News / Articles

Planning Commission Recommends Denial of Auburn Data Center Amendment,
Reviews Chester Zoning Changes and Middlefield Development

Planning Commission – July 14, 2026 

Meeting Details: The Geauga Planning Commission met in regular session on July 14, 2026 at 7:30 am at the Geauga County Office Building, 12611 Ravenwood Drive, Chardon, OH 44024.  This meeting was in person with no virtual attendance option.  The agenda is normally available online prior to the meeting. A copy was available at the meeting.  Observer Note: The website presents the minutes and meeting dates, and the agenda is included in that section.

Public Comment Policy:  No formal policy, but in practice, public comment could be permitted at the Chair’s prerogative. However, public comment is not typically invited during regular meetings.

No public comment is solicited or offered except in cases where an applicant or zoning inspector is present to answer questions regarding an item on the agenda. 

Board Attendance:

Staff Attendance: Linda Crombie, Planning Director, Allyson Kobus, Planner II, and Pamela Irizarry, Administrative Assistant were present.

Others Attending: This Observer and five other members of the public were in attendance. 

Minutes - Once approved by the board, the minutes are available online here.  Scroll down until the section on Minutes and Agendas.

Pledge of Allegiance - The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Roll Call - Roll was called. A quorum was present.

Approval of Minutes - June 9, 2026 Regular Meeting

Several corrections were proposed by Mrs. Brakey. One corrected a duplicate name in the roll call. Additional language was added to clarify the discussion concerning possible abstentions at the June meeting, including why Mr. Perfetto had considered abstaining and why Mr. Fabig ultimately abstained because of a family relationship.

The Commission unanimously approved the June 9, 2026 meeting minutes as corrected.

Approval of Agenda/Addendum

The agenda was modified to add a discussion under New Business concerning a recently approved tax increment financing arrangement, or TIF, associated with development in Middlefield Village at the request of Mr. Claypool.

The Commission unanimously approved the agenda as modified.

Financial Report and Approval of Expenses

Ms. Irizarry reviewed expenses associated with imaging and copier usage and noted that the listed payment was the final expenditure from the 2025 carryover account. Expenses related to the Ohio Township Association were also discussed. She clarified that a portion of the related travel expense was charged to the 2026 account and that future expenses would be paid entirely from 2026 accounts.

June revenues were also reported.

The Commission unanimously approved the financial report and expenses as presented.

Other Business

There was no other business.

Major Subdivisions to Be Reviewed

There was nothing to review.

Township Zoning Amendments

A. Auburn Township Text Amendment ZC-2026-01

The proposed amendment would add definitions for “data center” and “information technology service,” prohibit data centers throughout Auburn Township and permit information technology services only as an accessory use to an otherwise permitted or conditionally permitted use. The accessory information-technology operation would have to be located within the principal building, could not be separately leased and would be limited to no more than 400 square feet and a specified percentage of the building’s floor area.

Ms. Crombie said the amendment appeared intended to prohibit large data centers while continuing to allow the information-technology facilities ordinarily associated with other businesses. She expressed concern, however, that the definition of information technology services was broad and that the 400-square-foot maximum was too restrictive. She noted that the information-technology facilities serving the county building floor occupy approximately 1,100 square feet.

Ms. Crombie also raised enforcement concerns. A zoning inspector might lack the specialized knowledge needed to determine which portions of a business constitute information-technology services and whether the proposed floor-area limitations were being observed. Effective enforcement could require the township to review the interior layout of numerous building-permit applications and possibly inspect businesses after occupancy.

Ms. Crombie distinguished among several types of data centers. Edge or micro facilities may occupy only a few thousand square feet. Enterprise facilities support the operations of a particular business. Colocation centers lease space to multiple customers, while hyperscale facilities may consist of several large buildings arranged on a campus. Ms. Crombie emphasized that these facilities are not all alike and can differ substantially in size, water demand, electrical demand and community impact.

Staff reviewed Auburn Township’s general-industrial and light-industrial districts as the locations where a data center might theoretically be proposed. Ms. Crombie cautioned that Auburn’s broad definition of light industry—covering controlled operations that are relatively clean, quiet and free of objectionable or hazardous elements—could support an argument that at least some data centers already fit within the district. An outright prohibition could therefore expose the township to a legal challenge.

Ms. Crombie reported that an attorney presenting an Ohio Township Association webinar had specifically cautioned townships that prohibiting data centers outright could be the quickest route to court.  Ms. Crombie said that the Planning Commission’s assistant prosecuting attorney generally agreed with that legal concern.

Mr. Claypool said the proposed definitions were problematic and that the subject required more careful thought. He observed that the amendment’s definition could encompass information-technology facilities operated internally by large businesses, even though those facilities differ from a company whose principal business is data processing or data-center operation.

Mr. Claypool also said public discussion of data centers sometimes relies upon overly broad assumptions. Water use can vary considerably depending upon the cooling system. Some facilities may initially draw water to fill a closed-loop cooling system rather than continually withdrawing and discharging large quantities of water. Electrical demand can also vary, and some larger data centers may generate power on-site. He said regulations should consider the type of facility, cooling technology, power source and resulting community impacts rather than treat every data center in the same manner.

Ms. Crombie added that a township does not have regulatory authority over public utilities. Consequently, if a data center’s power facilities fell under utility regulation, Auburn Township could have limited authority to review that portion of the operation even though the power system might have significant local effects.

Ms. Brakey said residents’ principal concern appeared to be the scale of a facility, especially large colocation and hyperscale data centers, rather than smaller systems serving an existing business. The discussion suggested that the township was primarily attempting to prevent very large facilities but had drafted language broad enough to affect ordinary business-support systems as well.

Commission members discussed the principle that zoning should regulate the external effects of a business rather than direct its internal operations. Potentially relevant zoning considerations included building size, setbacks, buffering, noise, water demand, electrical infrastructure, on-site power generation and other effects on surrounding properties and the community.

Ms. Crombie advised against a blanket prohibition covering every type and size of data center. She suggested that Auburn could rely upon its existing provision stating that a use not specifically listed is not permitted. Under that approach, an applicant could seek relief through the Board of Zoning Appeals or request a zoning amendment. A zoning amendment would involve public hearings, action by the township trustees and the possibility of a zoning referendum.

Ms. Crombie acknowledged that an applicant could instead challenge the township’s interpretation in court. She also identified conditional-use regulation as another possible approach. A conditional-use provision could establish standards addressing matters such as public water, closed-loop cooling, groundwater monitoring, buffering, setbacks and other measurable impacts.

Staff recommended that Auburn Township:

• Reconsider a complete prohibition because data centers vary substantially in size and operation.

• Rely, at least temporarily, upon the existing provision that unlisted uses are not permitted.

• Remove the proposed information-technology-services regulations and the 400-square-foot maximum.

• Clarify the definitions and sizes of the data centers the township intends to regulate.

• Review and refine the township’s definition of light industry.

• Compare the proposed amendment with the township land-use plan and the purpose statements of its industrial districts.

• Inventory parcels that could realistically accommodate a data center, considering acreage, water availability and access to high-voltage electrical infrastructure.

• Correct numbering and formatting inconsistencies in the proposed text.

After noting that staff’s proposed modifications would remove the amendment’s principal provisions and therefore operate substantially as a denial, Mr. Gorris moved to recommend denial of the proposed amendment and return it to the Auburn Township Zoning Commission for additional work, particularly to clarify the sizes and types of data centers it intended to regulate. Mr. Claypool seconded the motion.

Ms. Brakey recommended that Ms. Crombie also forward the staff memorandum and detailed recommendations to Auburn Township despite the denial so the township would have the benefit of the Commission’s analysis when preparing a revised amendment. The Commission agreed that the staff information should accompany its recommendation.

The motion to recommend denial passed, with Mr. Bergansky abstaining. Observer Note:  Mr. Bergansky did not say why he was abstaining.

Mr. Claypool also asked whether the Planning Commission should undertake its own research and develop recommended or model data-center language that townships could use. The Commission considered that a worthwhile possible topic for future work.

B. Chester Township Text Amendment ZC-2026-4

This amendment proposed a comprehensive reformatting of the Chester Township Zoning Resolution. Changes included new fonts and color usage, revised tables and page numbering, removal of quotation marks from definitions, elimination of Roman numerals from zoning-district legal descriptions and more consistent references to the Ohio Revised Code. The amendment also corrected the use of “principal” where appropriate and made other grammatical and stylistic corrections.

The revised format was intended to make the resolution easier to read and reproduce.

The Commission unanimously approved the amendment as recommended by staff.

C. Chester Township Text Amendment ZC-2026-5

This amendment had previously appeared before the Commission but could not be acted upon until Chester completed the general formatting amendment considered under Item B (above).

Most of the proposed revisions were minor, including references to motions rather than resolutions, references to the township website, revisions to the definition of a canopy and removal of obsolete provisions concerning commercial parking facilities and oil and gas wells.

Two substantive issues remained. Chester proposed eliminating the requirement that certain amendments be submitted to the Ohio Department of Transportation. Ms. Crombie recommended retaining that language.

The amendment also proposed treating two or more contiguous, nonconforming lots under common ownership as one lot for zoning purposes. Staff and the Prosecutor’s Office opposed that provision. They reasoned that owners could circumvent it by transferring individual parcels among relatives or separate legal entities. Ms. Crombie instead recommended allowing owners to propose voluntary lot consolidations and reviewing nonconforming-lot and variance requests individually.

Commission members observed that allowing development on existing platted lots can support infill development and reduce pressure to convert unplatted farmland elsewhere.

The Commission unanimously approved the amendment with the staff-recommended modifications, retaining the Ohio Department of Transportation language and omitting the proposed mandatory combination of contiguous nonconforming lots.

D. Chester Township Text Amendment ZC-2026-6

This amendment addressed the size, height and placement of residential accessory buildings.

Chester currently permits a maximum total ground-floor area of 1,280 square feet or 500 square feet per acre, up to 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater. The amendment proposed increasing the acreage-based allowance to 960 square feet per acre, up to 9,600 square feet. Staff noted that 2,500 square feet already accommodates a substantial accessory building and questioned whether the township should increase the maximum primarily because it had received variance requests for larger structures.

Ms. Crombie explained that retaining the 1,280-square-foot base allowance would benefit owners of small existing lots, while the per-acre calculation would govern larger properties. The proposed 9,600-square-foot maximum would require a property of approximately ten acres.

The amendment also proposed increasing the maximum accessory-building height from 15 feet to 30 feet. Ms. Crombie recommended a lower maximum, suggesting that approximately 18 to 24 feet would better maintain the traditional proportional relationship between a residence and its accessory buildings. Owners seeking a taller structure could continue to apply for a variance.

The amendment would simplify setback measurements by requiring front-yard setbacks to be measured from the public road right-of-way rather than using varying measurements based on the road centerline. It would also require a 40-foot setback along the street side of corner lots. Staff supported these changes because they provide a more consistent and easily administered method of measuring setbacks.

The Commission also discussed temporary storage structures, agricultural buildings and the consequences when an agriculturally exempt building remains after the agricultural use ends. Ms. Crombie explained that a subsequent nonagricultural use could require zoning review or variances because the structure might exceed ordinary residential limits or setbacks.

The Commission unanimously approved the amendment with the staff-recommended modifications, including reconsideration of the proposed 30-foot height and 9,600-square-foot maximum.

Director’s Report

Ms. Crombie reviewed her Director’s Report. No formal motions were taken under this section.

1. New Building Lots

Six new building lots were reported during the preceding month. They were dispersed through the southern part of the county, including Bainbridge, Auburn, Troy and Parkman townships, with another in Montville Township. The number was higher than in some recent months but was not considered unusual.

2. GIS Intern

The GIS intern substantially completed a building-by-type map layer for Middlefield Township and was working on Bainbridge Township. The intern also prepared maps for the farmland-preservation public forum, including an entrance map on which attendees could identify the community from which they came.

3. Enterprise GIS

Ms. Kobus attended a county GIS meeting with representatives of the Auditor’s Office and the City of Chardon. The county is beginning a transition from ArcGIS Online to an Enterprise GIS system.

The current online system is hosted by Esri. Enterprise GIS would allow more county data to be maintained on local servers, providing the county with greater control over access, management and security. The Planning Commission may serve as an initial participating department because it is a relatively small office that regularly uses GIS.

4. Swank Program in Rural-Urban Policy

Ms. Crombie provided commission members with information from the Swank Program in Rural-Urban Policy, which she encountered while preparing for the farmland-preservation forum. The Swank Program in Rural-Urban Policy is an Ohio State University research and outreach program that studies land-use, economic development and policy issues affecting rural and urban communities. Ms. Crombie highlighted its agricultural mapping resources as a potentially useful reference for the county’s Farmland Preservation Plan update.

Ms. Crombie advised that the information should be viewed cautiously and at a broad scale. The imagery becomes pixelated when enlarged and is better suited to a countywide or regional overview than parcel-level analysis.

5. Data Centers

Ms. Crombie reported on House Bill 646 and recommendations produced by a state data-center study commission. The legislation was continuing through the General Assembly and would need to pass before the end of the legislative session when the legislature returns in November, 2026..

A proposed constitutional amendment sponsored by Conservative Ohio would have prohibited data centers using 25 megawatts or more. Supporters did not obtain enough signatures for the November 2026 ballot but reportedly intended to continue pursuing the proposal in 2027.

6. Commercial Construction in June

Commercial activity included Phelps Creek Woodworks on Madison Road in Middlefield Township and a substantial interior buildout for a HOTWORX studio in Bainbridge Township.

7. Work Summary

Staff completed 34 reviews involving lot splits, easements, informal consultations and zoning matters, representing a considerable increase from the preceding several months.

Staff also participated in a quarterly county safety-team meeting, which included representatives of the Chardon Fire Department and discussion of building safety.

Ms. Crombie attended a meeting with the county administrator and other department heads concerning county-owned land and buildings. The departments are working toward a comprehensive map identifying county properties, permitted uses, responsible departments and funding sources.

8. Continuing Education

Ms. Crombie summarized an Ohio Township Association webinar concerning data centers. She also attended training addressing artificial intelligence and the relationship between township zoning codes and the Ohio Revised Code.

Ms. Crombie said townships and the Planning Commission should consider adopting policies governing artificial intelligence. Mr. Claypool observed that policy development will be difficult because AI is increasingly embedded in common software and online services, sometimes without users exercising direct control over it.

The zoning-code training emphasized referring to the Ohio Revised Code where appropriate to reduce ambiguity and keep local provisions consistent with state law.

9. New Starts

Forty-five new housing starts were reported for the most recent quarter. Activity remained concentrated primarily in Middlefield and Bainbridge.

10. Legislative Updates

Ms. Crombie reviewed pending legislation and highlighted newly added items in the Commission’s legislative tracking material.

House Bill 125 would permit excused school absences associated with participation in 4-H and FFA programs.

Another proposal would restrict the placement of commercial apiaries within three miles of another commercial apiary, intended to limit competition between neighboring beekeeping operations.

Additional proposals would impose requirements upon data-center customers and require reports concerning data-center water consumption. Links to the pending legislation were included in the commissioners’ materials.

Mr. Claypool also raised concerns regarding smart electric meters and the type of household-use information they may collect. He noted that customers may opt out by paying a monthly fee and suggested that the issue could relate to broader Commission discussions concerning artificial intelligence, data centers and electrical demand. No formal action was taken.

Correspondence

There was no correspondence.

Old Business

A. Farmland Preservation Plan Update

Ms. Crombie reported that the farmland-preservation public forum would be held the following evening at the Youth and Livestock Building at the Geauga County Fairgrounds. Water and apples would be provided.

The forum was to include nine information stations and two television screens displaying a repeating presentation explaining the purpose, process and background of the plan, together with agricultural facts. The public-forum flyer had been widely distributed, although the expected attendance remained uncertain. Commissioners noted that excessive heat might affect attendance.

The Ohio Department of Agriculture and the Board of County Commissioners executed the Farmland Preservation grant agreement on June 25.

Because the grant requires outreach to townships without zoning, the Director, another staff member and a commissioner attended the Middlefield Township trustees’ meeting. They presented information about the existing farmland-preservation plan, the proposed update and the material to be displayed at the public forum. The trustees reportedly responded favorably.

The Commission discussed the tension between preserving farmland and allowing property owners to divide or transfer their land. Ms. Crombie explained that county subdivision rules reflect state law, including limits applicable to smaller lot splits. Significant changes would therefore require legislative action at the state level.

Members discussed arranging the updated plan so that farm-transition planning—helping farmland pass to another farmer or to the next generation—would appear before agricultural easements and tax programs. Commissioners also discussed whether preservation arrangements could allow a limited additional homesite for a family member who works on the farm.

No formal action was taken.

B. Schedule of Fees

Ms. Crombie presented a revised 2026 schedule of fees. The revisions primarily consolidated, clarified and reformatted existing charges.

Political subdivisions would continue to receive limited copies of maps or documents without charge, after which material and printing fees would apply. Standard copying charges would remain five cents per black-and-white page and ten cents per color page. GIS maps would generally cost $5 for larger standard maps and $10 for maps exceeding 24 by 36 inches.

Existing records could ordinarily be scanned and emailed without charge. Physical copies would be charged according to the standard copying schedule. Staff also proposed allowing one small or standard-size custom map without charge, with additional copies charged under the adopted schedule.

The Commission unanimously approved the 2026 Schedule of Fees dated July 7, 2026.

New Business

Middlefield Village Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and Development

Mr. Claypool initiated discussion of a recently approved tax increment financing arrangement associated with a residential development behind the Middlefield Walmart. Approximately 200 homes were discussed, with the first phase reportedly ready or underway.

Mr. Claypool explained that a TIF redirects some of the increased property-tax revenue generated by a development toward infrastructure such as roads, water and sanitary sewer improvements rather than distributing all of the increased revenue through the ordinary property-tax process.

The discussion broadened to the scale and pace of development in Middlefield Village. Concerns included residential growth, industrial and institutional projects, traffic congestion, road expansion, loss of township land through annexation and the cumulative effect on the county’s rural character. Mr. Johnson, a Middlefield resident on the Commission, reported increasing difficulty entering the roadway from their driveway because of traffic and expressed concern about the effects of additional houses and industry.

Ms. Crombie explained that the county Planning Commission has limited authority over development located within an incorporated village. The Commission can monitor annexation and development near township boundaries and provide information, but Middlefield Village has its own planning, economic-development and land-use authority.

Middlefield Village reportedly requires properties seeking village water and sewer service to annex rather than using joint economic-development agreements. The county general plan generally recommends concentrating higher-density development in established urbanized areas to reduce scattered development and preserve farmland elsewhere. Members acknowledged, however, that concentrated development may still adversely affect existing village residents.

Mr. Perfetto disclosed that he knew the developer and that his business might construct homes in the development, creating a possible indirect financial benefit. He said that potential involvement did not alter his concern about using public funds to subsidize development costs.

Mr. Perfetto also questioned the public purpose and vetting of development subsidies. He compared the Middlefield TIF with public funding reportedly being used for demolition and asbestos remediation at a property in Chester Township. The discussion centered on whether the developments would proceed without public assistance, whether the subsidy primarily increased the developer’s return or reduced lot prices and what standards should govern the use of public funds.

Mr. Claypool offered to distribute the TIF documents. Ms. Crombie agreed to circulate them to the Commission. Members expressed interest in obtaining more information and increasing public awareness, but no formal motion or additional action was adopted.

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 8:52 am following unanimous approval of a motion to adjourn.

Next meeting: August 11, 2026.

More Information about the Geauga Planning Commission is available online. 

Observer: David Lewis

Editor: Rooney Moy

Reviewer: Gail Roussey

Submitted: July 14, 2026

The League of Women Voters of Geauga is a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan political organization that encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy. They do not support or oppose individual candidates or parties. Learn more about the LWVG at www.lwvgeauga.org.