On the agenda: DeKalb County DeKalb County Plan Commission Agenda & Packet for September 16, 2026 — Data Center (Sep 16)

DEKALB COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PLANNING  BUILDING  GIS

301 S. Union St., Auburn IN 46706
Planning: 260.925.1923  Building: 260.925.3021  GIS: 260.927.2356  Fax: 260.927.4791

AGENDA
DeKalb County Plan Commission
Commissioners Court – 2nd Floor DeKalb County Court House

Wednesday, September 16, 2026
5:00 PM
To view the livestream, click here: https://tinyurl.com/YouTubeDCPC
1. Roll call
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Prayer
4. Approval of Minutes: August 19, 2026
5. Consideration of Claims: August 2026
Payroll
Amazon
Lassus
Legal Ad – KPC Newspaper
Mileage – Cameron Rice
Tireville
Verizon
WestWood Car Wash
TOTAL:
6.

Old Business: None

7.

New Business:


$30,104.62
$3,258.38
$265.99
$25.00
$83.05
$790.52
$83.46
$20.00 ____
$34,631.02

Public meeting presentation of proposed Data Center Ordinance

8.

Reports from Officers, Committees, Staff or Town/City Liaisons

9.

Comments from Public in Attendance

10. Adjournment
Next Meeting: Plan Commission Special Meeting October 7, 2026 7 PM

If you cannot attend, please contact Meredith Reith
[email protected] | (260) 925-1923
*PLEASE ENTER THROUGH THE NORTH DOOR OF
COURTHOUSE LOCATED ON SEVENTH STREET.
**No cellphones, tablets, laptops, or weapons are permitted.

Voting Members:
President - Jason Carnahan – Purdue Ag Extension Representative (Yearly Appointment)
Vice President - William Van Wye – County Council Representative (Yearly Appointment)
Kellen Dooley – County Commissioners Representative (Yearly Appointment)
Sandra Harrison – Township Trustee Representative (Yearly Appointment)
Glenn Crawford/Tyler Lanning (Alternate) – County Surveyor (Member by Elected Office)
Jerry Yoder/Jared Malcolm (Alternate) – Citizen Member (R) - Term: (Jan 1, 2024 – Dec 31, 2027)
Suzanne Davis – Citizen Member (D) – Term: (Jan 1, 2025 – Dec 31, 2029)
Angie Holt – Citizen Member (R) – Term: Jan 1, 2023 – Dec 31, 2026)
Frank Pulver – Citizen Member (D) – Term: Jan 1, 2025 – Dec 31, 2028)
Non-Voting Members:
Elysia Rodgers – Purdue Ag Extension Representative (Member by Indiana Code)
Andrew Kruse - Attorney

MINUTES
DEKALB COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION
Wednesday August 19, 2026
The Regular Meeting of the DeKalb County Plan Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the
DeKalb County Commissioner’s Courtroom by Plan Commission President, Jason Carnahan.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Jason Carnahan, William Van Wye, Kellen Dooley, Suzanne Davis, Angie Holt,
Sandra Harrison, Frank Pulver, Tyler Lanning, Jared Malcolm (Jerry’s Alternate) and Elysia Rodgers.
Members Absent: Jerry Yoder
Staff Present: Director/Zoning Administrator Chris Gaumer, and Secretary Meredith Reith
Staff Absent: Plan Commission Attorney Andrew Kruse
Community Representatives Present: Mike Makarewich
Public in Attendance: None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Jason Carnahan led The Pledge of Allegiance.
PRAYER:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Motioned by Kellen Dooley to approve the June 17 & July 7 & July 15, 2026 meeting minutes. Seconded
by Sandy Harrison. None opposed. Motion carried.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS:
Jason Carnahan inquired about any comments, questions, or motions to approve July 2026 claims,
totaling $145,873.44.
Sandra Harrison motioned to approve claims seconded by Suzanne Davis. None opposed. Motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
Petition #26-34 – Public Hearing for IC: 36-7-4.3, requiring a review of the Unified Development
Ordinance and any zoning regulations and land development rules, with the goal of increasing housing
development.
Chris Gaumer explained that Indiana law requires Plan Commission’s to review local zoning and
development regulations using nine state-established housing factors and submit a report to the State by
January 1, 2027. The purpose is to evaluate potential ways to encourage housing development, but the
law does not require the Plan Commission to adopt any specific changes. The Commission's
responsibility is to discuss and consider the factors and report its findings to the State. The first factor to
consider was to provide higher density housing of duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, or quadplexes in areas
designated for single-family homes. This would be for anywhere that we allow for single-family homes
and there needs to be discussion on should we allow for higher density development in those areas. From
his understanding there may need to be some review from the health department as far as what type of
septics these would need to be. Typically, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes are going to be in
municipalities, cities and towns that have the city sewer and water to handle these types of developments.
Andrew Kruse added that we will need to discuss them but not necessarily make any exact decision on
them.
1

