On the agenda: Tippecanoe County meeting — DATA CENTER (Sep 2)

1

THE

AREA PLAN COMMISSION
OF TIPPECANOE COUNTY

ORDINANCE & BYLAW COMMITTEE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DATE .............................................................................................. SEPTEMBER 2, 2026
START TIME ............................................. Immediately following the 4:30pm Exec Committee mtg
MEETING END TIME ............................................................................................ 5:45PM
PLACE ........................................................................................... TIPPECANOE ROOM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
20 NORTH 3RD STREET
LAFAYETTE, IN 47901
AGENDA
I.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
from the August 5, 2026 meeting

II.

LARGE DATA CENTERS
A proposed UZO amendment to replace the previous amendment regarding
large data centers (Amendment 123, adopted in November 2025) that is due
to sunset in November 2026. This proposal, unlike the previous quick-fix
amendment, includes standards for this type of land use.

III.

CITIZEN COMMENTS

IV.

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 ....................................................................................................................................... August 5, 2026
TIME ................................................................................................................................................. 4:46 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
Kathy Parker
Larry Leverenz
Jerry Reynolds
Diana Luper
Gary Schroeder
Tom Murtaugh

MEMBERS ABSENT
Vicki Pearl

STAFF PRESENT
Ryan O’Gara
Amanda Esposito
Kathy Lind

Kristine Roehl
Eric Burns, Atty

Larry Leverenz called the meeting to order at 4:46 PM.
I.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Jerry Reynolds moved to approve the minutes from the July 1, 2026, public hearing. Diana Luper
seconded, and the minutes were approved by unanimous voice vote.
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.
Doug Poad, APC staff, addressed the discussion on the Thoroughfare Plan (TP) from last month which
had been centered around the verbiage regarding tree replacement. A new version of the draft, called the
July version, had wording updated to outline that if trees needed to be removed, or were damaged during
construction, an appropriate type and size of tree must be replanted with approval from the local
government engineer. Both cities had arborists within their respective engineering offices. Two emails
were received providing feedback. The first email had four points to it; the first point focused on the “tree
lawn” terminology. An extensive review of other TPs in the state included a wide range of other terms
including nature strip, curb strip, parkway, boulevard, verge, etc. The second point was to add a tree lawn
definition into the definitions, which was done. The third point was to change the wording regarding
replacement of trees and included a detailed and extensive definition. Wording was updated but kept
simple. The last point was to increase the tree lawn size, specifically regarding local residential roads with
parking, from 5 ft on each side to 6 ft. It was decided to keep the size standards as is. A second email
asked if there was an update to the environmental tree section of the TP that was mentioned at the last
ordinance meeting. An update was done, now referred to as the July version.
Kathy Parker mentioned that West Lafayette had a Greenspace Administrator and questioned whether
that position would fall under the engineering department.
Doug Poad indicated that in Lafayette, the arborist was in the engineering department.
Chad Spitznagle, Housing Director, City of West Lafayette, added that the zoning ordinance designated
the city engineer as the Administrative Officer (AO) and updating that had been discussed. Regardless of
terminology and jurisdiction, it would still be referred to the city engineer, the AO, to make the final call.

3

Steve Schreckengast, 635 S Earl Ave, Lafayette, talked about his conflict with the “climate change”
terminology. With the differing views on climate change, he did not see a need for that section in the TP.
He also talked about the different requirements in each jurisdiction like whether a tree needed to be
planted in a tree-line area and the difference in right-of-way specifications.
Brad Neely, RTS Law, 250 Main Street, Lafayette, on behalf of Kimbarlin properties, expressed concerns
that roads that had been removed on the maps at the township meeting were not being indicated as
removed on the TP.
Tim Balensiefer, TBIRD Design, 105 N 10th Street, Lafayette, indicated several lines on the TP that were
future or proposed roads shown in areas where there probably was not going to be a road. He mentioned
projects he was involved in where the TP was indicating a road, but County Highway was indicating a
road would probably not be built.
Doug Poad responded that as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for Tippecanoe County,
they handled all the requirements for receiving the federal gas tax and climate change was a part of the
planning process. Addressing that in the TP focused just on tree replacement. Regarding proposed roads
for future development, those were drawn from previously adopted and vetted plans like the Long-Range
Transportation and land use plans. Proposed roads may just be concepts, like how Park East Boulevard
started before the area was developed and fully realized. Conceptual lines and roads did not indicate the
exact location where roads would be built. Residential, commercial, and industrial developments impact
traffic and proposed roads were added to the TP to plan for development.
Tom Murtaugh asked to look at the map of roads to verify if certain roads were removed that had been
discussed.
Gary Schroeder asked what the colors of the roads meant and how new roads were indicated on the
map.
Doug Poad said the different colors represented the functional classification of a road and proposed
roads were indicated by dashed lines.
There was further discussion to clarify roads that had been removed or still were in place on the map.
Ryan O’Gara, APC staff, added that road recommendations from the MPO were being included because
in doing so, they could be eligible to request federal funds. Including roads kept options open while
leaving discretion with the local engineer.
Doug Poad reiterated that lines were placeholders to indicate that at some future point, if development
occurred, roads to service the additional land uses would be needed.
Gary Schroeder asked if the discussion had addressed concerns raised.
Tim Balensiefer, TBIRD Design, 105 N 10th Street, Lafayette, indicated he did not have a problem if there
was flexibility on the planned roads.
Tom Murtaugh motioned to forward the proposal to the full Area Plan Commission. Diana Luper
seconded.
Ryan O’Gara clarified that it would be a 3-part proposal with the TP, a Comprehensive Plan amendment,
and a USO and UZO amendment.
The motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
Larry Leverenz clarified that the proposal would go to APC in September.
I.

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.

4

Amanda Esposito provided background information on the UZO amendment that was adopted in 2025
and the temporary measure that was put in place, set to expire in November 2026. She gave an overview
of data centers including AI uses, types, benefits, and costs. She reviewed existing and proposed data
centers in Indiana. The proposed amendment would outline definitions, permitted uses, special
conditions, and a decommissioning plan.
Larry Leverenz pointed out that under large data centers, the amendment listed thresholds of more than
20,000 sq. ft. of gross floor and/or using more than 2 megawatts (MW). Under data center it listed 20,000
sq. ft. of gross floor area or less and using less than 2MW. He asked whether that should also read as
“and/or”.
Jackson Bogan said they were two different definitions, one under data centers and one under large data
centers.
Amanda Esposito said data centers have to comply with both the sq. ft. and wattage thresholds. That was
what the local data center, WinTek, operated under.
The ordinance would outline that facilities on more than 20 acres would be classified as large data
centers. There was discussion on a potential loophole where a company could request 35,000 sq. ft. on
15 acres and fall under the 2MW threshold.
Amanda Esposito added that large data centers would have special conditions and data centers would
still have to meet the requirements for their zoning district. This was something that could be reviewed to
see if the 20-acre threshold should be adjusted.
Larry Leverenz asked if acreage mattered.
Amanda Esposito answered that the intent was to distinguish hyperscale data centers, but that could be
adjusted if data centers became more efficient in the future and could locate the same amount of data on
a smaller scale.
Ryan O’Gara brought up the possibility of a project using the Planned Development Non-Residential zone
(PDNR) where everything would be negotiated. That would involve a rezone action and would not need a
special exception.
Tom Murtaugh asked if the ordinance referenced a road use agreement because they would want to
negotiate an agreement for the use and repair of existing roads.
Amanda Esposito responded that would be checked.
Steve Clevenger, address redacted, President of the Area Board of Zoning Appeals, suggested that the
language be changed regarding the large data center thresholds to “or”, so that a large data center would
be over 20 acres “or” over 20,000 sq. ft. “or” over 2MW.
Kenny McCleary, 942 Chepstow Lane, West Lafayette, read a prepared statement:
“This draft is a good start but it's only a start. Draft ordinance for the data centers unfortunately
suffers the same lack of recognition as solar ordinances of the complexities and impacts that
must be properly managed during construction and operation of hyperscale projects involving
thousands of acres. The proposed ordinances also fail to answer the same fundamental land use
questions inherent in any vast land use. How much is too much? How big is too big? How do we
prevent harm to public safety, county infrastructure, and other land uses in the county? It does
address one of the other big questions. How close is too close? With setbacks and
recommendations. How big? Jupiter Data Center project in Utah requested over 40,000 acres
initially. These are big key deficiencies in this draft that I would note. 30 days for checkpoint
agency reviews and what will likely be a substantial project filing is unrealistic. There's no magic
checklist which will ensure a large application will be complete, sufficient, and technically
accurate. 60 days would be much more appropriate. Checkpoint agencies also need a

