On the agenda: Tippecanoe County meeting — DATA CENTER (Aug 5)

1

THE

AREA PLAN COMMISSION
OF TIPPECANOE COUNTY

ORDINANCE & BYLAW COMMITTEE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DATE ......................................................................................................AUGUST 5, 2026
START TIME ............................................. Immediately following the 4:30pm Exec Committee mtg
MEETING END TIME ............................................................................................ 6:00PM
PLACE ........................................................................................... TIPPECANOE ROOM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
20 NORTH 3RD STREET
LAFAYETTE, IN 47901
AGENDA
I.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
From the July 1, 2026 meeting.

II.

PROPOSED THOROUGHFARE PLAN AND ORDINANCE UPDATES
Continued discussion on the proposed Thoroughfare Plan (TP), a part of the
Comprehensive Plan of Tippecanoe County. At the same time, amendments
to the Unified Zoning Ordinance and the Unified Subdivision Ordinance will
need to be adopted to match new terminology found in the proposed TP.

III.

DATA CENTERS
A proposed UZO amendment to replace the previous amendment regarding
large data centers (#123, adopted in November 2025) that is due to sunset in
November 2026.

IV.

CITIZEN COMMENTS

V.

ADJOURNMENT

Membership of the APC Ordinance & Bylaw Committee:
(Committee members are appointed by the APC President to one-year terms starting each January.)
Larry Leverenz
Jackson Bogan
Tom Murtaugh
Gary Schroeder

Vicki Pearl
Diana Luper
Kathy Parker
Jerry Reynolds

APC \ AGENDAS \ OC
In accordance with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), the
Area Plan Commission of Tippecanoe County will not discriminate against qualified individuals with
disabilities on the basis of disability in its services, programs, or activities. For more information visit
www.tippecanoe.in.gov/ada

2

AREA PLAN COMMISSION OF TIPPECANOE COUNTY
ORDINANCE & BYLAW COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
DATE ............................................................................................................................................ July 1, 2026
TIME ................................................................................................................................................. 4:35 P.M.
PLACE............................................................................................................. COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
20 N. 3RD STREET
LAFAYETTE, IN 47901
This meeting was held in-person. Members of the public could watch the livestream of the meeting at
https://www.youtube.com/c/TippecanoeCountyGovernment

MEMBERS PRESENT
Jackson Bogan
Vicki Pearl
Diana Luper
Gary Schroeder
Tom Murtaugh

MEMBERS ABSENT
Larry Leverenz
Kathy Parker
Jerry Reynolds

STAFF PRESENT
Ryan O’Gara
Amanda Esposito

Nathan McBurnett
Patrick Jones, Atty

Jackson Bogan called the meeting to order at 4:35 PM.
I.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Gary Schroeder moved to approve the minutes from the June 3, 2026, public hearing. Diana Luper
seconded, and the minutes were approved by unanimous voice vote.
II. PROPOSED THOROUGHFARE PLAN AND ORDINANCE UPDATES
The proposed Thoroughfare Plan (TP), a part of the Comprehensive Plan of Tippecanoe County,
has been thoroughly vetted and is ready to replace the existing Thoroughfare Plan. At the same
time, amendments to the Unified Zoning Ordinance and the Unified Subdivision Ordinance will
need to be adopted to match new terminology found in the proposed TP.
Ryan O’Gara, APC staff, introduced the Thoroughfare Plan (TP) as one that had been in the works for
many years and was finally culminating into a Comprehensive Plan amendment along with Amendments
to the Unified Zoning Ordinance (UZO) and Unified Subdivision Ordinance (USO).
Doug Poad, APC staff, talked about how the TP process had started back in 2022 and after years of
work, it was ready for the adoption process. The current TP was adopted in May 1981 and needed to be
updated. Road design standards would be updated for all transportation modes within Tippecanoe
County and apply to all local government jurisdictions that were part of the Area Plan Commission.
Doug Poad went through a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed components of the TP which included
updated design standards, minimized road right-of-way widths, included all transportation modes, a
Complete Streets Policy for all public roads, ADA standards, safety & sidewalks, trails, bicycle lanes,
climate change, future improvements, automatic updates when key components were changed, alley
designs, on-street loading standards, and driveway locations near intersections.
Doug Poad reported that extensive outreach had been done via Facebook, Nextdoor, the APC webpage,
and news and press releases. One-on-one meetings were also held with engineering staff, Lafayette and
West Lafayette staff, Tippecanoe County staff, mayors, commissioners, town boards, survey firms, and
developer groups. This was also presented in the transportation public meetings.
Gary Schroeder asked who set the standards for Complete Streets.
Doug Poad answered that the standards were handled differently depending on the project and whether it
used federal or local funds.