Mr. Gaumer stated that the housing factors could be reviewed over the course of 2027, allowing the Plan
Commission to evaluate each item individually before making recommendations. He noted that some of
the proposed housing options, including accessory dwelling units (ADUs), are concepts that have been
discussed previously. He expressed support for considering owner-occupied duplexes, triplexes, and
fourplexes in certain residential zoning districts, noting that owner-occupied multi-family housing may be
more appropriate for rural areas. He explained that any proposed amendments to permit these housing
types would require a public hearing and amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
Again, his opinion would be to allow more owner-occupied style housing than just duplexes, triplexes,
and fourplexes. Especially in the county, I think it makes more sense to have owner-occupied. People
keep them cleaner if they live there and own them versus owning them living in Fort Wayne or California
and renting them out. He asked if anyone had any questions or recommendations on this.
William Van Wye asked if this was like the deal up in LaGrange County or Elkhart County where mom
and dad has a house and they add on another house to it so a kid can live there.
Mr. Gaumer stated that potentially it would be multi-family attached. So it would be more like Sandy and
I want to live in the same house. I’m not her child, so when she’s not cooking for me cleaning, they’re
two separate dwelling units. It will be it’s own stand-alone unit which is connected by a wall.
Jason Carnahan added that a lot of times they’re mirrored around a garage in the center and two dwellings
on the outside of it or above.
Angie Holt asked so the reference on terminology, duplex, triplex versus two-units or three units, is that
the same or are those talking about different things?
Mr. Gaumer stated that he assumed it would mean the same thing. Like a two-unit, or three-unit is a
triplex.
Mr. Van Wye gave an example, he was watching this house and they built a garage. The Mom lives on
one side in the back. Grandma lives there and the two kids live in the front, all connected by a garage.
Mr. Gaumer added that if they are considered separate living units. So, when kid moves away, they could
theoretically rent that out as a separate full dwelling unit.
Kellen Dooley asked what would happen if the owner sells and they just go straight to a triplex and the
owner is not living there. So, it would have to be owner occupied. We’d have to have something as a
restriction on the property.
Andrew Kruse added that if the owner leaves, then it would be an illegal structure.
Mr. Gaumer stated that is correct, you’d have to have some sort of restriction if the owner sells.
Mr. Dooley added that what if they put people in there without anyone being aware.
Mr. Gaumer answered that we would have to put something on the property that says that the owner must
live there.
Mr. Kruse asked who would be enforcing this.
Mr. Gaumer addressed that you will need to talk to your state legislators.
Mr. Kruse addressed that this would be a hard thing to enforce. Somebody moves out, another family
moves in. How do you enforce that?
Suzanne Davis added that or if the owner would pass away unexpectedly, you know, all the sudden
you’ve got three other families.
Mr. Gaumer believed that what the state’s getting at is that they want to see more quote-unquote
affordable housing throughout the state. So, they’re saying that allowing duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes,
2

