News / Articles

Planning Commission Reviews Four Replats and
Data Center Model Language Intentions

Planning Commission – October 15, 2026

Meeting Details: The Geauga Planning Commission met in regular session on October 15, 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-Havel, Planner II, and Pamela Irizarry, Administrative Assistant were present.

Others Attending: This Observer. No 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.

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

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

3. Approval of Minutes - September 10, 2026 Regular Meeting

The commission approved the September 10, 2026 regular meeting minutes by voice vote. No corrections were offered, and no opposition or abstention was heard.

4. Approval of Agenda/Addendum

Members approved the agenda as presented. No changes were requested, and no opposition or abstention was heard.

5. Financial Report and Approval of Expenses

Ms. Irizarry reported expenses of $996.41, including professional membership dues, reimbursements, the quarterly dinner, and copier usage. The unspent portion of the annual budget was $72,334.08. In response to a question about unused funds, Ms. Crombie explained that money returns to the county general fund, with a minimal amount carried over for obligations around the year-end closing.

Members discussed revised motion language circulated before the meeting to clarify approval of expenditures after payment. The commission approved the financial item by voice vote, with no opposition or abstention.

6. Other Business

There was no other business.

7. Major Subdivisions to Be Reviewed

A. Frey’s Subdivision — Replat of Sublot 13 — Parkman Township — Final Plat

Ms. Crombie recommended approval of a replat combining approximately one acre from an adjoining parcel with Sublot 13 to create a 3.03-acre lot. The change addresses a shed and driveway extending across the existing property line and improves conformity with township zoning. Ms. Crombie noted that the commission had previously reviewed whether the change would have an injurious effect. Members approved the final plat unanimously by voice vote, with no opposition or abstention.

B. Chagrin Falls Park — Replat of Sublots 135 through 138 — Bainbridge Township — Final Plat

The replat consolidates four lots into Sublot 135R, totaling 0.1837 acre, for a new home. Ms. Crombie reported that Water Resources identified no conflict with existing water and sanitary sewer systems. The commission approved the replat unanimously by voice vote, with no opposition or abstention. Discussion indicated that additional consolidations in Chagrin Falls Park are expected as owners assemble small lots for construction.

C. Bass Lake Investment Company Subdivision — Replat of Sublots 184, 185 and 186 — Munson Township — Final Plat

Ms. Crombie recommended combining three lots on the south side of Basswood into a 0.962-acre parcel for a new home. Consolidation was needed so the household sewage treatment system would not cross a property line. Ms. Crombie reported support from the health department. The commission approved the final plat unanimously by voice vote, with no opposition or abstention.

D. Sunset Drive Subdivision — Replat of Sublot 26 — Auburn Township — Final Plat

This proposal divides Sublot 26 into two lots, designated 26R1 and 26R2. Ms. Crombie said the commission had previously determined that the split would not cause an injurious effect. The township had granted a variance for the 2.9239-acre lot, which is slightly below the three-acre requirement; the other lot is three acres. A home occupies one portion; the other is intended for a new home. Ms. Crombie reported health department approval of the lot evaluation. Members approved the final plat unanimously by voice vote, with no opposition or abstention.

8. Township Zoning Amendments

There were no township zoning amendments for review.

9. Director’s Report

a. Lot Splits

Ms. Crombie presented the September lot-split list, reporting two splits, including one in Thompson Township.

b. Ohio Department of Agriculture Easement Viewer

Ms. Crombie demonstrated the department’s agricultural easement map viewer. It provides county and acreage information for approved and pending easements through the Local Agricultural Easement Purchase Program. She described local sponsorship and monitoring of compliance with easement terms.

c. Data Centers

Ms. Crombie is preparing model language and a guidance memo for the November meeting, after review with the chair and Prosecutor’s Office. She wants townships to examine existing zoning resolutions, land-use plans, and industrial district purpose statements before making changes. Some resolutions already permit traditional “data processing,” which may differ from modern data centers. She is reviewing definitions in pending legislation and will address electricity, fiber connections, water, and related energy facilities.

She distinguished hyperscale facilities from colocation centers that lease space, enterprise centers serving individual businesses, and smaller micro, modular, and containerized installations. Members’ questions and discussion included:

What is a colocation center? Ms. Crombie explained that an operator builds a facility and leases space to companies; these facilities can vary in size.

Mr. Davis asked whether there were notable data centers already in Geauga County. Ms. Crombie knew of installations associated with existing businesses, including Great Lakes Cheese, rather than third-party leasing operations.

Mr. Bergansky asked whether larger centers were generating their own power. Ms. Crombie said she had not encountered that in her review but acknowledged the possibility. The discussion addressed gas generation, limits on township authority over public utilities, and small-scale solar regulation, which she plans to include in the memo.

Mr. Perfetto asked whether the county could control township code language by establishing standards townships must follow. Ms. Crombie said the county can offer model language but cannot dictate township zoning or setbacks. Asked whether the model could provide an overarching basis, she reiterated that townships can accept or decline the guidance.

Mr. Davis asked whether substantial data centers were planned locally. Ms. Crombie knew of no active proposal. One township had received a research inquiry from a firm, but she cautioned that she would not necessarily be the first to learn of a proposal.

Is the model zoning available online, and why regulate data centers separately from other businesses? Ms. Crombie confirmed online availability. Mr. Claypool questioned singling out data centers rather than regulating characteristics such as building size, setbacks, and resource consumption. He argued that changing cooling technology can affect water needs and cautioned against decisions driven by public alarm or unequal treatment of businesses.

Mr. Rogish asked whether data centers could be placed in a regulated-use category, citing marijuana sales and adult-oriented businesses as examples. Ms. Crombie said zoning commonly regulates uses by type, while acknowledging Mr. Claypool’s point about treating similar uses similarly. She identified potential water-resource impacts and the fit with traditional industrial district purposes as considerations.

A member suggested touring an operating data center to improve understanding. No tour was scheduled and no zoning standards were adopted.

d. New Housing

Ms. Crombie reported 47 third-quarter housing starts. Members discussed the geographic distribution and development extending beyond areas that previously had concentrated activity, progressing westward in the county.

e. Commercial Construction

Ms. Crombie noted that most of the commercial construction in recent years has been around Chardon.

f. Work Summary

Ms. Crombie reported a lot count of 14 in the work summary and noted considerable variation in activity compared with other reporting periods.

g. Planning Efforts

i. General Plan Referral

Ms. Crombie reported one reference to the general plan during the reporting period.

ii. Comprehensive Planning Efforts

Ms. Crombie discussed the farmland preservation plan update. She also described a draft spreadsheet and map of county-owned properties prepared to help the county administrator identify ownership, utility and conservation easements, and maintenance responsibilities. The inventory may be presented at the next meeting.

She attended the Newbury Zoning Commission to discuss agriculture, data centers, in-law suites, and riparian setbacks with newer members. At the September 30 Farm Bureau meeting, she raised possible limits on repeated five-to-20-acre lot splits before requiring formal subdivision review, citing farmland fragmentation. She reported interest in the idea; the commission took no action.

iii. Employee Training

Ms. Crombie reported completing cybersecurity training.

h. Legislative Updates

Ms. Crombie discussed pending legislation concerning zoning referendum language, data-center taxation, recovery housing, and condominium law. She described a correction to inconsistent referendum provisions and said she needed further review of the recovery-housing bill before explaining its implications. Mr. Claypool asked how group housing relates to township definitions of family and single-family homes; she said she would investigate further.

10. Correspondence

There was no correspondence to review.

11. Old Business

A. Farmland Preservation Plan Update

Ms. Crombie presented draft chapters of the farmland preservation plan. A task force meeting was scheduled for October 15, 2026. The draft covers agricultural history, development patterns, farm industries, preservation tools, recommendations, and implementation.

Members discussed measuring progress toward goals. Ms. Crombie said future updates could report on implementation after adoption. Recommendations and implementation strategies remain under development, and a special commission meeting may be useful for more detailed discussion.

Ms. Crombie will submit a quarterly progress report to the Ohio Department of Agriculture by month’s end, documenting work, expenditures, outreach, and challenges. Approximately $15,000 in work by Ms. Crombie and her colleagues had been tracked. The schedule calls for delivering the plan to the department by May 2027. Ms. Crombie identified additional Amish community outreach as a needed follow-up after limited participation despite advertising. 

12. New Business

A. General Plan Annual Review

Ms. Crombie presented the fifth annual review of the general plan, adopted in October 2021. Ms. Crombie referred to it 20 times during the reporting period, particularly its land-use and natural-resource chapters.

Although the plan anticipates updates at five-year intervals, Ms. Crombie proposed discussing timing and 2027 priorities in December or January. Work could begin toward the end of 2027 after completion of the farmland plan, or be delayed to prioritize zoning education requested by townships. No update schedule was formally adopted.

The meeting adjourned at 8:25 am following unanimous approval of a motion to adjourn.

Next meeting: November 10, 2026.

More Information about the Geauga Planning Commission is available online. 

Observer: David Lewis

Editor: Sarah McGlone

Reviewer: Carol Benton

Submitted: October 16, 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.