Johnson City, TN · Draft Ordinance §6.20.3.2.I

200 feet.

That's the whole separation the city's draft data-center ordinance puts between a data center and your property line. I measured what that actually allows. It is not enough, and the fix is specific: 500 feet, measured to the building.

— parcels could host a data center today under the draft's 200 ft rule
— parcels qualify once lawful lot splits are counted, because the draft's rule moves when lot lines are redrawn
— homes would sit within 1,000 ft of a possible data center site

These are zone-compatible parcels: the sites where the geometry allows a data center under the draft ordinance. Every site still requires a Board of Zoning Appeals special exception, plus noise, vibration, environmental, and utility-capacity review before anything is built.

The map

Where the draft would let one go

Pick a methodology, drag the setback, and see what qualifies. Every layer is computed from the city's own GIS data by published scripts.

Setback 200 ft
Layers

I-2 zoning Buildable patch Building envelope Strict-eligible parcel Your address
Your address

How close could a data center be to your home?

The city's numbers

The city counted 27 eligible parcels. Twelve of them can't actually host one.

The city published parcel counts without naming the parcels. Its totals are a fingerprint, though, and working backward from the city's own arithmetic this site identified all 27. Under the ordinance's own 50 ft yard setbacks, 9 of them cannot hold a building of any size. Three more have no spot 200 ft from the homes the city's measurement skipped. One is an active rail corridor. The single parcel the city reported at 500 ft could hold a building of about 26 by 26 feet.

27 parcels identified 12 fail the draft's own test 9 can't hold any building 12 survive the recommended rule

See what's wrong with each parcel →

The ask

Amend the rule: 500 feet, measured to the building.

I am asking the Commission to change two things in §6.20.3.2.I. Measure the separation to the data-center building instead of a movable property line, and set the distance at 500 ft. That change protects thousands of homes and still leaves — viable industrial sites, each with its buildable envelope published in advance.

The eligible set is fixed.
— parcels, publishable before a single application is filed. Redrawing lot lines can't add or remove one, because the test runs to the building's location, not to a boundary a developer can move.
The 500 feet is real.
Measured to the building itself and verifiable at permit review. The draft's 200 ft property-line rule only guarantees 250 ft between a data-center building and the nearest home's property line.
No subdivision loophole.
Under the draft as written, a developer can qualify a non-compliant parcel by drawing a new lot line at the setback contour. Under the amended rule that maneuver changes nothing.
It holds up legally.
With — sites remaining, nobody can claim the ordinance bans data centers outright. A bare 500 ft property-line rule would leave — sites on existing lots and invite exactly that challenge.
Draft: 200 ft
to the property line		 500 ft
to the property line		 500 ft
to the building (proposed)
Eligible parcels, existing lots – – –
Eligible parcels, with lot splits – – –
Lot splits change the count Yes Yes No
Guaranteed distance, building to nearest residential line 250 ft 550 ft 500 ft

What it means for homes

Under the draft as written, — homes would sit within 500 ft of a possible data-center site and — within 1,000 ft. Under the amended rule, no home is within 500 ft of a lawful data-center building. That is what the rule enforces, by construction.

Homes within… …of a possible site under the draft (200 ft) …if raised to 500 ft …if raised to 1,000 ft

Home exposure computed under the draft's property-line measurement at each setback. The 500 ft and 1,000 ft columns show how many homes would remain within each distance of any possible site if the city raised the number but kept the property-line rule. Lower is better. For context, – parcels would remain eligible under that rule at 200 ft, – at 500 ft, and – at 1,000 ft; the zeros in the last column reflect that no sites remain at all. The recommended building-based rule avoids that trade: it keeps – sites at 500 ft by measuring to the building itself.

Read the full analysis prepared for the Commission →