accessory dwelling units allows for more affordable housing. He explained that none of this really makes
sense to him, but we must talk about it.
Mr. Carnahan added that this will get sticky if they’re out in A1 or A2 on a couple acres versus in town
on a quarter acre on city sewer and water. That’s a little different, a little easier to manage as if they were
out in A1 or A2. That’s where he believed the owner, operator, owner lives there is more important.
Mr. Van Wye questioned if it’s multi-family and even though there’s a wall between them, will we need
to have three septics or can you put a big enough one to handle it.
Mr. Gaumer stated that you will need to address this question with the Health Department.
Mrs. Holt added that it would probably be impractical and would probably have to have four separate
septic systems. Then that would force them to be more on city utilities.
Mr. Gaumer added that this law was created for probably more of Marion County, Hamilton County, and
Allen County where it’s not designed to be used in a rural county like DeKalb. It’s impossible to fix these
types of things without the highway department, health department, and all the other departments
involved. There are multiple other departments that must get involved. Also, a municipality like Auburn
can do these things easier because they have the systems available to do them versus putting in a septic
system. Again, we must discuss them, and we must see if this is a priority for us or if it’s something that
we’re good with what we have. We will have to send a report back to the state on what the plan
commission wants to see.
Mrs. Holt asked if the language in red is dictated by the state.
Mr. Gaumer stated that this is what he has recommended.
Mrs. Holt stated that based on what the legislation told us to do, applied to because we have A1 and A2,
then.
Mr. Kruse stated that the black is what the state is requiring.
Mr. Gaumer moved on to factor two. This is for accessory dwelling units construction of other housing
types including accessory dwelling units and manufactured or modular housing. We currently allow
manufactured and modular housing. We do not currently allow accessory dwelling units. This has been
brought up in the past and we only allow accessory dwelling units for dependent housing. It used to be
only dependent parent housing and now it’s dependent housing. So if it’s a son or daughter or mother or
father it doesn’t matter. He believed that accessory dwelling units could be considered a good thing. If
Angie wants to build a small house for him to live in her backyard and she doesn’t care and I’m paying
her rent, he thought it sounded like a good idea. He addressed that the imitation should be if she would
ever want to subdivide that off and have it be its own single family house, it should be able to meet the
standards of the ordinance. If it gets divided off, half of that needs to be double the setbacks of the
ordinance. So, the side yard and rear seatbacks should all be able to be maintained with an accessory
dwelling unit.
Mrs. Davis asked what kind of square footage we are talking.
Mr. Gaumer answered that this would be dependable on whatever you choose. He believed that the square
footage should be reduced anyway. We’re at 1,200 square feet. It’s too large, and there’s no need for it.
The health department doesn’t require it. We’re the only department that requires 1,200 square feet for a
single family home.
Mrs. Davis added that she didn’t think that you would want the ADU to be equal to that or bigger.
Mr. Gaumer left it up to the plan commission to decide. He addressed that he didn’t disagree and it’s
something that the planning commission would have to decide what those ADU requirements would be.
He believed that this was something that we should discuss and needs to be considered. We need to also
3

consider changing or reducing the requirements size for a single-family home. Especially with how
people are buying properties, a lot of single people want to build a house and don’t need 1,200 square
feet. You can always add onto your house if you need it to be bigger.
Mr. Carnahan asked if we had that defined as being able to be a stand-alone unit. Like if you use an
accessory dwelling, like say I’m going to put a kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom in my pole barn.
Currently, we would say the health department most likely would say just run the line to your existing
septic. This wouldn’t necessarily make it a stand-alone unit. It’s an accessory dwelling, but it’s still tied to
the same septic.
Mr. Gaumer added that the plan commission should not be requiring an accessory dwelling unit to have
another septic system. If the health department would, then this would be on them. Don’t give yourself
more requirements than you need to for these types of things. A septic is based on bedrooms, not on the
size of the house.
Mr. Carnahan added that he was thinking sizing if it had to be its own stand-alone thing like it was said in
here about splitting if off it must meet the requirements. This is what he had in mind.
Mr. Gaumer stated that the health department currently allows for people building a house, but if there
wasn’t enough room someone could provide an easement for the septic to be located on the neighbor’s
property. They would allow this. This would again be up to the health department not the plan
commission.
Mr. Gaumer moved onto the next factors. He stated that the next two don’t really have anything to do
with the county. For number 3 it states, “adaptive reuse of commercial buildings for residential use such
as allowing multifamily development in retail, office, and light manufacturing zones.” As far as he was
aware there’s no vacant commercial buildings out in the county standing alone that are zoned commercial
that could be used for residential units. For number 4 it states, “Increasing the allowable floor area ratio in
multifamily housing areas.” We do not use floor area ratio. Instead, we use an impervious lot coverage.
Our multi-family is currently at 50-60% for impervious coverage. Again, multi-family is typically not
going to happen in areas that we have jurisdiction over. It’s typically going to happen in the ETJ’s of
Auburn, Butler, Garrett, Waterloo, Ashley or St. Joe. Where water and municipal sewer are readily
available. He didn’t believe that this was something we needed to worry about.
Mr. Gaumer addressed number 5 which states, “Waiving or eliminating regulations such as requirements
for, garage size and placement, steeper roof pitch, minimum lot size and square footage, greater setbacks,
off-street parking, design standards that restrict or prohibit the use of code complaint products, and
property height limitations.” He stated that currently we don’t have a garage size requirement and they
just meet the setbacks. If it’s a detached garage, it meets the accessory setbacks, which is 10ft and
attached is 30 ft off the side yard setback. We don’t have a roof pitch requirement, minimum lot size and
square footage in our A1 and A2 is 2 acres and 1200 sq. ft. He stated that he would prefer to reduce it to
800 sq. ft. & keep the lot size. When eliminating greater setbacks, you could add that the front setbacks
may be waived if neighboring properties are less than required setbacks. For example, if you line up on a
row of homes that are only 30 ft off the center of the road, you can meet that 30 ft setback line instead of
being 50 ft from the center of the road plus whatever the thoroughfare plan is. He addressed that rarely do
we have an issue with this, and if they do, they go to the BZA. Off-street parking we rarely use but could
eliminate. Design standards, the county doesn’t have any architectural design standards. The property
height limitations, you could probably eliminate without noticing. Meaning that we have requirements as
far as height limitations within every zoning district, but he thought this could be eliminated. Again, any
of these will require a public hearing to add or remove in the UDO.
Mr. Gaumer went onto number 6 it states, “Reviewing impact fee zones with zone advisory committee for
improvements.” He stated that we don’t currently have impact fees. This is important and he believes the
county should investigate this. The County Council and County Commissioner should look at this to
4

