Loudoun County, Virginia is the largest data center market in the world. It moved data centers to project-specific Special Exception review in 2025 and is still number one.
Know the facts · A citizen's guide
Get the June 9th draft data center ordinance right.
Birmingham can set strong, clear rules for the largest facilities and still welcome the industry. These are the changes that protect the people who already live here, and the proof that they will not cost the city a single data center.
The strongest data center markets in America run on public review and real standards. The rules did not scare the industry off. They kept it honest. Be at the public hearing at Birmingham City Hall, Tuesday, June 9th, 9:00 am.
First, the worry
Will a stronger ordinance cost Birmingham data centers?
No. The places with the strictest review are the places with the most facilities. Strong rules have not driven the industry away. They have helped communities welcome it on fair terms.
Google's Mesa, Arizona data center, approved in 2019. Mesa keeps drawing hyperscalers, and years later, in 2025, it adopted rules requiring city council approval of new data centers.
Data centers across Georgia, a booming Southeastern market, where some counties still require 1,000 feet from existing homes.
The pattern is consistent. Loudoun, Fairfax, and Prince William in Virginia, Calvert County in Maryland, and Chandler and Mesa in Arizona all tightened their rules and kept attracting investment. Responsible companies can meet these standards, because they meet them in these markets every day. A clear, strong ordinance is not a barrier to good development. It is how a city tells good developers what is expected and protects residents from the ones who would cut corners.
The fixes
Eight changes that make the ordinance strong
Each one shifts a cost or a risk back onto the company instead of the community. None of them would stop a responsible facility from being built here.
Keep the Special Exception for the largest facilities
A Special Exception is a public hearing on the actual project, where the company must prove its case and the board can attach conditions, require changes, or deny it. That is not the same as a hearing on the ordinance. The city can adopt these rules in public and still remove the project-by-project review that lets a board say no to a specific facility. The draft trades that review for an administrative checklist.
Model: Loudoun County, VA · moved data centers to Special Exception, 2025
Set a real, enforceable noise limit
The draft requires a noise study but sets no number to measure against, and nothing for the low-frequency hum residents find hardest to live with. A study cannot prove compliance with a limit that does not exist.
Model: Loudoun 55 dB · Prince William 44 dB
Measure setbacks from people, not just zoning lines
Setbacks run only from residential zoning, so a school, a hospital, the animal shelter, and programs serving children and adults with disabilities get no protection. Distance should be a floor beneath public review, never a substitute for it.
Model: Fairfax 200/300 ft · Jackson County, GA 1,000 ft
Require a heat and air study
The draft requires no analysis of where the facility's waste heat and air go, even though field research shows large facilities can measurably warm the air nearby. Without a study, no one can evaluate the local impact before approval.
Gap: no thermal review required
Regulate fuel cells and on-site power clearly
The draft permits fuel cells as a routine power source in the administrative pathway, the one without project-specific review, with no cap and no fuel limit, while restricting other fossil-fuel generation to emergencies. The city should resolve how a large on-site power source is treated before adoption.
Gap: uncapped on-site power
Protect electricity ratepayers
The draft only asks the applicant to note rate impacts. It should require the facility to pay for its own grid upgrades and show it will not shift those costs onto households.
Model: Alabama SB 270 · large-load cost rules
Require independent verification
The studies come from the applicant or its hired consultants. For a project this size, independent acoustical, thermal, and utility review ensures the public and the council see unbiased information. Good rules rely on verification, not trust.
Principle: verify, do not assume
Require monitoring and a decommissioning bond
The draft has one post-construction study, no ongoing monitoring, and nothing requiring removal of the facility at the end of its life. This same ordinance already requires reclamation bonds for mining and timbering. It simply left that protection out here.
Precedent: the ordinance's own mining bonds
Side by side
How Birmingham's draft compares
City staff called the ordinance modeled on Loudoun, the gold standard. On the points that matter most, the draft asks for less than the models do.
| Protection | Birmingham draft | Loudoun County, VA | Fairfax County, VA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project-specific review of each facility (Special Exception) | Removed for the largest facilities, replaced with an administrative checklist | Required: Special Exception hearing and board vote on the project | Special Exception in practice for most projects |
| Numeric noise limit | None set in the section | 55 dB at residential line, tightening for low-frequency | Tied to the County Noise Ordinance |
| Setback from homes | 500 ft in some zones, none fixed in heavy industrial | Setbacks plus berm and buffers | 200 ft buildings, 300 ft equipment |
| Independent review | Not required | Board can require it | Board can require it |
| Decommissioning bond | None | Under Phase 2 review | Not specified |
A Special Exception is a public hearing on the specific project, not the hearing on the ordinance itself. The city can adopt these rules in public and still remove the project-by-project review. In the model jurisdictions a setback is also a floor set through that project review, so a larger distance approved by checklist is weaker than a smaller distance reviewed in public.
Birmingham can welcome the technology and protect the people who already call this home. Those goals are not in conflict.
Protect Oxmoor
A resident-driven coalition
Learn more and join the effort to protect Oxmoor.
Visit ProtectOxmoor.orgSources: Birmingham draft ordinance ZAC2026-00001 and amended definitions, as filed. Loudoun County, VA data center zoning amendments and noise standard, 2025 to 2026. Fairfax County, VA data center amendment, 2024. Prince William County, VA noise framework. Mesa, AZ data center zoning rules, 2025. Jackson County, GA residential setback. National Association of Counties data center primer, 2026. Alabama SB 270 via MultiState. Peer reviewed heat field study, Sailor et al., 2026, and U.S. EPA on cooling demand.