District 4 Supervisor Crystal Coleman once again suggested the planning commission reconsider the county’s technology zoning ordinance Tuesday, Oct. 27, this time pointing to what she called “inconsistencies.”
At every board of supervisors meeting since late August, Coleman has suggested having the planning commission revisit the technology zoning ordinance which was approved in December and putting a pause on data center applications until that work can be done.
The technology zoning ordinance created a district to accommodate high-intensity technology-based uses including data centers, technology schools or colleges and technology research and development facilities. Four uses are allowed by special use permit (SUP)–on-site power generation, a public utility facility not including utility-scale solar, a telecommunications tower and a data center. The district is floating, a term much maligned by supervisors, and could be applied to any suitable property through a rezoning. It sets forth larger setbacks and buffers as well as height restrictions and sign regulations. The use of public water, groundwater or potable water is prohibited. Additional regulations added by the planning commission in response to public feedback were removed by supervisors including the requirement of quarterly utility usage reports and a 1,000 feet setback from an occupied residence. Residents utilizing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allege emails confirm those additional regulations were removed after feedback was received from those in the data center industry.
Coleman’s suggestions and requests for the ordinance to be revisited follow months of county resident concerns regarding a lack of what they say are specific guardrails and the floating nature of the zone.
This time, instead of asking her fellow supervisors to support revisiting the zoning ordinance, she encouraged residents to attend planning commission meetings and pay attention to ongoing conversations.
“I believe there are critically important conversations taking place that deserve your attention and participation,” she said. “[We] are making decisions that could fundamentally shape the future of our county, its rural character and the rights of property owners.”
She said she has “serious concerns” about what she sees as an inconsistency in the county’s approach, questioning the board of supervisors’ Aug. 25 request for the planning commission to revisit land division rights. The planning commission began discussing draft recommendations for by-right divisions earlier this month, specifically the number allowed, their timing and access requirements.
Coleman said the recommendations could potentially place additional restrictions on how property owners can divide their land and while she supports the basic ideas of protecting the county’s rural character and managing residential growth, on the other hand, her requests to have the commission further review the technology ordinance haven’t been supported.
“This could allow large scale data centers on agricultural land, potentially as close as 500 feet from someone’s backyard,” Coleman said. “I have to ask, how can we be willing to further restrict the rights of individual landowners in the name of rural preservation, yet be unwilling to reconsider protections against large scale industrial development on that same land?”
She questioned if by restricting by-right land divisions, could property owners be left with fewer viable financial options thus causing unintended consequences.
“Could we push landowners toward considering data center development simply because they need a way to become financially solvent or hold on to their property,” Coleman asked. “Are we truly protecting rural character or creating the very circumstances that ultimately threaten it?”
Coleman encouraged residents to “become more engaged than ever, especially at planning commission [meetings] as property rights and development rights are actively discussed.”
“The conversations are taking place with good intentions, but they could have potentially poor consequences,” she said. “[We] can’t claim to be protecting rural Orange county if we’re unwilling to examine all the ways our decisions could change it. The future should not be shaped by just the five up here; it should be shaped by the citizens who call this county home.”
During public comment, residents again expressed their frustrations with not feeling heard.
Charles Fincham said his feeling at both the county and Town of Orange meetings is that constituents aren’t being listened to. He said while the county can’t keep going the way it is, he’d like to see some more unity and planning that will work for all residents.
“No one is listening,” Bonnie Fincham added. “It’s very disturbing. The constituents of the county you represent don’t feel like they’re being heard [and you’re] not doing anything to make it right.”