potentially increase revenue for large developments that are coming. For number 7 it states, “Streamlining
or shortening the permitting processes and timeline, including through one stop and parallel process
permitting by fifteen days or more.” Typically, our permits take less than 3 days to issue, so this doesn’t
seem to be an issue for us. The only time it would take longer than that is somebody’s stalled at the health
department through their septic or needing to sign a waiver. For number 8 any tax abatements go through
council, so this is not applicable to us. For number 9 it states, “Donating vacant land for affordable
housing development.” He wasn’t aware of what vacant land would be out there that’s owned by the
county. This is something that we could compile.
Mr. Dooley stated that the county does own some property but, it’s all old rail ways or trails.
Mr. Gaumer added that these probably wouldn’t be properties that could be turned into housing. That’s
everything on this that he had. On the other pages provided in your packet is just information for
everyone. Indiana code requires that all fees related to planning, zoning, and building must go into their
own non-reverting fund, so those funds cannot be put back into the general fund and can only be used for
department expenses. This shows what the cost is what you guys deal with daily. It costs the county $730
to have you come to a meeting. That’s the plan commission members, plus the plan commission
secretary, that doesn’t include the lights or security. What we make for a special meeting to come to the
plan commission is $600 and a rezone is $300. The County is technically losing money for someone to
petition the plan commission if it’s one petition. Same thing with plat committee, our plats are $300 to
come before them. The cost per meeting for the county is $430, typically we will have three or four plats
during this meeting. The BZA, nothing at the BZA costs more than $500. This would be for a use
variance and development standards variance at $150 and a special exception is $300. This is something
to just think about that our fees for one petition don’t cover the cost of you all to be here. We cannot
change our fees now for five years and we can only change them based off the inflation rate and cost of
living.
Mr. Gaumer moved onto page four; this is about shooting ranges. He stated that we can’t deny a shooting
range or delay their permit approval on maintenance, repair, or expansion of a continued permitted use.
So, if the conservation club needed to do some sort of expansion but wasn’t zoned for it, we can’t deny
them based off of that. A retail sporting goods store must be permitted in commercial districts. We
currently don’t have that, so we do need to add that as a permitted use to be compliant with Indiana code.
Indoor shooting ranges must be permitted in commercial, industrial, and agricultural districts. We will
need to allow them in any commercial, industrial, or agricultural districts. The last one was the
memberships to the BZA and Plan Commission, basically what this law is saying is that if the county
commissioners remain the same through elections, any board member remains appointed. So, if Tyler was
to be appointed by the county commissioners of let’s say Donald Grogg, Jackie Rowan, and Randy Deetz.
If they were still in office now, his appointment would remain. Typically, there would need to be a
reappointment of that member. That reappointment is no longer needed; they just remain in the same
office as whoever elected them. They must remove them for good cause, but they must give them a
written copy of the charges against the member. He addressed that this is all he had and there’s some
things here that should be reviewed, but there’s obviously things here that just don’t have any pertinence
to the county.
Mr. Kruse asked whether formal action was needed regarding the State housing review.
Mr. Gaumer responded that Indiana Code only requires documentation that the factors were reviewed and
he recommended that the ordinance review committee continue evaluating the factors through 2027.
Mr. Van Wye addressed that he had one question before we move on. We have nothing for container
homes?
Mr. Gaumer also confirmed that container homes are permitted so long as they meet applicable building
code requirements and minimum dwelling size standards of 1,200 sq. ft.
5

Mr. Carnahan opened the public portion of the hearing up to any comments or questions. Hearing None.
He closed the public portion of the hearing. He asked the board to entertain a motion like Chris discussed.
A motion was made by Sandra Harrison, seconded by Suzanne Davis to acknowledge that we
reviewed House Enrolled Act 1001 through a public hearing.
REPORTS FROM OFFICERS, COMMITTEES, STAFF OR TOWN/CITY LIAINSONS:
Mrs. Davis informed the board that the City of Auburn held their meeting. They discussed HEA 1001 and
they came up with a few good ideas. The garages right now, there’s certain standards for them, and they
talked about maybe eliminating that. They were in favor of ADU’s. A couple of developers came and had
some good ideas about what would help reduce their costs. They’re going to have some more meetings
with the developers and see what they can come up with.
Mrs. Holt stated that Waterloo held their meeting. They discussed and reviewed that their looking to
expand economic development agreement by one parcel with the TIF on the North Washington Street
property. There’s a document that’s getting presented to the Redevelopment Commission. It’ll then go to
the Plan Commission and the Town Council for further action.
Mrs. Harrison stated that she missed the Butler meeting. Andrew Provines has now resigned as City
Planner. Hamilton had their meeting. They had to bring back the sign ordinance that they approved at the
previous meeting in July because they didn’t realize they had to have a public hearing. They had the
public hearing, and it was approved and moved on to be reviewed by the Town Council. They also had a
vacation of an easement and that was approved.
No reports for Ashley or Garrett.
Mr. Gaumer stated that the other thing that he did have was the Data Center ordinance meeting schedule
coming up throughout the remainder of the year. The committee’s met quite a few times over the last few
months. We are in the final stages of drafting some language. We’re meeting again next Wednesday and
then on September 16th the plan commission meeting will be at 5:00. Mark this on your calendars and this
will be more of a public presentation of the proposed ordinance, so it’s not going to be a public hearing
but just a public presentation of the proposed ordinance to get some feedback back from the plan
commission and from the residents. He went over the remaining dates on the schedule. He wanted to
make sure everyone was aware of what was going on.
COMMENTS/QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC IN ATTENDANCE:
None
ADJOURNMENT:
Jason Carnahan adjourned the meeting at 7:43 p.m.
____________________________

________________________________

President – Jason Carnahan

Secretary – Meredith Reith

6

Section 5.XX: DC-01: Data Center; General
This Data Center Standards section applications to the following zoning districts or districts approved
for Data Center Facilities:
I2 – Low Intensity Industrial & I3 – High Intensity Industrial: Tier 1 (Colocation, Enterprise & Edge
Data Centers)
HI – High Impact: Tier 2 (Data Center) & Tier 3 (Hyperscale Data Center)
The following Data Center standards apply:

A. Development Standards. In addition to the standards in the I2, Low Intensity Industrial; I3, High
Intensity Industrial and HI, High Impact Industrial Zoning District, the following standards apply. If
any standard in Article 2 or Article 5 contradicts these standards, the more restrictive standard
applies.
1. Maximum campus size shall not exceed one-thousand (1,000) contiguous acres. Property
separated only by a public roadway, railroad right-of-way, drainage easement, or utility
easement shall be considered contiguous.
2. Minimum Building Setbacks:
a. Tier 1, Tier 2 & 3:
i. All principal buildings shall meet the underlying zoning district setback standards.
ii. Emergency generators shall be located at least 1,000 feet from any existing
dwelling, as measured from their property line, or Residential Zoning District, as
measured from the edge of the district.
3. Building Height:
a. Tier 1 & Tier 2: Subject to the standard maximum height in underlying zoning district.
An additional 15 feet allowed above the base height solely where a parapet functions as
an acoustical or visual screening for rooftop equipment.
b. Tier 3: Maximum base height of 80 feet, inclusive of rooftop equipment with additional
20 feet allowed above the base height solely where a parapet functions as an acoustical
or visual screening for rooftop equipment.
c. Exceptions to maximum Building Height:
i. Architectural features, antennas, lightning protection devices, mechanical screening,
and utility structures may exceed the maximum height where required by applicable
building codes.
4. Design & Development:
a. Orientation of substations, generators, HVAC equipment, and other noise-generating
equipment shall be oriented and sited on the portion of the parcel facing away from
abutting non-industrial district wherever physically practicable, using the principal
building as an acoustic and visual barrier.

1|Page

b. Rooftop equipment screening. Rooftop-mounted mechanical equipment shall be set
back from the building façade such that the top of the equipment or its screen falls
below a 45-degree sightline drawn from the top of the parapet, so as not to be visible —
or directly exposed acoustically — from ground level at the property line.
c. Vibration isolation. All mechanical equipment generating vibration (chillers, generators,
pumps) shall be mounted on vibration-isolating equipment pads or spring isolators sized
to the manufacturer's specification for the installed load, such that vibration is not
perceptible at or beyond the property line.
5. Landscaping and Buffer Yards:
a. Landscape buffers shall meet the underlying zoning district landscape standards. The
County Commissioner may require an increased buffer and landscape standards in the
Community Benefit Agreement.
6. Fencing
a. Security fencing shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height.
b. Fencing shall consist of decorative metal fencing or other materials approved by the
Plan Commission.
c. Barbed wire may be installed only above eight (8) feet.
d. Electrified fencing shall be prohibited.
7. Expansion and/or modification:
a. If a data center facility is approved, the approved site plan & studies shall constitute the
entirety of that approved facility. Expansions or modifications occurring in phases or
through multiple applications shall be evaluated based upon the cumulative
development of the Data Center Campus.
b. Expansions or modifications that do not result in an increase in building area, campus
acreage, electrical demand, water consumption, noise, emissions, traffic, or other
material impacts may be approved by the Zoning Administrator when the modification
remains in compliance with all applicable provisions of this Unified Development
Ordinance and the approved site plan.
c. Expansions or modifications that results in a material increase in the physical size,
operational capacity, utility demand, or potential impacts of the Data Center Facility
shall require review and approval in accordance with the applicable development
review procedures of this Unified Development Ordinance.
d. Whether the expansions or modifications are approved by the Zoning Administrator or
the Plan Commission, the County may require updated studies, plans, or other
information reasonably necessary to evaluate the impacts of a proposed expansion or
modification, including, as applicable, electrical demand, water supply and
consumption, traffic, noise and vibration, emergency response, stormwater, landscaping
and buffering, and emissions.

B. Performance Standards:
1. Noise:
2|Page

a. The operation of a Data Center shall not create noise in excess of the following sound
levels when measured at any property line:
i. Daytime (7:00 a.m. – 9:00 p.m.): 50 dBA / 60 dBC
ii. Nighttime (9:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.): 45 dBA / 55 dBC
b. Sound measurements shall be obtained utilizing the A-weighted scale (dBA) and shall
be performed in accordance with the most current ANSI standards.
c. Following commencement of operations, the Plan Commission may require additional
sound testing upon receipt of a documented complaint alleging non-compliance.
d. If testing demonstrates non-compliance, corrective measures shall be completed within
ninety (90) days or such additional time approved by the County.
e. May be exempt if baseline study is shown to already be in excess of requirements, but
shall also have no net-increase in existing levels.
2. Emergency Generators:
a. Emergency generators shall be permitted only as accessory equipment.
b. Routine generator testing shall be limited to:
i. Monday through Friday: 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
ii. Generator testing shall not occur on Saturdays or Sundays or legal holidays except
during emergency conditions or when required by federal or state regulations.
iii. Maximum 50 hours per year and only for routine testing with any demand-response
use.
1. Disclosure to the County Zoning Administrator shall be required prior to any
scheduled testing.
c. Emergency generators shall utilize sound attenuation measures sufficient to comply
with Section B1, Noise.
d. Fuel storage tanks shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
3. Water Supply and Cooling:
a. A Water Supply Report shall be submitted identifying:
i. Average daily demand.
ii. Peak daily demand.
iii. Annual projected consumption.
iv. Proposed cooling technology.
v. Water conservation measures.
b. The applicant shall demonstrate that sufficient water supply is available without
adversely affecting existing users.
c. Alternative cooling technologies that reduce potable water consumption are encouraged
where practical.
3|Page

d. The County may require additional hydrogeologic information if groundwater is
proposed as the primary source.
e. The County Commissioners may require additional standards in the Community Benefit
Agreement.
4. Electrical Service:
a. Prior to approval, the applicant shall submit written verification from the electric utility
confirming the ability to serve the proposed development.
b. The applicant shall identify:
i. Estimated peak electrical demand.
ii. Proposed electrical service voltage.
iii. Location of substations.
iv. Transmission improvements required to serve the development.
c. Approval by the County shall not obligate any utility provider to construct
infrastructure.
d. The County Commissioners may require additional standards in the Community Benefit
Agreement.
5. Traffic Impact Study:
a. A Traffic Impact Study prepared by a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of
Indiana shall accompany the application.
b. The study shall evaluate:
i. Existing roadway conditions.
ii. Construction traffic.
iii. Employee traffic.
iv. Oversized equipment deliveries.
v. Required roadway improvements.
vi. Proposed access points.
c. The County may require roadway improvements necessary to safely accommodate the
proposed development and The County Commissioners may require additional
standards in the Community Benefit Agreement.
6. Emergency Response Plan:
a. Prior to issuance of an Improvement Location Permit, the owner shall submit an
Emergency Response Plan addressing:
i.

Fire events.

ii.

Utility failures.

iii. Hazardous material releases.
4|Page

iv. Battery Storage Systems.
v.

Fuel spills.

vi. Emergency contacts.
vii. Site access procedures.
viii. The Emergency Response Plan shall be reviewed by the local Fire Department and
County Emergency Management Agency prior to commencement of operations.
The County Commissioners may require additional standards in the Community
Benefit Agreement.

C. Required Submittals:
An application for a Data Center shall include, in addition to all materials required above and under
Section 9.08, the following:
ALL materials, plans & reports shall be reviewed by a 3 rd party engineering and/or consulting firm
chosen by the DeKalb County Plan Commission and/or DeKalb County Commissioners & paid for by
the developer to review all plans for compliance with local, state and federal regulations and act as
consultant for DeKalb County Government to take project through the Zoning & Development Plan
processes.
1. Power Infrastructure & Ratepayer Protection Plan, including:
a. Projected average and peak electrical demand;
b. Identification of all required utility upgrades attributable to the project;
c. A statement describing how the applicant will ensure that infrastructure costs attributable to
the project are not shifted to local ratepayers.
2. Utility Certification Letter from the serving electric utility certifying that:
a. Adequate capacity exists to serve the proposed facility;
b. Required upgrades attributable to the project are identified; and
c. The proposed facility will not cause electrical interference, voltage fluctuation, or service
degradation to surrounding users.
3. Water Resource & Conservation Plan showing compliance with B(3) above and including:
a. Source(s) of water;
b. Average and peak daily demand;
c. Cooling system type;
d. Water recycling and reuse measures;
e. Drought contingency plan;
f. Identification of any water withdrawals.
4. Grid Flexibility / Curtailment Plan, demonstrating the facility’s capability to reduce electrical
load during grid stress events.
5. Emissions & On-Site Generation Plan (if any combustion-based generation is proposed).
5|Page

6. Emergency Services Coordination Plan, prepared in consultation with local fire, sheriff, police
and emergency agencies.
7. Construction & Access Logistics Plan, identifying:
a. Haul routes for heavy equipment and materials;
b. Emergency access routes;
c. Any required roadway improvements;
d. A letter of acknowledgment from the County Highway Department.
8. Pre-Application Baseline Sound Study. The applicant shall commission a baseline ambient sound
survey, conducted by a qualified acoustical engineer, at all Sensitive Receptor locations within
2,000 feet of the proposed site, prior to submission of the application.
9. Pre-Application Baseline Vibration Study. The applicant shall commission a baseline vibration
survey, conducted by a qualified engineer with vibration-specific experience, at all Sensitive
Receptor locations within 1,000 feet of the proposed site, prior to submission of the application.
a. Site-specific soil/geological documentation: The study shall document actual soil conditions
at the site rather than relying on generic propagation assumptions.
b. Predictive modeling: The application shall include modeled vibration levels at all Sensitive
Receptors and Sensitive Structures under full operational load, using the specific equipment
proposed (chillers, generators, transformers, and any pile-driving or heavy compaction
anticipated during construction).
10. Landscape Buffer/Landscape Plan:
a. Landscape Plan per Standards above.
11. Noise & Vibration Plan:
a. Noise & Vibration Mitigation Plan per standards above.
12. Type of Energy, Power Demand and Grid Protection:
a. Tier A – Firm Self-Supply: A Data Center that demonstrates firm electrical capacity sufficient
to serve 100% of its maximum planned load through on-site generation or dedicated
generation with contractual delivery rights may be approved under Tier A.
b. Tier B – Grid-Dependent: A Data Center relying on the public grid shall:
i. Fund all utility infrastructure and system upgrades attributable to the project;
ii. Provide additional mitigation as determined by the Board;
iii. Enter binding demand-response and curtailment commitments.
c. Power Demand Response: All Data Centers shall demonstrate the ability to reduce load upon
request by the utility or during declared grid emergencies. Testing and annual reporting may
be required.
13. Water Protection must be demonstrated and plans submitted must show:
a. Closed-loop or high-efficiency cooling systems are required unless infeasible.
6|Page

b. Use of non-potable or reclaimed water is encouraged.
c. The Plan Commission may impose water withdrawal limits and mitigation.
d. Silurian/Devonian Aquifer Use: Where a Data Center proposes to source water from the
Silurian/Devonian aquifer system, the Plan Commission may allow higher use thresholds if
the applicant demonstrates:
i. No impairment of existing users;
ii. Adequate recharge and long-term yield;
iii. Monitoring wells and reporting;
iv. Closed-loop or high-efficiency cooling. Conditions may require adaptive management.
e. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed cooling system incorporates reasonably
available measures to minimize potable water consumption and protect the long-term
availability of the proposed water source.
14. Annual Water Quality Reporting: Where process or cooling water is used and/or discharged, the
operator shall submit an annual report showing:
a. Source(s);
b. Volume withdrawn and discharged;
c. Treatment methods;
d. Effluent metrics;
e. IDEM compliance certification. Third-party verification may be required.
15. Emissions and On-Site Generation:
a. Combustion generation shall comply with all state and federal permits.
b. Emissions shall meet PF-01 Performance Standards.
c. Additional mitigation or monitoring may be required.
d. The development shall not be designed or operated in a manner that would unnecessarily
preclude compliance with applicable County development standards governing associated
utility, energy, emissions, carbon management, or other infrastructure.
16. Financial Assurance – Letter of Credit
a. The County Commissioners and Plan Commission may require an irrevocable Letter of
Credit (LOC) in a form acceptable to the County Attorney.
b. The LOC may guarantee:
i.

Utility infrastructure;

ii. Generation commitments;
iii. Water recycling systems;
iv. Buffering, screening, and noise mitigation;
v. Any other imposed conditions.
7|Page

c. The LOC, if required, shall:
i. Be payable to DeKalb County, Indiana through the Board of Commissioners;
ii. Remain in effect until all obligations are certified complete;
iii. Be drawable upon default.
17. The County Commissioners may negotiate and enter into a Community Benefit Agreement
and/or Economic Development Agreement addressing project-specific infrastructure
improvements, mitigation measures, community benefits, economic development commitments,
and other matters within the authority of the County Commissioners. The Plan Commission
shall not have the authority to enforce the EDA and/or CBA, unless explicitly addressed in the
agreement.
18. Findings and Conditions
In addition to Section 9.08, the Plan Commission shall find that:
a. The required plans & studies demonstrate compliance with the applicable development
standards and any Community Benefit Agreement or Economic Development Agreements.
The Board may impose any reasonable conditions necessary to ensure compliance.
Definitions:
Battery Storage System. One or more devices assembled together capable of storing electrical energy
for use at a later time.
Campus. One or more contiguous parcels under common ownership or control developed as a single
Data Center Facility, regardless of the number of phases or buildings.
Cooling Water: Water withdrawn from any source and used, whole or in part, for the purpose of heat
rejection from Data Center IT equipment, mechanical systems, or associated infrastructure — including
but not limited to cooling towers, evaporative coolers, adiabatic systems, and once-through cooling.
Data Center or Data Center Facility. A facility consisting primarily of buildings, structures,
equipment, and associated infrastructure used for the processing, storage, management, transmission,
exchange, or other computational use of digital information, including associated electrical, mechanical,
cooling, communications, security, and utility infrastructure, regardless of the specific technology or
equipment utilized
Emergency Generator. A stationary internal combustion engine or turbine utilized solely for emergency
electrical power or periodic operational testing.
Power Demand: Cumulative power demand of all data center buildings on a single parcel or under
common ownership/control.
Tier 1: Colocation, Enterprise & Edge Data Center: A Data Center Facility collocated on industrial
zoned site designed to operate at an electrical demand less than five (5) megawatts.
Tier 2: Data Center: A Data Center Facility designed to operate at an electrical demand of five (5) to one
hundred (100) megawatts.

8|Page

Tier 3: Hyperscale Data Center: A Data Center Facility occupying more than one hundred (100) acres or
designed to operate at an electrical demand exceeding one hundred (100) megawatts.
Water Withdrawal: The removal of water from any source — municipal supply, groundwater well, or
surface water — for use at the Data Center site, regardless of whether that water is subsequently treated,
recycled, or discharged.

9|Page