3

Gary Schroeder asked if there was a set of standards that went along with Complete Streets and whether
that was something the board set or another body outside of the County set. He asked if there was a list
of standards that assessed Complete Streets.
Doug Poad answered there was no list of standards.
Gary Schroeder asked what Complete Streets meant.
Doug Poad indicated that when a project doesn’t include a sidewalk, they looked at how people were
going to be able to use other modes of transportation in that area.
Jackson Bogan asked if it was a defined term.
Gary Schroeder asked who defined the term and what was the definition of the term.
Doug Poad said that was in the long-range Metropolitan Transportation Plan that was adopted in 2012.
Gary Schroeder said it was his understanding that the Complete Streets Policy was adopted in 2012 and
it was a standard that was written by someone else. His concern was that they were adopting standards
that someone else had set that might not be relevant in 10-20 years and wondered what flexibility they
would have.
Doug Poad answered that when the Complete Streets Policy was put together, it was custom tailored to
this area based on a review of all Complete Streets policies in Indiana. The Complete Streets Policy
required a multimodal component and had a caveat that if an aspect could not be built, there would need
to be a review. That policy was being carried over into the TP.
Amanda Eposito, APC staff, added that the TP draft had a Complete Streets and multimodal
transportation section that went into detail.
Tom Murtaugh said he was looking at a draft from 2025.
Doug Poad clarified that the most recent one was from April 2026.
Tom Murtaugh had a question regarding language that outlined that all roads, new and reconstructed,
within incorporated and unincorporated towns within the rural area would have an urban cross-section
design and be built to Complete Streets guidelines. He asked if the towns were aware of those guidelines.
Doug Poad said that language was updated in the recent draft to outline that the roads should be
constructed as Complete Streets compliant and match the existing road cross-section in the adjacent
vicinity.
Tom Murtaugh clarified that statement only applied to incorporated and unincorporated towns. He
referenced the climate change section of the draft and said he did not want any trees in the tree lawns.
Doug Poad clarified that if existing trees in a tree lawn were damaged due to construction, they would be
replaced.
Tom Murtaugh wanted to strike the tree replacement sentence from the draft. The County had gotten a lot
of grief from plowing and damage to sidewalks and curbs.
Doug Poad said he was on the board for Tree Lafayette for a few years and a big topic was replacing
damaged trees.
Tom Murtaugh said they could be replaced, they could just be in the lawn.
Doug Poad said it came down to extra care being needed when constructing driveways or lots adjacent to
tree lawns where tree plantings were already established. If a tree needed to be removed or was
damaged during construction, a tree of similar caliber must be replanted. This wouldn’t apply if there were
no trees.

4

Amanda Esposito added that the draft did not say that the tree must be replanted in the tree lawn, just
that it must be replanted.
Tom Murtaugh asked if the Administrative Officer would have authority over that.
Doug Poad confirmed the AO would have authority.
Chad Spitznagle, West Lafayette Housing Director, said in West Lafayette, the AO defers to their Green
Space Administrator.
Tom Murtaugh asked if curb specs were addressed in the final draft.
Doug Poad said the current plan had a 2 ft. curb width and the new plan would be 2 ½ ft, however there
was a number of them that went back to the current width.
Tom Murtaugh said he was more questioning the curb type than the curb spec.
Doug Poad said they did not specify a type of curb.
Amanda Esposito addressed terminology in the UZO and USO that would need to be updated regarding
the types of streets and roads. Defining “rural estate zone” was not a part of the TP but was also needing
an update because there were certain requirements a property must meet to be allowed to create a rural
estate ie. not being mechanically harvested for at least three of the last five years within a certain date.
Other changes related to changing abbreviations and an appendix that referred to the Federal Aid
Primary Highway System that was no longer recognized. Outdated information tables in the UZO and
USO needed to be removed because they would now just refer to the TP.
Ryan O’Gara stated that these items were not put on the July APC agenda due to the amount of
information so the next available meeting would be the August APC hearing. This would include the
Comprehensive Plan amendment and two ordinance amendments to the UZO and USO.
Gary Schroeder indicated that this would be a big amendment with a lot of impact and he would rather
have the proposal vetted more when it could last 40-50 years.
Ryan O’Gara added that private firms and county and local departments were part of the review team.
Tim Balensiefer, TBIRD Design, 105 N 10th Street, Lafayette, said he had looked at the draft but hadn’t
heard back from his staff. He said it was overdue to be updated but agreed that everyone should look
through it again. He referenced the language about the replacement trees being the same caliber and
said that was not going to happen.
There was discussion about placing the proposal on the September APC agenda to give additional time
for feedback. It would be kept on the Ordinance Committee’s agenda for discussion and would be
formalized at the August OC meeting.
III. MISCELLANEOUS UPDATES TO THE UZO
• Changes from Lafayette regarding gas service stations;
• Filling a gap in the UZO regarding signs for home occupations and rural home occupations;
• Updates, largely from Lafayette, regarding billboards.
Ryan O’Gara introduced the first of a few miscellaneous updates to the UZO. He reported that Lafayette
City had made on-the-spot changes regarding gas service stations at their council hearing and there was
some terminology that needed to be corrected to comply with the UZO. The changes were reviewed by
Lafayette’s legal staff and they approved the corrections.
Vicki Pearl asked if these changes were for new permits.
Ryan O’Gara said that was correct, it would be for new construction. The Ordinance Committee would
need to recommend forwarding this proposal to the APC at their next meeting.

5

Amanda Esposito introduced the next update which was for sign standards for home occupations. Home
occupations and rural home occupations did not have sign standards outlined in the UZO, so the AO had
been using the zonal base rate. At the last AO meeting, it was decided that those types of businesses
would have the maximum square footage for their zone.
Nathan McBurnett, APC staff, addressed updates to the UZO regarding billboards. In 2022, the city of
Lafayette issued a variance for the timing rate of a digital billboard and created a situation where the
ordinance was being interpreted by Lafayette in a different way from the County’s interpretation. This
caused conflict with billboard regulations for outdoor advertising signs. The County’s opinion was that
when the variance was issued for the billboard in Lafayette, it created a different use called an “animated
sign” which was not allowed outside of downtown Lafayette. Efforts were being made to clarify the
definition of animated sign and distinguish between billboards and animated signs.
Kara Boyles, staff attorney for City of Lafayette, stated that the variance approved in 2022 was to allow a
billboard to change every 8 seconds, a reduction from the 1-minute standard. The Lafayette BZA
approved that variance based on the location and Lafayette did not want to extend that outside of the
area. The UZO update would modify the section on animated signs, bringing Lafayette’s practice into
alignment, and keep the standard at 1 minute while adding a definition for “interstate corridor”. An 8second timing change would be allowed in the interstate corridor which would meet the conditions of the
current billboards in that area. This would also be aligned with INDOT standards.
Tom Murtaugh asked if a property owner would have to get a variance if they wanted to do a billboard
along the interstate within the county.
Nathan McBurnett answered that they would not need to get a variance because the zoning districts
where billboards were permitted wouldn’t change. They would only need a variance if they wanted to do a
digital billboard that changed at a rate less than once per minute. This eliminated the opportunity for
variances.
Tom Murtaugh noted that billboards were eliminated along Hoosier Heartland and asked if that was done
county-wide.
Nathan McBurnett indicated it was not done county-wide.
Jackson Bogan asked about the reasoning behind not wanting billboards to be able to change every 8
seconds.
Nathan McBurnett spoke of a long-standing belief that this could create health and safety issues in traffic.
Having billboards change at a faster rate was more dangerous where traffic was slower.
Jackson Bogan clarified that currently on the interstate corridor in Tippecanoe County, outside of city
limits, the rate change would not be allowed, but within city limits it would be allowed.
Nathan McBurnett stated that was correct.
Tom Murtaugh said he hadn’t been engaged in that decision but agreed.
Nathan McBurnett indicated that emails were sent to the county commissioners. He added that they had
engaged the legal team and a concern was brought up with changing the definition of a billboard so that it
contemplated that billboards could be digitized and could change messages. The current definition of
outdoor advertising signs or billboards did not mention a digital component. The language being struck
from Chapter 4 of the UZO referenced that billboards could be animated. Language could be added that
billboards could be digital to help with clarification.
Gary Schroeder motioned to send the 3 miscellaneous UZO updates to the full Area Plan Commission
with a positive recommendation. Diana Luper seconded, and the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.

6

IV. CITIZEN COMMENTS
Steve Clevenger, address redacted, wanted to provide some history behind the timeframe in the UZO
regarding rural estate zones. The idea was to prevent people from taking productive farmland out of use
for 3 years to do a rural estate. The 5-year stipulation was in reference to the years before the
implementation of the rural estate zone. If land had not been mechanically harvested in the last 3 to 5
years, it was likely not be prime farmland and would be more adaptable to the rural estate zone.
Kenny McCleary, 942 Chepstow Lane, West Lafayette, read the following statement:
“In June, the commissioners heard about the filing of a grid interconnection request by an unknown
entity for a large battery storage facility near the Westwood Duke substation located on County Road
500 West and State Road 26. If built, this facility would be within a half mile of hundreds of homes
and create an emergency response planning issue for almost all of West Lafayette. It has an October
2026 completion date. The state legislature recognized the significant public safety and fire risk posed
by lithium-ion battery storage facilities when they approved HA 1173 in 2023. Baseline requirements
were created by the law. However, by itself, 1173 does not cover land use choices, safe location
selection, zoning, safe setbacks from private and public occupancies, emergency response, public
safety provisions, or the approval process counties need to consider. Tippecanoe County has no
specific set of ordinances provisions for this very new and complex type of land use, save for the
recent ordinance prohibiting BESS on a large solar facility. But the filed project is a standalone best
facility. We need to act now. Numerous other Indiana counties are in the process of creating BESS
ordinances or have taken steps to give themselves more time. A few Indiana counties have already
implemented BESS ordinances. Right now, I am personally working with groups in three other
counties with BESS projects under review. Four possible ways to proceed were suggested to the
commissioners. The first two options rest in the hands of the commissioners themselves, either a
temporary ban or a moratorium to allow time for proper ordinance development. The third option,
however, is within your responsibilities to initiate; to work with the APC staff and start the ordinance
development process. We do not have to start from scratch. The recent solar ordinance citizens team
compiled a great deal of information about BESS facilities before setting aside that material to
concentrate on solar ordinances. A few copies of Marshall County's BESS ordinances approved in
April are available for you tonight if you'd like them. We can complete this work quickly if we start now.
The fourth option is to do nothing. This is an unwise choice. The fire risk and public safety concerns
with large lithium battery storage facilities are real. Emergency planning considerations are huge. We
owe it to all county residents and our first responders to determine where and how commercial BESS
facilities can be developed. We do not want to compromise all the well-laid plans and future growth
and land usage we've worked so hard to develop. Please get the right people involved. These are
large electrochemical industrial facilities. Battery storage developers appear stuck in a state of denial
about the inherent hazards to be managed. States and counties are going to have to drive this effort.
This ordinance development must have a heavy focus on chemical process safety, electrical safety,
codes and standards, and emergency response planning. Please get this process started in
Tippecanoe County.”
V. ADJOURNMENT
Gary Schroeder moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 5:45 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Danielle Bistline
Recording Secretary
Reviewed By,

Ryan O’Gara
Executive Director

7

MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:

APC Ordinance & Bylaw Committee
Doug Poad, Senior Transportation Planner
Proposed Thoroughfare Plan
June 25, 2026

The current Thoroughfare Plan was adopted in May of 1981. This document, part of the
Comprehensive Plan of Tippecanoe County, is used by staff, engineers, and subdivision
developers to determine various street and sidewalk requirements. This document was,
after 40 years, starting to show its age and staff decided to write a new Thoroughfare Plan
to replace the outdated one. Development of this new updated plan began during the
summer of 2022, and the first draft was introduced on April 2, 2024. With extensive input
from individuals, organizations, groups and businesses, the Plan has been a work in
progress, through five iterations, with the current draft released this past April.
The updated Plan basically follows the same process to determine road and minimum
right-of-way widths. The two maps, urbanized area boundary and functional
classification, were updated. Several new steps were added. This plan incorporates
multi-modal transportation including sidewalks, trails and transit. To help minimize rightof-way widths, a new step identifies parking and if it is allowed. If there is no parking,
right-of-way widths can be narrower. Instead of one table for standards, there are now
three: two for those roads within the growth/development area and one for rural roads
outside of this area.
Review and feedback were handled through various means. Drafts and information were
posted and released through APC’s website, Facebook and Nextdoor. The draft plan was
presented to both city mayors, the county commissioners, town boards, engineering and
development department staff, and at CPC (Citizen Participation Committee)
meetings. Rather than holding public meetings, a one-on-one approach was
used. These discussions were held with individual APC Commissioners, engineering
firms, and the Builder’s Association of Greater Lafayette (BAGL). Personal invites were
made in the Facebook and Nextdoor postings. Presentations were given to the CityBus
Board and at a monthly BAGL meeting.
The attached amendments to the UZO and the USO are solely for reconciling the new
terminology used in the proposed Thoroughfare Plan to the existing terms in both
ordinances. The one proposed change that is not related to the new Thoroughfare Plan
is updating the definition of Rural Estate zone and subdivisions. Currently, it states, the
acreage is “not mechanically harvested for at least 3 of the 5 years between 1997 and
2001.” Staff is proposing changing this to read “not mechanically harvested for at least 3
of the last 5 years.”
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
approval

8

Reconciling the new Thoroughfare Plan
with the Unified Subdivision Ordinance

ORDINANCE NO.__________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER ______
OF ORDINANCE NO.______
BEING THE UNIFIED SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
OF TIPPECANOE COUNTY.
Be it ordained by the (County Commissioners of Tippecanoe County, Indiana; the
Common Council of the City of Lafayette, Indiana; the Common Council of the City of
West Lafayette, Indiana; the Town Council of the Town of Battle Ground, Indiana; the
Town Council of the Town of Dayton, Indiana; and the Town Council of Clarks Hill,
Indiana), that Ordinance No._____, being the Unified Subdivision Ordinance of
Tippecanoe County is hereby amended as follows:
Section 1:

Change USO Section 2.2 Words and Terms Defined as follows:

ARTERIAL. Either a PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL or a MINOR ARTERIAL.
Delete “ARTERIAL as defined in this section.”
COLLECTOR. Either a MAJOR COLLECTOR or a MINOR COLLECTOR. A road
intended to move traffic from local roads to minor arterials. A collector road serves the
needs of a neighborhood or large subdivision.
INTERSTATES. The highest classification of arterials, designed and constructed with
mobility and long-distance travel in mind. The interstate system provides a network of
limited access, divided highways offering high levels of mobility while linking the major
urban areas of the country.
Delete “PLACE.”
PRIMARY ARTERIAL. Change name to “PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL.” Delete the last
sentence in the definition.
RURAL ESTATE SUBDIVISION. Change item 3 to read: “not mechanically harvested
for at least 3 of the last 5 years,”
RURAL ESTATE ZONE. Change item 3 to read: “not mechanically harvested for at
least 3 of the last 5 years,”
SECONDARY ARTERIAL. Change name to “MINOR ARTERIAL.” Change “primary
arterials” in the definition to “principal arterials”. Also delete the last sentence in the
definition.
Delete “URBANIZED AREA.”

9

Reconciling the new Thoroughfare Plan
with the Unified Subdivision Ordinance
Add GROWTH/DEVELOPMENT AREA. See Figure 1 in the Thoroughfare Plan. A line
between requiring urban development standards and rural development standards.
Section 2: Change USO Section 5.1 General Improvements (1) Applicable
Standards, to read as follows:
Whenever a participating jurisdiction, its utility system or any privately owned utility
system have performance standards adopted pursuant to statute in existence or
have them subsequently adopted, they shall apply in lieu of similar standards that
may be contained within this ordinance. The standards adopted by the
Tippecanoe County Commissioners as utilized by the Tippecanoe County
Highway Engineer for urban street cross sections shall be the standards utilized
within the corporate boundaries of Battle Ground, Dayton, and Clarks Hill until such
time as they adopt separate standards. In differentiating between urban and rural
cross sections within subdivisions, an urban cross section shall be utilized within
the urbanized area as defined by Figure 1 of the Thoroughfare Plan, the
“Growth/Development Area,” and a rural cross section may be utilized outside of
this area except where the Tippecanoe County Board of Commissioners, upon
advice of the County Highway Engineer, deems an urban cross section is
necessary due to proximity to the urbanized area or due to the nature of the site
itself.
Section 3: Change USO Section 5.2, Subsection (2)(b) Access from Primary and
Secondary Arterials. Throughout this section, substitute “Primary and Secondary
Arterials” with “Principal and Minor Arterials.”
Section 4: Change USO Section 5.3 Roads, Subsection (1)(c)(iii) Topography and
Arrangement, by deleting, “Minor or” and beginning the section with “Local streets…”.
Section 5: Change USO Section 5.3 Subsection (1)(e) Access to Primary Arterials,
by substituting throughout this section “Principal Arterials” for “Primary Arterials.”
Section 6:
follows:

Change USO Section 5.3 Subsection (1)(h)(i) Construction of Roads, as

“The arrangement of streets shall provide for the continuation of important principal
streets between adjacent properties…”
Section 7: Change USO Section 5.3 Subsection (2)(a) Design Standards – General
to read as follows and by deleting Table 1. Design Standards for Public Roads:
In order to provide for roads of suitable location, width, and improvement to
accommodate prospective traffic and afford satisfactory access to police,
firefighting, snow removal, sanitation, and road maintenance equipment, and to
coordinate roads so as to compose a convenient system and avoid undue
hardships to adjoining properties, the design standards for public roads indicated

10

Reconciling the new Thoroughfare Plan
with the Unified Subdivision Ordinance
in the Thoroughfare Plan are hereby required. Road classification may be
indicated by the Thoroughfare Plan; otherwise, it shall be determined by the
Commission.
Section 8:
Change USO Section 5.7 Sidewalks Subsection (1)(a) and (1)(c)
Required Improvements to read as follows:
Sidewalks shall be included within the dedicated non-pavement right-of-way of all
roads with urban cross sections being improved by the subdivider as shown in the
Thoroughfare Plan.
Delete Table 2. Required Sidewalks with Urban Cross Section.
Sidewalks and tree lawns shall be installed per requirements in the Thoroughfare
Plan.
Section 9:
Change USO Section 5.13 Rural Estate Subdivisions, Subsection (2)(b)(iii)
as read as follows:
Not mechanically harvested for at least 3 of the last 5 years,
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage.

11

UZO Amendment 127
Thoroughfare Plan Update Reconciliation

______

ORDINANCE NO._

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO.______
BEING THE UNIFIED ZONING ORDINANCE
OF TIPPECANOE COUNTY.
Be it ordained by the (County Commissioners of Tippecanoe County, Indiana; the Common
Council of the City of Lafayette, Indiana; the Common Council of the City of West Lafayette,
Indiana; the Town Council of the Town of Battle Ground, Indiana; the Town Council of the
Town of Dayton, Indiana; and the Town Council of Clarks Hill, Indiana), that Ordinance
No._____, being the Unified Zoning Ordinance of Tippecanoe County is hereby amended as
follows:

Section 1:

Change UZO Section 1-10 DEFINITIONS as follows:

COLLECTOR. Either a MAJOR COLLECTOR or MINOR COLLECTOR. A street
intended to move traffic from local streets to minor arterials.
PRIMARY ARTERIAL. Change name to “PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL”.
RURAL ESTATE SUBDIVISION. Change (3) to read “not mechanically harvested for
at least 3 of the last 5 years”.
RURAL ESTATE ZONE. Change (3) to read “not mechanically harvested for at least
3 of the last 5 years”.
RURAL OUTDOOR SIGN shall be amended by replacing “urban area” with
“growth/development area” and by replacing the definition “Federal-Aid Primary
Highway” with “Principal Arterial”. The Appendix being referenced shall be changed
to “Appendix F”.
SECONDARY ARTERIAL. Change name to “MINOR ARTERIAL”.
STREET. Remove the term “places”.
URBAN AREA. Change name to “GROWTH/DEVELOPMENT AREA”. See Figure 1
in the Thoroughfare Plan. Area of Tippecanoe County expected to be served by water
and sanitary sewer within twenty-five years. Its border is called the
Growth/Development Boundary.
Add the following term/definition and update the term throughout the UZO as
applicable:
INTERSTATES. The highest classification of arterials, designed and constructed with
mobility and long-distance travel in mind. The Interstate System provides a network of

12

UZO Amendment 127
Thoroughfare Plan Update Reconciliation
limited access, divided highways offering high levels of mobility while linking the major
urban areas of the country.
The following definitions shall be removed:
FEDERAL-AID PRIMARY HIGHWAY
PLACE
Section 2: Change UZO Section 2 ZONE REGULATIONS as follows:
2-1-7

MINIMUM FRONT,
REAR OR SIDE
SETBACK ALONG
STREET FRONTAGE:

Along a local street - 25'
Along a collector street - 30'
Along a minor arterial - 40'
Along a principal arterial - 60'
See 4-4 for exceptions