5

mechanism to hire any resources they need at the expense of the applicant to aid their review.
We are not building residential developments, commercial warehouses, or WAWA stations here.
The aspects of a hyperscale data center project that encompasses thousands of acres are
immense and extremely complicated. The road construction and public safety issues we see with
data centers are a major concern. Morgan County, where the Google project is in progress, is
overwhelming. Hyperscale builds need approved detailed road plans at the time of submission
which have all the same considerations as major interstate road projects such as detour routes,
traffic restrictions, temporary drainage, intersection controls, alternate roadway construction, and
daily monitoring by law enforcement. I used to live two miles from where the Google Monrovia
site debacle is still underway. Although there is a construction hour restriction, the draft does not
contain any limitations on construction lighting. The Meta project down in Lebanon is visible from
15 miles away along US52. As I've noted frequently, the light pollution is insufferable for residents
living closer. The decommissioning plan lacks specifics. The ordinances lack references to
enforceable technical standards which can be used to hold developers accountable. I hope that
these gaps can be addressed as you go forward to the APC.”
Joseph Sobieralski, 938 Chepstow Lane, West Lafayette, brought up the noise factor with data centers
and a mechanism should be added to the ordinance to address that. He also brought up the need to
address energy and water usage
Mike Martin, Executive Director, Carol County APC, spoke about the moratorium on data centers their
county put in place and the ordinance they were working on developing. He recommended considering
how to preserve prime farmland.
Katherine Sobieralski, 938 Chepstow Lane, West Lafayette, asked the committee to consider whether a
ban on data centers would be appropriate for the county. Community feedback on data centers had not
been positive. The county had so much more economic potential compared to other semi-rural counties in
the state that it did not need to allow those sorts of developments. The issues with controversial land uses
like SK Hynix and solar farms would be 10x worse for data centers.
Tom Murtaugh asked about the stipulation that energy consumed on the site needs to be from renewable
sources and whether that had to be a solar source on site.
Amanda Esposito indicated that the site would need to be able to prove that 80% of their 100MW usage
came from a renewable source whether that be from their own substation, solar arrays on roofs, or wind
turbines. The goal was to make things as difficult as possible, without banning it, given that it was
uncertain what the State of Indiana might do in terms of a preemption ban.
Tom Murtaugh agreed that the State may remove the ability to ban data centers at a local level.
Amanda Esposito agreed that lighting could be added to the construction segment.
Tom Murtaugh asked if the ordinance could require 80-100% of the energy consumed to be produced on
site.
Joseph Sobieralski, 938 Chepstow Lane, West Lafayette, interjected that gas turbines were generally
used and would violate heat and noise restrictions and were not a renewable energy source.
Kenny McCleary, 942 Chepstow Lane, West Lafayette, added that a 1GW facility would require about
20,000 acres of solar, plus battery in order to be 100% power sufficient.
Gary Schroeder talked about evolving technology and supported the proposal.
Ryan O’Gara mentioned that there would be time for one more ordinance committee meeting for input.
Tom Murtaugh wanted the following to be considered: changing to a 60-day review, construction lighting,
noise violations, and strengthening the wording on decommissioning. He asked why the decommissioning
section referenced back to gas stations, and not to the solar ordinance.

6

Amanda Esposito answered that the solar decommissioning was specific to solar, but the gas station
decommissioning was a more general definition and could be applied to data centers.
Tom Murtaugh clarified that it did have a reference to surety bonds.
Jackson Bogan clarified that the county would be included in the gas station decommissioning.
Jerry Reynolds asked about prime farmland and the process for that land to become a data center.
Amanda Esposito clarified that AA zones are considered prime farmland, and it would require a rezone to
I2.
Jerry Reynolds asked if the city was unable to provide water if a developer would then be granted well
rights to pull their own water.
Eric Burns added that if one owns the ground, one owns everything below the ground.
Ryan O’Gara said they would basically have a right to drill a well.
Eric Burns added that there were restrictions for that, but they were not local restrictions.
Amanda Esposito stated that the evaporative type of cooling systems that they saw with most of the early
data centers used vast quantities of water, hundreds or even millions of gallons of water per day. But a
closed loop system regenerates the same amount of water. A closed loop system would be required.
Jerry Reynolds mentioned towns like Clarks Hill or Battle Ground that could not supply water would have
their water used up if the developer drilled a well.
Ryan O’Gara acknowledged potential legal entanglements
Tom Murtaugh said that it could be stated that projects would have to be on public utilities.
Gary Schroeder acknowledged these as issues that would be addressed during the zoning process.
Ryan O’Gara pointed out that there was very little I2 zoning in the county or cities and it was that way by
design. Developers would have to disclose what their plans were in the rezone process.
The proposal would be continued to the September Ordinance Committee meeting.
II. CITIZEN COMMENTS
There were none.
III. ADJOURNMENT
Diana Luper moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 5:59 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Danielle Bistline
Recording Secretary
Reviewed By,

Ryan O’Gara
Executive Director

7

MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:

APC Ordinance Committee
Amanda Esposito, Assistant Director
Data Centers & Large Data Centers
August 27, 2026

Last month, staff presented the first draft of an amendment for data centers and large
data centers. The Committee voted to continue discussions another month, to allow time
for both staff and the public to weigh in on some of the recommendations made during
the public discussion, some of which are outlined below.
The proposal is on the September APC agenda, so that it may be passed along to the
member jurisdictions in October for adoption before the current ordinance expires in
November. This is amending a previous amendment regarding the use; further
adjustments to the language, whether it’s tightening restrictions even more or clarifying
intent, is always a possibility down the road.
1. The term “or” is now used rather than “and” for large data centers, between the
size limitations of 20 acres, 20,000 sq ft and 2 MW of energy usage.
2. A special condition note for 4-11-20 was added to the permitted use table for large
data centers.
3. The pre-sub application materials are required at least 60 days before the pre-sub
meeting instead of 30 days.
4. “Will-serve” letters from service providers that energy and water needs will be met
are now required as part of the application materials.
5. The large data center is required to cover 100% of the cost for new infrastructure
or changes to existing infrastructure needs.
6. A restriction for lighting during construction hours was added.
7. Renewable energy means solar or wind.
8. Plans for the closed-loop cooling system shall be provided, as well as procedures
for wastewater treatment.
9. The 20-mile separation requirement was clarified.
10. An approved road use agreement is required.
11. The requirement for long duration storage systems for any energy stored on site,
rather than lithium-ion batteries, which pose a higher risk for fire, was added.
12. A local fire protection training program is now required to be submitted and signed
by the participating jurisdiction between the pre-submission meeting and the
special exception filing.
Other suggestions that were brought up but were not incorporated include:
1. Banning large data centers
a. There are recent examples where the state legislature has pre-empted local
jurisdictions from banning specific uses. Instead, staff has chosen to

8

strongly limit the possible areas to locate an undesirable use and require
multiple public hearings (two hearings to rezone; one hearing for a special
exception and possible variances).
2. A mechanism for enforcement of noise restrictions
a. The UZO already includes an enforcement mechanism, through zoning
violations.
3. Noise restrictions during construction
a. Construction hours are limited to 7:00am to 7:00pm. There will not be any
noise during nighttime hours.
4. Closed-loop cooling system monitoring or efficiency standards
a. These mechanisms are heavily regulated through local, state and federal
agencies, such as the Indiana Department of Environmental Management,
the Indiana Department of Homeland Security Fire and Building Safety
Division, and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. Adding more
nuanced language to the UZO would simply duplicate requirements already
being managed by these agencies.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval

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 or a facility composed of one or more buildings
totaling over 20,000 square feet of gross floor area 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.
Add 4-11-20 to the special conditions column in the Permitted Use Table for large
data centers.
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 60 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.

9

10

UZO Amendment 129
Data Centers & Large Data Centers
(3) Both the developer and property owner(s), or property owner’s
representative shall be present.
(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, letters from service providers that energy and
water needs will be met, as well as a pre- and post-construction noise study of
both DbA and DbC as detected from the subject property line.
(4) The full cost (100%) of any new infrastructure or changes to existing
infrastructure (other than roads, covered under 14 below) required for the large
data center shall be at the expense of the developer or company building the
facility.
(5) Construction hours of the large data center shall be limited to between
7:00AM-7:00PM.
(6) On-site lighting during construction shall be placed or otherwise designed to
direct light toward the site and away from adjacent properties. Non-security
lights must be turned off outside of construction hours noted in this ordinance.
(7) At least 80% of the energy consumed on site shall be sourced directly from
a solar or wind renewable energy facility. a renewable source, such as wind or
solar.
(8) The large data center shall use a closed-loop cooling system. Plans for the
closed-loop cooling system shall be provided, including procedures for
wastewater treatment.
(9) The large data center shall use heat sharing infrastructure, such as a waste
heat recovery system.
(10) 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.
(11) There shall be a separation of at least 20 miles from any other large data
center (including existing large data centers outside of Tippecanoe County).
(12) A building setback of 1,320’ from all property lines to the leading edge of
any structure associated with the large data center.
(13) 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.
(14) A road use agreement, approved by the participating jurisdiction, shall be
required as part of the special exception application.
(15) 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

11

UZO Amendment 129
Data Centers & Large Data Centers
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.
(16) Any energy storage on-site shall be a long duration storage system; lithium
ion batteries shall not be utilized.
(17) Local fire protection training program(s) shall be required, signed off on by
the participating jurisdiction after the pre-submission meeting and before the
special exception filing.
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:
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).
Section 6: Amend UZO 6-4-4(i) as follows:
(1) if that use (for any use other than a wind farm, or solar energy facility, or large
data center) is not established within 1 year of the date the special exception was
granted; or
(2) if that use is a wind farm and is not established within 18 months of the date the
special exception was granted or if that use is a solar energy facility or a large data
center and not established within 3 years of the date the special exception was
granted; (Amend 73)
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage.