Residents urge caution, moratorium as Oldham County debates proposed hyperscale data center

Dozens of residents and a county constable urged the Oldham County Fiscal Court on May 20 to slow consideration of a proposed hyperscale data center near Highway 53, pressing the court to refer technical and legal questions to staff and to consider a moratorium while regulations are developed.

The appeals came during the public-comment period of the court’s May 20 meeting in LaGrange. Residents raised concerns about building heights, noise, heat and moisture emissions, water use, property values and the fairness of tax incentives. Several speakers asked the court to refer the project to the County Attorney and County Engineer, to assign the matter to the environmental/recycling/utilities and IT subcommittee for a report, and to consider a moratorium on new data-center proposals while zoning, planning and permit rules are clarified.

Why it matters: The project — described by speakers as “Project Lincoln” and promoted on a third-party website as the “Oldham County Data Center” — would introduce an industrial-scale facility into an otherwise rural, agricultural area according to neighbors. Residents said the county currently lacks clear definitions, permitting rules and mitigation measures for hyperscale data centers and urged the fiscal court to build a record and adopt enforceable limits before any approvals.

During public comments, Alan Hayes, a LaGrange resident, said Western Hospitality Partners — identified in public remarks as the developer — has not been adequately transparent and that the county should “refer this to the County Attorney to verify the legal basis and how it could be applied” and to the county engineer to confirm feasibility. Hayes also asked the court to assign the matter to the appropriate subcommittee for a policy review and report back.

Barry Laws, the constable for the district where the facility is proposed, told magistrates: “Our community is not safe. Our children, parents, grandparents, and loved ones are living in fear and anxiety of a massive, heavy industrial project being forced upon us.” Laws accused the developer and local backers of prioritizing money over neighbors’ quality of life.

Other residents raised economic and technical questions. Nathan Oberg urged the court to reach a consensus that Oldham County generally should not grant tax abatements or infrastructure financing to hyperscale facilities and asked that applicants pay for infrastructure upgrades they require. Don Erler and others warned against offering incentives to billion‑dollar firms without more study; Erler cited a developer’s claim (read at the meeting from a third‑party webpage) that the project could generate up to $51 million annually in property taxes and said actual school revenue gains may be reduced by state reimbursement rules.

Health, noise and environmental concerns were raised by Jennifer Toll and Amy Welborn, who urged the fiscal court to review peer‑reviewed research and public‑health data about low‑frequency noise, heat and emissions associated with large data centers. Welborn, who identified herself as an engineer, encouraged magistrates to attend a University of Louisville session on data‑center impacts later that evening.

Several residents also complained about a third‑party website using “Oldham County” branding to promote project tax‑revenue estimates; Magistrate Capetrio said that page had been identified and requested to be renamed so it not appear to be an official county communication.

Court response and next steps: Judge Vogel and multiple magistrates said the fiscal court had not taken a final vote on any data‑center approvals and that the body is gathering information. Magistrate Likens, a civil structural engineer, said he has not taken a vote and will “gather facts” before deciding. Judge Vogel noted two technical‑review committee meetings scheduled the next days and said planning, zoning and potential moratorium rules were under study; he also acknowledged the court’s decision‑making limits and said consultants and outside engineers will be used because the court lacks in‑house expertise.

Several speakers asked the court to call a special meeting to speed a moratorium; Nathan Oberg said an expedited moratorium would “be in good faith to the community.” The court did not adopt a moratorium or any formal direction at the May 20 meeting; no motion or vote establishing new regulatory restrictions on data centers was recorded on the meeting minutes.

The fiscal court expects additional studies, committee reviews and potential legislative steps before any zoning or conditional‑use decisions are made. Residents were told the planning office, Board of Adjustments and the fiscal court will all have roles in whatever process follows.

Ending: The data‑center discussion dominated the public‑comment period and closed without formal court action. Speakers asked magistrates to document concerns, commission technical and legal reviews, and consider a moratorium while the county develops definitions and permit conditions for hyperscale facilities.