MINIMUM FRONT,
REAR OR SIDE
SETBACK ALONG
STREET FRONTAGE:

Along a local street - 25'
Along a collector street - 30'
Along a minor arterial - 40'
Along a principal arterial - 60'
See 4-4 for exceptions

MINIMUM FRONT,
REAR OR SIDE
SETBACK ALONG
STREET FRONTAGE:

Along a local street - 25'
Along a collector street - 30'
Along a minor arterial - 40'
Along a principal arterial - 60'
See 4-4 for exceptions

MINIMUM FRONT,
REAR OR SIDE
SETBACK ALONG
STREET FRONTAGE:

Along a local street - 25'
Along a collector street - 30'
Along a minor arterial - 40'
Along a principal arterial - 60'
See 4-4 for exceptions

(Amend 8)

2-2-7

(Amend 8)

2-3-7

(Amend 8)

2-4-7

2-6-7 MINIMUM FRONT, REAR OR SIDE SETBACK ALONG STREET FRONTAGE:
• Along a local street :
o Front-Loaded: 25’
o Rear-Loaded: 5’
• Along a collector street:
o Front-Loaded: 25’
o Rear-Loaded: 10’
• Along a minor arterial:
o Front-Loaded: 30’
o Rear-Loaded: 10’
• Along a principal arterial:

13

UZO Amendment 127
Thoroughfare Plan Update Reconciliation
o Front-Loaded: 40’
o Rear-Loaded: 15’
2-7-7

MINIMUM FRONT,
REAR OR SIDE
SETBACK ALONG
STREET FRONTAGE:

Along a local street - 25'
Along a collector street - 30'
Along a minor arterial - 40'
Along a principal arterial - 60'
See 4-4 for exceptions

MINIMUM FRONT,
REAR OR SIDE
SETBACK ALONG
STREET FRONTAGE:

Along a local street - 25'
Along a collector street - 30'
Along a minor arterial - 40'
Along a principal arterial - 60'
See 4-4 for exceptions

MINIMUM FRONT,
REAR OR SIDE
SETBACK ALONG
STREET FRONTAGE:

Along a local street - 25'
Along a collector street - 30'
Along a minor arterial - 40'
Along a principal arterial - 60'
See 4-4 for exceptions

MINIMUM FRONT,
REAR OR SIDE
SETBACK ALONG
STREET FRONTAGE:

Along a local street - 25'
Along a collector street - 30'
Along a minor arterial - 40'
Along a principal arterial - 60'
See 4-4 for exceptions

2-13-7

MINIMUM FRONT,
REAR OR SIDE
SETBACK ALONG
STREET FRONTAGE:

Along a local street - 25'
Along a collector street - 30'
Along a minor arterial - 40'
Along a principal arterial - 60'
See 4-4 for exceptions

2-15-7

MINIMUM FRONT,
REAR, OR SIDE
SETBACK ALONG
STREET FRONTAGE:

Along a local street - 25'
Along a collector street - 30'
Along a minor arterial - 40'
Along a principal arterial - 60'
See 4-4 for exceptions

(Amend 8)

2-9-7

(Amend 8)

2-11-8

(Amend 8)

2-12-8

(Amend 8)

2-16-7 MINIMUM FRONT, REAR,
OR SIDE SETBACK
ALONG STREET
FRONTAGE:
(Amend 8)

Along a local street - 25'
Along a collector street - 30'
Along a minor arterial - 40'
Along a principal arterial - 60'
See 4-4 for exceptions

14

UZO Amendment 127
Thoroughfare Plan Update Reconciliation
2-17-7 MINIMUM FRONT, REAR, Residential use:
OR SIDE SETBACK
Along a local street, , collector street,
ALONG STREET
minor arterial, or a principal arterial 15'
FRONTAGE:
Nonresidential use:
Along a local street, , or collector street
– 0’
Along a minor arterial, or a principal
arterial - 25'
See 4-4 for exceptions
2-18-7

MINIMUM FRONT,
REAR OR SIDE
SETBACK ALONG
STREET FRONTAGE:

Along a local street - 25'
Along a collector street - 30'
Along a minor arterial - 40'
Along a principal arterial - 60'
See 4-4 for exceptions

2-19-7

MINIMUM FRONT,
REAR OR SIDE
SETBACK ALONG
STREET FRONTAGE:

Along a local street - 25'
Along a collector street - 30'
Along a minor arterial - 40'
Along a principal arterial - 60'
See 4-4 for exceptions

2-22-7

MINIMUM FRONT,
REAR OR SIDE
SETBACK ALONG
STREET FRONTAGE:

Along a local street - 25'
Along a collector street - 30'
Along a minor arterial - 40'
Along a principal arterial - 60'
See 4-4 for exceptions

2-23-7

MINIMUM FRONT,
REAR OR SIDE
SETBACK ALONG
STREET FRONTAGE:
See 4-4 for exceptions

Along a local street - 25'
Along a collector street - 30'
Along a minor arterial - 40'
Along a principal arterial - 60'

2-24-7

MINIMUM FRONT,
REAR OR SIDE
SETBACK ALONG
STREET FRONTAGE:

Along a local street - 25'
Along a collector street - 30'
Along a minor arterial - 40'
Along a principal arterial - 60'
See 4-4 for exceptions

15

UZO Amendment 127
Thoroughfare Plan Update Reconciliation
2-25-7

MINIMUM FRONT,
REAR OR SIDE
SETBACK ALONG
STREET FRONTAGE:

Along a local street - 25'
Along a collector street - 30'
Along a minor arterial - 40'
Along a principal arterial - 60'
See 4-4 for exceptions

MINIMUM FRONT,
REAR OR SIDE
SETBACK ALONG
STREET FRONTAGE:

Along a local street - 25'
Along a collector street - 30'
Along a minor arterial - 40'
Along a principal arterial - 60'
See 4-4 for exceptions

MINIMUM FRONT,
REAR OR SIDE
SETBACK ALONG
STREET FRONTAGE:

Along a local street - 25'
Along a collector street - 30'
Along a minor arterial - 40'
Along a principal arterial - 60'
See 4-4 for exceptions

MINIMUM FRONT,
REAR OR SIDE
SETBACK ALONG
STREET FRONTAGE:

Along a local street - 25'
Along a collector street - 30'
Along a minor arterial - 40'
Along a principal arterial - 60'
See 4-4 for exceptions

2-28-12

MINIMUM FRONT,
REAR OR SIDE
SETBACK ALONG
STREET FRONTAGE:

Along a local street - 25'
Along a collector street - 30'
Along a minor arterial - 40'
Along a principal arterial - 60'
See 4-4 for exceptions

2-30-7

MINIMUM FRONT,
REAR OR SIDE
SETBACK ALONG
ROAD FRONTAGE:

25’ from the edge of any rural estate road,
measured along the line separating the
lot from the adjoining outlot containing
private road and drainage swale, or
the edge from of the public right-of-way
From the edge of a public street that is
not a rural estate road:
Along a local street road - 25'
Along a collector road - 30'
Along a minor arterial - 40'
Along a principal arterial - 60'
See 4-4-2 through 4-4-6 for exceptions

(Amend 8)

2-26-8

(Amend 8)

2-27-7

(Amend 8)

2-28-9

(Amend 8)

Section 3: Change UZO Section 4 – ADDITIONAL USE RESTRICTIONS as follows:

16

UZO Amendment 127
Thoroughfare Plan Update Reconciliation
In 4-2-2 SUMMARY OF STANDARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, the abbreviations for
street classifications located in the header and at the bottom of the table shall be amended
to LO = local street, CO = collector (major or minor), SE MA = minor arterial, and PR
= principal arterial.
In 4-4-2(b), the street classification hierarchy shall be amended to: local street,
collector, minor arterial, principal arterial.
In 4-8-2(e), change to: “that runs approximately parallel to a primary principal or
secondary minor arterial, all measurements of setbacks…shall pertain to the primary
principal or secondary minor arterial not the frontage road.”
In 4-8-5 FOOTNOTES, #1, change all instances of “primary arterial” to “principal
arterial”.
In 4-8-7(b), change the defined term “collector street” to “collector”.
In 4-8-7(b) FOOTNOTES, change all instances of “primary arterial” to “principal
arterial”.
Section 4: Change UZO Section 5-4 MOBILE HOME PARKS/MANUFACTURED
HOME COMMUNITIES AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKS AND
CAMPGROUNDS as follows:
In both 5-4-6(b) and 5-4-7(b), update terms for minimum setbacks to:
Along a local street or place – 25’
Along a collector street – 30’
Along a secondary minor arterial – 40’
Along a primary principal arterial – 60’
Section 5: Change UZO Appendix F as follows:
Remove Appendix F-1: URBANIZED AREA BOUNDARY.
Appendix F-2: ROADS AND HIGHWAYS ON THE INTERSTATE, NATIONAL AND
FEDERAL-AID PRIMARY PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL HIGHWAY SYSTEMS.
Change all instances of “UAB” to “GDB”, and include the abbreviation explanation of:
Growth/Development Boundary as referenced in the definition of Growth/Development
Area in this ordinance and the adopted Thoroughfare Plan.

17

MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:

APC Ordinance Committee
Amanda Esposito, Assistant Director
Data Centers & Large Data Centers
July 30, 2026

Last fall, APC staff brought this committee a proposal to limit data centers. These facilities
are still a relatively recent land use that have frequently been in the news across the
country. As staff reported last fall, large “data centers use huge amounts of power and
water but return little to the community in which they locate”. A temporary measure
restricting the use to I2 zoning districts by special exception was adopted in November,
with a sunset clause to expire after one year. With this expiration date approaching, staff
is proposing an amendment to address any future large data center projects.
The proposed ordinance amendment makes changes to the existing definitions of both
data center and large data center which were introduced last year. A data center is one
with:
•
•

Gross floor area of 20,000 sq ft or less; and
Energy usage of less than 2MW

A large data center has more than 20,000 sq ft of gross floor area and/or uses more than
2MW of power.
Data centers will still be allowed in the current range of zoning districts, and will not have
any other development standards placed on them. The square footage and energy usage
numbers were determined by working with an existing small facility that has plans to
expand.
This proposal does not change the I2 zoning district with special exception pathway for
large data centers.
UZO Chapter 4 will house additional development standards for large data centers, such
as requiring a pre-submission meeting, a public information session, setbacks, buffering,
and power and water usage requirements. A requirement for a decommissioning plan will
be placed in UZO Chapter 5, where we already have decommissioning plans for gasoline
service stations, fueling centers, truck stops, oil change businesses and car washes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval

18

UZO Amendment 129
Data Centers & Large Data Centers

ORDINANCE NO.__________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO.______
BEING THE UNIFIED ZONING ORDINANCE
OF TIPPECANOE COUNTY.
Be it ordained by the (County Commissioners of Tippecanoe County, Indiana; the
Common Council of the City of Lafayette, Indiana; the Common Council of the City of West
Lafayette, Indiana; the Town Council of the Town of Battle Ground, Indiana; the Town
Council of the Town of Dayton, Indiana; and the Town Council of Clarks Hill, Indiana), that
Ordinance No._____, being the Unified Zoning Ordinance of Tippecanoe County is hereby
amended as follows:

Section 1:

Change UZO Section 1-10 DEFINITIONS as follows:

DATA CENTER. A physical facility on 20 acres of land or less composed of one or
more buildings totaling 20,000 square feet of gross floor area or less and using less
than 2MW of power, engaging in the storage, management, processing, and/or
transmission of digital data, and housing computer and/or network equipment,
systems, servers, appliances, and other associated components related to digital
data operations.
LARGE DATA CENTER. Often referred to as a “hyperscale data center”, this is a
physical facility on over 20 acres composed of one or more buildings totaling over
20,000 square feet of gross floor area and/or using more than 2MW of power
engaging in the storage, management, processing, and/or transmission of digital
data, and housing computer and/or network equipment, systems, servers,
appliances, and other associated components related to digital data operations.
Section 2:

Change UZO Section 3-2 as follows:

Remove footnote 75 from the Permitted Use Table.
Section 3:

Change UZO 4-11 as follows:

Add section 4-11-20 Large Data Centers
(a) A pre-submission meeting shall be required prior to submission of a special
exception application. At such meeting:
(1) The prospective applicant shall submit all required application materials to
the checkpoint agencies a minimum of 30 days prior to the scheduled presubmission meeting for preliminary review. The prospective applicant shall
provide proof of submission to APC staff prior to the pre-submission meeting.
(2) APC staff shall invite all checkpoints to the pre-submission meeting.
(3) Both the developer and property owner(s), or property owner’s
representative shall be present.

19

UZO Amendment 129
Data Centers & Large Data Centers
(b) Applicant shall host a public informational session prior to submission of a special
exception application.
(1) The applicant shall inform the public about the event by
(a) Sending an invitation to all interested persons as identified by the BZA
ByLaws (list supplied by the staff of the APC)
(b) Notifying local news media about said event
(c) The following development standards shall be required:
(1) All large data centers are exempt from UZO 4-6.
(2) The maximum noise level at any external property line shall be no more than
45 dBA.
(3) An application for a large data center shall include projections for energy
usage and water consumption, as well as a pre- and post-construction noise
study of both DbA and DbC as detected from the subject property line.
(4) Construction hours of the large data center shall be limited to between
7:00AM-7:00PM.
(5) At least 80% of the energy consumed on site shall be from a renewable
source, such as wind or solar.
(6) The large data center shall use a closed-loop cooling system.
(7) The large data center shall use heat sharing infrastructure, such as a waste
heat recovery system.
(8) All lighting on site shall be downward facing and shall be placed or otherwise
designed to direct light toward the site and away from adjacent properties.
(9) There shall be a separation of at least 20 miles from any other large data
center.
(10) A building setback of 1,320’ from all property lines to the leading edge of
any structure associated with the large data center.
(11) A 60’ wide bufferyard of four staggered rows of evergreen trees a minimum
of 8’ tall planted 10’ apart, center to center, as well as a 6’ high earthen berm.
(12) Generators/Back-Up Power Supply:
(a) Only Tier IV compliant diesel backup generators shall be utilized.
(b) Generators and any fuel supply tanks needed for them shall be placed
internal to the large data center, with at least one structure between the
generator’s (or fuel supply tank’s) placement and the subject property
line.
(c) Generator testing is limited to between 7:00am and 7:00pm.
(d) Except for generator testing or commissioning activities, generator
use is limited to backup-emergency use only.
Section 4: Change UZO 5-9 DECOMMISSIONING PLANS as follows:
All gasoline service stations, fueling centers, truck stops, oil change businesses,
and car washes (except in unincorporated Tippecanoe County) and all large data
centers must submit a decommissioning plan, approved by the Administrative
Officer and recorded, prior to the issuance of an improvement location permit. (See
Appendix N.)
Section 5: Change UZO Appendix N as follows:

20

UZO Amendment 129
Data Centers & Large Data Centers
Add large data center to the list of uses requiring a decommissioning plan at the top
of this section.

(2) The decommissioning plan shall include the removal of all above-ground structures
and features that identify the property as a vehicle service use, including but not limited
to canopies, service equipment, dispensers, signage, lighting fixtures specific to the
use, payment kiosks, and any architectural or branding elements associated with the
former operation. Large data centers shall include the removal of all equipment and
buildings on site. The intent is to return the property to a condition suitable for
redevelopment consistent with the zoning district.
Add large data center to the list of uses in (10).
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage.