type of technology into our community, which will require more of it in order for it to be useful.

Otherwise, there's no point in even having one 5G antenna tower.

That's it.

Okay.

So Mr.

Brown, I don't know whether you want to address.

We've got other towers I know in the city that have 5G.

You want to address the health concerns that either the FCC or you all have found regarding that at this point.

And before Mr.

Brown speaks, uh as your all's legal counsel, and and with all due respect to uh the lady that just spoke there, um in this area of land use planning, federal law uh preempts state law, and the federal communications commission and federal statutory law says uh that they get to regulate uh and determine uh the health impacts of radio frequency uh waves related to cellular um antennas and towers.

And uh because of that federal preemption doctrine, it is inappropriate for a local planning commission to base a decision on uh evidence of adverse health effects of a cell phone tower.

Um that's not this body's uh rule, and that is not uh state law, that is uh federal law.

So President Trump, uh Senator McConnell, Senator Rand Paul, uh Congressman Brett Guthrie's offices.

Um those would be the contacts because some people don't like to hear that that's the law, but I'm trying to get this body to follow the rules that are out there and federal law preempts uh state law actions, including local uh planning commissions uh making decisions on cell phone towers based on adverse health impacts.

So uh I'm I I wanted to say that before Mr.

Brown said it, uh, because I I'm I'm advising this board, Mr.

Brown's an advocate, but I think he's gonna restate what I just said.

I don't need to.

Um I will tell you that you have counsel, and uh I would agree with the position that he just provided to you.

Uh what I will say is that um this is a macro site, so it is a tall tower.

It is not uh I have done uh what we would call uh small cell towers, which are uh intended to be short shorter areas of coverage, those are oftentimes block by block in a neighborhood or in a downtown area.

That is not the technology that is included at this tower on this tower.

It does have 5G capacity and capability, but that is not the same thing as uh what is in my my neighborhood in Indianapolis where I have a small cell tower uh near my home.

Uh, but there that is not what the same technology that is here.

We had 1G, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G.

I've been doing this since we were on two to three.

Uh so we're now on four to five.

Uh so 5G, the short wave or the shorter uh uh uh span.

Uh that is not the technology that is here, but this is a 4G, what we would call a 4G and 5G tower, but is not the small cell technology because to the to the point that would not we would not put that 5G uh short small cell technology 125 foot in the air, it does not provide the same coverage objectives as the the macro sites uh like this is proposed to be.

It does not provide the same coverage objectives as the macro sites uh like this is proposed to be.

Very good.

Thank you for your answer there.

May I have a question?

You need to come to the podium, please.

May I ask one more question based on what Matthew, Mr.

Matthew has stated.

So while the city council cannot make any decision based off of public health as it pertains to cellular towers according to the FCC, they can make a decision based off of how the community is feeling towards that building, correct?

Well, that their decision needs to be based on the comprehensive plan.

Uh they can hear testimony and comment from the public in making their their decision.

Um but but yes, the the cell phone towers have a special provision under Kentucky law, and there are uh our zoning ordinance reflects the 13 uh typical guidelines and requirements that we can ask them to comply with.

And in this situation, they've complied with all of those except for three minor uh waivers.

And the way state law is written, and again, I'm just advising our our board here.

Um the substantial compliance by this applicant would make a a denial difficult uh to uphold if it were challenged.

Uh, we do want to hear public comment and we do want to hear um uh what people think about this.

But yes, you're you're correct that considerations other than those adverse health uh impacts where federal law preempts can all be brought before uh as you're doing now.

Um, this application, and they can consider them.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

Yes, sir.

Make sure that's a question too, sir.

If you don't mind.

Oh I asked the question last time.

Uh for Mr.

I'm sorry, I'm gonna put my question.

Mr.

Hess.

Mr.

Hess.

Is there uh precedent for a state to be able to uh challenge uh such a such a tower based on uh health and nuisance uh claims?

I'm looking at uh I'm looking at Pittsfield, Massachusetts.

They're uh a verizing tower of 115 foot.

It's being challenged in Pittsburgh uh Massachusetts.

It was given a cease and desist order by their health board um because it was deemed a public nuisance as well as um deemed a health risk to the community.

Um obviously you seem like square to wear lawyer.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm just asking um because you made it sound like it was clad.

And I know that sometimes precedent allows us to view matters uh and have some other leeway to be able to look.

I'm not asking you to necessarily say yes or no.

What I am saying is to please uh if you're not sure if we could investigate if there is precedent.

Obviously, Kentucky's its own sovereign state, so it would have to, but there is precedent.

Um, and it's in Massachusetts specifically in the outskirts of Boston for a Verizon 100-foot tower.

Hang on, hang on, hang on.

Um Massachusetts local health board uh decision would not be binding on uh Kentucky law.

We would look to the Kentucky Supreme Court uh for our precedent.

Yes, sir.

Um, and the the Kentucky precedents are uh what I uh stated uh tonight, and it's in particular it's section 704 of the telecommunications act of 1996, federal law explicitly prohibits local zoning boards and municipal governments from denying cell tower placement based on the environmental or health effects of radio frequency radiation.

Can I get that um again?

I'm sorry, the name of it.

Section 704 of the telecommunications act of 1996.

And uh I wasn't clear and I apologize.

That's okay.

The uh Supreme Court of Massachusetts did weigh in, wasn't just a health board.

It was from the Supreme Court.

All right, thank you.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Yes, ma'am.

Hi, Alison Miller, 505 Village Drive.

Um, I wanted to know why it wouldn't be lit if it's gonna be the tallest thing in our area and it's right next to the airport.

I know we have like people doing the parachuting thing all the time.

Even though like it's not legally required, why it wouldn't still be lit.

Mr.

Brown, that's your call.

The FAA uh we follow the FAA determination, so any tower uh that has to go through this process uh has to have file uh with the FAA to determine if there is any required lighting uh by that.

Uh in my experience, I've been doing this for about 15 years.

Um I've only had one jurisdiction out of probably 200 I've stood in front of that impose their own lighting requirements.

Uh everyone else is always deferred to the FAA.

So that is uh that is the process that we utilize.

We go through it before Kentucky law, the uniform application requires us to have that in hand before we stand before you, and I do have it in hand says says that we do not are not requiring lighting at this location.

Thank you.

Any other questions.

Are they not willing to light it though?

Even though it doesn't have to be.

It is will make things safer.

Are they not willing to do it?

I don't think it's a question of willing.

It's what the F F FFA or not FFAF, the the flight folks are saying and the federal government that they don't need it, even though they're that close to the airport.

I mean, who else would have if you've got an airport and they oversee the airport, who else would question that since it's they're the one that's approving flights to go in and out of that I just think there's sometimes regulations that you they set that you can still go further than the regulations and still light the tower if it's right next to the airport.

And it's small airplanes.

Your comments noted, thank you.

And uh noting her comment, I'm I'm not aware of our authority to require lighting.

And I would defer to the FA if the FAA says no lighting required.

I'm not sure this um this board would have authority under KRS 100 uh to require it.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

Seeing no other questions, I'm gonna close the testimony part of this particular hearing and ask that the uh commission uh deliberate and have any comments or make motions.

I'll remind the audience that whatever action we take this evening is going to be a recommendation to the city council.

City council will have to file excuse me.

This is not right.

We're not recommending other recommendation.

I'm sorry.

Oh excuse me.

This is just an approval.

Thank you.

Just it doesn't go to city council.

My bad, my bad.

Uh so uh commissioner, do you have any comments or questions on what you're considering?

Uh I'll make a quick comment.

I think you know, expanding coverage and things in our community and area is is uh a good thing, good quality of life at some level piece, and then it increases the you know some of the commercial value as well in the area and things.

So um I don't see really anything you know against it on my side, but you know, we've we've uh there's been a lot of cell towers that have been put in the city in the last decade, I would say.

Um, even one that's uh right downtown next to Roses.

So I mean I realize that that we have to have coverage, our demand for that particular service.

It is under federal jurisdiction, so in this particular case, I don't see any issue with it.

So at this particular time, I'll entertain a motion if someone would like to make one.

Uh in regards to public hearing 2026 PC 13 uh property located at 204 Ring Road.

Uh I make a motion that we approve the cellular antenna tower uh applic uniform application and requested waivers with no conditions.

We have a motion to hear second.

Second.

We have a motion made in a second.

Is there any question on the motion?

Seeing nine on none.

I'll now call for the vote.

All is in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Let the record show the vote was three zero.

I am now closing public hearing number 2025 PC.

Excuse me.

We need to do the development plan.

I'm sorry, development plan.

My bad.

Thanks for keeping me straight here, man.

Sorry.

All right, I'll entertain a motion for the development plan.

Yeah, in regards to uh public hearing 2026 PC 13 for property located at 204 Ring Road.

Uh, I make a motion that we'd approve that the uh amended development plan for modern plating with no conditions.

We have a motion to air second.

Second motion made in a second.

Any question on the motion?

Seeing none, I'll call for the vote.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, let the record show the vote was three zero.

I will now close public hearing number 2026 PC 13, and we'll move on to public hearing 2026 PC 14 text change for data centers, and I'll turn that over to staff.

Mr.

Hawkins.

Okay, good evening.

Um, so this is public hearing 2026 PC 14, a uh zoning text amendment related to data centers.

Um the applicant is the city of Elizabeth Town as this is a text amendment recommendation to the zoning ordinance.

And because this is a public hearing, I do need to enter into the record the city's comprehensive plan, envision Elizabeth Town 2040, uh, the zoning ordinance, the subdivision regulations, um, the application and all attachments and documents, and then um the staff report that you all received uh last week, and then the presentation uh that we are presenting tonight.

Um quick background upon direction from the Elizabethtown Planning Commission, um, planning and development staff evaluated the existing regulations uh regarding data centers to determine if there were needed changes to modernize the code with relation to data centers and how they function today.

Um the amendment specifically is intended to implement the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.

Um and then after planning commission passed a resolution to direct staff to research data centers, um, we did hold a joint city council planning commission meeting on July 14th of this year, a couple of weeks ago, to discuss both what the regulations currently are and then what our research was at that time, and then what based on the research we found uh both throughout the state and throughout the country, what our recommendations at that time were.

So we wanted to get some recommendations in in the hands of the planning commission and council so we could have a discussion and see if we were on the right path or if there were some um changes that needed to be to be made to the recommendations.

So during that discussion, um again, staff did discuss the current regulations which uh currently sell tower, or sorry, not cell towers, that's in my head.

Uh data centers are currently listed in the zoning ordinance uh in terms of definition as a data processing facility.

Um if you read the definition, which is a facility where electronic data is processed by employees, including without limitation, data entry, storage, conversion or analysis, subscription and credit card transaction processing, telephone sales and order collection, mail order and catalog sales, and mailing list preparation.

So it's basically it's a data center.

Um if you look at the definition, it's a lot older.

You can tell that this was written probably 25 plus years ago and has not been modified since because a lot of the items listed in that are no longer even relevant.

Um that's how the ordinance currently regulates what would be considered a data center.

So after presenting the research in the proposal, again, staff asked input from the commission and the council at that joint meeting and from the direction of the council and the commission.

Um it was asked for staff to create a new set of recommendated recommended uh changes to restrict data centers as accessory uses only in the city of Elizabethtown.

Um and so now I'll I'll quickly go through what our proposal is and what our recommended changes are.

Um but again, uh the amendment is intended to implement the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.

So a quick analysis of the comprehensive plan.

Um the following goals and objectives are what staff used uh to help justify this recommendation, and that's goal one, which is land use and redevelopment.

Um says that Elizabeth Town will promote appropriate land use and redevelopment with high quality design.

Um, specifically objective one, which says to follow the recommended land use plan as identified in the comprehensive plan for all land use decisions to promote compatible efficient and planned growth.

Um the second goal is goal two, which is community facilities, which says that Elizabeth Town will response will be will responsibly expand and improve infrastructure to create a solid foundation for growth and development.

Specifically goal um uh objectives A and B, which are to maintain existing water and wastewater infrastructure as necessary to continually provide high levels of service to residents, excuse me, of all residents and businesses, and then also to coordinate expansion of new infrastructure with recommended land use plan to support redevelopment and new development opportunities.

And then the last one is goal 13, which is business development, which says that Elizabeth Town will provide the resources and incentives necessary to support existing and future businesses, specifically objectives A and D, which are encourage the retention and expansion of existing industries and businesses while supporting opportunities for new industries, and then also encourage and allow commercial and industrial developments in designated areas that include multiple land uses not traditionally allowed in single zoned areas.

So a quick synopsis of what the proposed text changes are.

It's on the screen, and we did have a few uh packets available at the sign and table.

Clearly not enough for this this many people in the audience, but um so hopefully you can see the screen.

But a quick summary uh we are proposing to delete the term data processing center and that definition, and then uh add a new definition for a data center.

Um, and then also uh remove data processing facility from the C2, C3, C5, I1, I2, and MAZ zone.

So that is currently where a data processing facility is allowed.

Um we also are proposing again a new definition of data center, and then add data center as an accessory use in the C2, C3, C4, C5, I1, I2, and MAZ zones.

Um we also are proposing to add a um specific uh use standards uh for data centers.

Um and then lastly, uh we have a section of zoning ordinance that deals with accessory structures and how we regulate accessory structures.

Um there is one area of that that talks about accessory structures only in residential zones and how those cannot be greater than uh all combined, cannot be greater than the at the square footage of the principal structure on the property.

Um we are recommending striking residential zones, so that would then apply to all zones, accessory structures in all zones.

Um again, the data processing facility, we're recommending strike that definition and then add the definition of a data center, which is a portion of a facility or lot used primarily for data services, including the storage, processing, management, and distribution of data through the use of computer systems servers, networking equipment, and related components.

And that's basically the definition that KLC recommends all municipalities use for a data center in the state of Kentucky in their zoning ordinance.

Um then in terms we'll quickly go through where the changes are in the zone.

So in the C2 zone, which is our neighborhood commercial zone, currently it is allowed as a principal use, um, a data processing center or facility.

So we are recommending striking that and then adding a data center as an accessory use.

We also recommending adding a special provision in that section or in that uh portion of the zoning ordinance that says all accessory data centers must comply with the use specific standards in section 154076E.

So we'll get to those here in a minute, but those are applicable in all zones.

Um we also are saying that in this specific zone C2, uh, no more than one accessory data center per lot.

Um, and then they cannot exceed 5,000 square feet in floor area.

Um for regional commercial, um, sorry, wrong way.

For regional commercial, uh, we are recommending striking data processing facility or center as a principal use in the C3 zone, and then um adding it as an accessory use in the C3 zone with the same special provision, except this time we're saying not to exceed 10,000 square feet in floor area, only because in the C3 and C4 zones buildings are much larger.

Um it would not be unfeasible for a business to need a little more square feet than the 5,000.

Um same thing in the C4, adding it as an accessory use.

It's currently not even allowed in the C4 as a uh principal use, so we're not striking anything from that one, but adding the same special use provision that all data centers should not exceed 10,000 square feet in floor area, um, striking it in the C5 downtown zoning district, not allowing it as a principal use, um, but adding it as an accessory use with that same special provision in the industrial zone, striking it industrial one and to striking it as a principal permitted use by right, and then adding it as an accessory use in the industrial zones, because of the way the form and the scale is in industrial areas, we are recommending capping exceeding or capping the data processing facility accessory data center at a 50,000 square foot in floor area.

Um that's the same in both I1 and I2.

Um, and then in the municipal airport zone, which is the MAZ zone, striking it as a permitted use, adding it as an accessory use, and then um copying what we did in the commercial zones, not proposing it to exceed 10,000 square feet in floor area.

So those are how we're recommending from a zoning standpoint on where those are permitted to be operated.

The real teeth in the regulations and where we have the ability to apply additional regulations are in the use specific standards.

So we have use specific standards in the zoning ordinance that are only applicable to certain uses.

In this one, we added a whole section, I think 11 in total, and I'll go through those of standards that all data centers have to abide by unless it's specific spells out in these standards.

So for instance, number one, any accessory data center greater than 10,000 square feet in floor area.

So anything not in a commercial zone, these are only attended for industrial zones, shall be a minimum of 2,500 feet in a straight line from the property to any residentially zoned property, residential structure, church, school, or park.

Number two, any accessory data center greater than 10,000 square feet in floor area shall provide a minimum setback of 200 feet from all perimeter property lines.

So our zoning ordinance regulates where buildings can be placed on a property.

Typically industrial zones have the greatest setback, but those are usually capped out at about 50 to 75 feet.

So we're proposing that these uses alone have to be at least 200 feet from all perimeter property lines.

Number three, all any accessory data center greater than 10,000 square feet shall provide a minimum of two rows of continuous evergreen trees, 10 feet on center alongside and rear property lines for screening purposes.

Number four, any data center shall not generate noise, including the use of generators that equals or exceeds a measured sound level of 60 decibels when measured at or beyond any property boundary.

And then number five, any data center requiring upgraded public utilities in order to operate shall have to pay for the costs associated with said upgrades.

And then number six goes along with number five, but what that says is we we are going to require documentation from all applicable utility providers, verifying that that that specific utility can accommodate the required usage without having a negative impact on the existing customer base.

So that's important for this one.

You know, it may not be much for the company to have to pay for those utilities, but they cannot have with their addition, they cannot have a negative impact on the customer base at that time.

So number seven, backup generators can only be tested Monday through Friday between the hours of 9 a.m.

and 5 p.m., which are standard business hours.

Number eight, all liquid cooled equipment must be designed to utilize a closed loop system for cooling the data centers.

Number nine, cooling system discharged into the public sewer system if they do shall be pre-treated at a level approved by the city sewer treatment plant operator.

Number 10, the maximum height of any accessory data center shall be defined in the zone in which the accessory data center is located in, inclusive of any exhaust stacks.

And then number 11, any excess, any accessory data center in a commercial zone shall be required to go through the commercial design guideline review process as found in section 154 or 130.

So you all see this all the time from the commission standpoint.

Anytime a commercial business listed in the required uses have proposes to come into the community, they have to go through you all to essentially have the look and of the building approved and the design of the site improved.

So that section regulates building design and also site design.

So they would have to, we would propose that those have to go through that process as well.

And then the top part, accessory structure, location requirements, that's what I mentioned earlier, striking residential reference in that, so that now would apply for any zone because the fear, like when we saw that we realized that if we pass this, industrial zones would be not included in this.

So because of the way it was worded.

So we're recommending striking uh the reference to residential in that section.

And so we talk about a lot, we talked a lot about accessory and how we recommend this to be an accessory use only.

So you you might ask, what does that mean?

Like what are can somebody come in and put a hyperscale data center in the community, or can somebody put you know a co-location data center or a massive data center?

So basically, there's two definitions in the zoning ordinance.

An accessory structure is a subordinate structure detached from but located on the same lot as a principal building.

Accessory structures include garages, decks, and similar structures.

Usually we see those only in residential zones.

You think of a garage or a or in law suite or whatnot, or a pool house.

Those are typically what we get when we have accessory structures.

Accessory uses, the definition is a use of land or building or portion thereof customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the land or building and located on the same lots with the principal use.

So the way this is written, uh, as these only being accessory uses, is you cannot have a data center on a lot by itself.

It would have to be affiliated with a permitted use in that zone.

I'll use a bank as an example.

In the C3 zone, we have a lot of banks.

So say a bank comes in and they say we're running our regional operations of our bank at this specific location.

We have to put a data center in because we have a lot of servers that we have to use to process this information, this data.

That would be okay because the principal use of the of the lot in the site would be the financial institution or the bank.

The accessory use would be the data center.

So depending on where that where that bank would be located, in what zone, that's would regulate how large that data center can be.

So I'll give an example.

Um the old um first federal credit union building, the large one on Ring Road that was built.

Uh I think it's around, I don't know, 40 or 50,000 square feet in total.

If they came in and said we want to put a 10,000 square foot data center in because uh we're running our headquarters out of this branch or this bank, they would be allowed to do that.

But they couldn't make it more than 10,000 square feet of floor area of that building.

They also would be able to add a building on site that does not exceed 10,000 square feet in floor area.

So any accessory use would have to abide, or if it's an accessory structure, would have to comply with the accessory structure regulations as well as the use specific regulations and the zoning or district regulations.

So I hope that's a pretty good explanation of what we're proposing.

Um we do recommend approval of these regulations based on the findings listed in your staff report.

They're also on the screen.

I'm not going to read those word for word, but um that we do recommend approval of uh those regulations as as I explained, and then as also all found in your your packet.

But um I do want to point out that as it's currently written, uh the zoning ordinance that is staff in the city cannot control data center development as much as the public and the council have directed us and the public would like for us to be able to regulate that the way the zoning ordinance is currently written.

Um there is a legal argument to be made that data centers of any size can currently, as it stands today, go in any of the following zones with minimal input from the city and the city's planning and development department C2, C3, C5, I1, I2, and MAZ.

We do not currently have regulations to regulate size, scale, any of that.

Um there are rig, again, there are regulations in the C2 zoning category that says no building can be creative than 10,000 square feet, but the rest of those zones, we do not have floor area requirements in terms of max floor area.

Um I just I wanted to point out that this is um this is the city taking a proactive to approach, trying to ensure that this use is regulated in a manner that both the public and the council uh thinks best serves a public health safety and welfare for the citizens of Elizabethtown.

Um, and you know, protects protects the integrity of the city of Elizabeth Town, but also at the same time by making them accessory allows businesses because these exist currently in our community.

We've had data centers in our community for years that we've all lived with and we don't know about.

There are banks that have quote unquote by the definition a data center.

Umtility providers have data centers inside their location.

So they exist today.

They're just as they are as they are existing today, they are only accessory.

So what we are proposing is to keep in line with what we have in the community today, but also putting caps in terms of size and so forth.

And then we also want to reiterate that we do not have an application current for any data center.

Um staff has not been contacted by a data center, even inquiring about what the regulations are or what.

So we're trying to get ahead of this and be prepared for when we do get those calls and we have regulations in place.

So that is that's the recommendation that we make.

And I would be happy to answer any questions or from you all if you have any.

Does the commission have any questions of staff?

Uh Aaron, I I've got a couple things I want to mention.

Uh, if you can throw back up those 11 items again back on the screen.

I want I want the folks in this room to hear that as Mr.

Hawkins mentioned, no one has come to us wanting to put a center in.

Number two is that we took a proactive approach a couple of months ago to say we don't think our regs are in line and we need to do something about it before somebody does apply.

So what you're seeing tonight is an action of that particular plan.

I'll ask you point your attention to number five and number six.

If you'll look at that closely, it says any data center requiring upgrade public utilities in order to operate shall pay for the costs associated with that.

So Mr.

Hawkins said earlier, yeah, they may have a lot of money to pay for it.

But the second part on number six, it says documentation from applicant applicable utility providers shall be provided, verifying that the said utility accommodates and requires usage without negative impacting um place, the utilities customer base.

That's you all.

That's me.

Okay.

So you all need to understand what what's going on here.

We can't say that they can't come, but we can certainly regulate them.

And I feel like this particular text does do that.

Um, so we've we've heard this is a hot item, very hot item.

Other communities have put moratoriums on it.

I don't think that's gonna work.

So we've decided to be a little more proactive and take a stance on this that we can protect ourselves in terms of of what comes in here.

So again, I I know he read it, he went through there's a lot of material here, uh, but I wanted the you to pay particular attention to those two of the 11 that are there because I think they're very important in what we're trying to do for our community.

The other thing you need to realize is that we're the city of Elizabethtown.

Harden County Water is not a municipality of the city.

So we have to take in consideration all the utilities that are around us.

So this again tries to protect that.

So without making any more comments, I just felt that it was important that everybody understand the components of this.

This is a lot of data, okay?

It's a lot of information, but trust me, there's a lot of information and work that's gone into that for us to consider.

So are there any other questions that you as commission members have this evening?

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Hawkins.

Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to come forward and speak in favor of what we're considering in this hearing?

And again, when we have hearings, that's what we do.

We asked if anybody wants to come forward and make a presentation in favor of what we're considering.

Now's the time to do that.

My name's Kate N.

Murray.

Um, I currently reside in Hart County, but I'm moving to E Town in about a week, so I'm very excited about that.

I just wanted to say thank you for being proactive and for doing things that you know really put a cap on them just trying to strong arm their way into our city.

I really I have done all of my work, my schooling, my sports in this city, and I do care deeply about it.

That's why I'm here today.

Um, so thank you for doing the best you can to uh you know, obviously align with the legal aspect of it.

I know you can't just say, nope, you can't be here, but I really appreciate and thank you for you know making sure that you are very specific and very um yeah, specific about what you will allow in our city.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

I just have a quick question.

Towards the end of your presentation, you said something about these folks couldn't regulate it.

Did I hear that right?

Or what's it gonna what does it take to so uh what I was saying is that as it stands today, so as the zoning ordinance we have been right.

What we have currently, there's really a limitation on how we can regulate a data center of any type.

So this so what it takes is for it to go through this process, the proposal that we have, um, which would modify it and and make it accessory only to where you can't have it again on a lot by itself or you know, a singular data center by itself.

If this goes through this process and and the planning commission recommends approval, it then goes to council.

Council has to do one reading, and then the second reading is where they actually take action on it.

So they do two meetings, so you all have to go to two council meetings.

The first one is a reading, the second one they take action.

So if they take if commission recommends approval and then council adopts the recommendation at that meeting is when these new regulations would go into effect.

So at that time, the new regulations would be these old ones would be out of the way and void, and the new ones would be applicable.

Okay.

So you're saying a data center would have to be there in order to have an accessory building.

Is that what I'm hearing?

Or am I missed?

No, the data center, the data center itself would have to be accessory.

Yeah.

Uh that in addition to our building.

They would have to have a million plus square foot building, but then the regs again in the industrial zone as we have it, caps that at 50,000 square feet.

So the data center cannot exceed 50,000 square feet in floor area.

Google could have a 10 million square foot building as an office building if they really wanted to relocate their corporate headquarters here, which I wish they would.

But um but their data center would only be capped at 50,000 square feet.

But they would be able to have that data set.

As an accessory use just for them, correct.

That they can I mean you could make the number whatever you want.

The concern is again, we have these currently in our community, and we don't want to restrict existing businesses that we have in the community from being able to operate.

So there are situations to control it.

That's what this does.

This controls it.

So there are situations where you have an in you know an industry in the industrial park.

Um that's a corporate headquarters, and maybe they have their data center there.

So they need uh to be able to operate in this community, they need to have the ability to run uh their own servers and their data through their own their own on-site operations.

So that's what this would allow is that type of use for a data center.

You would not be able to have anything greater than again, 50,000 square feet in floor area.

And to give you an example of what 50,000 square feet is, and I know it seems like a big building, but it's the public's building.

So if I know it's it's a new building, everybody knows what that one is.

That's essentially 5300 square feet in floor area, the the new public's building.

So that's no that would only be allowed in the industrial park.

Okay, I'll say because it would have to be adjoining their property in order to be effective.

It would have to be on their property.

It could not be on a lot by itself.

Yeah.

Okay.

A little better.

Okay, so we're gonna get back on track.

So if there's anyone wishing to come forward that's in favor of what we're considering this time, because I'm I'm gonna leave the last for questions.

So if someone's coming forward, yes, sir.

Uh hello, my name is Chad Underdunk.

Uh I'm at 661 Myers Lane.

Um I I like uh appreciate the fact that you guys are trying to get ahead of what's going on and try to get responsible things on the books to make sure that it's controlled.

Uh I would suggest that uh eight and nine seem to have a little bit of conflict between them because it says it must be closed loop, and nine says that any thing that is discharged has to be taken care of specifically.

And I can't say nine, so I can't um comment fully.

Um I think that that may need to be clarified.

Um that any of the pretreatment may need to be um that it also might be clarified that um any monitoring or pre-treatment should also be the responsibility of that data center.

Uh, because I know in some locations that the sewage plants cannot actually fully monitor it because they're not designed for it.

Uh and then they basically are just dumping stuff into their water that's not being searched for because it's not required.

They don't have the facility or the equipment.

So I think it should be of a requirement also that they be responsible if they are bringing in a new chemical uh or a new process that that process also be under their um under their responsibility.

Yes, and the city has uh a an ordinance dealing with storm or strong wastewater and how the wastewater treatment plant accepts waste from uses.

So it does have it does have ordinances and requirements for certain businesses and industries to um to cover the costs and and provide monitoring wells and pay for that.

So that would require an update to that ordinance to to include data centers into this.

So the first step is to get these regulations in place, and then that ordinance will be then amended to um to include this as one of the uses that are required to go through that.

Okay, I I think it'd be great if that would be tacked onto this in such a way that that does happen.

Thank you.

Yeah, we we we can modify the language to make sure that uh covers that and make sure it's closed very tight.

Yeah.

We don't want to leave loopholes like many other places have done that that can be exploited to harm our community.

So thank you.

Any other persons wishing to come forward and speak in favor of what we're considering this evening.

Now's your time to do that.

So I I know your last three haven't been in favor really, but I am in favor with recommendations.

Could I have your name and address, please for the rest?

Yes, sorry, Brittany Ballard, uh 418 North Mantle, Elizabeth Town.

Uh is it okay if I make recommendations?

Sure.

All right.

You're making a presentation in favor, correct?

Yeah, with recommendations.

Um so, you know, I've worked in data center industry for years.

Um I've worked for a company that did manage services.

We owned hosting facilities for enterprise infrastructure.

So, you know, I'm well aware of the different um, I guess you could say tier levels of data centers.

Uh and uh I think one big thing that stood out to me, and I see you've better defined accessory than what I could find online, and that's great.

Um, but I would say that maybe we should go even further because you know, square footage to me coming from the data center industry, it's it doesn't really say anything.

Really what we measure data centers in is the megawatts and the gigawatts that you're actually consuming.

Um, depending on how they've got everything set up.

I mean, they could be, you know, using a ton of power in a small space.

So that's really what's taxing uh you know all of the resources.

Um so I think you know that's something that you guys should look into.

And I also think um I think that was a great comment on his part about the water and the loopholes with that.

Uh, you know, Microsoft is starting to set a standard in an industry where they're not using any water at all.

Um we don't need to.

It's it's a choice, it's a business choice.

Um the technology's there.

The only reason that they're doing things irresponsibly is because uh places are getting taken advantage of.

They don't know that you don't have to do it like that.

It's cheaper.

Um, but they do have a choice, and we can absolutely set that boundary to protect our community.

So would highly recommend that we get very, very strict with that, and you don't need to use the water.

Um the other thing I wanted to call out, and and I'm glad I see that, and I really appreciate you guys, by the way, because I really see what you tried to do here and thinking of everything.

And so it's great.

Don't take this as criticism.

Um so utilities, I I saw is there any way you could go back to the one about protecting the customer base with utilities?

Um yeah, so accommodate required usage without a negative impact on the utilities customer base.

So, you know, maybe this might be for Matthew Hess.

Um I know that the state legislation, uh, they tried to pass our house, tried to pass a bill, House Bill 593, the vote to 90 to 8 uh that would have required data centers to pay for their own power infrastructure so the rest of us wouldn't have to.

Google, Meta, and Amazon were on board with it.

Kentucky's electric cooperatives were on board with it.

The one that fought it was L G and E and KU.

They apparently, once it got to the Senate, killed it, they said, Oh, don't worry, we'll take care of it.

Don't you worry about that.

We'll take care of it.

Why?

I like why do they care where their money comes from?

So I'm very concerned about that.

And the reason I'm calling that out is because um I just I genuinely feel like that's an area that should be looked into and that we should figure out why they want the people to pay it, like what's what's the difference there?

Um and so I would like to see more definition regarding public utilities, because I see it's about upgrading.

Like if you need upgrades, but like what rate payer class are they gonna put the data centers in?

Like I just feel like there's all these little like tricks they do, you know, that to where you don't realize it until your bill goes up.

Um so I'd like to see broader language that's just like straight up like the citizens will not be paying for your infrastructure in any way, shape, or form.

And I think people would also appreciate because not everybody's educated on data centers, like just hearing like a hyperscale data center won't be coming to Elizabethtown.

Because I think it's just this this language can get very convoluted, right?

And like at the end of the day, um, we could kind of make it a little clearer instead of making people have to kind of figure out what we're really saying.

Um so, anyways, those are just kind of my thoughts.

Um, I think other than that, you guys did a great job.

Maybe also penalties.

I know that we capes here, but if they choose to not follow the law, it'd be great if we did some like close down your operations until you figure it out because otherwise they just consider these little fines.

I mean, they're spending billions of dollars.

They just consider it like a convenience tax to operate illegally.

It's nothing to them.

So let's put some teeth on the penalties too.

You know, if we can't tell them they can't come here, then just regulate the crap out of them until they just don't want to because it's not worth it.

Uh as far as I'm concerned.

So in favor, as long as we do all that stuff.

And if you guys wanted to respond, feel free.

Thank you.

You want to address any of that, Matt, or anything?

There's a lot there.

Yeah, but I appreciate your comments.

I really do.

I can put my papers.

I think uh one thing in general is um when you get into uh you mentioned utility rates, those are something that like public service commission, they govern utility rates.

Um we we don't regulate utility rates, and it would be I think it'd be difficult to try to delineate between uh which tier of rate payers as you were talking about.

Um but uh and and also the municipalities that are in litigation over this are the ones that are doing moratoriums or just blanket, you can't do it at all, and just just denying the whole industry.

Um and what uh because uh in the eyes of the law, when you start targeting one specific uh industry or or or area of use, um uh it's more questionable legally than placing what I think we're trying to do here.

And we're not trying to do a moratorium or or kill this industry.

We are trying to regulate the size and the scope of them.

And I think it's easier for us to quantify square footage at this point than it would be for power usage.

Um, and I understand your your concern with that that you can have a lot of power in a small amount of square feet.

Um, but we can measure square footage and enforce that very easily in terms of the amount of power going through something, then we're again back involved with the PSC and the utility providers, but we can regulate uh square footage.

So I think uh again, I appreciate all those comments.

I think some of those um uh including um some that Mr.

Underdog uh shared earlier that you you know applauded him for.

As far as clarifying and seeing if we can uh do a little better in certain areas, I think we can continue to do that.

We want to get this passed, but that's something that the council can consider as they then review this and uh and decide exactly what the final language looks like.

So I appreciate the comments.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you guys.

Thank you.

Anyone else that wishes to come forward and make uh a presentation or comments in favor of what we're considering now's the time to do it.

Okay, seeing none, we're gonna shift gears here.

Now, anyone who wishes to come forward and make a presentation, not in favor of what we're considering.

And again, I ask that you make it a presentation and state facts and or thoughts that you have for this particular thing.

That's the time to come forward.

Yes, sir.

My name is TJ Kane.

I live at 81 Old Youngers Creek Road, Elizabethtown, Kentucky.

I just want to say that your ordinance is weak and goes against the will of the people.

You guys know exactly what the will of the people is.

Um there's a I second what the young lady just said.

There's actually a lot of things you can do to keep this industry out of our town.

Uh the mayor of Munfordville passed an ordinance.

I wasn't sure if it was the mayor of Munfordville or the head of their zoning board, but he held up the ordinance and said, good luck ever trying to build a data center anywhere in Munfordville.

And he did so to a standing ovation.

I don't think you guys are getting a standing ovation tonight.

Um we've been handed a lot of lies about data centers, this constant lie talking down to us as if we're stupid, constantly telling us that we're in an AI race with China, which is complete and total nonsense.

The constant lines about jobs and investment, their jobs and investment we don't want.

Their jobs and investment that nobody was asking for.

And I think the part that I'm most concerned about is the water contamination.

You're willing to allow hyperscale data centers in our town and just say that, oh, our water guy will maintain it.

Our water guy will stay on top of the water contamination.

Excuse me, but I think that's really weak.

I don't think anybody here supports that.

And the last thing I have to say is um after Ford SK, I think we would be a little bit smarter about being able to identify pumping dumps.

I would first of all, I want to clarify something.

Nobody up here has said anything about jobs or the money.

This is a proactive to protect our community.

And unfortunately, I think you've missed those points.

I watched the last day.

Well, what is presented tonight is what's before us, and none of that was discussed with all due respect.

I'm talking about what's going on tonight because that's what's before us.

I'm here.

Not previous meetings.

I I would I would just be curious if you can point me to a hyperscale data center that's 50,000 square feet or less.

Like a specific.

What we're gonna have order in this room tonight.

We're gonna have order in this room tonight, okay?

I've already laid out to you how we're gonna do.

You're gonna come here and ask questions.

We're not gonna have things that are out of order.

So Mr.

Hawkins.

I I would just like personally to know because when I did the research, I I was unable to find a hyperscale data center anywhere that's 50,000 square feet or less.

So I mean, if you know of one, we would love to know it because that I mean we we we would add that to our research.

But I I mean I'm not if you have one off top of your head, I'd like to know, but you said like we're we're gonna allow hyperscale data centers, and I mean once you call that hyperscale or whatever, but the larger ones that you're gonna allow in I-9, like a tall sum.

Uh I one.

I more okay.

Uh yeah, I mean we're cat we would cap it at 50,000 square feet of floor area.

So yeah, but I again I've I've not been able to find any any hyperscale data centers less than she said.

It's just a plan.

Anyone else who wishes to come forward and make a statement not in favor of what we're considering now's time to do that?

Yes, sir.

My name's John Whipple, and I'm from Bruckenridge County.

But I have a question here about E5, where it says that uh data center requiring upgrade of public utilities.

The public utilities are you are they talking about the ones that we own?

That they're gonna upgrade our own, or that they're gonna provide their own like their own generators.

This all these utilities that they're upgrading and providing, who's gonna own them once they've been provided, once they've been upgraded, are they gonna belong to the people of Harden County or the that's already there, or are they still gonna belong to these companies?

And the money that's generated after they've been provided, who gets that?

Mr.

Hawkins, you want to cover that one?

I'm sorry, I don't understand the second question.

The first one in terms of um the upgraded public utility.

If a public utility, if a data center came in and said, I need X number of watts per day to operate, and Nolan, who for as an example is the service provider, and they say we cannot offer that unless you upgrade a step substation that we have to be able to accommodate that.

That utility that data center would have to pay for that instead of Nolan, which is a publicly or public operation.

So um the data center would have to pay for those upgrades for them to be able to function.

So they're gonna come in and put the like look, they're gonna build generators.

Is that what we're saying?

I'm not saying anything.

All right, um, my question is if there's not enough energy being generated and they need more, when they upgrade these things, are the generators gonna belong to whoever it is that they're upgrading, or is it gonna belong to the company that's putting it in?

I mean, that would be a physical property of the company.

I mean, if they're not the generators in operating anything, they're building their own.

I mean, you generators don't generate power, they store power.

So they they would I mean they would have to get the power from somewhere to be able to store the power.

So I mean, I don't I don't know.

I just don't understand what's being upgraded then, I guess.

We're we're not recommending anything be updated upgraded.

We're saying if it requires it, the company who's installing the data center has to pay for that.

We're not we're not proposing anything to be upgraded or to be installed.

What could be what could be on the list of things needing to be upgraded?

I mean, if Harden County Water says we don't have the water capacity to supply a cooling system for you unless you create a new intake at I don't know, Nolan Lake or Nolan River, whatever it is, no harden county water is not gonna pay for that.

The data center would have to pay for that new intake and get that approved by PSE and the division of water.

So I mean that's that's what this regulation would say.

So once that water's been upgraded, then that still belongs to us, right?

That would be Harden County Water District number two water, yes.

So we're I just want to make sure that we're still retaining control of our utilities.

Yeah, I mean, unless the data center said we own a massive lake that we're gonna on our own property or somewhere else we're gonna pump water from that, then that would be their own utility, but that's different than upgrading a public utility.

If it's an upgrade to a public utility, the public utility would maintain ownership of any upgrades to their facility.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else that wishes to come forward, make a statement not in favor of what we're considering.

My name is Christopher Gaytross.

I live at 500 Kimball Drive.

Um I just wanted to do a brief reminder for everybody.

Um that everybody here behind the podium, or on this side right here, is working for the public, even with policy and everything in place, they are working for you guys.

So your voice will always mean so much more than you think it does.

So thank you all for showing up.

Um I am very much against us bringing um anything whenever there's not regulations at the federal or state level.

Um both have failed, and we have barely anything to support so many items on this.

So thank you so much.

That's it.

I'll speak to that.

I've uh contacted Mr.

Guthrie's office, representative Guthrie, he's chairman of the of the uh energy commission in in Washington.

They have a bill up there that's been setting around, it's very limited in scope, but there is something on the federal level, but it hasn't been passed.

So in the meantime, we're all out here just floating.

And again, one of the reasons we're considering this this evening is to have some teeth and what we want to do to protect our community.

I hear exactly what you're saying, but what and sometimes we can't wait on the feds to do it.

And in this case, we're not gonna wait on the feds to do it, to be honest with you.

That's where we are.

Thank you.

Anyone else that wishes to come forward and make a statement not in favor of what we're considering this evening, now's time to do it.

Yes, sir.

Jose Torres, 313 Nicholas Rich Drive.

First of all, I'd like to thank uh Mrs.

Ballard for being so prepared.

I thought her comments were um and sir, I wanted to uh make sure I understood your question.

You said you would be hard pressed to find a hyper data center that is less than 50,000 square feet.

Yeah, I mean, if you have an example, if you have a hyperscale data center that's less than 50, I would just I mean, I'd like to do that.

Yeah, the research is in California, sir.

I just did another Google search and found it.

So there's like four from there.

Just send us the ad, like the information so we could look that up.

All you gotta do is Google it.

If you could send that to us, we'd be appreciated.

I will.

Okay.

So um, it's okay, sir.

I know you're frustrated.

We're we're I'm gonna be brief.

We don't know they're really all doing there.

Right, but it's a start, sir.

See, it's a start, starting point.

And then if you do the proper research, you would say, then you could come back to me and say, I didn't find it, and I would say, okay, that's part of the conversation.

It's not necessarily an if or then.

I understand that this is a difficult position that you're in, and you probably feel attacked, and I wouldn't blame you.

But but I don't feel attacked because what we're doing is proactive, and that's what these purposes are for, and these meetings are for.

So nobody here feels attacked.

So I think it's your opinion.

You're you're absolutely entitled to it.

But when you say things like you use words like proactive, they are just that, they are adjectives, how you feel about the current situation.

You feel you're being proactive.

But I bet if you ask the people behind me, many of them, they would they may disagree or not disagree.

So you say if we did nothing, that's better than doing what we're proposing to do.

Explain that to me.

No, you just said that.

I'm I'm glad to do that.

Sir, are you ready?

Because I'm I'm waiting.

If you're done, are you done?

Because I want to be polite to you.

I don't want to interrupt you.

So I want to make sure we're polite.

Okay.

So what my point is this.

You can do anything, but is it the right thing?

You can say you're proactive, but are you proactive for as Mr.

Cattro said, the people in this crowd?

I don't know.

I I don't know.

I am not well versed like you all are.

Like I think that's like the biggest point.

We come here and we see all these talking points.

Like, I can pull out my pad of all the research I did.

But at the end of the day, we're normal human beings, just like you are, and we don't know all the G1, and we're gonna change this zoning to this zoning to that zoning.

You do, and we entrust you to do it.

But at the end of the day, we did see how blue oval turned out.

We saw farmland destroyed.

We saw everyone knows about the big pink house.

She almost lost her house because of eminent domain.

There's all kinds of things that happened.

This body said no, three to two to the VA clinic.

Said no, you voiced and then you recommended and what happened.

We know that there's precedent that even if you represent our interest, the next level higher will do what they want to.

And that is a precedent.

It's a fact.

We can't argue it.

We don't need to.

It happened.

And they referenced the Elizabeth Town 2040, saying LISC keeps it within 2040.

So we can do it.

It's the same reason why people want to say, oh, let's let's redo that downtown area.

It's an absolute must.

Let's take away the parking in front of some of the buildings.

That'll be better, really.

I'm handicapped.

Like, I mean, I look at it, but I'm handicapped.

I could walk about less than a quarter mile.

When you talk about like that walking and stuff, I do it.

That's how I had the argument with this gentleman when he said, I know at all times there's 60 parking spots available.

I still tell, I still think he's incorrect.

However, the point is this.

The point is that that we can go round and round about all the particulars, but at the end of the day, it's about the people that have to live here and what we want.

And if instead of saying always saying no, we can't do that.

There are other townships, cities around this country that have said we will do that for the will of the people.

So if they can do it, I am sure with the intelligence on this panel, we could figure out a way.

I know it's difficult.

It's obviously difficult.

But what I'm asking you for is the effort, not to just say we can't do it.

That's easy.

That's easy.

And lastly, sir, I'm not trying to be disrespectful.

I'm very passionate about this because at the end of the day, it's my children that will live here.

And we don't even know the research about these data centers, regardless of what size they are.

It's still in the learning stages.

I think it's good.

Well, then I would just ask every one of you before you say yes, if data centers are okay, if data centers are non-harmful in your mind, then please allow me to build it on your land next to your house.

Thank you.

Just so you all know something.

Everybody that lives up, everybody that's up here, we live here.

I've been here since 1978.

So it won't be in your house.

And it won't, and it won't, and how will it affect you?

Where do you live?

It's the same thing.

Let's put a let's put a traffic circle right outside your house and see how you have it down the road and it works.

In your opinion, I love it's your opinion, sir.

That's all it is.

You put your pants on just like me, and we both have a bit of a chance.

You seem to have all the answers, but I never see you what's sitting up here.

It's easy to be an armchair quarterback.

Now, see, I I would tell you, I would tell you this, sir.

I would tell you this respectfully.

It's not easy to be an armchair quarterback because at the end of the day, just like you're on city council, I have to watch you make decisions for that people don't want.

And then at the end of the day, you get to get in your car and get to go home, and you get to you get to be like, well, we did what was best.

Well, what was best for who?

If it were up to me, this would be a public vote.

One man, one vote, send it to the people, and then you can vote and I can vote, and then we'll just see how it turns out.

And then we could truly say the people of Elizabeth Town want this or don't want this.

Thank you for your time.

There anyone else who wishes to come forward and make a statement.

Yes, ma'am.

Good evening, thank you.

I'm Janie Marksbury.

I am from Owensboro, Kentucky.

I'm I am a county commissioner on our fiscal court at Davis County.

I would like to speak to what we have dealt with, if you don't mind.

I came up here tonight to try to find out what you all were doing.

Would it be okay if I let you know what's happening in Davis County regarding data centers and what we've done?

I'm not certain about that because you don't live here, you're not here.

And and have you all taken action on it?

I guess I would ask that question.

Hold it.

I told you once we're not doing this, okay?

So if you keep it up, I'll clear the room.

You get you understand me, okay?

So I understand that you're from a different municipality and you all have looked at this.

Do you are you making a presentation against what we're considering this evening?

Are you asking a question?

I'm trying to help give you more information that we have gathered to help us make decisions.

I would just like to share with you what we've done and how we came to that conclusion.

Before you start, I don't want to ask a question.

Mr.

Hawkins, did we what other cities did we look at before we did this?

I know you you did some research on this.

Yeah, I mean, we so the head of Owensboro Planning, Brian uh Howard and then Brian Davis with Louisville Metro.

Um, they are the two uh people that KLC has put in charge to lead planning discussions throughout the state of Kentucky.

So they they've done several um informational sessions and educational sessions relating to planning and data centers throughout the state.

And so we looked obviously at Louisville's zoning code and what they're proposing.

Um they're still in the process.

We looked at Owensboro, uh, we looked at bowling green, bowling green mostly aligned to what um kind of fit what our thoughts were.

Uh so we strongly looked at bowling green.

Um, we looked at Lexington and then uh we looked out of state just to get an idea if they were vastly different than wood, but it was it was all very similar to what is being proposed throughout the state of Kentucky.

So again, I'm not certain what merit you're gonna share with us if you're thinking if you're gonna make a presentation against what we're considering.

If you're asking a question, I'll entertain a question, but I'm not sure what it is you're wanting to present.

Well, May 28th of 2026, Davis County, Kentucky did put a moratorium on any new data centers coming to our area.

And we also discovered through something called eClix, it's EECLIX.

If your county clerk could adopt this system, it has all the leases that have been filed in our county.

So we found that we had uh four leases already filed with a company called Green River East Load Co L C and Green River East Genco LLC, and both of these entities work with ETX Upstream LLC, and they look for properties in which to put these large-scale data centers.

So we uncovered that, and I brought that to the judge executive, and I told him, I said, we've got to do a moratorium because there's already leases here in our county.

They're coming.

And if you wait, that's what I'm concerned about for you guys.

I know you're doing the best you can, but if you wait and you don't have measures in place, it's gonna be too late.

But a moratorium, and I know that probably the council has to do that, not planning and zoning, but a moratorium would buy you time to get more information.

And um this is something that we have adopted.

And I just ask you, I know you you're very passionate and your people are passionate.

And um, I just want to tell you, we did adopt a moratorium against this, a one-year moratorium, and it was in May.

So I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Quick question.

So your moratorium.

Yes.

How long is it for?

One year.

So what's the plan in a year?

We're studying data centers.

We're also working with planning and zoning, and we're also looking at other counties like Bowling Green, like you mentioned.

So it just buys you time to do your research, and also to go out there and and try to find a system like eClix or something, and find out, you know, who might already have a lease on property, because if you wait and you don't have something in place, then they can you can't stop them at that point.

So when you say something in place, yes, what do you mean?

Or more.

Because it's more than important.

It has a timeline on it.

That's my concern is yes, you do it for a year, and then in a year, putting something in place, I I would think, and and probably maybe leaving legally does not look like another year moratorium.

So I think we're my understanding, at least again, whether this is if the final product, we're trying to put something in place already rather than doing the moratorium and then putting something in place later.

Is that what you're saying?

I see that.

I see that you are, but I feel like just from what I've seen on some of your like a 200-foot setback, things like that.

The noise from these data centers travels two to three miles.

So those are the kind of things that you know, more research might be needed than, and that's all I'm suggesting is you know, just it this is very complicated, and they do like to slip in.

And so, what's happened with the land that we found is right by our hospital.

And we worry about what that's going to do to patients in the hospital or MRI machines or you know we don't know.

And there's residential houses all around this land, but there's huge power lines coming in and L G and EOs owns some of these power lines.

OMU our Orange Poro Miss Municipal Utility owns some power lines.

And now guess what we got a new gas line coming in that's like 48 inches in diameter and 465 miles from way up you know past Ohio coming down to you know maybe to Tennessee and the gas natural gas will power the power plant which will power the data center because from what we were told is on the coldest day of the year like if it's 10 below zero the natural gas company Atmos Energy is what we have and they're also in you know part of Texas gas out of Texas they said in one hour a data center of that scale would use as much of that natural gas energy as Owensboro Paducah and Bowling Green combined all their customers in one hour.

And that's 247 of using that much power.

So these are the things that keep me up at night.

Do you know what scale you're talking about?

We do not at this point no we just know they have about 200 acres under lease right so that so that I would say only to the defensive a little bit of what we're trying to do to your point of putting things in place.

200 acres is a a lot of square footage relative to 5000 square feet max is what we be possibly to allow and only in an industrial zone.

So I I I take your point very seriously I think and and and we'll we'll get to some of our comments later I think but at some level we are trying to do what you all are planning to do in maybe a year of putting things in place we're we're just trying to do it now rather than putting you know the one year time frame on it and moratorium and then maybe ending up in a same spot or similar spot to where we what this the staff is proposing now.

Right.

Because that 200 acre spot they could somebody could come in and put a 200 acre they could buy 200 acres in e in e town if it's available um build a very large structure for whatever non-data center focused and the biggest thing they can do as proposed is 5000 square feet of data center space.

Is this just for the city?

Just for the city we are not we don't touch the county that's a whole different ballgame yes so I am in the county so that is different.

Yes but and I did but I did drive up here to spend the night to come hear what you all were doing because we are you know I'm trying to do as much research as I can and I wanted to listen to what other counties are trying to do.

So I appreciate you giving me a chance to speak.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I do want to remind the audience too that um what we're considering this evening is is try to and the gentleman said proactive right now we're we're we're naked right now if something somebody came in there's not much we can do what you need to understand this is a text hearing and we're amending the change in the verbiage that doesn't mean that a year from now we learn more information of how we can limit this we also have to consider the law that I know Mr.

Hess knows and what the challenges are in putting in moratoriums and how long they last and are they challenged legally so again we have to take all of that information into consideration I think right now what we're trying to do is put some guardrails and put some protections on our city in the event that we are approached in that particular deal and we can limit the size and we can limit what the expectation is again I will I've been on this commission for 25 years and I'm going to tell you this we have updated text hearings many many times in the time I've been here but we got to start somewhere and so in this particular instance I think we've tried to do the best job that we can based on the knowledge that we have at this particular time and that doesn't mean that six months from now we learned that this is something that data centers are doing and we need to tighten this thing up a little bit more and we'll have another hearing just like this and we can add that to it.

So I just again I know everybody this is new this is everybody thinks this is in concrete whatever the deal is but that's why we're doing a change because what we have is outdated is way outdated and we're vulnerable and right now we need to do something to about that and that's what this particular is it the best thing it's the best thing we know at this particular time but that's what it is.

Okay.

Anyone else that wishes to come forward to make a statement yes sir my name is John Childress up not one 15 Master Street.

I actually have more of a question but I do want to make one statement.

One thing I've noticed lately I mean everybody uses Google to search personally I noticed Google is currently getting in trouble for giving people false information.

I seen something back saying it gives people false information 80% of the time.

So I don't always trust Google searches.

That's one reason why I'm here at night to see, because I recently moved to E Town and I like my community.

Well, I look out from uh Me County, we moved here in March.

In Me County, we had a tight community.

We all used to get together and I mean I want a community like that here.

But I do have one question.

What about residential zoning?

You stayed a commercial and industrial zoning.

What about residential data centers?

Because I've I've seen some things talking about uh people putting data centers at their homes and these companies paying their electric, but I don't know if that's true.

So no, they would not be permitted in any residential zone.

Um the way we have it proposed.

I mean, they would be uh allowed in no residential zones.

The reason I ask that I mean if these companies are gonna put like a small box behind somebody's house and pay our electric bill, these people probably like that more than having a 10,000 square foot data center humming.

I mean, if a utility in an easement on one of their utility poles puts a small box that's just for them, I mean, that would be a public utility thing and not a data center that would be regulated through through this.

Once again, I don't know if that's really something's happening.

Apparently, something that's going on in California where they're putting them on back of people's homes and these like Google or somebody's paying part of their electric bill for being on their home.

I just wonder if there's anything on residential side.

So no, they would not be allowed, they would not be permitted.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else?

I just had one more question.

Is that okay that I just thought of when the lady from Owensboro was talking?

Um, and I liked your line of questioning.

So is the reason you like I think you guys feel exposed, right?

Because the what we currently have is so outdated, and so it just makes you nervous.

And I get that.

I would be too.

What's to stop us from passing this?

Like, all right, great, it's a start, and then immediately doing a moratorium, so that it's it's like a defense in depth layer, and I'm just use a cybersecurity analogy, right?

Because like if they shoot down the moratorium, then we're not just standing there exposed underneath of it.

You pass something that's more modernized.

But that you know, to her point, it gives you time to make this even better, but you just get that in there.

Like, I'm just curious, and I'm probably ignorant to process, and I don't know if there's rules on like how long you can work on the same subject, but I mean, why wouldn't we want to buy ourselves more time and modernize this?

I'm just curious.

I think they're serious legal challenges with the the moratoriums.

Um, especially if you if you say at the same meeting or or very close in time, we're we're gonna allow these accessory uses, but then we're gonna do a moratorium.

Um, I think it would be very difficult to legally defend it.

I think the other concern uh as the legal advisor for um the planning commission in the city has their own city attorney.

Um but I I think we're more comfortable with some concrete restrictions in place.

Um as opposed to a moratorium or nothing.

You know, if we don't do anything, there's I don't say there's nothing here, but there are some very outdated regulations in place.

If we did either a moratorium or left the status quo, then we get an application, and then we try to do the concrete restrictions.

Then you've got a vested rights issue with those applicants who have applied when there are no um significant restrictions, uh, not the restrictions we'd like to have on their uses.

Um, and that's what happened, I think, down in Horse Cave, Cave City.

They got an application and then try to do a moratorium.

And we we have no applications.

Um, and that's why we want to act and get uh some restrictions in now.

Um, so we don't end up with those legal challenges later um reacting to an application.

And that's my advice is to go ahead and and get something in place.

Um, do we know of any moratoriums that have not held up?

It's like what's our concern with like the moratorium if everybody's doing that to protect themselves?

Like, I'm just curious of why we wouldn't buy ourselves more time to make something even more concrete and strong and like defensible and like take in like more tactics, like watch what the enemy's doing.

Like, we're are we trying to win the war or are we just trying to like survive?

I don't know.

Like it just seems like it'd be smarter to buy more time.

And so I'm curious why you think that the moratorium wouldn't work.

Do we have evidence that they don't work?

Um I I'm not I'm not a crazy expert on moratoriums.

I I'm a land use attorney.

Um and uh zoning is all about controlling what other people do with their property.

The public, the public through its elected officials and boards and commissions like this, are restricting what people can do with their property.

And the government just largely disfavors restricting what people can do with their property.

We have to go through certain steps in order to zone and restrict how people can use their property.

Everybody in this uh room, uh, you don't want certain uses going right next to your residence.

And we've adopted a comprehensive plan.

We've adopted a zoning ordinance and followed all the statutory steps to be able to regulate and say that your residential neighborhood and your neighbor that's also zone residential, um, it is residential.

Now, can they change?

Yes, they can change, but there's a process you follow uh to change it.

The the moratoriums to me as a land use attorney are are just saying blanket, you can't do this on on property you may own or lease or acquire an interest in.

And that's where I get concerned legally defending those moratoriums because we're saying you can't do that.

Uh again, you're you're telling someone they can't do something with their property.

And we're doing it in in the context of we don't have any regulations in place that say you can't do that with your property, but we're gonna say for a year you can't do that with your property.

And that that is harder to defend than us adopting some restrictions um and saying these are our rules for these.

I mean, we can continue to research things and uh we could come back and revise the the ordinance as we gather more information, but that's the reason for my legal opinion uh favoring restrictions uh that are reasonable rather than a moratorium.

So that's a good question.

Thanks for entertaining me.

Thank you.

Before I forget to input this, we did receive a letter of opposition um from uh Gerald Schroeder at 51 North Tennyson Court in Rhinyville.

Um you all had that in your packet.

So I just wanted to make sure we get that put into the record that we did get this letter of opposition.

So again, before I forget to do that, I want to make sure we do that.

Thank you.

Anyone else who wishes to come forward and speak, not in favor of the consideration, you need to do that at this time.

Josh, it was a little sicilian, but you all got a little reach in there too.

Um, and that's what I was gonna ask about mainly.

I'm I'm against it anyway.

But what said six months after this passes that four don't lease out of the building on their property, hook up to no land like you said, and run one.

We have no jurisdiction over Glendale.

That's in Harden County.

So I mean, I I can't answer on that.

I'm sorry.

I know it's Harden County, but it didn't Elizabeth Town annex.

No, we do not annex Glendale, no.

We did that's in Harden County jurisdiction.

I thought y'all annexed the whole motor company stuff.

No, no, we didn't.

No, you're fine.

Okay, but I got a feeling I'm gonna be talking this in a few months.

I saw another hand back there.

Hello, my name is Emily Thomas.

I live at 404 South Maple.

Um, I just had a question.

Um, wanted some clarification.

Aaron, you said that the minimum square foot for the data centers is five 50,000 square feet.

Only in industrial zones, only in industrial zones.

And what qualifies you say, sorry, did you say minimum or maximum?

Well, the maximum is 500.

Maximum is maximum is 50 in four areas.

Okay.

Um, and what qualifies a data center as a hyperscale di data center from your all's research?

I mean, everything that I saw says it can range any, it it says it can be 10,000 square feet, but it said technically, but it said from a feasibility standpoint, uh, it's not possible for a quote unquote hyperscale with how that definition is is created to function at anything really in theory less than 100,000 square feet.

Typically they're greater than a million square feet in four area.

Okay, what I found was that a hyperscale data center meets three thresholds.

So it's 5,000 servers and then 10,000 square feet and 40 megawatts of power capacity.

So those three criteria are what qualifies something as a data center.

Um with these recommendations, can't a 10,000 square foot space be considered a hyperscale data center if we don't include the language that says there cannot be 5,000 servers or a 40 megawatt power capacity.

I mean, we we are proposing regulations based on square footage.

And again, like like Matt said earlier, it's easier to regulate and easier to enforce than um then how many gigawatts a data center.

Well, I think just because something is easy or doesn't mean it's the right choice.

It seems like it would be a lot easier to say that there shouldn't be 5,000 servers and there can't be 40 megawatts of power capacity in conjunction with the 50 or the 10,000 square foot space, especially if we can go all the way up to 50,000 square feet um for a property.

I just think that if we're going to include the language, we can be very specific in what we include and we have the information.

I know that we could have more time, but the information is there, it's very easy to access.

So I think we can just improve the language that we use.

If we're gonna make this, we might as well do a good job initially.

Um so that was just my question.

Because I know that what I what I read um, you know, with just that hyperscale data center, which is 10,000 square feet.

Um just the resources that it uses and the the damage that it does to our environment isn't worth it.

So I would just hope that before we I appreciate you all, you know, making these recommendations, but maybe we could be more specific in the language.

Um, because there's no reason not to be.

Ma'am, can I ask you what your source is of their definition, please?

Um well, it was just a quick search on my search engine.

I found several links to that information.

I'm happy to send it over to you all.

What search engine did you use?

What search engine?

I used Bing.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Emma Coakley, 325 Park Avenue.

Nice to see you all.

Um I applaud your efforts in trying to pass an ordinance.

I don't think as it stands, it's nearly strict enough.

Um but first I wanted to address the previous comment about Moratorium.

Um we currently have, let's see, Fayette County, Electric County, Bell, Bullet, Davies, Breckenridge, Bardstown, Cave City, Oldham Scott, Mead, Simpson, Boyd, all in Kentucky with Moratoria.

Unfortunately, for some of these places, um, data centers have come in, and that's why they needed to make the moratoria.

They were too late.

Um moratory is the ideal condition here.

Um, and it gives us time, like the previous commenter said, to do our research and to tighten up this ordinance.

Um, can I ask a couple of clarifying questions?

Is that okay?

Okay.

Okay.

Um, so I'm not seeing any um economic or environmental impact studies um needed from the developers coming in.

Is that something you're considering adding in?

Is that something you would consider adding in?

Aaron.

I mean, we we can have that discussion with city council to see if that's something they would be interested in adding, and they have the ability to make that addition to the recommendations, correct?

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you, thank you.

And then uh my second question is I'm not seeing a decommission plan.

Um, TerraWolf, one of the um former cryptocurrency uh companies is uh taking over two data centers in Kentucky right now, uh, one in Hawesville, one in Ashland.

Um TerraWolf used to be a uh cryptocurrency, I don't know which one organization, let's call them an organization.

Um they're facing some legal challenges.

Um what what happens when the bubble bursts for data centers?

What happens when we have a 50,000 square foot data center in our industrial zone and it's abandoned once uh the the need for hyperscalers are over.

Um do we have a decommissioned plan?

Are you considering adding it?

Would you consider adding it adding it as well?

I mean, again, we can have that discussion with council to see if that's something they'd be interested in.

But from a land use standpoint, that is one of the bigger concerns from our standpoint is, and that's one of the reasons why we made that cap at 50,000 square feet, because to your point, you know, whatever that time period is, three years, five years, 10 years, and either data centers become obsolete or the technology shifts and changes so much that how they function today is completely different than how they will at that time period.

Um the concern is that if you allowed a million plus square foot structure in your community to operate as a data center, what happens to that structure when that data center no longer is operation?

Because you don't have a lot of people coming around asking for a million square foot building.

A 50,000 square foot building in an industrial zone is fairly small.

So in terms of size and scale, so it would not be unit would not be extremely difficult to find a user of a building, excuse me, of that size.

But again, we're talking accessories, so that would have to be with another business and development.

So you would have to have I mean to the example you use with the crypto firm.

The crypto firm would have to have a principal use that's permitted in that zone, and then the data center would be accessory.

You couldn't have the crypto firm operating their data center by itself.

So I mean, some of these regulations protect that the way they're written by just being an accessory use only.

Um but I mean, to answer to answer your question, we can definitely have that conversation with um council to see if they had any interest in creating any kind of decommissioning requirements or whatnot.

Thanks.

Um again, I really I'm really want to push y'all to a moratoria.

I understand that you think that they might not work, but they are working in multiple counties.

Um the only time you might see one that might not work is because Cave City is currently getting sued because of their moratoria.

They are getting sued because a developer went behind people's backs and submitted a proposal for a data center.

The city didn't know about it.

They put forth the moratoria and they got sued.

So we don't want to be in a situation like that.

Which means we we deserve transparency at all fronts.

And a moratoria is the way to go.

Um, so thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Any more questions?

Seeing none, I'm now gonna close the evidence presentation of the hearing.

And the commission will deliberate on any action it wishes to take on the consideration.

Commissioners, I have a quick question for Aaron, and I may have missed it or may have missheard or or missed it.

Is there something in here?

I thought it was that it is dedicated service to the primary use on the property.

So if I like Kyle Enterprises builds a building and I want to have an accessory unit, that I I can't then rent that to Steve Incorporated, correct?

Or does it have to be dedicated to it would have to be for the use of the principal structure?

Okay, correct.

I want because if you because if you lease it to another business that's not accessory to your business, right?

It's no longer accessory structure or use to the system.

Is that that's laid out in the text, right?

I just can't find it.

Yes.

It's it's in the definitions of an accessory use and accessory structure.

Um, and I don't remember what page that was on, but it's accessory uses are described as uses and structures which are customarily accessory, clearly incidental and subordinate to the permitted use.

Okay.

So it yeah, so it has to be tangential to the primary use of so like like for your example, publics, that building, if it was in commercial zone, they couldn't take the public's liquor store and say, oh, we need a data center for that and turn the what was going to be the grocery store into that.

A it'd be bigger, I know that, but it's not a that's a tan, that's not a tangential use kind of thing.

Correct.

Yeah.

But but something that large again would only be allowed in industrial zones.

So any other comments from the commission, any thoughts on this particular consideration.

I have a number of thoughts.

Um I think from one standpoint, it is a great thing to be updating the definition that might be older than I am in our current zoning text.

Um, and as we've said, it's this we've kind of worn out this word, but this where you are being, and I I think responsibly, but proactive in making decisions now for what possibly might be coming in the future.

I think we're managing, trying to plan well for the future of the city.

Um, and especially when it comes to these accessory units, I think as we've talked about it at great length, some of these exist already, whether that be for security or uh some sort of of economic reason for a business to have one of these in there, you know, currently as it exists in E Town, um, whether that be like Aaron mentioned, like a bank or some other um financial institution or or really anybody that just needs on-site data, like I said, for security or economic reasons.

Um, you know, my my one question and and thought maybe to put to you all would be um we've heard some some of the comments on and any thought on adding in any of that, I guess more specific language of like for instance in number nine on the you specific about the treatment being the responsibility and cost, if that, and maybe that's a question from Matt, is that over explaining what we're saying, or is that you know, maybe need to be spelled out that way.

I know Corey's, I think has looked at this right, but but making sure that it's clear, hey, that's the we want that to be the intent is that to be the responsibility of the owner, not hey, yeah, just pass it along and they'll deal with it.

Yeah, I um and I forget which um which person talked about that.

It may have been Mr.

Maybe Mr.

Underdog.

Um but um yeah, I mean we can look at that language and and see if we want to uh strengthen it a little bit.

Um but I I think it's it's pretty clear that the the cost of improvements to public utilities are um are on them.

Um I'm they don't have nine up in front of me.

I don't have it in front of me now.

So um you're talking about the stormwater or the the sewer um requiring them to pre-treat it, you know, that that that's something that the um the um city council could consider adding um to that uh language.

So I don't I don't think that's um you know those those are reasonable restrictions to put on there, I think.

Yeah, and and these that requests came directly from our stormwater or our wastewater treatment plant operator.

So again, I mean I we can we can get with him and see if if he can come up with a more concrete uh verbiage for this to make it even more ironclad.

But um the way it was written was at the request of right.

I guess my question is that need to be done prior to any action we're taking.

No, we can make this recommendation to the council, and they still have the ability based on our hearing to adopt fully our recommendation or to uh draft uh some clarifications if they would like to do that.

Um and um and I noted in particular, I'm looking at my notes now, the comment about eight and nine being maybe contradictory or needing to be cleaned up.

Um, you know, uh that I think that's something that could and could and should be looked at before it's finally um uh adopted by the uh by the council.

But yes, we can vote on it as is.

We don't have to make that change tonight or recess and do another uh another meeting to make those changes.

We can send these to the council and then they can decide on final language.

Are we then relying on them to do that though?

I guess that's my thing.

Like if we want it in there, if it would be the if it would be the the desire of this body to add that language, are we just relying on not that they're not gonna do it, but to make sure that it gets in there.

Well my recommendation is to express that to the council in our comments and uh ask them to consider that.

They are the final decision makers.

Um I don't want to adopt it or try to revise it tonight and tell them do it the way we revised it off the cuff tonight.

Sure.

So that would be issues.

You have any comments?

No, uh, thank everybody for for coming and speaking and um, you know, making um your concerns known.

Um I've been in eTown since about probably 2011, um, been visiting before that, and I've seen a lot of changes and a lot of growth, a lot of different things um that uh I think the city's doing a great job at.

Um and and with this that we're looking at right now, I do think it's a great um start.

I think it's uh a way for us to um let you guys know that we are trying to take this seriously and we are trying to get some parameters in place um uh so that we can be prepared for whatever.

Um and you know, with technology, who knows what this looks like in six months, a year.

Um I've got a phone right here that uh gets smaller and smaller and bigger and bigger and thinner and more efficient every day um that we can't keep up with.

So hopefully um maybe we can be hopeful that that happens with these things and um that they do not uh you know continue to exceed what they think they may need.

Maybe they uh maybe someone has you know enough of uh some gumption to say, hey, listen, how can we make this more efficient um with what we're doing?

So um, but again, yeah, I think this is um I think it's a great start.

I think we are trying to be as uh as proactive and helpful as possible.

So thank you.

I think as I stated earlier, you know, we recognize the need to take a look at our current uh verbiage of what we had.

It was outdated.

Um, and I think we've made a very good attempt to try to put some teeth in and restrict what we don't want to have in our community.

Um is it perfect?

No.

Um, but in this particular case, I think what we're considering here has a whole lot of advantages to protect our community.

Um, and as has been stated here tonight, you know, we're we're trying to take care of the city limits of Elizabethtown and obviously Harden County and even beyond their other utilities that are service more than Elizabeth Town.

Um, I would also echo what uh my fellow commissioner said, Mr.

Celerette about encouraging the council to look at items number eight and nine and get some clarity on that and to add a little more teeth to that uh before final use in this particular instance.

Um the other thing I I think uh it's interesting that the comment was brought up about crypto.

You know, I'm a financial advisor and been doing it for 33 years, and I can't sell you crypto because it's not regulated.

Do you understand that?

Nobody regulates crypto.

So the comment about the entity that went out of business and now they're taking over something else.

Crypto is not regulated.

Yes, people have made money from it, but it's not regulated.

So again, we're trying to do things from a standpoint of what's in the best interest of our city, what's the best interest of our community and a best interest of our citizens.

And right now we have very little to go on.

I think this particular uh text that we have is a is a really good position for us, and it doesn't mean that we can't six months from now come in and tweak this a little bit more.

That's what we do.

Uh, but in this particular instance, I think it's a I think it's a great start, and we need to send it on to the city council for consideration.

And that would be my recommendation.

And at this time, I'll entertain a motion if somebody wants to make it.

Uh okay.

We do have findings of fact there at the end of the report if you want to reference those if you agree with those as recommended by the staff.

Sure.

Uh well, in regards to public hearing number 2026 PC 14.

Uh, I make a motion that we recommend to city council uh the proposed zoning text amendment changes related to data centers based on the hearing tonight and the four uh findings of fact in the staff report.

We have a motion made.

Do I hear second?

Uh second.

Motion made and second.

Any question on the motion?

Seeing now none, I'll now call for the vote.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Let the record show the vote was three zero.

I will remind this audience that you are not to discuss with any city council members the content of this until they take action on this.

This is this hearing and the evidence that they've taken that we've given tonight, they will listen to and take into consideration.

But in no way are you to approach a city council and make your position on this particular deal uh before they take action.

Uh having said that, I will now close public hearing 2026 PC 14 text for data centers, and we will move on to the next item, which is commission member items.

Does anybody have it?

I have one.

Where are we at with the entrance on pair orchard that's still there for the VA?

I had a feeling that would come up.

Um yeah, so I mean the all I can all I know is that you know, talking with the city engineer uh with the engineering department who are the ones who issue encroachment permits.

Um they have been in contact with Phillips Brothers, which is the contracting company that's doing the work and the site work out there.

Um and he is continuing to work with them to get that that access removed.

But I drove by it because I thought it would come up at the last meeting.

And you I thought it would.

And so I preemptively drove by.

So it's been about a week and a half since I've been there, but I did drive by to look at it, and it was a full-on construction entrance.

So to answer your question, the best I can say is um he is still working with them to get that removed.

Now that the access is um, I mean, it's cut on the private drive on ring road, it's cut.

I mean, it's not they don't have gravel down yet, so it's still it's still clay, and then they're working on cutting the new city street on off ring road, but they also have that third access off the residential drive access.

So they've got an access there.

So I will he's out of town this week, the city engineer.

So when he gets back next week, I will check with him again where we're at on that to see if we need some headway because um, I mean, you all are right.

When when we went through that process and it was clear to them that they are not to have any access off Parrottrid Road, and their development plan got approved that way.

It yeah, it doesn't look good when they don't follow that.

So I'll continue to work with him on that.

Do we not have any enforcement mechanism for that?

Yeah, I mean, they can, yeah, the the engineering department and their ordinance, they can they can shut that down and require it.

And if they don't abide, I mean they can cite because they're out of compliance.

But from a planning perspective, that's not they're not in violation because we don't issue encroachment permits.

So um, yeah.

Well, I'm gonna I'm gonna strongly suggest that they get on that and shut and shut them down because it's it's way overdue.

They have a tendency to ask for forgiveness rather than permission, and that's not a good example of what we need in the city.

And that's been a trend with this developer.

Um I mean, we've been dealing with that since they've since they've gotten their approval since they filed for their application.

Uh, we've been dealing with that on them uh or with them.

So um, no, I would agree.

I I think um we pressure them now and and really start to put the iron to the fire with them because initially they were allowed to do that until they had their groundbreaking, but they had their groundbreaking a couple weeks ago now.

So um, so yeah, I think you're right.

I think it's it's past time for us uh and so I'll I will continue to work um work on that.

So well, because my part of my concern is too a we've whatever we said X, Y, and Z, all that, but they're also not being very good neighbors or or citizens, you know, for that matter.

Um, and you know, if we're gonna have rules or tell people they can and can't do stuff.

We need to be able to enforce it, you know.

So well, I think their argument's gonna be I think they've hit rock down there in that one private entrance, and they're having to move a uh a line, a utility line.

I think it's a gas line or something up the upper side, and they've been a little bit slow about doing all of that.

But yeah, we need they need to get on.

Yeah, my understanding is that gas line.

I think our gas department director said it has been moved.

Um, I'll verify that, but I know they were working on it on getting that either raised or lowered.

I'm not sure which one they had to do, but I I think they're done with that now.

So any other commission items.

Okay, a director's report.

Uh I didn't really prepare much of a report because I knew we'd probably be here for a little bit tonight.

So I didn't want to keep you any longer than we had to.

So I don't have anything specific to talk to you all about tonight.

Um, give you an update on a couple of upcoming meetings.

Uh at this time, we currently do not have anything on the agenda for August 8th, I think is the date.

Um, so yeah, you're welcome.

So uh at this time it looks like we are not going to have a meeting.

That first meeting in August.

Um there could be some items on the second meeting in August.

Um there is an application in for Long John Silvers to do a refurbishment of their site on South Dixie or East Ixie rather.

Um that one it may or may not be ready by the second meeting in August on the 25th.

So um that's a possibility.

We have a zone change request for property on uh Dolphin Drive at the corner of Dolphin and I think it's Crown Point.

Um it's across from North South Consulting, um, that vacant field, so or vacant parcel.

So we have a zone change requesting that to go from C2 to C3 to allow hot to allow a hotel use on that property.

So it would be a zone change request and development plan approval.

Um we also have a zone change request for the pepper mill on New Glendale Road and Bishop Lane.

So that's the mill that's been in operation for a long time.

So they need to do an expansion of that proper of that development.

And as it currently stands, it is a legal non-conforming use, which means they cannot expand any of their facility because it's zoned regional commercial C3.

So in order to do that to do the expansion, they need to do a zone change of C4.

So if they do that, then a mill is a permitted use in the C4 zone.

So it's a small expansion.

It's nothing major, but um they are asking for that.

So I think they filed that today.

So it that I think technically they've missed the deadline for the second meeting in August, so that will be in September.

We do have a few annexation requests coming up.

I know I mentioned those at the last meeting.

There's one on the northern point of the city limits across the Magnolia Farms along Patriot Parkway.

Property owner is requested to be annexed.

Um there's a farm just south of the new Kroger.

Uh it's actually a donut hole in the middle in the middle of the city limits.

Um property owner never did want to be annexed.

We have a new property owner now, and that property owner is requested to be annexed.

So that that would clean that corporate boundary portion of the city up a little bit.

Um and then there's a small little annexation behind the dollar store across the street.

Um the church at that location, they have requested to be annexed.

So we're working through those, but the property just south of Kroger will definitely come to you all on the first meeting in September.

And I did want to let you know we're working on that date of when we will hold that meeting because we always have our meetings on Tuesdays.

However, that's after Labor Day, and council always moves their meeting to Tuesday after a holiday and a Monday.

So if council meets on Monday, our meeting will be Wednesday.

So I just need to I need to figure out what council plans to do on that.

So it we'll either meet on that Tuesday or Wednesday.

So um, but again, we will not have a meeting on uh at this point on the first meeting in August.

And then Steve, I know you like to get the update on our construction activity.

Um we're still working on the reporting of our new software.

We're not thrilled with how that functions.

So we're trying to build that out differently to where we get reporting that works for us.

But where we stand uh from early February to now to February is when our permit system came online.

So where we stand from a cost of construction from that point to today, commercial we're at 30 million dollars in cost of construction, and then residential were at 20.

So we're about 50 million total um through about the end of July.

So we're a little low on where we've been historically, and then over the especially over the last few years.

Um, like I said, there could be a lot of commercial or a lot of um construction activity coming up in the rest of the year, but um it has been a little slower from a permitting and construction standpoint this year.

So is the VA in that number?

No, they pulled their permit last year.

So that's what I thought.

Okay.

Anything else from the commission?

If not, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment.

Somebody'd like to make one.

You can handle this.

I make a motion to adjourn.

We have a motion made in a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

We're adjourned.